Brazil Master Aff - Fellows

KENTUCKY FELLOWS BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AFF
2008-2009 T3H SECKS (STEVEN, MOLIVER, BECKS)
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AFF

BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AFF............................................................................................................................... ..................1
PLAN............................................................................................................................................................................... .....7
1AC V1....................................................................................................................................................................... ...........8
1AC V1....................................................................................................................................................................... ...........9
1AC V1..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........10
1AC V1............................................................................................................................................................... .................11
1AC V1..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........12
1AC V1..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........13
1AC V1..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........14
1AC V1..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........15
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........16
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........17
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........18
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........19
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........20
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........21
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........22
1AC V2..................................................................................................................................................................... ...........23
INHERENCY/SOLVENCY .................................................................................................................................. ................24
1AC INHERENCY AND SOLVENCY ........................................................................................................ .........................24
INHERENCY............................................................................................................................................... ........................25
INHERENCY............................................................................................................................................... ........................26
NOW IS KEY.......................................................................................................................................................... .............27
SUGAR ETHANOL IS EFFECTIVE............................................................................................................. .......................28
REMOVING THE TARIFF CAUSES R&D AND SOLVES CELLULOSIC ETHANOL............................................. ............29
REMOVING THE TARIFF SOVLES EVERYTHING.................................................................................................. ..........30
EXECUTIVE BRANCH KEY....................................................................................................................... ........................31
CONGRESS KEY............................................................................................................................................................ ....32
PLAN INCREASES REGIONAL PRODUCTION................................................................................................ ................33
PLAN INCREASES BRAZILIAN PRODUCTION............................................................................................................. ...34
INCREASED PRODUCTION INCREASES EXPORTATION........................................................................ ......................35
A2 BRAZIL CANT PRODUCE ENOUGH/DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH SUGAR........................................... ......................36
CORN ADVATAGE..................................................................................................................................................... ........37
1AC CORN ADVANTAGE........................................................................................................................................... ........37
CORN COLLAPSE INEVITABLE........................................................................................................... ............................38
CORN BAD—AMAZON (SHELL).............................................................................................................................. .........39
K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 1

2008-2009 T3h Secks (Steven, Moliver, Becks)
CORN BAD—AMAZON........................................................................................................................................... ...........40

CORN BAD—AMAZON ........................................................................................................................................ ............41
CORN BAD—AMAZON........................................................................................................................................... ...........42
AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—GENERAL........................................................................................................................... 43
AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—BIOD.................................................................................................................... ...............44
AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—DOLPHINS......................................................................................................................... .45
AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—DOLPHINS......................................................................................................................... .46
CORN BAD—BEEF (SHELL)................................................................................................................................ .............47
CORN BAD—BEEF (SHELL)................................................................................................................................ .............48
CORN BAD—BEEF............................................................................................................................................. ...............49
CORN BAD—COCA COLA (SHELL)............................................................................................................... ..................50
A2 HFCSOBESITY........................................................................................................................................................ ..51
CORN BAD—CALIFORNIAN ECONOMY (SHELL)........................................................................................................... 52
CORN BAD—DEAD ZONES (SHELL)............................................................................................................... ................53
.................................................................................................................................................................. .........................53
CORN BAD—DEAD ZONE................................................................................................................................................ .54
CORN BAD—ENVIORNMENT GENERAL (SHELL).................................................................................................... ......55
CORN BAD—EXPENCIVE............................................................................................................................... ..................56
CORN BAD—EXPENSIVE.......................................................................................................................... .......................57
CORN BAD—FERTILIZERS/PERSTISIDES (SHELL)............................................................................................ ...........58
CORN BAD—FOOD INFECTION........................................................................................................................ ...............59
CORN BAD—FOOD PRICES (SHELL)................................................................................................................... ...........60
CORN BAD—FOOD PRICES................................................................................................................................ .............61
HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD—SOUTH CHINA SEAS (SHELL).......................................................................... .................66
STARVATION BAD--MORALITY................................................................................................................. ......................67
A2 SUGAR ETHANOL RAISES FOOD PRICES...................................................................................................... ..........68
CORN BAD—FOOD SECURITY (SHELL)..................................................................................................... ....................69
CORN BAD—FOOD SECURITY.................................................................................................................... ....................70
CORN BAD—GLOBAL WARMING (SHELL)............................................................................................................ .........71
CORN BAD—GLOBAL WARMING......................................................................................................................... ...........72
CORN BAD—MONOCROPPING (SHELL)................................................................................................ ........................73
CORN BAD—OIL DEPENDENCE........................................................................................................................... ...........74
A2 SUGAR IS ENERGY INEFFICIENT............................................................................................................................. ..75

CORN BAD—OIL PRICE............................................................................................................................................ ........76

A2 SUGAR POLLUTES........................................................................................................................................... ...........77
CORN BAD—WATER (SHELL)................................................................................................................................ ..........78
CORN BAD—WATER............................................................................................................................................. ............79
CORN BAD—WATER............................................................................................................................................. ............80
CORN BAD—LAUNDRY LIST.......................................................................................................................................... ..81
A2 INCREASED CORN INVESTMENT SOLVES CORN BAD.................................................................................. .........82
A2 CORN AND SUGAR ARE THE SAME............................................................................................................. .............83
SUGAR ETHANOL DECREASES CORN ETHANOL................................................................................. .......................84
BAZIL ECON ADVANTAGE........................................................................................................................................... .....85
1AC BRAZILIAN ECON ADVANTAGE........................................................................................................................ .......85
PLAN BOOSTS THE BRAZILIAN ECON............................................................................................................... ............86
PLAN BOOSTS THE BRAZILIAN ECON............................................................................................................... ............87
BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—AMAZON (SHELL)............................................................................................................. ...88
BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—GLOBAL ECON (SHELL)........................................................................................ .............89
BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—GLOBAL ECON..................................................................................................... ...............90
BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—SECURITY COUNCIL/MULTIPOLARITY................................................... ..........................93
BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—PROLIF........................................................................................................... ......................94
BRAZIL LEADERSHIP ADVANTAGE..................................................................................................... ...........................95
THE TARIFF WILL KILL BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP......................................................................................... ................95
BOOSTING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL MARKET INCREASES LEADERSHIP/DIPLOMACY..............................................96
BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP IS KEY TO LIMIT CHAVEZ CONTROL........................................................... .......................97
RELATIONS ADVANTAGE................................................................................................................................. ................98
1AC BRAZILIAN RELATIONS ADVANTAGE................................................................................................................ .....98
RELATIONS LOW NOW....................................................................................................................................... ..............99
RELATIONS LOW NOW..................................................................................................................................... ..............100
REMOVING TARIFFS BOOSTS RELATIONS............................................................................................................ ......101
BIOFULES/ETHANOL KEY ISSUE ON RELATIONS........................................................................... ...........................102
RESOLVING DOHA CONFLICTS KEY TO RELATIONS.......................................................................... .......................103
ETHANOL INCREASES US-LATIN AMERICA RELATIONS....................................................................... ....................104
RELATIONS ARE KEY TO INCREASE REGIONAL ETHANOL USE....................................................................... ......105
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—AMAZON (SHELL)................................................................................................... .106
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHAVEZ......................................................................................................... ...........107
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—DEMOCRACY (SHELL)................................................................................. ...........108
LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOOD—BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION..................................... ...........................109

LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOOD—AMAZON............................................................................................... ......110

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—HEGE ..................................................................................................................... ...111
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION (SHELL)........................................................................ ............112
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION.................................................................................... ...............115
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION.................................................................................... ...............116
BRAZIL NUCLEARIZATION BAD—HEGE................................................................................................................... ....117
BRAZIL NUCLEARIZATION BAD—GLOBAL PROLIF............................................................................................... .....118
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—OIL DEPENDENCY/GREENHOUSE GASSES....................................................... ..119
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—OIL DEPENDENCE (CHAVEZ AND IRAN)............................................................... 120
LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHINESE HEGE........................................................................ ....................121
LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHINESE HEGE........................................................................ ....................122
A2 CHAVEZ WILL BREAK RELATIONS.................................................................................................................... ......123
A2 US-BRAZIL RELATIONS TRADE-OFF WITH US-VENEZUELAN RELATIONS............................................... .........124
CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE...................................................................................................................................... ...............125
1AC CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................. ...........125
1AC CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................. ...........126
COOPERATION ON BIOFULES ARE KEY TO CHALLENGE CHAVEZ............................................. ............................127
BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP IS KEY TO LIMIT CHAVEZ CONTROL......................................................... .......................128
BRAZILIAN RELATIONS KEY TO CHECK CHAVEZ...................................................................................................... .129
TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES DECREASE CHAVEZ POWER...............................130
INCREASING BIOFUELS KILLS CHAVEZ OIL COALITIONS................................................................. .......................131
DECREASING OIL DEPENDENCE DECREASES CHAVEZ’S CONTROL................................................ .....................132
CHAVEZ BAD—COMMUNISM............................................................................................................................... ..........133
................................................................................................................................................................ .........................133
CHAVEZ BAD—CHINA............................................................................................................................ ........................134
CHAVEZ BAD—COMMUNISM............................................................................................................................... ..........135
CHAVEZ BAD—OIL COALITIONS........................................................................................................................... ........136
CHAVEZ BAD—NUKES................................................................................................................................ ...................137
CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM HIZBALLAH SPECIFIC (SHELL)............................................................. ......................138
CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM HIZBALLAH SPECIFIC (SHELL)............................................................. ......................139
CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM..................................................................................................................... .....................140
A2 OIL DAS............................................................................................................................................ ..........................143
CHAVEZ OIL DEPENDENCE BAD—TERRORISM........................................................................................................ ..144

WTO ADVANTAGE........................................................................................................................................ ...................145

1AC WTO ADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................... ...............145
1AC WTO ADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................... ...............146
1AC WTO ADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................... ...............147
REMOVAL OF TARIFFS IS KEY TO DOHA..................................................................................................... ................148
REMOVAL OF TARIFFS IS KEY TO DOHA..................................................................................................... ................149
US-BRAZIL KEY TO DOHA............................................................................................................................................. .150
CONCESSIONS KEY TO DOHA.............................................................................................................. ........................151
DOHA KEY TO THE WTO..................................................................................................................... ...........................152
A2 DOHA ALT CAUSE—DEMOCRATS/TPA............................................................................................... ....................153
A2 DOHA ALT CAUSE—EUROPEAN UNION AGRICULTURE....................................................................................... 154
PLAN SOLVE BRAZILIAN WTO DISPUTE........................................................................................................... ...........155
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—TRADE WARS.................................................. ........................156
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—EQUAL TRADE..................................................................... ....157
WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—EQUAL TRADE..................................................................... ....158
WTO COLLAPSEBILATERAL TRADE...................................................................................................................... ...159
BILATERAL TRADE BAD—DOHA.......................................................................................................... ........................160
BILATERAL TRADE BAD—FREE TRADE...................................................................................................... ................161
BILATERAL TRADE BAD—FREE TRADE...................................................................................................... ................162
BILATERAL TRADE BAD—TRADE POLITILIZATION (SHELL)............................................................................. ........163
A2 BILATERAL TRADE HIGH/FTAS NOW..................................................................................................... ................164
WTO GOOD—CHINA WAR (SHELL)............................................................................................................... ................165
WTO GOOD—TRADE WARS (SHELL).......................................................................................................................... ..166
WTO GOOD—NUKE WINTER (SHELL)................................................................................................. .........................167
WTO GOOD—REGIONAL TRADE BLOCKS (SHELL)......................................................................... ..........................168
WTO GOOD—A2 LABOR....................................................................................................................... .........................169
WTO GOOD—A2 NO SOCIAL CLAUSE...................................................................................................................... ....170
A2 GLOBALIZATION BAD................................................................................................................................. ..............171
................................................................................................................................................................ .........................171
A2 GLOBALIZATION BAD................................................................................................................................. ..............172
THE TARIFF IS PROTECTIONIST.................................................................................................................................... 173
OIL ADVANTAGE............................................................................................................................................................ ..174
PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCY............................................................................................................................ ....174
PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCY............................................................................................................................ ....175
PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCE............................................................................................................................ ....176
PLAN DECREASES GAS PRICES........................................................................................................ ..........................177
PLAN PREVENTS DRILLING IN ANWR........................................................................................................... ...............178

A2 OIL DEPENDENCE GOOD.................................................................................................................... .....................179

................................................................................................................................................................ .........................179
T ANSWERS.................................................................................................................................................... .................180
A2 ALT ENERGY T.......................................................................................................................................... .................180
A2 RENEWABLE T................................................................................................................................................. ..........181
A2 INCENTIVES T (REMOVING TARIFF=/=INCREASING SUBSIDIES T)....................................................... ..............182
A2 ALT ENERGY INCENTIVES T................................................................................................................................ .....183
A2 E85 T.................................................................................................................................................... .......................185
COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS................................................................................................................................. ...........186
A2 STATES CP.......................................................................................................................................... .......................186
A2 CAFÉ CP.................................................................................................................................................. ...................187
A2 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL CP........................................................................................................................... ...........188
A2 HAVE US MAKE SUGAR ETHANOL CP............................................................................................................... .....189
DISADS ANSWERS.................................................................................................................................................. ........190
INVESTMENT LINK NON-UNIQUES........................................................................................................................... .....190
COOPERATION ON ETHANOL LINK NON-UNIQUES........................................................................................... .........191
ETHANOL BILLS LINK NON-UNIQUES....................................................................................................... ...................192
A2 EXPLOITATION/SLAVERY DAS.................................................................................................................. ...............193
A2 RICH POOR GAP DAS...................................................................................................................... .........................194
A2 OVERPRODUCTION AND DEFORESTATION (AMAZON) DAS................................................................................ 195
A2 OVERPRODUCTION AND DEFORESTATION (AMAZON) DAS................................................................................ 196
A2 MALTHUS (INCREASED PRODUCTION INCREASES LAND USE)....................................................... ..................197
A2 CORN INDUSTRY DA................................................................................................................................ .................198
A2 CORN INDUSTRY DA................................................................................................................................ .................199
A2 FOOD DISRUPTION DA..................................................................................................................... ........................200
A2 TRADE DEFICIT DA.................................................................................................................................................... 201
A2 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE DA............................................................................................................ .....................202
A2 OIL PRICES DA........................................................................................................................................................... 203
A2 OIL INDUSTRIES DA............................................................................................................................... ...................204

PLAN
Plan: The United States federal government should

remove import tariffs on sugarcane ethanol.

1AC V1
CONTENTION 1: GET THE CORN OUT OF THE MOUTH AND THE CANE DOWN THE THROAT
INITIAL NOTE—BUSH HAS PROMISED TO DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE
Lytle—2007 (Kaylan Lytle is a Staff Writer for the Energy Law Journal at the Energy Bar Association, “DRIVING THE MARKET:
THE EFFECTS ON THE UNITED STATES ETHANOL INDUSTRY IF THE FOREIGN ETHANOL TARIFF IS LIFTED”, 28
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
B. The Tariff Opposition
A major opponent of the tariff is the President of the United States. n110 This may conflict with his goals to increase domestic ethanol production. In the 2006 State of the Union, President Bush announced a goal to
make "ethanol practical and competitive within six years." n111 In this speech, the President stressed the need for alternative fuel as a
means of attaining energy independence.
Similarly, upon signing the EPAct in 2005, President Bush emphasized how the Act is a step towards energy independence. When discussing the RFS portion of the EPAct, President Bush touted it as accomplishing many things, including reducing dependency on
he emphasis, however, is specifically placed on being independent from Middle Eastern energy sources. n113
foreign energy. n112 T
If President Bush's goal is to reduce dependency solely on the Middle East, the ethanol tariff need not be renewed. The subsequent
influx of alternative fuels from more "friendly" nations will not undermine his goals. However, Latin America, like the Middle East, has a history of political instability. If energy
independence in general is President Bush's goal, it is questionable whether being less dependent on foreign oil is worth being more dependent on foreign ethanol.
AND THIS MAKES A SWITCH TO ETHONAL IS INEVITABLE

Armas—2007 (Marcel Armas is a JD candidate at American University Washington College of Sustainable Development Law &
Policy, “EXPLORING HOW TODAY'S DEVELOPMENT AFFECTS FUTURE GENERATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE:
FEATURE: MISLEADINGLY GREEN: TIME TO REPEAL THE ETHANOL TARIFF AND SUBSIDY FOR CORN”, 7 Sustainable
Dev. L. & Pol'y 25, Spring, 2007, L-N)
[*25] The United States is recognizing the value and importance of energy diversification, but it may also be creating greater environmental harm in the process. n1 If America decreases its dependence on foreign oil
it will create greater economic security for itself, reduce its current account deficit, provide less financing for tyrannical leaders and
terrorists with American petro-dollars, and improve its environmental credentials. n2 To reduce America's craving for oil, the
government encourages domestic ethanol production; the United States is behind only Brazil, the world's largest producer of ethanol, and combined the two produce over 70 percent of the world's ethanol. n3
Currently the U.S. domestic ethanol industry is growing as a result of alternative fuels becoming politically popular, and the addition of a subsidy and tariff applied to ethanol. n4
However, arguably the ethanol tariff and subsidy do not provide any substantial environmental benefits for the United States or the world. n5
BUT DUE TO CURRENT TARIFFS AND DUTIES THIS SWITCH WILL BE ACHIEVED THROUGH CORN RATHER
THAN SUGAR
Sautter, Furrey, and Gresham—2007 (John A. Sautter received his BA from New York University and his Ph.D. from the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. Laura Furrey received her B.S. from California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo and is a licensed
professional civil engineer in the state of California. Lee Gresham received his BA from the College of the Holy Cross and is currently
a Ph.D. student at Carnegie Mellon's School of Engineering and Public Policy. All three are research associates at the Vermont
Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, VT, “EXPLORING HOW TODAY'S
DEVELOPMENT AFFECTS FUTURE GENERATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE: IN THIS ISSUE: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY:
CONSTRUCTION OF A FOOL'S PARADISE: ETHANOL SUBSIDIES IN AMERICA” American University/Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, 7 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 26, Spring, 2007, L-N)
IMPORT TARIFFS
importers of Brazilian ethanol pay a $ 0.54 per gallon import duty plus a 2.5 percent tax. This import tariff shields U.S. producers
Today,
from their Brazilian counterparts, whose sugar-derived ethanol is far cheaper to produce and has higher energy content than corn-
based fuel. n6 Even with the tariffs in place, about half of the 160 million gallons of ethanol that the United States imported in 2004 came
from Brazil, and Brazil is spending $ nine billion on new facilities to export even more. n7 This could pay off, as soaring U.S. wholesale
prices are making Brazilian imports more competitive with domestic supplies. The import tariff will expire at the end of September 2007, but many federal legislators hope to see it extended
n8 because it has generated revenues of $ 53 million and $ 22 million in 2004 and 2005, respectively. n9 Additionally, a most-favored nation ad valorem tariff is applied on imports of un-denatured ethyl alcohol (80 percent volume alcohol or higher) and denatured
alcohol. n10 Revenues under the ad valorem tariff have been less than eight million dollars per year in recent years. n11

1AC V1
CONTENTION 2: CHILDREN OF THE CORN
INITIAL NOTE, CURRENT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOCUS ON CORN WILL INEVITABLE COLLAPSE THE
INDUSTRY
Market Watch, “Rising corn prices threaten U.S. ethanol output: Ethanol's woes may not hurt pump prices but could harm U.S.
biofuel policies,” June 19, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Surging corn prices are taking an increasingly heavy toll on U.S. ethanol production, halting
new plants, forcing smaller producers to shut down, and inviting policy makers to reconsider the nation's biofuel policies.
VeraSun Energy Corp, one of the country's biggest ethanol producers, recently delayed the opening of two plants due to the high price
of corn. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. ethanol plants could face a possible shutdown as profit turns negative, says Citigroup.
The rising cost of producing ethanol has already started to challenge U.S. alternative energy policies that mandate annual usage rates
for biofuels, which now consist mostly of corn-based ethanol.
The Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering comments on the state of Texas' request to receive a partial reprieve
from the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires increased ethanol usage over the next decade.
"U.S. biofuel policies must be reconsidered," said James Williams, an economist at energy research firm WTRG Economics. "The idea
of taking food stuffs and using them as fuels can only result in higher food prices."
WE’LL ISOLATE 4 IMPACTS: FIRST—AMAZON DEFORESTATION

THE HIGH USE OF CORN ETHANOL RAISES THE PRICE OF SOY CAUSING DEFORESTATION AND FIRES IN THE
AMAZON—OUR INTERNAL LINK OUTWAYS THE POSSIBLE TURNS
Butler—2007 (Rhett A. Butler is a Staff Writer for Mongabay “U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction” 12/13/07,
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1213-amazon_corn_sub.html)
U.S. corn subsidies for ethanol production are contributing to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, reports a tropical forest scientist writing in this week's issue of the
journal Science.
a recent spike in Amazonian forest fires may be linked to U.S. subsidies that promote
Dr. William Laurance, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, says that
American corn production for ethanol over soy production. The shift from soy to corn has led to a near doubling in soy prices during the past 14
months. High prices are, in turn, driving conversion of rainforest and savanna in Brazil for soy expansion.
"American taxpayers are spending $11 billion a year to subsidize corn producers—and this is having some surprising global consequences," said Laurance. "Amazon fires and forest destruction have spiked over
the last several months, especially in the main soy-producing states in Brazil. Just about everyone there attributes this to rising soy and
beef prices."
Brazilian satellite data show a marked increase in the number of fires and deforestation in the region. The states of Para and Mato Grosso -- the heart of Brazil's
booming agricultural frontier -- both experienced a 50 percent or more increase in forest loss over the same period last year coupled with a large jump in burning: a 39-85 percent jump in the number of fires in Para during the July-September burning period and 100-127
percent rise in Mato Grosso, depending on the satellite. More broadly, the 50,729 fires recorded by the Terra satellite and 72,329 measured by the AQUA satellite across the Brazilian Amazon are the highest on record based on available data going back to 2003 (the
NMODIS-01D satellite suggests 2005 burning was higher but still shows a 54 percent jump since last year). Reports from the ground indicate that burning is indeed very bad this year.
"The fires are even worse than in 1998´s El Niño event... A huge area of the Xingu National Park
"I have never seen fires this bad," John Cain Carter, a rancher who runs the NGO Aliança da Terra, told mongabay.com.
was on fire, truly sickening as it is a sign of things to come."
high soy prices affect the Amazon both directly and indirectly.
Laurance says that
"Some forests are directly cleared for soy farms. Farmers also purchase large expanses of cattle pasture for soy production, effectively
pushing the ranchers further into the Amazonian frontier or onto lands unsuitable for soy production," Laurance explained.
Soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has expanded at a rate of 14.1 percent per year since 1990—16.8 percent annually since 2000—and now covers more than eight million hectares.
"In addition," continued Laurance, "higher soy costs tend to raise beef prices because soy-based livestock feeds become more expensive, creating
an indirect incentive for forest conversion to pasture. Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy lobby has been a driving force behind
initiatives to expand Amazonian highway networks, which greatly increase access to forests for ranchers, farmers, loggers, and land
speculators."
Satellite imagery from NASA supports Laurance. Data released this summer indicates that much of the recent burning is concentrated around two major
Amazon roads: Trans-Amazon highway in the state of Amazonas, and the unpaved portion of the BR-163 Highway in the state of Pará.
Laurance says that while it is too early to conclusively show the impact of U.S. corn subsidies, "we're seeing that these predictions—first
made last summer by the Woods Hole Research Center's Daniel Nepstad and colleagues—are being borne out. The evidence of a corn connection to the Amazon is
circumstantial, but it's about as close as you ever get to a smoking gun."
"Biofuel from corn doesn't seem very beneficial when you consider its full environmental costs," said Laurance. "Corn-based ethanol is
supposed to reduce greenhouse gases, but it's unlikely to do so if it promotes tropical deforestation—one the main drivers of harmful
climate change."
The U.S. corn harvest will be 335 million tons this year, up 25 percent since last year. About 85 million tons of this will be converted into ethanol, up from 15 million tons in 2000. The World bank estimates that the amount of corn needed to fill the gas tank of an SUV is
enough to feed a person for a year.

1AC V1
INCREASED SUGAR CANE PRODUCTION WOULD BOOST THE BRAZILIAN ECON WHICH WOULD BE USED TO
PROTECT THE AMAZON
Joel Velasco, US representative before the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, “US-Brazil Relations: the case for biofuels
cooperation,” September 19, 2007
While some incorrectly try to argue that increased sugar cane production will push cattle ranches north and lead to the deforestation of the
Amazon, the industry’s smart growth is proving otherwise. The substantial expansion of sugar cane growing areas has been met by an
increase in the productivity of other crops and livestock, not by their move to environmentally sensitive areas. Growth has been driven by productivity, not mobility or expansion into Brazil
rainforests.
AMAZON COLLAPSE LEADS TO EXTINCTION

Takacs, 1996 - teaches environmental humanities (history, ethics, justice, politics) in the Institute for Earth Systems Science and
Policy at California State (David, “The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise,” 1996, pg. 200-201)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same
point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could
trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain
heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which
a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.”
13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama:
What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests.
Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have
withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower
Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a
life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant.
nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.14
SECOND—FOOD PRICES: CORN ETHANOL BOOST FOOD PRICES GLOBALLY

Williams—2008 (Dr. Walter E. Williams is a faculty member of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of
Economics “Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax”, 3/12/08, http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=a37eec06-5e45-
414e-9a90-59e4ad860b86)
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from
corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically.
The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a
worldwide impact on food prices.
HIGH FOOD PRICES IS ALLOWING CHINA TO EXTEND CLAIMS AGIANST THE SPRATLY ISLANDS IN UNLOS
Feria—2008 (Monica Feria is a Staff Writer for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “South China Sea flashpoint”, 4/19/08,
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/spratlys/view.php?db=1&article=20080419-131474)
AN AGREEMENT between China and 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to tamp down the Spratly Islands dispute is
unraveling as soaring food and fuel prices force nations to step up the race to find new resources offshore and beat a deadline for
extended maritime claims under the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
LEADS TO NUKE WAR

Nikkei Weekly ’95 (7-3, Lexis)
Asian countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their
Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario,
conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S., leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.
THIRD—FOOD SECURITY: LAND USED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF CORN ETHANOL TRADES OFF WITH LAND
USED TO PRODUCE FOOD, UNDERMINING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
Food and Water Watch Network for New Energy Choices, “The Rush to Ethanol: not all biofuels are created equal,” 2007
The limited availability of the world’s arable land means that total food supplies may suffer if biofuel feedstock takes priority over
food crops. Projected surges in global population and decreases in sub-tropical arable land due to less rainfall make it clear that a reduction in the
amount of land currently devoted to food production could have grave implications for international food security. Farmers in the
developing world could shift to biofuel feedstocks, removing food acreage from production and potentially eroding food security.

1AC V1
LOSS OF FOOD SECURITY CAUSES GLOBAL INSTABILITY, WARS, BILLIONS OF DEATHS, AND RISKS
EXTINCTION
Winnail , 1996 (Douglas S., Ph. D., M.P.H., September-October, On The Horizon: Famine, http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm)
What is seldom stated is that optimistic forecasts for increasing grain production are based on critical long-term assumptions that include normal (average) weather. Yet in recent years this has definitely not been the case. Severe and unusual weather conditions have
suddenly appeared around the globe. Some of the worst droughts, heat waves, heavy rains and flooding on record have reduced harvests in China, Spain, Australia, South Africa, the United States and Canada--major grain growing regions of the world--by 40 to 50
"No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food
percent. As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes,
prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even
wars.
The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side
effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms--could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor.
With world food stores dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However,
poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge.
Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today?
Where is it all leading? What does the future hold?
The clear implication is that things will get worse before they get better. Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of
people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded
history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible!
FOURTH—WATER: CORN ETHANOL CONTAMINATES GROUND WATER

WaterWired.com 2007 (Global Warming: Water and Other Wars Looming?,
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2007/04/ethanol_corn_an.html)
Another issue is pollution. In Iowa there have been some instances of water pollution from refineries. But another more insidious problem deals with the switch from soybeans to corn.
Soybeans are nitrogen-fixers and require less fertilizer than corn. That means farmers who switch to corn may not only be increasing
their water use, but may also run the risk of polluting ground water and/or contributing to algal blooms in surface water because of
increased fertilizer use. Let us not forget the hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, exacerbated by nutrients in runoff derived from Midwest farms. And, since much fertilizer comes from natural gas,
what was that about reducing our dependency on foreign energy?
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CAUSES EXTINCTION

Miller, Prof of Geology, 04 (http://www.geosun.sjsu.edu/~jmiller/Geo1_Lecture12_SurfaceProcesses.html, 08-Dec-2004 EARTH
SURFACE PROCESSES II: GROUNDWATER)
Groundwater is extremely important because it is a source of clean drinkable water for human survival. In arid areas especially (like
the western U.S.) it has allowed humans to flourish and in the early part of the colonization of the west it was vital to the
establishiment of agriculture because we tapped the groundwater by digging wells and then used it to irrigate our crops. It is still important today for
this reason (although we also now impond water in dams and divert it for agriculture using aqueducts). As the population of the west has grown, the demands put on groundwater to provide for human well-being have been increasing, and their is great concern today
about how long our groundwater will last, and whether or not we can make sure that it is clean and drinkaable over the long term. It is for this reason, one of the most pressing environmental issues faced by
citizens the world over.
REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD CHILL THE DOMESTIC ETHANOL INDUSTRY TO MAKE ROOM FOR
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL TO FILL
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
1. Promotion of the Domestic Industry
One argument is that the removal of the tariff will have a chilling effect on the ethanol industry. n131 The ethanol industry desperately
needs continued investment in order to conduct crucial research and development. Investors may be wary to support an industry that
appears to have lost the backing of the government. Opponents argue that the removal of the tariff will be "the wrong signal to send
just as America's ethanol industry is picking up steam." n132
Representative Boswell (D-IA) introduced legislation in the House on May 19, 2006, seeking to extend the temporary ethanol tariff until January 1, 2011. n133 Representative Boswell is a supporter of the tariff, as domestic ethanol production is important to his
constituency. According to Representative Boswell, "the tariff has helped America's ethanol producers succeed and it's simply not the time to halt its progress at a time when the ethanol industry is picking up speed." n134 Similarly, Senator Grassley (R-IA) views the
potential removal of the tariff as undermining the purpose of the RFS in the EPAct. n135 Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, argues that removing the tariff will not lower prices for consumers but will only counteract the progress made
in the domestic ethanol industry. n136
2. Energy Independence
A second argument is that the EPAct mandates represent the country's desire to obtain energy independence. The tariff, therefore, serves as an example of the government's
determination to promote the growth of the domestic industry rather than support foreign industries. Senator Thune (R-SD) supported the EPAct as a way for the federal
government to reduce foreign dependency as well as invest in existing state ethanol programs. n137 Senator Obama (D-IL) supported the RFS portion of the EPAct primarily because of the possibility of reducing dependency on foreign oil. n138
[*708] Since Brazil is already exporting some ethanol duty-free through the CBERA, Senator Brownback (R-KS) argues that removing the tariff will only improve foreign access to the U.S. market without benefits or reciprocity. n139 The tariff, therefore,
serves as a necessary roadblock to ensure that the domestic industry has the resources to continue to grow. Investing in the ethanol
industry requires the government to secure demand for the domestic product.

1AC V1
CONTENTION 3: FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS
THE TARIFF ON BRAZILIAN ETHANOL MAKES SOUTH AMERICA UNCOMFORTABLE OF RELATIONS WITH
AMERICA, PLAN SOLVES
Logan—2007 (Sam Logan is a Staff Writer for the ISN Security Watch and a Senior Political and Security Analyst at Riskline who
has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism and black markets in Latin America since 1999, “The
win-win ethanol alliance; The ethanol alliance between Brazil and the US cements an opportunity for each country to expand
influence: on the world court for Brasilia and in South America for Washington”, 4/24/07, L-N)
Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva on 30 March paid an unprecedented visit to US President George W Bush. For a second time, the two leaders had met in two weeks, with strengthening bilateral ties at the top of the agenda and ethanol as the bond holding
the relationship together.
A US tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports and claims that the US’ use of corn as
After the first meeting, when Bush visited Lula in Brazil, there was little more than formalities and good will.
feedstock for ethanol production could raise world food prices raised many doubts. After the second meeting, however, a tangible - if testy -
alliance formed to the chagrin of Washington's enemies in South America.
Ethanol, it seems, is main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America while
presenting real possibilities of a global presence for Brazil.
WE’LL ISOLATE 2 IMPACTS: FIRST—BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION: STRONG US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE

CRITICAL TO PREVENT BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION
Patterson—2004 (Claudia Patterson is a COHA Research Associate, “For Nuclear Brazil, It’s Good to Have Friends in High Places,”
12/14/04, http://www.coha.org/2004/12/14/for-nuclear-brazil-it%E2%80%99s-good-to-have-friends-in-high-places/)
Secrecy shrouding Brazil’s nuclear capabilities, suspected technological advances and provocative statements made by Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva during his presidential campaign alarmed U.S. nuclear control advocates. But, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell, future nuclear weapons proliferation by
Brasilia no longer is a distinct possibility. Could Haiti be the missing ingredient?
The Bush administration now vehemently denies accusations by notable critics, like the Washington Post, which questioned why Brazil feels a need to hide some of its nuclear facilities from inspection. Some also speculate that Secretary Powell’s readiness to accept
Brasilia’s intentions may be a payback for Lula’s rescuing the U.S. from its embarrassingly contradictory Haiti policy, by agreeing to head the UN peacekeeping mission in the country.
The recentstrengthening of U.S.-Brazilian relations may be linked to Brasilia’s desire to gain more prestige in the hemisphere and the
world by becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for which it will now likely receive U.S. backing.
In the last quarter century, Brazil has engaged in back-door, even covert business arrangements to acquire nuclear technology on the
world market by increasing its conventional weapons trade with rogue nations and evading inspections by international nuclear
weapons authorities. In the 1980s, Brazil was a United Nations problem child due to its flirtation with nuclear proliferation. Now, however, the country has utilized its increasing diplomatic leverage to negotiate a deal that appeases the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) without exposing its unique nuclear technology that Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim claims the country possesses, and that Washington believes is only “producing enriched uranium for pacific purposes.” The exact
reason for Washington’s recent strong support of Brazil, despite its past turbulent relationship with the emerging South American
giant, is not fully clear, but Brasilia’s desire for a greater role in the global community is no doubt a contributing factor as is
Washington’s relative deference to the hemisphere’s candidate for major power status . Even though lately Brazil has cost the White House a good deal of grief over trade-related issues, and in spite of U.S.
accusations over Brazil’s nuclear intent and its past disputes with Washington over the issue, the fact that Lula agreed to head the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti and supply over 1,000 troops to the efforts—by far the largest contingent—has won the Brazilian leader a heavy draught of amnesia on the nuclear front. Critics would say
that in this respect, Lula entered into a humiliating arraignment with Dr. Faustus.
Whether or not Brazil currently has the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons is unknown. The IAEA said, at the conclusion of its investigation, that a report on Brazil’s recent nuclear developments would be ready by the end of November, but no report as of yet has been released.
A Questionable History
During Brazil’s 1964-1985 era of military rule, episodic remarks, usually made off the record by both military and civilian figures, indicated that Brazil was attempting to develop nuclear technology for military purposes. In 1975, the Brazilian military government abandoned an UN-approved nuclear information and technology sharing
agreement with the U.S. in order to receive nuclear technology from West Germany, which allowed for more Brazilian-made components to be incorporated in the nuclear power plants it was installing at the time. Although West Germany was a NATO ally, Washington was less than enthusiastic over the arrangement. Prior to 1975,
Brazil’s nuclear technology was used solely to produce nuclear energy, but when Brazil began its association with the West German Kraftwerk Union—a Siemens affiliate that did not require IAEA safeguards until U.S. pressure forced the company to adopt them—the South American country began a secret program to conceivably
develop an atomic device, which in 1987, observers foresaw as occurring by 2000.
In addition to its nuclear program, Brazil was a major conventional arms exporter during the 1980s. Because Brasilia was indiscriminate in seeking out clients for its military products, the country was arguably the world’s leading arms trader to human rights violators and rogue nations during this period. In 1984, Brazil’s arms sales
hovered around $3 billion, which represented a 600 percent increase over 1980. Along with West German nuclear technology, Washington feared the ramifications of Brazil’s possible exporting of nuclear weapons to countries like Libya and Iraq, both significant customers of Brazil’s conventional arms trade. Even after the military
government stepped down in 1985 and Brazil began the transition towards democracy, the selling of weapons to Iraq continued.
Recent speeches by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are reminiscent of the country’s past dark days. During his 2002 campaign, he expressed his unhappiness over the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which lists Brazil as one of the world’s182 non-nuclear weapon states (non-NWS). Speaking in his man-of-the-people guise, Lula
asked, “If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?” As presidential candidate, Lula explained how developing countries who are signatories of the NPT are disadvantaged by its conditions. Whereas NWS are allowed to keep the nuclear technology they already
possess, non-nuclear countries are prohibited from developing technology that covertly could be used in nuclear weapons programs, leaving them, in Lula’s words, holding a slingshot and looking down the barrel of a cannon.
Is Brazil Hiding Something?
During Lula’s campaign, a number of members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush “to express [their] concern regarding Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva … and his recent public statement criticizing Brazil’s adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” The U.S. legislators concluded by
requesting that the president direct the State Department to investigate the “potentially serious national security matter” developing in Brazil. The Bush administration chose to ignore the letter, deciding instead to initiate a new diplomatic relationship with Lula centering on Brazil’s decision to lead the UN mission to Haiti.
Renewed suspicion about the nature of Brasilia’s nuclear aspirations arose in 2003 when the Brazilian president refused to allow a
comprehensive IAEA inspection of the Resende nuclear facility . Lula said at the time that the denial was merely to protect his government’s coveted technological innovations from theft by outsiders, claiming that these facilities will enrich
uranium more efficiently and will operate longer and more economically than other plants. In a November 17 report by National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, a number of specialists denied that Brazil had the means to develop its own advanced enriching technology. Furthermore, nuclear experts like Henry Sokolski, director of the
Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, believe that Brasilia may have received its centrifuge from the black market and may want to conceal this. However, Brazilian nuclear scientists stand by their claim that their centrifuge is more technologically advanced than any other currently available, despite withering international
skepticism that it is even Brazilian-made.
Brazil is Definitely Hiding Something
In October, after several months of negotiations, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology finally reached an accord with the IAEA to allow for complete inspection of the country’s nuclear facilities, with the exception of the Resende Plant centrifuge. The plant at Resende enriches uranium that the Ministry says fuels Brazil’s two
nuclear power plants, which together provide 4.3 percent of the country’s electricity. While Brazil does mine uranium, it is also home to an established reserve of oil and natural gas. These traditional fuels are providing an increasingly reliable source for much of Brazil’s energy needs instead of the interrupted power produced by Brazil’s
first nuclear plant, the long-troubled Angra I, or “Firefly.” Despite the questionable virtues of Brazil’s alleged new type of centrifuge, the IAEA and Lula were able to agree on a plan that allowed inspectors to check the pipes leading into and out of the centrifuge, but not the facility itself.
Before IAEA inspectors arrived in Brazil, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited President Lula and Foreign Minister Amorim. In the meeting, Powell announced that they “talked about things having to do with the IAEA, the nuclear issue that has come up in the course of the day. And I reaffirmed to the President and to the Minister
that the United States has absolutely no concerns about Brazil doing anything with its nuclear program except developing power in a most controlled, responsible manner.” Upon his return to the United States, Powell reiterated that: “We know for sure that Brazil is not thinking about nuclear weapons in any sense.” In its desire to
become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Brasilia seems to have won the favor of the United States with only limited kowtowing to the Bush administration through its welcomed role in leading the UN mission to Haiti.
At the conclusion of the inspections, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology told the London-based online news source LatinNews that IAEA personnel had left the Resende plant “satisfied with what they saw.” That publication reported that the IAEA inspectors had finished their tour of Brazilian nuclear facilities and that IAEA
would announce their findings by the end of November. But at the end of November, an official with the IAEA told COHA that “Brazil is a continuing issue” and that the agency will carry on its review of its findings until satisfied with the depth and scope of the result. However, the agency could not give a timetable for the release of
the final report.
United States, France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom … and Brazil?
given the current information on Brazil’s domestic and international goals, it is safe to
Controversy has surrounded Brazil’s nuclear power and research facilities since their inception in the mid 1970s, but
assume that, as of now, Brazil is not producing nuclear weapons nor threatening regional stability. Nevertheless, theoretically, Brazil
remains an excellent candidate to be a nuclear power, considering the availability of uranium, skilled personnel and the enrichment
facility technology that it appears to possess. Fortunately, Brazil’s ambitions to become the Latin American hegemon and a leader of
the development bloc in the UN have so far taken precedence over any covert plans to join the nuclear club.

1AC V1
BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION WOULD SHATTER THE GLOBAL NONPROLIFERATION REGIME
Brad Roberts, 1999, Researcher @ Institute for Defense Analysis, Research Staff, Institute for Defense Analysis, Chair Research
Advisory Council for the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/64/robert64.pdf
One category consists of states with the ability but not the will to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to engage in arms races with neighbors.
The latent capabilities of these states should be very much in the mind of the policymaker. All have unexploited NBC weapons capabilities. Among these are many “repentant proliferants” (in
Sandy Spector’s term) that have abandoned strategic weapons or their development programs (e.g., South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, Belarus, and !Kazakhstan).These countries are rightly a focus of proliferation
concern for a number of reasons. Only one is the ease with which disinterest might again become interest. Many receive transfers of militarily sensitive technology,
and some are conduits for further trade. These states are also essential to the promulgation of international norms about weapons and war and the
functioning of multilateral regimes reflecting those norms. Without their participation in the effort to combat proliferation, the
response to proliferation will be limited to a few countries, mostly those of the developed world, with deleterious consequences.
US ANTI-PROLIF IS KEY TO SOLVE PROLIF WHICH SOLVES A LAUDRY LIST OF IMPACTS—YOUR IMPACT
TURNS ARE JUST SILLY
Roberts—1999 (Brad Roberts is a Researcher at the Institute for Defense Analysis, Research Staff at the Institute for Defense
Analysis, Chair on the Research Advisory Council for the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute “The Nonproliferation
Review Fall” http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/64/robert64.pdf )
This brings us then to the question of what is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard answers to the question of what ís at stake: human lives, and stability.
Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, all of them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions, and much more quickly than conventional
weaponry(though it too is capable of killing millions).A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter of course could cause suffering and death unknown in human experience. Such a
war would cast a harsh light on the argument now in vogue that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction. Strictly from the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the world
community has an interest in preventing the emergence of an international system in which the possession and use of Nuclear Biological
Chemical weapons is accepted as normal and customary. The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It focuses on
the weapons-acquiring state and its neighbor sand the risk of war that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental wars. Although it is an old truism that proliferation is destabilizing, it is not always true not where
the acquisition of strategic leverage is essential to preservation of a balance of power that deters conflict and that is used to create the conditions of a more enduring peace. But those circumstances have proven remarkably rare. Instead, the risks
associated with the competitive acquisition of strategic capabilities have typically been seen to outweigh the perceived benefits to
states that have considered nuclear weapons acquisition. Argentina and Brazil, for example, like Sweden and Australia before them, have gotten out of the nuclear weapons business because they see no reason to
live at the nuclear brink even if living there is within their reach. But the standard answers don’t really take us very far into this problem any more. To grasp the full stake requires a broader notion of stability, and an appreciation of the particular historical moment in
we are moving irreversibly into an international

which we find ourselves. It is an accident of history that the diffusion of dual-use capabilities is coterminous with the end of the Cold War. That diffusion means that
system in which the wildfire-like spread of weapons is a real possibility. The end of the Cold War has brought with it great volatility in
the relations of major and minor powers in the international system. What then is at stake? In response to some catalytic event, entire regions
could rapidly cross the threshold from latent to extant weapons capability, and from covert to overt postures, a process that would be highly competitive and risky, and
which likely would spill over wherever the divides among regions are not tidy. This would sorely test Ken Waltz’s familiar old heresy that more may be better! î7óindeed,
even Waltz assumed proliferation would be stabilizing only if it is gradual, and warned against the rapid spread of weapons to multiple states. At the very least, this
would fuel Nuclear Biological Chemical terrorism, as a general proliferation of NBC weaponry would likely erode the constraints that heretofore have inhibited states from sponsoring terrorist use of
these capabilities. Given its global stature and media culture, America would be a likely target of some of these terrorist actions. What kind of catalytic event might cause such wildfire-like proliferation? The possibilities are not numerous and thus we
should not be too pessimistic, although history usually surprises. One catalyst could be a major civil war in a large country in which NBC weapons are used. Another catalyst might be a crisis in which Nuclear Biological Chemical
weapons are used to call into question the credibility of US security guarantees. Such a crisis would have far-reaching consequences, both within and beyond any particular region. If the threat
of the use of such weapons is sufficient to dissuade the United States from reversing an act of aggression, or if their use is successful in defeating a US military operation, there would be hell to pay. How, for example, would Japan respond to a US decision not to seek to
reverse NBC-backed aggression on the Korean peninsula? How might NATO partners respond to a collapse of US credibility in East Asia? This stake isn’t just America’s stake.

1AC V1
PROLIF WOULD ESCALATE RAPIDLY INCREASING THE LIKLEYHOOD OF NUCLEAR WAR, COLLAPSE OF
DETERRENCE, AND PROLIFERATION OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
Utgoff, 2002, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, & Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis (Victor A., “Proliferation,
Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, Summer, p. 87-90)
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers
had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in
more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional
alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s
capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are
becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that
the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire
happens,
proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to
world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear
the dynamics of getting to a

proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First,
highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who
succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation.
Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear
weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second,
as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or
more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such
weapons failing into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Worse still,
in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected
times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure,some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear
capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.’ These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe
this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states ‘known to possess nuclear weapons did
engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear
weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examples Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain’s efforts to take them
back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide
for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a ‘victory or destruction’’ policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat. And
Japan’s war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested ‘Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?” If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use of
nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these
weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of
view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states. Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be
seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the
confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognize clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think
carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may
We can almost hear

too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action.
the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. ‘These people are not willing to die for this interest’. ‘No sane person would actually use such weapons’.
‘Perhaps the opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons’. ‘If I don’t hit them
back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed’. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within,
might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time,
and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise
enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances,
but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.’ Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the
maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of
Escalation of
missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants
before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is
likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild
West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a
while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

1AC V1
SECOND—AMAZON: US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE CONTINUED PROTECTION OF
THE AMAZON
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 03 [“FACT SHEET: ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND BRAZIL,” http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2003/Jun/30-435327.html]edlee
The United States and Brazil enjoy a long, rich history of environmental cooperation ranging from management of parks to technical
cooperation on forests, remote sensing, and fire science. We hope to make that relationship even stronger in the coming years. We look forward to discussing our many bilateral environmental
interests during a high-level Common Agenda on the Environment meeting later this year in Brasilia, and to further strengthening our already strong partnership to protect and manage
important natural resources. The U.S. and Brazil plan to encourage the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency through workshops, information exchanges, technical assistance, and training. Our recent bilateral
energy discussions helped strengthen our joint commitment to clean energy efforts, while a new energy strategy developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) holds the potential for additional
bilateral collaboration with NGOs and the private sector. Working together, we have installed hybrid-renewable village power systems in the Amazon, and we are
beginning to build partnerships with universities to look at biomass resources and develop markets for clean energy. Officials of the state of São Paulo are working with the U.S. to promote technologies that can mitigate local air
quality problems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. and Brazil hope to collaborate closely to promote sustainable forest management, particularly in
the area of reduced impact logging. USAID partners look forward to working with Brazil to develop forest management tracking
technologies involving fire-detecting satellites operated by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) for forest management, modeling of logging damage in disturbed forests, and Landsat-based maps reflecting
compliance with Brazil’s Forest Code. A consortium of Brazil-based institutions, together with USAID and the U.S. Forest Service,
have created a new “Natural Ecosystems Sustained” program for forest management in Brazil that includes marketing of
environmental goods and services and landscape-level planning and policy. Brazil and the U.S. now coordinate closely on initiatives
such as satellite technology to detect forest fires. Conservation of migratory birds is another key issue for cooperation. The U.S. looks forward to working with Brazil, and more
broadly with the region, in a workshop this October to begin developing a framework for a Western Hemisphere strategy to conserve migratory birds – a response to the Summit of the Americas in 2001. Recognizing Brazil’s critical role
in regional environmental issues across South America, the U.S. Department of State established one of the first of twelve regional
environmental “Hub” offices around the world at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia in 1999.
RESOLVING BIOFULE DISAGREEMENTS THROUGH THE PLAN ARE KEY TO BRAZILIAN RELATIONS
Reel—2007 (Monte Reel is a Staff Writer for the Washington Post Foreign Service, “U.S. Seeks Partnership With Brazil on Ethanol;
Countering Oil-Rich Venezuela Is Part of Aim”, A Section; A14, 2/7/07, L-N)
The United States and Brazil, the two largest biofuel producers in the world, are meeting this week to discuss a new energy partnership that they hope will
encourage ethanol use throughout Latin America and that U.S. officials hope will diminish the regional influence of oil-rich
Venezuela.
U.S. officials said they expect to sign accords within a year that would promote technology-sharing with Brazil and encourage more Latin American neighbors to become biofuel producers and consumers.
The United States and Brazil together produce about 70 percent of the world's ethanol, a fuel that President Bush has called a cornerstone in reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
"It's clearly in our interests -- Brazil's and the United States's -- that we expand the global market for biofuels, particularly ethanol, and that it become a global commodity of sorts," said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state, who led discussions with
Brazilian government officials on Wednesday.
For the United States, the initiative is more than purely economic. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has exploited regional frustrations with the
market-driven economic prescriptions that the United States has promoted throughout the region for years, and he has used oil revenue
to promote several regional economic alliances.
Burns declared that biofuel is now the "symbolic centerpiece" of U.S. relations with Brazil, a country that U.S. officials have long
hoped could counteract Venezuela's regional anti-American influence.
"Energy has tended to distort the power of some of the states we find to be negative in the world -- Venezuela, Iran -- and so the more
we can diversify our energy sources and depend less on oil, the better off we will be," Burns said at a news conference in Sao Paulo.
THE ETHANOL TARIFF IS THE KEY ISSUE—IT MUST COME BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE
The Associated Press, 2007 (Brazil's ethanol push could eat away at Amazon, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/page/2/)
Political and energy analysts warn that any agreements reached between Brazil and the United States are unlikely to have short-term
effects. And the deal itself could end up largely symbolic because of reluctance by Washington to address a key point of friction: A 53
cent-per-gallon U.S. tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.
"For the Brazilians, the tariff has utmost priority," said Cristoph Berg, an ethanol analyst with Germany's F.O. Licht, a commodities
research firm. "They will agree with developing biofuel economies around the world, but the first thing they will say is 'We want to do
away with that tariff.'"

1AC V2
CONTENTION ONE IS INHERENCY
INITIALLY NOTE - THE SWITCH TO ETHANOL IS INEVITABLE
Armas 2007 (Marcel Armas is a JD candidate at American University Washington College of Sustainable Development Law &
[*25] The United States is recognizing the value and importance of energy diversification, but it may also be creating greater environmental harm in the process. n1 If America decreases its dependence on foreign oil
it will create greater economic security for itself, reduce its current account deficit, provide less financing for tyrannical leaders and
terrorists with American petro-dollars, and improve its environmental credentials. n2 To reduce America's craving for oil, the
government encourages domestic ethanol production; the United States is behind only Brazil, the world's largest producer of ethanol, and combined the two produce over 70 percent of the world's ethanol. n3 Currently
the U.S. domestic ethanol industry is growing as a result of alternative fuels becoming politically popular, and the addition of a subsidy and tariff applied to ethanol. n4 However,
arguably the ethanol tariff and subsidy do not provide any substantial environmental benefits for the United States or the world. n5
TARIFFS THAT PREVENT COMPETITION OF BRAZILIAN SUGARCANE ETHANOL ARE HERE TO STAY
Reel 2007 (Monte Reel is a Staff Writer for the Washington Post Foreign Service, “U.S. Seeks Partnership With Brazil on Ethanol;
Countering Oil-Rich Venezuela Is Part of Aim”, A Section; A14, 2/7/07, Lexis)
The United States currently places a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on most imported ethanol. Brazilian producers have long labeled the tariff
hypocritical, saying that it is exactly the kind of trade barrier that U.S. officials oppose in other countries.
"It's not about free trade, but fair trade," said Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington-based lobbying group that says lifting the tariff would amount to the United States supporting Brazilian
producers. "The tariff has never served as a barrier to entry. More than 400 million gallons of ethanol came in from Brazil alone last year --
straight from Sao Paulo to New York Harbor."
The tariff is unlikely to be lifted during the current talks. It expires in 2009, and many in the industry believe the government is
unlikely to address the issue before a presidential election year.
"The administration has indicated it would support lifting the tariff, but I think the current inclination is to allow it to expire and have that
discussion at a later date," said Brian Dean, head of the private Interamerican Ethanol Commission, which was created in December by then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to encourage U.S. ethanol partnerships with Brazil and other Latin American nations.
INCREASING CORN PRICES ENSURE THAT SUGARCANE WILL WIN OUT DESPITE THE TARIFF
Reuters, “Midwest Floods May Add to Gasoline Misery,” June 18, 2008
"If we do see these forecasts of maybe a 10 percent drop in a corn crop come to fruition, it becomes less likely we're going to see any kind of
moderation in the corn prices," said Tom Knight, an energy trader at Truman Arnold in Texarkana, Texas.
"I think we'll see more small- and mid-size ethanol plants down because they are just not willing to run with negative production economics," Knight said.
Already, VeraSun Energy Corp has announced that it is delaying the opening of two Midwest ethanol distilleries until market
conditions improve.
The delay will add to a decrease in production due to flood closures. So far, two ethanol plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, one owned by Archer Daniels Midland and the other owned by Penford Corp,
were shut by the flooding.
According to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, a total of 300 million gallons per year of ethanol production capacity was forced offline by the floods.
A slump in domestic ethanol production, could lead to increased imports from Brazil, the world's second largest ethanol producer after
the U.S., despite a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on the fuel, experts said.
"The supply chain will catch up ... if the prices stay this high, then people will definitely start looking toward Brazilian cane ethanol," Cohan said.

1AC V2
CORN ETHANOL WILL SOON RAISE THE PRICE OF FOOD ENOUGH TO STARVE 2.7 BILLION GLOBALLY
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, 2007 (C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied
Economics and Law and Director of the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Benjamin Senauer is Professor of Applied Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota.
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-
biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html)
The industry's growth has meant that a larger and larger share of corn production is being used to feed the huge mills that produce
ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will
bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer.
The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States
accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a
bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are
increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will
be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high. The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people
in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be
devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of
edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world.
Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers,
consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.
THIS EFFECT IS SYSTEMIC AND THE AMOUNT OF NEWLY POOR AND HUNGRY IS GROWING BY HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS
Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota. Benjamin Senauer is Professor of Applied Economics at the University of
Minnesota: How Ethanol Fuels the Food Crisis, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20080528faupdate87376/c-ford-runge-benjamin-
senauer/how-ethanol-fuels-the-food-crisis.html)
In the year since the publication of our article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor" (May/June 2007), the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans
by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. What at first seemed alarmist has turned out to be an underestimate of the
effects of biofuels on both commodity prices and the natural environment. These price increases are substantial threats to the welfare
of consumers, especially in poor developing countries facing food deficits. They are especially burdensome to the rural landless and the urban poor, who produce no food at all. Josette Sheeran, the Executive Director
of the World Food Program, calls this a global "tsunami of hunger." Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, estimates that there are 100 million newly poor and hungry people
as a result of rising food prices.

Although controversy remains over how much of the food price increase since 2006 can be attributed to biofuels, their effects cannot be overlooked. In 2008, 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for
ethanol. Although economic growth in developing countries (especially India and China) and poor crop conditions in certain parts of the food-
exporting world (such as Australia) are part of the explanation for rising commodity prices worldwide, neither offers constructive opportunities
for policy redirection. By contrast, the panoply of subsidies, tariffs and mandates protecting the biofuels sector, especially in the United States and the European Union, is ripe for reform.
PLAN WOULD KILL THE DOMESTIC CORN ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN FAVOR OF SUGARCANE
Lytle, 2007 (Kaylan Lytle is a Staff Writer for the Energy Law Journal at the Energy Bar Association, “DRIVING THE MARKET:
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
Representative Boswell (D-IA) introduced legislation in the House on May 19, 2006, seeking to extend the temporary ethanol tariff until January 1, 2011. n133 Representative Boswell is a supporter of the tariff, as domestic ethanol production is important to his
constituency. According to Representative Boswell, "the tariff has helped America's ethanol producers succeed and it's simply not the time to halt its progress at a time when the ethanol industry is picking up speed." n134 Similarly, Senator Grassley (R-IA) views the
potential removal of the tariff as undermining the purpose of the RFS in the EPAct. n135 Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, argues that removing the tariff will not lower prices for consumers but will only counteract the progress made
A second argument is that the EPAct mandates represent the country's desire to obtain energy independence. The tariff, therefore, serves as an example of the government's
determination to promote the growth of the domestic industry rather than support foreign industries. Senator Thune (R-SD) supported the EPAct as a way for the federal
government to reduce foreign dependency as well as invest in existing state ethanol programs. n137 Senator Obama (D-IL) supported the RFS portion of the EPAct primarily because of the possibility of reducing dependency on foreign oil. n138
[*708] Since Brazil is already exporting some ethanol duty-free through the CBERA, Senator Brownback (R-KS) argues that removing the tariff will only improve foreign access to the U.S. market without benefits or reciprocity. n139 The tariff, therefore,
industry requires the government to secure demand for the domestic product

1AC V2
ADVANTAGE TWO IS BRAZILIAN RELATIONS…PG-STYLE
THE ETHANOL TARIFF PREVENTS ANY NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRAZIL
effects. And the deal itself could end up largely symbolic because of reluctance by Washington to address a key point of friction: A 53 cent-per-gallon U.S.
tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.
"For the Brazilians, the tariff has utmost priority," said Cristoph Berg, an ethanol analyst with Germany's F.O. Licht, a commodities research firm. "They will agree with developing
biofuel economies around the world, but the first thing they will say is 'We want to do away with that tariff.'"
REMOVING THE TARIFF CATALYZES RELATIONS

Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin American in the Sarah and Douglas Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 2008 (Meeting Energy Challenges in the Western Hemisphere,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/hl1079.cfm)
While Brazil's ethanol producers are apparently working at full capacity, eventually removing the 54-cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol would help promote free trade in
biofuels and could have a catalytic effect on U.S.–Brazil relations. I will note that this proposition was most recently endorsed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. This positive
move could also encourage Brazilians and others to invest in more research in promising second-generation biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol. Also, working with Brazil to revitalize the Doha Round of global free trade talks will strengthen our hand and forge a stronger
U.S.–Brazil partnership.
BRAZIL RELATIONS REST ON ENGAGEMENT IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND TARIFF REMOVAL

Baker—2007 (Peter Baker is a Staff Writer for the Washington Post, “U.S., Brazil Team Up To Promote Ethanol; For Bush, a Key
Step in Boosting Regional Ties”, 3/10/07, L-N)
President Bush announced a new energy partnership with Brazil on Friday to promote wider production of ethanol throughout the region as an
alternative to oil, the first step in an effort to strengthen economic and political alliances in Latin America.
The agreement, reached as Bush kicked off a six-day tour of the region, was crafted to expand research, share technology, stimulate new investment and develop common international standards for biofuels. The United States and Brazil, which make 70 percent of the
world's ethanol, will team up to encourage other nations to produce and consume alternative fuels, starting in Central America and the Caribbean.
The new alliance could serve not only to help meet Bush's promise to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption but also to diminish the
influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the fiery leftist who has used his country's vast oil reserves to build support among neighbors. Analysts have called it the beginning of a new OPEC-style cartel for ethanol makers, a characterization
U.S. officials dispute because they say they want to expand, not control, production.
"It's in the interest of the United States that there be a prosperous neighborhood," Bush said during a hard-hat tour of a fuel depot here with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
"And one way to help spread prosperity in Central America is for them to become energy producers, not become -- not remain
dependent on others for their energy sources."
Lula, pointing to economic and environmental benefits of ethanol, said the alliance marks "a new moment for the global car industry, a new moment for fuel in general in the world and possibly a new moment for humanity."
refused to discuss Lula's desire to reduce a 54 percent tariff on

But ethanol politics are complicated at home and abroad. Under pressure from farm-state lawmakers in the United States, Bush on Friday
imported Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol, which protects domestic corn-based ethanol producers. That led to charges of double standards, given the Bush administration's
longtime advocacy of free trade.
ethanol has also drawn criticism from environmentalists and others who complain that it will create more problems. Because the United States makes ethanol from
The emphasis on
corn, it has already caused price increases, for example, for tortillas in Mexico. Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane, and critics say increased production would result in further deforestation of the Amazon.
Greenpeace issued a statement saying that limits on carbon emissions, which Bush opposes, would be a better way to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. "The U.S. government must take a giant leap forward quickly in order to make the necessary
steps to combat global warming," said John Coequyt, an energy specialist with Greenpeace. "An aggressive focus on ethanol, without a federally mandated cap on emissions, is simply a leap sideways."
Some specialists, though, said the deal could have a significant impact on energy.
"This is the first effort to jump-start a Western Hemisphere ethanol market, involving both trade and local development, which would reduce the pressure of high oil prices on the balance of payments of countries in the region," said Dan Yergin of Cambridge Energy
Research Associates. "It also represents the fact that Brazil is moving to the fore as an energy leader, along with Venezuela, in the region."
But analysts expressed skepticism that Bush would be able to wean Latin Americans away from Chávez. "Bush may be aiming at
Chávez with his 'ethanol diplomacy,' but Lula clearly is not," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "He is happy to have good commercial relations
with the United States and expand these in any area, but he has made it clear that he is not going to downgrade his good relations with Venezuela."
The ethanol pact came as Bush sought to renew U.S. commitments to a region estranged from the United States. The president appeared irritated when a
Brazilian journalist asked during a brief news conference what he was doing to "make up for the losses" in relations with the region.
"I strongly disagree with your description of U.S. foreign policy," Bush replied. "That may be what people say, but it's certainly not what the facts bear out."
The president repeated his assertion that he has doubled direct foreign assistance to Latin America to $1.6 billion since 2001, without mentioning that his latest budget actually proposes cutting that aid to $1.47 billion. Moreover, analysts question his math, saying he is
using a false comparison to exaggerate increases in aid.
Lula hoped to use the meeting with Bush to project himself as an alternative to Chávez, able to enter
Rogerio Schmitt, a political analyst here, said
partnerships with leaders of all ideological leanings. Whether the United States would equally benefit by being seen as an alternative to Chávez is another matter, he said. "Most people in Brazil see Chávez as a lunatic,
a fool," Schmitt said. "But his popularity here is still probably higher than President Bush

1AC V2
SCENARIO ONE IS THE AMAZON
U.S-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE KEY TO PROTECTING THE AMAZON
cooperation on forests, remote sensing, and fire science. We hope to make that relationship even stronger in the coming years. We look forward to discussing our many bilateral environmental interests during a high-level Common
Agenda on the Environment meeting later this year in Brasilia, and to further strengthening our already strong partnership to protect and manage important natural
resources. The U.S. and Brazil plan to encourage the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency through workshops, information exchanges, technical assistance, and training. Our recent bilateral energy discussions helped strengthen our joint commitment
to clean energy efforts, while a new energy strategy developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) holds the potential for additional bilateral collaboration with NGOs and the private sector. Working together, we have installed hybrid-renewable
village power systems in the Amazon, and we are beginning to build partnerships with universities to look at biomass resources and develop markets for clean energy. Officials of the state of São Paulo are working with the U.S. to promote technologies that can mitigate
local air quality problems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. and Brazil hope to collaborate closely to promote sustainable forest management,
particularly in the area of reduced impact logging. USAID partners look forward to working with Brazil to develop forest management tracking technologies involving fire-detecting satellites operated by the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for forest management, modeling of logging damage in disturbed forests, and Landsat-
based maps reflecting compliance with Brazil’s Forest Code. A consortium of Brazil-based institutions, together with USAID and the U.S. Forest Service, have created a new “Natural Ecosystems Sustained”
program for forest management in Brazil that includes marketing of environmental goods and services and landscape-level planning and policy. Brazil and the U.S. now coordinate closely on initiatives such
as satellite technology to detect forest fires. Conservation of migratory birds is another key issue for cooperation. The U.S. looks forward to working with Brazil, and more
in regional environmental issues across South America, the U.S. Department of State established one of the first of twelve regional environmental “Hub” offices around the world at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia in
1999.
EXTINCTION
Takacs, 1996 (teaches environmental humanities (history, ethics, justice, politics) in the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy
at California State (David, “The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise,” 1996, pg. 200-201)
SCENARIO TWO IS DOHA

DOHA IS AT A STANDSTILL BUT REMOVAL OF ETHANOL TARIFFS WOULD LEAD TO LIKELY SUCCESS OF
NEGOTIATIONS.
Ethanolstatistics.com, 2007 (EU Ethanol Dynamics,
http://www.ethanolstatistics.com/Expert_Opinions/EU_Ethanol_Dynamics_011007_3.aspx)
“I think it’s very unlikely that we’ll see an agreement in the Doha negotiations. Not because of the problems in the agricultural sector, but because of the industrial
good sector. It has to do with opening the markets of countries like Brazil and India for industrial products of western economies. That’s the real sticky part right now. In addition, although the
import tariffs are part of the Doha negotiations, ethanol has achieved a sensitive status as a sector or product. This means that if tariffs
are reduced, the reduction will be less for ethanol. The other option could be an agreement between the EU and Mercosur, or perhaps between the EU and Brazil. An agreement that allows a
certain volume of Brazilian ethanol to come into the EU without import duties is currently the most feasible option”.
“Interesting to see in the WTO negotiations is the additional 54 cents import tariff of the United States, which falls completely outside
the Doha negotiation. But talking about import duties is both risky, because you cannot predict what is going to happen, and pointless,
because at the time that an agreement is reached, you should be able to compete and make your ethanol much cheaper. There is also a political
argument that you should have your own strategic production capacity, as being dependent on imported ethanol is against one of the EU’s objectives of energy independence and security of supply. That being said, the 10% of 2020 we can achieve with EU production.
We have the raw material and land available. The European commission has calculated that 14% is feasible, and at least 11% is certain. I therefore see no reasons for concern about ethanol imports, as they will probably remain at acceptable levels”.

1AC V2
TARIFFS ARE A KEY ISSUE
Biofuels Digest 2008 (Brazilian president: “The developed world imports oil with no tariffs, yet they place an absurd tariff on
Brazilian ethanol”, http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/04/28/brazilian-president-the-developed-world-imports-oil-with-no-tariffs-
yet-they-place-an-absurd-tariff-on-brazilian-ethanol/)
In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called on industrial nations to “stop your hypocrisy”, and drop agricultural tariffs on Brazilian
ethanol to save the Doha round of world trade talks. The Doha round, launched in 2001, has failed to produce an agreement because of
disputes between developed and undeveloped countries over agricultural subsidies and tariffs.
Lula said it was “inconceivable” that developed nations have blamed biofuels for higher global food prices while tariffs are in place.
“The world does not produce biofuels and has 800 million people who go to sleep hungry. Those who criticize biofuels have never
criticized the price of oil. The developed world imports oil with no tariffs, yet they place an absurd tariff on Brazilian ethanol,” he
said.
THE WTO AGREEMENT IS AT A CRITICAL CROSS-ROADS - COLLAPSE OF THE WTO LEADS TO CONFLICT-
RIDDEN BILATERAL AGREEMENTS THAT MAKE U.S.-CHINA TRADE CONFLICT INEVITABLE
G. John Ikenberry, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton, jan/feb 2008, Foreign Affairs "The Rise of China and
the Future of the West"
The United States should also renew its support for wide-ranging multilateral institutions. On the economic front, this would include building on the agreements and architecture
of the WTO, including pursuing efforts to conclude the current Doha Round of trade talks, which seeks to extend market opportunities and trade liberalization to developing countries. The
WTO is at a critical stage. The basic standard of nondiscrimination is at risk thanks to the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade
agreements. Meanwhile, there are growing doubts over whether the WTO can in fact carry out trade liberalization, particularly in agriculture, that benefits developing countries. These issues may seem narrow, but the fundamental
character of the liberal international order -- its commitment to universal rules of openness that spread gains widely -- is at stake. Similar doubts haunt a host of other multilateral agreements -- on global warming and
nuclear nonproliferation, among others -- and they thus also demand renewed U.S. leadership.
The strategy here is not simply to ensure that the Western order is open and rule-based. It is also to make sure that the order does not fragment into an array of bilateral and
"minilateral" arrangements, causing the United States to find itself tied to only a few key states in various regions. Under such a scenario, China
would have an opportunity to build its own set of bilateral and "minilateral" pacts. As a result, the world would be broken into
competing U.S. and Chinese spheres. The more security and economic relations are multilateral and all-encompassing, the more the global system
retains its coherence.
UNRESTRAINED U.S.-CHINA TRADE CONFLICT ESCALATES TO A SHOOTING WAR THAT WOULD DESTROY
THE U.S.
Henry C K Liu, Chairman of a New York-based private investment group, 2005 (Asia Times, Online:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/global_economy/GH20Dj01.html)
The resultant global economic depression from a trade war between the world's two largest economies will in turn heighten further
mutual recriminations. An external curb from the US of Chinese export trade will accelerate a redirection of Chinese growth
momentum inward, increasing Chinese power, including military power, while further encouraging anti-US sentiment in Chinese
policy circles. This in turn will validate US apprehension of a China threat, increasing the prospect for armed conflict.
A war between the US and China can have no winners, particularly on the political front. Even if the US were to prevail militarily through its technological superiority, the
political cost of military victory would be so severe that the US as it currently exists would not be recognizable after the conflict and
the original geopolitical aim behind the conflict would remain elusive, as the Vietnam War and the Iraq war have demonstrated. By comparison, the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts,
destructive as they have been to the US social fabric, are mere minor scrimmages compared with a war with China.
GAME OVER
Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2001, The Nation, p 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious U.S. militarists know that china’s miniscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the
overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914
a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that
assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted,
neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the Unites States, deeply divided Japan, and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the
world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s
sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

1AC V2
SCENARIO THREE IS MR. CHAVEZ
HUGO CHAVEZ IS GROWING IN STRENGTH NOW AND WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO TERRORIST TRAINING
GROUNDS. OPEN TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND A SHIFT TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES ARE KEY TO
PREVENT CATASTROPHE.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, 2007 (STABILITY AND DEMOCRACY IN LATIN AMERICA,
http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/speech550.html)
But the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has been conducting his own tour, deliberately instigating protests and riots to disrupt the President's peaceful mission. It is very important that we focus on Mr. Chavez and what is happening in South America
because it will affect the stability of our whole hemisphere.
The problem starts in Venezuela, a nation which once enjoyed 50 years of democratic traditions but now is in the early stages of a dictatorship. Last month, elected representatives in Venezuela abdicated their responsibility and gave the Venezuelan leader sweeping
power to rule for 18 months to be able to impose economic, social, and political change. These dictatorial powers would be alarming in anyone's hands but particularly dangerous in the hands of Hugo Chavez.
This strong man rules an oil-rich nation that exports 1.1 million barrels of oil to the United States per day, roughly equivalent to what
we import from Saudi Arabia. President Chavez has already colluded with other OPEC nations to raise oil prices, and when he
nationalizes multibillion dollar crude oil projects, that is going to make the prices rise again. This could have a severe impact on the pocketbooks of American families.
According to some economists, every time oil prices rise by 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs.
Mr. Chavez has used his nation's windfall oil profits to buy political support at home and to stir trouble abroad. He says Venezuela has a ``strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage'' and `ìt is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest
country in the world, the United States.''
In his struggle against U.S. imperialism, President Chavez has found a useful ally in the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the
Government of Iran. He is one of the few leaders in the world to publicly support Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Iranian mullahs have rewarded Mr. Chavez's friendship with lucrative contracts, including the transfer of Iranian professionals
and technologies to Venezuela.
Last month, President Chavez and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad revealed plans for a $2 billion joint fund--$2 billion--part
of which they say will be used as a ``mechanism for liberation'' against American allies. This could help achieve the vision that Mr.
Chavez has stated: Let's save the human race; let's finish off the U.S. empire.
Mr. Chavez has grown bolder by interfering in the elections of several Latin American countries and his own brand of politics has made some gains.
Bolivia's newly elected President, Evo Morales, has nationalized the energy industry, rewritten the Constitution, and promised to work with Mr. Chavez and Fidel Castro to perform an `àxis of good'' to oppose the United States.
The former Soviet client, Daniel Ortega, has returned to the Presidency of Nicaragua. During the 1980s, Mr. Ortega ruled his country with an iron fist until U.S.-backed freedom fighters ousted him from power. Nicaragua's democracy prospered for the next 16 years, but
now he's back.
In response to the Ortega victory, Hugo Chavez said:
Long live the Sandinista revolution.
Then, in his first week as President, Mr. Ortega met with President Ahmadi-Nejad from Iran and told the press that Nicaragua and Iran share common interests and have common enemies.
Left unchecked, Presidents Ahmadi-Nejad and Chavez could be the Khrushchev-Castro tandem of the early 21st century, funneling
arms, money, and propaganda to Latin America, endangering that region's fragile democracies and volatile economies. If these two
succeed, the next terrorist training camp could shift from the Middle East to America's doorstep. We need to face reality. We need to
confront this threat head on.
At the pinnacle of the Cold War, President Reagan seized the initiative and repulsed Soviet efforts to set up camp, in our hemisphere, with Cuba. We should follow that lead. We should dust off the Cold War play book and become active in helping our friends to the
south.
Specifically, we should adopt a three-pronged approach: Energy independence would be No. 1. We should confront the Chavez threat head on by reducing imports to the United
States from Venezuela. How can we do that? We can do it by increasing our domestic energy supply and production and accelerate innovation for renewable
fuels--wind power, solar power, ethanol, biodiesel, even wave energy. Using the currents in the sea can always produce energy, and research is going on in that effort.
There is so much we can do to make our country independent from people such as Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad and others who would try to affect our economy by raising the price of oil or cutting off the supply.
No. 2, free trade. We should try to reduce heartbreaking poverty by approving free trade agreements with friendly Latin American
countries, those Latin American countries that have democracies, that want to increase their economic prosperity.
We need to reauthorize the President's trade promotion authority which expires on July 1. Free trade and working for economic prosperity in these countries is the best way to keep
them free.
CHAVEZ SUPPORT MAKES A TERRORIST ATTACK INEVITABLE IN THE STATUS QUO

Rick Moran, policy analyst and radio show host, “Analysts Believe Hezbollah Preparing an Attack,” June 20, 2008
ABC news is reporting that western analysts believe the Iranian-Lebanese terrorist group Hezb'allah is preparing to attack "Jewish targets" someplace in the west,
perhaps North America:

Intelligence officials tell ABC News the group has activated suspected "sleeper cells" in Canada and key operatives have been tracked moving outside the
group's Lebanon base to Canada, Europe and Africa.

Officials say Hezbollah is seeking revenge for the February assassination of Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mugniyah, killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.
The group's leaders blamed Israel, an allegation denied by Israeli officials.
There is no credible information on a specific target, according to the officials.
Suspected Hezbollah operatives have conducted recent surveillance on the Israeli embassy in Ottawa, Canada and on several synagogues in Toronto, according to the officials.
South America is also a likely target. Translations of some Spanish language articles on Fausta Wertz's site of
In addition to Canada, it is believed that
suspected Venezualean connections to Hezb'allah reveal a disturbing alliance between Hugo Chavez and Middle Eastern based terrorists.
A few days ago, Fausta reports that Venezualeans of Arab ancestry were being recruited to take part in training at Hezb'allah sites in Lebanon. Then came the news
that the State Department has designated a Venezualean diplomat as a supporter of Hezb'allah:
The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Nsr al Din and Fawzi Kan'an, along with two travel agencies owned and controlled by Kan'an, as terror supporters
Nasr al Din has counseled Hizballah donors on fundraising efforts and has provided donors with specific information on bank accounts where the donors' deposits would go directly to Hizballah.
Ghazi Nasr al Din has met with senior Hizballah officials in Lebanon to discuss operational issues, as well as facilitated the travel of Hizballah members to and from Venezuela. In late January 2006, Nasr al Din facilitated the travel of two Hizballah representatives to
the Lebanese Parliament to Caracas to solicit donations for Hizballah and to announce the opening of a Hizballah-sponsored community center and office in Venezuela. The previous year, Nasr al Din arranged the travel of Hizballah members to attend a training course
in Iran.
The Treasury Dept. statement lists 12 aliases for Nasr al Din, who was born on December 13, 1962 in Lebanon.
Clearly the terrorists have the will to strike but do they have the means? Given their
It was in 1994 that Hezb'allah attacked an Argentina Jewish Community Center killing 85 people.
massive support from Iran, there can be little doubt of that.

1AC V2
EXTINCTION
Sid-Ahmed in 2004, Political Analyst, 2K4 (Mohamed, “Extinction!” Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line, August 26 – September 1,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg /2004/705/op5.htm)
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the
weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can
Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign
determine the course of events.
state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of
the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped
up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would
also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one
side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers.When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
PLAN KEY TO BRAZILIAN DOMINANCE WHICH LEADS TO LATIN AMERICAN STABILITY AND CHAVEZ
CONTAINMENT
Ratliff 2007 (William Ratliff is a research fellow and curator of the Americas Collection at the Hoover Institution. He is also a
research fellow of the Independent Institute. An expert on Latin America, China, and U.S. foreign policy, he has written extensively on
how traditional cultures and institutions influence current conditions and on prospects for economic and political development in
East/Southeast Asia and Latin America. Hectored by Hugo, http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/8119312.html)
Bush also seems to be taking seriously the need to draw the region’s moderate leftist governments, particularly but not only the one in
Brazil, away from their neutrality about Chávez’s debilitating demagoguery and populism. Traditional Latin leftists running several countries have been reluctant to criticize populist “leftists” like Chávez, even though the
moderate leftists have the most to lose from the spread of Chavismo. To the degree that these moderate leftist countries are succeeding economically, they, along with Mexico, Colombia, and others, owe much more to Milton Friedman than to Karl Marx. In
varying degrees, they accept that free trade and markets offer the only productive alternative to Chávez’s scapegoating, paternalistic
recipe.
Bush’s March trip was the most potentially constructive action he had taken toward Latin America in years. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met with him in Brazil and then again several weeks later in the United States, and cooperative programs for the
Part of Silva’s incentive in this may be making Brazil the “big” country of Latin America, instead of Venezuela,
production of ethanol were on the agenda.
which is what Chávez is rather successfully pursuing. In Colombia (and Peru and Panama as well), significant progress in the
antiguerrilla war must now be backed up with immediate passage of trade legislation by the U.S. Congress. And serious attention to immigration, a focus that
disappeared after the September 11 attacks, must again be the centerpiece of relations with Mexico. But getting Latin America’s moderate socialists and others to even tacitly side with the United States on these critical issues will demand U.S. actions, not just words, to
prove willingness to give as well as take.
Despite his links to Iran and Russia, Chávez is primarily a threat not to the United States but to the well-being of Latin Americans. His
“socialism” will further reduce their chances of prospering or even surviving in the modern world—and that is what collides most
seriously with the interests of the United States. Thus our strategy in combating him and his ideas is more constructive attention to the
region as a whole, not direct combat with Caracas.
STOPPING CHAVEZ NOW IS ESSENTIAL – HE’LL SOON HAVE NUCLEAR TECH AND IT WON’T BE FOR PEACE
Webb-Vidal, 2007 (Andy Webb-Vidal is a journalist specializing in Latin America and is an independent financial and political risk
consultant; Dumb and Dumber, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3987)
But in the nuclear arena, something sinister may be afoot. Emulating his soul-brother Ahmadinejad, Chávez has voiced his regime’s desire to acquire nuclear
technology, and Iranian officials have said they would oblige. And that may already be underway. In recent months, there have been persistent whispers in intelligence
circles suggesting that Iranian scientists and engineers are prospecting for uranium ore in the granite bedrock under the southeastern jungles of
Venezuela, a region rich with mineral deposits. It’s difficult to see why Chávez would want nuclear technology for peaceful, energy-
producing ends: Venezuela has the largest hydrocarbon reserves in the Americas and it already makes good use of its ample hydroelectricity generation potential.
THE END OF THE ROAD IS SOLVENCY

REMOVING THE TARIFF IS FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS SUBSIDIZING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL PRODUCTION
Renewable Fuels Association, “Removing Ethanol Tariff Not the Answer to High Gas Prices,” May 3, 2006
Removing the tariff on imported ethanol would do nothing to reduce prices at the pump, said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen. When you peel back the layers
of this onion, you quickly realize removing the tariff doesn’t pass the smell test. Doing so would be the equivalent of asking American taxpayers to subsidize already heavily
supported Brazilian ethanol production at a time when Brazil‚ supply of ethanol is tight and U.S. supplies are more than sufficient.

1AC V2
THE AMAZON DOESN'T PROVIDE THE RIGHT CONDITIONS FOR SUGARCANE – IT WON’T BE SACRIFICED
Alan Clendenning, Associated Press "Brazil: Ethanol farming won't impact Amazon rain forest". Oakland Tribune. Jul 10, 2007.
FindArticles.com. 24 Jun. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070710/ai_n19354074
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- Brazil's president said Monday that his nation's booming ethanol business won't hurt the Amazon rain forest, dismissing
criticism that increased production of the alternate fuel could lead to deforestation.
Silva, referring to concerns raised during his European visit last week, said it is unjustified to think that increased production of sugar cane for ethanol could prompt more
jungle clearing.
He said that Amazon weather conditions aren't favorable for the sugar cane used to produce ethanol and suggested critics are trying to
prevent Brazil from advancing economically by taking advantage of rising demand for biofuels.
"The Portuguese discovered a long time ago that the Amazon isn't a place to plant cane," Silva said, and added, "The cartel of the
world's powerful is trying to prevent Brazil from developing, trying to prevent Brazil from being transformed into a great nation."
BRAZIL IS IDEAL TO PRODUCE SUGARCANE—AND ATTEMPTS TO PRODUCE IT IN THE U.S. WILL FAIL
Potter, 2008 (Nancy I. Potter Washington University Global Studies Law Review, “HOW BRAZIL ACHIEVED ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND THE LESSONS THE UNITED STATES SHOULD LEARN FROM BRAZIL'S EXPERIENCE”, 7 Wash. U.
Global Stud. L. Rev. 331, 2008, L-N)
When Brazil decided to support and develop sugarcane-based ethanol as an alternative to oil, it had the natural resources to make that
happen. Brazil is blessed with ample rainfall, large quantities of unused fertile land, and cheap labor, n119 which makes it an ideal
location to produce large amounts of sugarcane. n120
The United States, on the other hand, is unable to produce large amounts of sugarcane, due largely to differences in climate, limited amounts of
available farm land, and comparatively high labor costs. n121 Instead, the United States has focused on the more expensive corn-based ethanol. n122 In 2006, twenty
percent of the nation's corn harvest was utilized in ethanol production, n123 which supplied a mere two to three percent of the nation's non-diesel automotive fuel. n124 Even if the entire U.S. grain harvest was
converted into ethanol, it would only satisfy sixteen percent of U.S. transportation fuel needs. n125
Simply put, the differing natural resources in the United States and Brazil make it impossible for the United States to use either sugar or
corn-based ethanol as a means of becoming fully independent given current technologies. However, in 1973 Brazil did not possess the technology to produce ethanol as efficiently as it
does today. n126 Instead, over the past [*348] three decades Brazil invested in and researched the production of sugar-based ethanol so that today it is capable of efficiently producing ethanol. n127
While more investment in corn-based ethanol will likely yield increased efficiency in the production of corn and ethanol, it is unlikely
that corn alone will solve the U.S. energy dependence problem. n128 Instead, the United States needs to focus on both corn-based ethanol and other abundant natural resources. n129

INHERENC Y/SOLVENCY
1AC INHERENCY AND SOLVENCY

CONTENTION 1: GET THE CORN OUT OF THE MOUTH AND THE CANE DOWN THE THROAT
INITIAL NOTE—BUSH HAS PROMISED TO DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
A major opponent of the tariff is the President of the United States. n110 This may conflict with his goals to increase domestic ethanol
production. In the 2006 State of the Union, President Bush announced a goal to make "ethanol practical and competitive within six
years." n111 In this speech, the President stressed the need for alternative fuel as a means of attaining energy independence.
Similarly, upon signing the EPAct in 2005, President Bush emphasized how the Act is a step towards energy independence. When
discussing the RFS portion of the EPAct, President Bush touted it as accomplishing many things, including reducing dependency on
foreign energy. n112 The emphasis, however, is specifically placed on being independent from Middle Eastern energy sources. n113
influx of alternative fuels from more "friendly" nations will not undermine his goals. However, Latin America, like the Middle East,
has a history of political instability. If energy independence in general is President Bush's goal, it is questionable whether being less
dependent on foreign oil is worth being more dependent on foreign ethanol.
AND THIS MAKES A SWITCH TO ETHONAL IS INEVITABLE

[*25] The United States is recognizing the value and importance of energy diversification, but it may also be creating greater
environmental harm in the process. n1 If America decreases its dependence on foreign oil it will create greater economic security for
itself, reduce its current account deficit, provide less financing for tyrannical leaders and terrorists with American petro-dollars, and
improve its environmental credentials. n2 To reduce America's craving for oil, the government encourages domestic ethanol
production; the United States is behind only Brazil, the world's largest producer of ethanol, and combined the two produce over 70
percent of the world's ethanol. n3 Currently the U.S. domestic ethanol industry is growing as a result of alternative fuels becoming
politically popular, and the addition of a subsidy and tariff applied to ethanol. n4 However, arguably the ethanol tariff and subsidy do
not provide any substantial environmental benefits for the United States or the world. n5
BUT DUE TO CURRENT TARIFFS AND DUTIES THIS SWITCH WILL BE ACHIEVED THROUGH CORN RATHER
THAN SUGAR
Sautter, Furrey, and Gresham—2007 (* John A. Sautter received his BA from New York University and his Ph.D. from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Laura Furrey received her B.S. from California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo and is
a licensed professional civil engineer in the state of California. Lee Gresham received his BA from the College of the Holy Cross and
is currently a Ph.D. student at Carnegie Mellon's School of Engineering and Public Policy. All three are research associates at the
Vermont Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, VT, “EXPLORING HOW TODAY'S
IMPORT TARIFFS
Today, importers of Brazilian ethanol pay a $ 0.54 per gallon import duty plus a 2.5 percent tax. This import tariff shields U.S.
producers from their Brazilian counterparts, whose sugar-derived ethanol is far cheaper to produce and has higher energy content than
corn-based fuel. n6 Even with the tariffs in place, about half of the 160 million gallons of ethanol that the United States imported in
2004 came from Brazil, and Brazil is spending $ nine billion on new facilities to export even more. n7 This could pay off, as soaring
U.S. wholesale prices are making Brazilian imports more competitive with domestic supplies. The import tariff will expire at the end
of September 2007, but many federal legislators hope to see it extended n8 because it has generated revenues of $ 53 million and $ 22
million in 2004 and 2005, respectively. n9 Additionally, a most-favored nation ad valorem tariff is applied on imports of un-denatured
ethyl alcohol (80 percent volume alcohol or higher) and denatured alcohol. n10 Revenues under the ad valorem tariff have been less
than eight million dollars per year in recent years. n11

INHERENCY
TALKS BETWEEN BRAZIL AND THE US OVER ETHANOL ARE INCREASING BUT THE TARIFF WILL REMAIN
Schneyer—2007 (Josh Schneyer is a staff writer for the Platts Oilgram News, “Ethanol talks to dominate Bush’s Brazil visit; Trade
barrier to remin, no change on import tariff: analysts”, Pg. 1 Vol. 85 No. 49, 3/9/08, L-N)
As US President George W. Bush descends on Latin America for a five-country tour beginning in Brazil March 8, US-Brazil
cooperation on fuel ethanol will dominate a meeting between Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
But officials and market analysts do not expect the talks to bring any immediate change to global ethanol trade.
Bush will meet Lula early March 9, tour a Sao Paulo fuels terminal controlled by Petrobras, and sign a memorandum of understanding
to boost US-Brazilian cooperation on ethanol projects throughout the Americas, Brazil's Foreign Ministry said March 8.
The US will not commit to any immediate reduction of tariffs to allow a major boost in Brazilian ethanol exports to the US,
government officials from both countries said this week. Brazil and the US together produce more than 70% of the world's ethanol and
are the top consumers of the renewable fuel.
Lula will push the US administration to accept a "gradual" phasing out of the US tariff on ethanol imports, which is $0.54/gal,
Brazilian financial daily Valor Economico reported March 8, citing government sources. Lula said March 5 the US tariff "doesn't
make sense" if the US wants to boost ethanol supplies, since Brazil's cheap sugarcane ethanol production could help meet US demand.
US officials, however, said earlier this week a reduction in the tariff opposed by the farm lobby and by the US Renewable Fuels
Association, is not on the negotiating table in the upcoming talks with Brazil. Stephen Hadley, the US National Security Advisor, said
this week talks with Brazil will not revolve around the tariff issue, which he called a "congressional matter," and that Brazil and the
US have no intention of setting up an ethanol cartel.
THE TARIFF IS IN PLACE AND WONT BE REMOVED UNTILL IT EXPIRES IN 09

The United States currently places a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on most imported ethanol. Brazilian producers have long labeled the tariff
hypocritical, saying that it is exactly the kind of trade barrier that U.S. officials oppose in other countries.
"It's not about free trade, but fair trade," said Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington-based
lobbying group that says lifting the tariff would amount to the United States supporting Brazilian producers. "The tariff has never
served as a barrier to entry. More than 400 million gallons of ethanol came in from Brazil alone last year -- straight from Sao Paulo to
New York Harbor."
The tariff is unlikely to be lifted during the current talks. It expires in 2009, and many in the industry believe the government is
unlikely to address the issue before a presidential election year.
"The administration has indicated it would support lifting the tariff, but I think the current inclination is to allow it to expire and have
that discussion at a later date," said Brian Dean, head of the private Interamerican Ethanol Commission, which was created in
December by then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) to encourage U.S. ethanol partnerships with Brazil and other Latin American nations.
THE TARIFF IS HERE AND STRONG—REMOVING IT WOULD JUMP START THE ENTIRE MARKET
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
IV. The Impact of the Removal of the Ethanol Tariff
Currently, the U.S. ethanol industry is unable to match the price of Brazilian-produced ethanol. n95 However, every gallon of ethanol
imported into the United States is subjected to a fifty-four cent tariff. n96 Congress must now decide whether to renew the tariff,
scheduled to expire on October 1st, 2007. n97 Congress has most recently considered the future of alternative fuels in the passing of
the EPAct, specifically with the RFS. If the RFS is a sign of Congress's intent to merely increase ethanol usage, then the tariff may not
be necessary. The removal of the tariff may jumpstart the ethanol market in the United States by forcing domestic manufacturers to
produce ethanol at a competitive rate. Alternatively, if Congress intended the RFS to be part of a greater domestic ethanol scheme,
then the tariff may be necessary to bolster domestic ethanol production. [*703] If, as the legislative history suggests, the RFS
mandate's purpose is to foster energy independence, then the tariff should be renewed.

INHERENCY
US TARIFFS ON BRAZILIAN ETHANOL ARE PREVENTING A MARKET FROM FORMING IN THE US
Bloomberg, “Latin America” 4/20/06
The U.S. should cut tariffs on ethanol and allow lower-cost Brazilian producers to tap demand for the alternative auto fuel in the
world's biggest market, said Jose Sergio Gabrielli, head of Brazil's state oil company.
A tariff of 14.27 cent a liter (54 cent a gallon) makes it unprofitable to sell ethanol in the U.S., the president of Petroleo Brasileiro SA
said in an interview. Petrobras is the world's largest buyer of ethanol, made from sugar-cane in Brazil, the world's largest producer.
U.S. tariffs are blocking out foreign ethanol as demand for the fuel to be blended in gasoline jumps because of changes in fuel
specifications. Ethanol is replacing methyl tertiary butyl ether because of health concerns. Concern that the phase-out may disrupt auto
fuel supplies helped boost gasoline prices 15 percent this month.
``The U.S. is the market where we would like to be,'' Gabrielli, 57, said at his company's headquarters in Rio de Janeiro. ``But there is
a tariff in the U.S. that makes it very hard for Brazilian producers to reach the U.S. market.''
Tariffs and other trade restrictions are preventing the development of a world ethanol market and limiting consumer access to non-
petroleum fuels even as oil reaches record highs, Gabrielli said.

NOW IS KEY
DESPITE TARIFFS US IS THE LARGEST IMPORTER OF BRAZILIAN ETHONAL—REMOVING THE TARIFF NOW
IS KEY TO GAIN THE BENIFITS
Brazil produced around 17 billion liters of ethanol last year, exporting nearly 3.5 billion liters, and the US was the top destination for
Brazil's ethanol exports, despite the tariffs in place. Some Brazilian energy experts, however, remain highly optimistic that the Bush
visit could mark the beginning of a new energy alliance between Brazil and the US that will significantly raise Brazil's energy profile.
"Now's the time to take advantage of all of the pressure Bush feels in the US to guarantee national energy security. It's even possible to
envision an alliance in which Brazil could become, within 10 years, an energy partner as important as Saudi Arabia is to the US,"
wrote Brazilian Jean-Paul Prates, the president of Brazilian oil consultancy ExPetro, in a blog entry this week.

SUGAR ETHANOL IS EFFECTIVE

BRAZILIAN ETHANOL IS MORE EFFECTIVE AND WOULD BE POPULAR TO US CONSUMERS WITHOUT THE
HIGH TARIFFS
Times Online, “Brazil to Press Bush for Cut in US Ethanol Tariff,” March 9, 2007
While Mr Bush has made ethanol a key component of his plan to cut America’s dependence on oil by 20 per cent by 2017, the US
maintains a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol imports to protect its own ethanol industry. Brazilian ethanol is far cheaper to
produce and more environmen-tally efficient than US ethanol. Produced from sugar cane, it yields eight units of energy for every unit
used in its production. US ethanol is maize based and yields little more than the amount of energy accounted for in its production.
Brazil has tried to attract American companies to invest in its ethanol industry. The US ethanol industry says that dropping the tariff,
which is due for renewal in 2009, would make Brazilian ethanol far more attractive for US customers. It may also spur investment in
Brazilian mills, which they say would amount to the US subsidising the development of Brazil’s ethanol industry.

REMOVING THE TARIFF CAUSES R&D AND SOLVES CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

PLAN TURBO-CHARGES CELLULOSE ETHANOL
Washington Post, 2/8/2007 (U.S. Seeks Partnership With Brazil on Ethanol, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702316.html)
If an agreement between the two countries is signed, both will likely share some of the technological advances each has been pursuing
independently. The U.S. Energy Department last year opened two research centers to study how to better derive ethanol from cellulose
material -- a development that could turn a wide variety of plants into fuel sources. Brazil, meanwhile, has been conducting similar
research, and some in the industry believe pooling sources could lead to quicker breakthroughs.

REMOVING THE TARIFF SOVLES EVERYTHING

REMOVING THE TARIFF ON ETHANOL WOULD SOLVE FREE TRADE IN BIOFULES, US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS,
INCREASE R&D IN BIOFULES, AND BOOST THE DOHA ROUND
Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin American in the Sarah and Douglas Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation. 2008 (Meeting Energy Challenges in the Western Hemisphere,
While Brazil's ethanol producers are apparently working at full capacity, eventually removing the 54-cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian
ethanol would help promote free trade in biofuels and could have a catalytic effect on U.S.–Brazil relations. I will note that this
proposition was most recently endorsed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. This positive move could also encourage
Brazilians and others to invest in more research in promising second-generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. Also, working
with Brazil to revitalize the Doha Round of global free trade talks will strengthen our hand and forge a stronger U.S.–Brazil
partnership.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH KEY

THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENTS OF ENERGY, TREASURY, AND AGRICULTURE WOULD DO THE PLAN
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security in the Douglas and
Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies,
at The Heritage Foundation. 2007 (Two Cheers for the President's Brazilian Ethanol Initiative,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1401.cfm)
Protectionism on the domestic front should not become a stumbling block on the road to energy security and regional stability—the
issues President Bush was attempting to address with the new ethanol alliance with Brazil. Therefore, the Bush Administration should:
Eliminate the tariffs and quotas on sugar-cane ethanol before 2009. The White House should lead the way, in cooperation with the
Department of Energy, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Agriculture. This is crucial to convince Brazil and other
countries contemplating expanding ethanol production that the United States can provide a reliable market for their ethanol exports.
Market-distorting U.S. policies will only hinder the development of ethanol as a global, competitive commodity. With today's
technologies, domestic producers of corn-based ethanol will be unable to meet the goals envisaged by the President in his 2007 State
of the Union speech. Ethanol importation will be necessary.

CONGRESS KEY
ETHONAL TARIFFS IS A CONGRESSIONAL MATTER
US officials, however, said earlier this week a reduction in the tariff opposed by the farm lobby and by the US Renewable Fuels
Association, is not on the negotiating table in the upcoming talks with Brazil. Stephen Hadley, the US National Security Advisor, said
this week talks with Brazil will not revolve around the tariff issue, which he called a "congressional matter," and that Brazil and the
US have no intention of setting up an ethanol cartel.

PLAN INCREASES REGIONAL PRODUCTION

REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD PUSH THE BRAZILIAN ETHANOL MARKET OFF THE GROUND
Protectionism on the domestic front should not become a stumbling block on the road to energy security and regional stability—the
issues President Bush was attempting to address with the new ethanol alliance with Brazil. Therefore, the Bush Administration should:
Eliminate the tariffs and quotas on sugar-cane ethanol before 2009. The White House should lead the way, in cooperation with the
Department of Energy, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Agriculture. This is crucial to convince Brazil and other
countries contemplating expanding ethanol production that the United States can provide a reliable market for their ethanol exports.
Market-distorting U.S. policies will only hinder the development of ethanol as a global, competitive commodity. With today's
technologies, domestic producers of corn-based ethanol will be unable to meet the goals envisaged by the President in his 2007 State
of the Union speech. Ethanol importation will be necessary.
REMOVING THE TARIFF LEADS TO GLOBAL PRODUCTION

Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, 2006 (Let The Ethanol Imports Flow: Congress should do
drivers a favor and end tariffs and other roadblocks, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060606a.cfm)
Instead of creating legal hoops for other countries to jump through, U.S. lawmakers should allow foreign ethanol into the country
without penalties or special requirements. Over time, this would spur increased global production. Both exporting and importing
nations would benefit through increased trade and lower prices. While permanent repeal is better, even a temporary suspension would
bring some relief.

PLAN INCREASES BRAZILIAN PRODUCTION

INCREASING DEMAND INCREASES PRODUCTION
barrier to remain, no change on import tariff: analysts”, Pg. 1 Vol. 85 No. 49, 3/9/08, L-N)
Brazil has been attracting major foreign investment to its ethanol sector, although much of the investment is meant to boost export
supplies to Asia. JBIC and Mitsui & Company have pledged to enter ethanol production, distribution and export infrastructure in
Brazil alongside Petrobras, in a plan Petrobras said earlier this week may be worth $8 billion, and could supply Japan with 3.5 billion
liters of ethanol per year by 2010.
On March 8, local Agencia Estado newswire reported that a Russian tycoon is considering investment of up to $2 billion in Brazilian
ethanol projects. The report cited an executive at Brazil's Promotion of Exports Agency, APEX.
A boost in Brazilian sugarcane production could mean the country will produce additional ethanol this year.
Brazil's statistical agency, IBGE, said in a report March 8 that the country's sugarcane harvest is likely to grow to a record 490 million
mt this year, up from 458 million mt last year, when the harvest already was considered a bumper crop.
Plantation is expanding quickly in Brazil to meet rising global demand for ethanol, IBGE said.
BRAZIL CAN REPLACE 460 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL PER YEAR, AND THEY HAVE ENOUGH CROP SUPPLY
AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO CONTINUE
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
The organizational system that Proalcool created for ethanol allowed the fuel to make a comeback once the price of oil spiked again in
2002. n45 Ethanol is a booming industry in Brazil, employing an estimated 70,000 people and providing enough fuel "to replace 460
million barrels of oil" per year. n46 The industry has a plentiful crop supply, as Brazil is the largest producer of sugar in the world. n47
With the existing infrastructure, approximately half of this sugar will be converted into ethanol. n48
THE CURRENT TARIFF FORCE A FOCUS ON CORN—BUT WE STILL USE SUGAR ETHANOL REGARDLESS; AND
BRAZIL IS PREPARING TO INCREASE PRODUCTION
IMPORT TARIFFS
Today, importers of Brazilian ethanol pay a $ 0.54 per gallon import duty plus a 2.5 percent tax. This import tariff shields U.S.
producers from their Brazilian counterparts, whose sugar-derived ethanol is far cheaper to produce and has higher energy content than
corn-based fuel. n6 Even with the tariffs in place, about half of the 160 million gallons of ethanol that the United States imported in
2004 came from Brazil, and Brazil is spending $ nine billion on new facilities to export even more. n7 This could pay off, as soaring
U.S. wholesale prices are making Brazilian imports more competitive with domestic supplies. The import tariff will expire at the end
of September 2007, but many federal legislators hope to see it extended n8 because it has generated revenues of $ 53 million and $ 22
million in 2004 and 2005, respectively. n9 Additionally, a most-favored nation ad valorem tariff is applied on imports of un-denatured
ethyl alcohol (80 percent volume alcohol or higher) and denatured alcohol. n10 Revenues under the ad valorem tariff have been less
than eight million dollars per year in recent years. n11

INCREASED PRODUCTION INCREASES EXPORTATION

INCREASES IN PRODUCTION WILL INEVITABLY EXPAND EXPORTATION—THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF THE US
WILL BE AN IMPORTER OF THIS ETHANOL
Potter—2008 (Nancy I. Potter Washington University Global Studies Law Review, “HOW BRAZIL ACHIEVED ENERGY
Today, Brazil converts half of its sugarcane crop into ethanol n45 and expects to significantly enlarge the amount of land devoted to
sugarcane in order to increase ethanol production. n46 Brazil anticipates that the increased ethanol production will further expand the
nation's export of this alternative fuel. n47 The increase in exports, however, will likely occur outside the U.S. market, since the
United States, in an effort to protect American farmers, imposes a fifty-four cent per gallon tax on ethanol imports. n48

A2 BRAZIL CANT PRODUCE ENOUGH/DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH SUGAR

MILL CONSTRUCTION SOLVE YOUR ARGUMENT
Brazil's largest sugar and ethanol producer, Cosan, announced on 19 April plans to invest US$1.7 billion over the next four years to
boost the production of sugar, ethanol and sugar-based electricity production. At the center of this plan is the construction of a sugar
cane processing plant in the Brazilian state of Goias, which will have the capacity to mill some 500,000 tonnes by 2009.
This mill will contribute sugar cane feedstock to Brazil's 350 ethanol processing plants. Another 50 are under construction, and some
57 projects are currently seeking investment. As these plants come online, they will boost Brazil's ethanol output from current
production levels at 17 billion liters a year to some 24 billion liters by 2010.
YOUR DUMB—BRAZIL HAS TO MUCH NOT TO LITTLE

Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
[*704] The debate over the ethanol tariff most directly affects Brazil, as its strong domestic ethanol program makes it the likely source
for imported ethanol. Not only has ethanol reduced Brazil's need for imported oil, it has now become a major export for the country.
n106 While Brazil is a large country, its population does not require the large amount of ethanol produced domestically. It is estimated
that Brazil will export two-thirds of its sugar and 13.5% of its ethanol. n107 For the past few years, Brazil has exported much of this
surplus ethanol to India. n108 This year, however, India's production of domestic ethanol will meet the country's demand and it will no
longer import from Brazil. n109 With production continuing to grow, Brazil is looking to the United States to take on the additional
ethanol.
BRAZIL WILL DOUBLE THEIR ETHANOL PRODUCTION

First, thanks to emerging cellulosic biofuels technology, using the existing byproducts of sugar and ethanol production, namely the
bagasse, the Brazilian industry expects to double ethanol production without increasing land use. And cooperating with existing
research and development efforts in the U.S. and beyond, promising technologies can be combined with existing infrastructure to
make a range of fuel products, beyond automobiles and competitive with lower crude oil prices.

CORN ADVATAGE
1AC CORN ADVANTAGE

CONTENTION ( ): CHILDREN OF THE CORN
CURRENT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOCUS ON CORN WILL INEVITABLE COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRY
<INSERT CORN BAD SHELL(S)>
REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD CHILL THE DOMESTIC ETHANOL INDUSTRY TO MAKE ROOM FOR
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL TO FILL
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
Representative Boswell (D-IA) introduced legislation in the House on May 19, 2006, seeking to extend the temporary ethanol tariff
until January 1, 2011. n133 Representative Boswell is a supporter of the tariff, as domestic ethanol production is important to his
constituency. According to Representative Boswell, "the tariff has helped America's ethanol producers succeed and it's simply not the
time to halt its progress at a time when the ethanol industry is picking up speed." n134 Similarly, Senator Grassley (R-IA) views the
potential removal of the tariff as undermining the purpose of the RFS in the EPAct. n135 Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Finance, argues that removing the tariff will not lower prices for consumers but will only counteract the progress made
A second argument is that the EPAct mandates represent the country's desire to obtain energy independence. The tariff, therefore,
serves as an example of the government's determination to promote the growth of the domestic industry rather than support foreign
industries. Senator Thune (R-SD) supported the EPAct as a way for the federal government to reduce foreign dependency as well as
invest in existing state ethanol programs. n137 Senator Obama (D-IL) supported the RFS portion of the EPAct primarily because of
the possibility of reducing dependency on foreign oil. n138
[*708] Since Brazil is already exporting some ethanol duty-free through the CBERA, Senator Brownback (R-KS) argues that
removing the tariff will only improve foreign access to the U.S. market without benefits or reciprocity. n139 The tariff, therefore,

CORN COLLAPSE INEVITABLE

CORN USE FOR EHTHANOL WILL INEVITABLY COLLAPSE
Alan Guebert is a syndicated columnist who writes weekly for The Pantagraph, 2006 (Many fear the inevitable bust of ethanol,
http://www.pantagraph.com/blogs/main/?p=1197)
For example, how will U.S. farmers and their commercial counterparts store the billions more bushels of corn needed for ethanol
when we cannot now store an 11 billion bushel crop?
Also, how will these huge amounts of grain move in — and by-products move out — of the ethanol facilities when our current rail and
trucking sectors can’t move today’s lesser amounts?
And what will the transportation cost? American farmers pay twice commercial freight rates already; will those fees go even higher?
And too, if the vast majority of future corn production flows into domestic biofuel production should taxpayers now spend billions for
scheduled Mississippi and Illinois River lock improvements even though American grain exports are likely to tumble?
These aren’t esoteric or angry questions; they are questions nearly every farmer asks as he views today’s corn Klondike. They neither
want nor need a gold rush. What they need are answers so ethanol can become sustainable as it remains profitable.
But today’s grab-it-while-you-can approach is going to cost billions when it busts. Just ask any farmer.

CORN BAD—AMAZON (SHELL)

U.S. corn subsidies for ethanol production are contributing to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, reports a tropical forest scientist writing in this week's issue of the
journal Science.
a recent spike in Amazonian forest fires may be linked to U.S. subsidies that promote
Dr. William Laurance, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, says that
American corn production for ethanol over soy production. The shift from soy to corn has led to a near doubling in soy prices during the past 14
months. High prices are, in turn, driving conversion of rainforest and savanna in Brazil for soy expansion.
"American taxpayers are spending $11 billion a year to subsidize corn producers—and this is having some surprising global consequences," said Laurance. "Amazon fires and forest destruction have spiked over
the last several months, especially in the main soy-producing states in Brazil. Just about everyone there attributes this to rising soy and
beef prices."
Brazilian satellite data show a marked increase in the number of fires and deforestation in the region. The states of Para and Mato Grosso -- the heart of Brazil's
booming agricultural frontier -- both experienced a 50 percent or more increase in forest loss over the same period last year coupled with a large jump in burning: a 39-85 percent jump in the number of fires in Para during the July-September burning period and 100-127
percent rise in Mato Grosso, depending on the satellite. More broadly, the 50,729 fires recorded by the Terra satellite and 72,329 measured by the AQUA satellite across the Brazilian Amazon are the highest on record based on available data going back to 2003 (the
NMODIS-01D satellite suggests 2005 burning was higher but still shows a 54 percent jump since last year). Reports from the ground indicate that burning is indeed very bad this year.
"The fires are even worse than in 1998´s El Niño event... A huge area of the Xingu National Park
"I have never seen fires this bad," John Cain Carter, a rancher who runs the NGO Aliança da Terra, told mongabay.com.
was on fire, truly sickening as it is a sign of things to come."
high soy prices affect the Amazon both directly and indirectly.
Laurance says that
Soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has expanded at a rate of 14.1 percent per year since 1990—16.8 percent annually since 2000—and now covers more than eight million hectares.
"In addition," continued Laurance, "higher soy costs tend to raise beef prices because soy-based livestock feeds become more expensive, creating
an indirect incentive for forest conversion to pasture. Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy lobby has been a driving force behind
initiatives to expand Amazonian highway networks, which greatly increase access to forests for ranchers, farmers, loggers, and land
speculators."
Satellite imagery from NASA supports Laurance. Data released this summer indicates that much of the recent burning is concentrated around two major
Amazon roads: Trans-Amazon highway in the state of Amazonas, and the unpaved portion of the BR-163 Highway in the state of Pará.
Laurance says that while it is too early to conclusively show the impact of U.S. corn subsidies, "we're seeing that these predictions—first
made last summer by the Woods Hole Research Center's Daniel Nepstad and colleagues—are being borne out. The evidence of a corn connection to the Amazon is
circumstantial, but it's about as close as you ever get to a smoking gun."
"Biofuel from corn doesn't seem very beneficial when you consider its full environmental costs," said Laurance. "Corn-based ethanol is
supposed to reduce greenhouse gases, but it's unlikely to do so if it promotes tropical deforestation—one the main drivers of harmful
climate change."
The U.S. corn harvest will be 335 million tons this year, up 25 percent since last year. About 85 million tons of this will be converted into ethanol, up from 15 million tons in 2000. The World bank estimates that the amount of corn needed to fill the gas tank of an SUV is
enough to feed a person for a year.


CORN BAD—AMAZON
U.S. corn subsidies for ethanol production are contributing to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, reports a tropical forest scientist
writing in this week's issue of the journal Science.
Dr. William Laurance, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, says that a recent spike in Amazonian forest fires
may be linked to U.S. subsidies that promote American corn production for ethanol over soy production. The shift from soy to corn
has led to a near doubling in soy prices during the past 14 months. High prices are, in turn, driving conversion of rainforest and
savanna in Brazil for soy expansion.
"American taxpayers are spending $11 billion a year to subsidize corn producers—and this is having some surprising global
consequences," said Laurance. "Amazon fires and forest destruction have spiked over the last several months, especially in the main
soy-producing states in Brazil. Just about everyone there attributes this to rising soy and beef prices."
Brazilian satellite data show a marked increase in the number of fires and deforestation in the region. The states of Para and Mato
Grosso -- the heart of Brazil's booming agricultural frontier -- both experienced a 50 percent or more increase in forest loss over the
same period last year coupled with a large jump in burning: a 39-85 percent jump in the number of fires in Para during the July-
September burning period and 100-127 percent rise in Mato Grosso, depending on the satellite. More broadly, the 50,729 fires
recorded by the Terra satellite and 72,329 measured by the AQUA satellite across the Brazilian Amazon are the highest on record
based on available data going back to 2003 (the NMODIS-01D satellite suggests 2005 burning was higher but still shows a 54 percent
jump since last year). Reports from the ground indicate that burning is indeed very bad this year.
"I have never seen fires this bad," John Cain Carter, a rancher who runs the NGO Aliança da Terra, told mongabay.com. "The fires are
even worse than in 1998´s El Niño event... A huge area of the Xingu National Park was on fire, truly sickening as it is a sign of things
to come."
Laurance says that high soy prices affect the Amazon both directly and indirectly.
Soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon has expanded at a rate of 14.1 percent per year since 1990—16.8 percent annually since
2000—and now covers more than eight million hectares.
"In addition," continued Laurance, "higher soy costs tend to raise beef prices because soy-based livestock feeds become more
expensive, creating an indirect incentive for forest conversion to pasture. Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy lobby has been a driving
force behind initiatives to expand Amazonian highway networks, which greatly increase access to forests for ranchers, farmers,
loggers, and land speculators."
Satellite imagery from NASA supports Laurance. Data released this summer indicates that much of the recent burning is concentrated
around two major Amazon roads: Trans-Amazon highway in the state of Amazonas, and the unpaved portion of the BR-163 Highway
in the state of Pará.
Laurance says that while it is too early to conclusively show the impact of U.S. corn subsidies, "we're seeing that these predictions—
first made last summer by the Woods Hole Research Center's Daniel Nepstad and colleagues—are being borne out. The evidence of a
corn connection to the Amazon is circumstantial, but it's about as close as you ever get to a smoking gun."
"Biofuel from corn doesn't seem very beneficial when you consider its full environmental costs," said Laurance. "Corn-based ethanol
is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases, but it's unlikely to do so if it promotes tropical deforestation—one the main drivers of
harmful climate change."
The U.S. corn harvest will be 335 million tons this year, up 25 percent since last year. About 85 million tons of this will be converted
into ethanol, up from 15 million tons in 2000. The World bank estimates that the amount of corn needed to fill the gas tank of an SUV
is enough to feed a person for a year.

CORN BAD—AMAZON
CORN ETHANOL RAISES THE PRICE OF SOY CAUSING DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON
Weatherby—2008 (Craig Weatherby is a Staff Writer for Vital Choice, “Corn-based fuel fares poorly in new analysis”, VOLUME 5
ISSUE 191 1/7/08, http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_article000987633.cfm?x=b7N6sbv,b1kJpvRw,w)
The rise in corn production in the US is having unintended negative consequences on one of the world’s most precious bio-resources.
From 2006 to the end of 2007 US corn production rose 19 percent, entirely due to demand for ethanol, while soy harvests fell by 15
percent. This has pushed up prices for corn, and for conventional beef and pork raised on the grain.
And, this subsidy-driven shift from corn to soy has nearly doubled global soy prices since late 2006.
After the US, Brazil is the world's largest soy producer. Higher world prices for soy are accelerating destruction of that nation’s
Amazon rainforest and tropical savannas, to make room for more soy acreage.
The main soy-producing states in Brazil have seen a spike in Amazon fires and forest destruction over the last several months, with no
explanation other than fast-rising soy (and beef) prices (STRI 2007).
SOYBEAN IS THE ROOT OF BRAZILIAN AMAZON DEFORESTATION

Chiew—2006 (Hilary Chiew is a Senior Botanist, “Lungs of the World”, 11/28/06,
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2006/11/28/lifefocus/15643815&sec=lifefocus)
Like many conservationists, Prance, who was director of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew between 1988 and 1999, is perturbed by
expanding soy plantations in Brazil.
“I’ll be meeting the Brazilian environment minister soon to discuss the impact of soy plantations. I think it’s my responsibility as a
scientist to make use of the opportunity to talk to decision-makers and make meaningful intervention,” revealed the botanist during a
recent visit to Kuala Lumpur.
Soybean, which originated from China, has taken root in cleared Brazilian forests as farmers have bred appropriate strains. Prance said
soy plantation depletes soil fertility after some years, hence more forests need to be cleared for farmers to gain access to fertile land.
CORN ETHANOL MAKES DESTRUCTION OF THE AMAZON INEVITABLE DUE TO THE HIGH PRICE OF SOY
Laurance—2007 (William F. Laurance is Research Fellow and Editor at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, “Switch to Corn
Promotes Amazon Deforestation”, Science: Vol. 318. no. 5857, p. 1721, 12/14/07,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5857/1721b)
The United States is the world's leading producer of soy, however, many u.s. farmers are shifting from soy to corn (maize) in order to
qualify for generous government subsidies intended to promote biofuel production (1); since 2006, U.S. corn production has risen
19% while soy production has fallen by 15% (2). This in turn is helping to drive a major increase in global soy prices (3), which have
nearly doubled in the past 14 months.
The rising price for soy has important consequences for Amazonian forests and savanna-woodlands (4). In Brazil, the world's second-
leading soy producer, deforestation rates (5) and especially fire incidence (6) have increased sharply in recent months in the main soy-
and beef-producing states in Amazonia (and not in states with little soy production). Although dry weather is a contributing factor,
these increases are widely attributed to rising soy and beef prices (5, 7), and studies suggest a strong link between Amazonian
deforestation and soy demand (8, 9).
Some Amazonian forests are directly cleared for soy farms (8). Farmers also purchase large expanses of cattle pasture for soy
production, effectively pushing the ranchers farther into the Amazonian frontier or onto lands unsuitable for soy production (9). In
addition, higher soy costs tend to raise global beef prices because soy-based livestock feeds become more expensive (10), creating an
indirect incentive for forest conversion to pasture. Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy lobby is a key driving force behind initiatives to
expand Amazonian highways and transportation networks in order to transport soybeans to market, and this is greatly increasing
access to forests for ranchers, loggers, and land speculators (11, 12).
In a globalized world, the impacts of local decisions about crop preferences can have far-reaching implications. As illustrated by an
apparent "corn connection" to Amazonian deforestation, the environmental benefits of corn-based biofuel might be considerably
reduced when its full and indirect costs are considered.

CORN BAD—AMAZON
SOY AND PALM PRODUCTION ARE LEADING DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON WHICH IS DRIVING
KEYSTONE SPECIES SUCH AS THE AMAZON RIVER DOLPHIN TO EXTINCTION ALONG WITH THE
EXTINCTION OF INDIGIENOUS CULTURES
RAN—2008 (Andrea in RAN General, “Rainforest Action Network’s agribusiness campaign puts Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) on
notice”, 8/24/07, http://understory.ran.org/2007/08/24/rainforest-action-network%E2%80%99s-agribusiness-campaign-puts-archer-
daniels-midland-adm-on-notice/
“Soy and palm oil plantations are expanding at an alarming rate into some of the last primary forests in the world – including tropical
forests in Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Uganda, Ghana, Argentina, Paraguay, and the Brazilian Amazon – as well as in the
Cerrado grasslands of central Brazil. These ecosystems represent some of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. Plantations
threaten the habitat of more than 130,000 plants and animals in the Amazon and Cerrado ecosystems. They threaten the survival of
such keystone species as the Amazon river dolphin, giant river otters and jaguars in the Amazon, as well as orangutans, Sumatran
tigers and Asian elephants in Indonesia, and countless other species in tropical ecosystems around the world. Industrial agricultural
plantations also threaten the survival of hundreds of Indigenous cultures, including some with little or no contact with the outside
world.”

AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—GENERAL

So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about
the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play
Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon
basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human
beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin
could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a
thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama:
What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the
face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests.
Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution
will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have
withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little
difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will
lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself
consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will
disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.14
AMAZON DEFORESTATION RISKS EXTINCTION—THEY ARE THE LUNGS OF THE WORLD

O’Neil, 97 (Martin, “Rain Forest Depletion”, 5/5,
http://www.northern.wvnet.edu/~tdanford/bio1/RAINFO.htm)
There are some really amazing facts about the Amazon rain forest. The Amazon alone covers 54% of all the world's rain forests, thus
making it literally the lungs of the Earth. We can say this because trees produce oxygen while they use carbon dioxide to maintain
their respiration. Rain forests cover about 7% of the Earth's surface, but host about 50-90% of the plant and animal population of the
entire world. The Amazon River has more species of fish than the entire Atlantic Ocean does. In less than 25 acres of rain forest there
are more species of trees than the entire continent of North America. A tree found in Peru was found to be the host to 43 different
species of ants. There are more species of birds on a Peru reserve than the entire United States has. A fact that is very highly regarded
about the Amazon rain forest is that of the 3000 species of plants that have been discovered there, 70% of these plants have anti-
cancerous properties. Also, 25% of these plants are now used to combat cancer. So as humankind continues to harvest the Amazon rain
forest which covers 1.2 million acres and 9 countries, they should also try to consider the devastating effects that it is having on our
race along with all the biological effects that it also carries. Although 1.2 million acres seems like a very large number, in the past four
decades that number was reduced in half to the current figure, so we see that this can not keep happening with out some type of
governing on what is occurring. If it does we may become an endangered species.
DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON IS HIGH AND WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION

Riera—2007 (Lilliam Riera is a Staff Writer for Granma International, “Ethanol = Massive Amazon Deforestation”, 6/17/08,
http://www.nowpublic.com/ethanol_massive_amazon_deforestation)
CUBAN experts who participated in the “The Amazon to the Caribbean by Canoe” expedition, in recounting that experience, believe
that one of the problems they identified 20 years ago – deforestation – is more present than ever on the continent, and has become a
serious threat to the survival of humanity.

AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—BIOD

THE AMAZON IS KEY TO GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY
CNN—2000 (“10 percent of Amazon rain forest to be preserved by coalition”, 5/14/00,
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/05/14/brazil.rainforest/index.html)
The Amazon ecosystem is the most plant-rich in the world.
"The Brazilian ecosystem is important to the whole world for many reasons," said GEF senior environmental specialist Mario A.
Ramos.
"The Amazon is the largest area of continuous tropical rain forest in the world compared with that of the Congo or Indochina. For
example, one-fifth of the world's plants are found in the Amazon ecosystem."
One in six of all the world's birds, one in 11 of the world's mammals and one in 15 of the world's reptiles are found in the Amazon
ecosystem.
But massive deforestation and development have fouled the environment and jeopardized many plant and animal species.
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY CULMINATES IN EXTINCTION

David N. Diner, 1994, Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, l/n
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death
-- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a
single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race.
n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward,
and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all
animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem
fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life,
and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many
direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the
environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide
additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and
Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and
animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants
and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the
species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could
save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they
may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely
interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline,
the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of
species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological
diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by
reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 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, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—DOLPHINS

SOY AND PALM PRODUCTION ARE LEADING DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON WHICH IS DRIVING
KEYSTONE SPECIES SUCH AS THE AMAZON RIVER DOLPHIN TO EXTINCTION ALONG WITH THE
EXTINCTION OF INDIGIENOUS CULTURES
RAN—2008 (Andrea in RAN General, “Rainforest Action Network’s agribusiness campaign puts Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) on
notice”, 8/24/07, http://understory.ran.org/2007/08/24/rainforest-action-network%E2%80%99s-agribusiness-campaign-puts-archer-
daniels-midland-adm-on-notice/
“Soy and palm oil plantations are expanding at an alarming rate into some of the last primary forests in the world – including tropical
forests in Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Uganda, Ghana, Argentina, Paraguay, and the Brazilian Amazon – as well as in the
Cerrado grasslands of central Brazil. These ecosystems represent some of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. Plantations
threaten the habitat of more than 130,000 plants and animals in the Amazon and Cerrado ecosystems. They threaten the survival of
such keystone species as the Amazon river dolphin, giant river otters and jaguars in the Amazon, as well as orangutans, Sumatran
tigers and Asian elephants in Indonesia, and countless other species in tropical ecosystems around the world. Industrial agricultural
plantations also threaten the survival of hundreds of Indigenous cultures, including some with little or no contact with the outside
world.”
AMAZON DEFORESTATION IS DRIVING THE PINK DOLPHIN TO EXTINCTION—THESE DOLPHINS HAVE A

HIGHER BRAIN CAPACITY THAN HUMANS
Life—2007 (“Pink Dolphins near Extinction”, 6/5/07, http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/pink-dolphins-near-extinction/offbeat-news)
Pink dolphins — Inia Geoffrensis, or more commonly known as ‘Botos’ in Brazil — are found in streams and main rivers of the
Orinoco River systems of South America, and tend to gather at convergences of rivers. Photo Enzym
Formerly living in harmony with the people of the Amazon for centuries, Botos now face extinction in some tributaries. What had
been considered one of the least threatened species of dolphins has now become one of the most endangered due to the accelerated and
commercialized pillage of the Amazon and the destruction of the South American tropical rainforest.
The Boto can vary in color from bright pink through to a murky brown, grey, blue-grey or creamy white. When young, the dolphins
are a light grey and develop in color later on. When they are excited or surprised, they become pinker — almost as if they’re blushing.
The cause for the unique coloration isn’t clearly understood, but the presence of capillaries near the surface of the skin likely accounts
for its characteristic pink flush. Other factors may include age, chemical composition of the water — especially iron content — the
temperature of the water, and the kind of food it eats.
Adults are typically 8 feet (2.5 meters) in length, weighing in at 330 pounds (150 kilos). The tail is large compared with its body size,
with 2 wavy-like flippers. The Boto doesn’t have a dorsal fin, but a bumpy raised ridge on the back. They possess long, thin beaks —
often lined with tiny hairs — with 25 - 35 pairs of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. Though their eyes are small they can see
quite well, except for their bulging cheeks hindering their downward view. This is conquered by swimming upside-down.
These sensitive mammals have a brain capacity 40% larger than that of humans.
THE PINK DOLPHIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN PROTECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE AMAZON—UNTIL RECENT
DEFORESTATION OF THE AMAZON HAS DEGRADED THEIR ENVIORNMENT
Life—2007 (“Pink Dolphins near Extinction”, 6/5/07, http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/pink-dolphins-near-extinction/offbeat-news)
Contrary to popular opinion, dolphins are capable of reacting aggressively towards humans under certain terms and conditions. There
are a number of reports of pink dolphins pushing people to the shore after their canoes have capsized.
Dolphins figure prominently in local mythology and their reputation varies from one tributary to another. In some locations, the pink
dolphins are considered as unpredictable wizards, in others they are benign and helpful semi-divine beings. Grey dolphins are usually
regarded as sacred animals, particularly by various Indian tribes.
Up until recent times, dolphins and people along the Amazon River coexisted in harmony. Only within the past three decades has the
relationship between man and dolphin been ruptured as a result of deforestation and habitat degradation.

AMAZON COLLAPSE BAD—DOLPHINS

PINK DOLPHINS ARE ENDANGERED BECAUSE OF POLLUTION INTO THEIR WATERS
Bouma—2008 (Enricke Bouma, “Animal conservation: the debate” 4/23/08,
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:tW0yovbWZykJ:www.earthfocusfoundation.org/storage/Animal_conservation_ICV_report_en.
pdf+pink+dolphin+captivity+amazon+deforestation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
Alizeh Jaffrey next presented the case of the Pink Dolphin, which at birth is not pink, but almost black, and gradually turns pink
because of its diet, which contains pigments it cannot digest. There are only about 120 pink dolphins left. They live near river mouths,
where the water is brackish. They don't migrate if the water gets polluted because they can't swim through salty water. This makes
them very vulnerable. Pink dolphins are endangered because of pollution (untreated sewage is dumped into the water in great
quantities), DDT (which passes through the mother's milk and kills baby fish), fishing (which often causes the accidental death of
dolphins) and hunting (because their meat is rare and expensive). "To save pink dolphins sewage needs to be better treated,
alternatives to DDT should be found, better net sizes should be used, fisherman should be more careful maneuvering their boats and
laws against slaughter should be stricter."

CORN BAD—BEEF (SHELL)

COWS WHO FEED ON CORN-ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO E. COLI: NOT ONLY IS THIS
ITSELF A DANGER BUT IT MAKES THE FOOD INDUSTRY VULNERABLE TO CONTAMINATION
Food First, institute for food and development policy, “What’s for Dinner? Corn Ethanol, Feedlots, and What you Eat,” April 10,
2008
Feedlots that use ethanol waste also threaten the food supply with E. coli outbreaks. A recent Kansas State University study shows that distillers grain promotes
the growth of E. coli. The study's authors warn of “serious ramifications,” predicting strong resistance to feeding ethanol waste. Cattle fed brewers grains, a similar product, are six times more likely to
have E. coli in their feces than cattle fed real corn. E. coli outbreaks in factory farms are common. The use of ethanol by-products will doubly increase this
phenomenon, both increasing the presence of E. coli and expanding the industrial model that makes our food system vulnerable to
contamination in the first place.
FOOD SAFETY IS KEY TO MAINTAINING HIGH CONSUMPTION OF BEEF

Schroeder, Tonsor, Pennings, and Mintert—2007 (Jed C. Schroeder is a Professor at Kansas State University, Glynn T. Tonsor is a
Professor at Michigan State University, Joost M.E. Pennings is a Professor at the University of Illinois, and James Mintert is a
Professor at Kansas State University “The Role of Consumer Risk Perceptions and Attitudes in Cross Cultural Beef Consumption
Changes”, 8/1/07, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:CT1X0Q4T0nUJ:ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10254/1/sp07sc01.pdf)
Beef Food Safety Concerns and Reactions
we wanted to determine to what extent consumption

Given concerns raised by at least some respondents about beef food safety and recent global beef food safety issues such as heavily publicized BSE events,
habits might have changed because of food safety concerns. Table 4 summarizes respondent changes in beef consumption in response to changing food safety concerns. In Canada and the U.S.
about 20% of consumers indicated that they have reduced beef consumption because of food safety concerns in the past four years. This is in sharp contrast to
Japan and Mexico where 55% and 31% of respondents, respectively, indicated they have reduced beef consumption because of food safety concerns. Among consumers that reduced their beef consumption, the typical reduction was substantial, ranging from 20% to
Roughly one-quarter of Canadian, U.S., and Japanese respondents reducing consumption virtually eliminated beef from their diet (80% or more reduction).
60%.
This demonstrates that the beef industry has lost an important segment of its customer base because of food safety concerns. This is
additional evidence that addressing food safety concerns within a supply chain management system are crucial to maintaining and
expanding beef market share.
LOWER CONSUMPTION OF BEEF HURTS THE U.S. ECONOMY

New York Times, February 18, 1991, Beef Producers Burdened by Growing Criticism.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE4DB1130F93BA25751C0A967958260
And while beef prices do not fluctuate wildly with bad news, as oil prices do, the decline in consumption has put pressure on prices, said
Tom McDermott, vice president of information for the National Livestock and Meat Board in Chicago. Balancing Supply and Demand
Forced to respond, the beef industry has firmed up prices by shrinking production to bring supplies in line with demand. It is also raising leaner cattle
in response to the health concerns. That is the case at Mr. Hendry's Clear Creek Cattle Company, which now produces leaner beef because it changed the type of bulls that are bred with cows.
Mr. Hendry is the third generation of his family to run the ranch, started by his Scottish immigrant grandfather in 1912. Today, the Hendry ranch consists of what was once nine separate spreads. It is a patchwork that stretches 50 miles by 36 miles at the furthest points,
in a section of Wyoming where the outlaw Butch Cassidy once hid.
In addition to aggressively promoting leaner and healthier cuts of beef, producers are also financing industry efforts to promote beef consumption and to dispute health and environmental charges.
Four years ago, the Beef Industry Council started a multimillion-dollar promotional campaign featuring celebrities like Cybill Shepherd and James Garner. It has since been revised to feature inhabitants of towns like Paradise, Tex., and Manhattan, Mont., as illustrations
that beef is "real food for real people." Prices on the Rebound
These efforts seem to be working. The price of a 500-pound calf, like those Mr. Hendry sells, had plunged by $78 between 1980 and 1986. But between 1986 and 1990, prices rose by $171, to $516 each, according to Cattle-Fax, a Denver-based industry research group.
In an average year, Mr. Hendry sells about 1,950 calves to feedlot operators that fatten them for slaughter. Buyers view the cows on videotape transmitted to some 900 sites nationwide via satellite. Winning bidders arrange for truck shipment. The current price is about
$1 a pound. If it were to drop by just 10 cents a pound, Clear Creek would be in trouble.
For now, however, the ranch is making money. It operates as a corporation, paying Mr. Hendry just $850 a month for his labor. The corporation also owns and provides the ranch house he lives in rent-free, plus grocery money. If Clear Creek makes a profit, the money
goes back into the business. Environmental Pressures
Aside from the economic and medical pressure on beef producers, environmental concerns are beginning to have an influence. The National Wildlife Federation, an environmental group in Washington, has charged that overgrazing is a major cause of deteriorating
productivity of Federal lands in 10 Western states. A 1989 report by the federation asserted that more than 68 percent of the 174 million acres held by the Bureau of Land Management were in unsatisfactory condition.
Critics also say ranchers pay too little to the Government to graze their herds on bureau lands. A move to increase grazing fees more than fivefold died in Congress last year.
These moves are especially threatening to Western ranches, like Clear Creek, which are often a patchwork of privately held and leased Federal land. In Clear Creek's case, about 66 percent is leased from the Federal Government. Big Part of the Economy
Pressure on the beef industry touches a large part of the economy. According to industry and Federal Government data, the nation's 1.3 million cattle operations grossed $36.7 billion in 1989. Meat
packing and processing employed more than 225,000 people, and related industries use cattle byproducts to make shoes, candles,
insulin, medical sutures, piano keys, glue and yogurt. And 50 percent of the country's corn production is used to fatten beef and other
livestock.
U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE ENSURES GLOBAL COLLAPSE

Peter J. Bolton, August 1, 2006, Science consultant, “Global Economic Collapse - A New Global Dark Age,”
http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/2006/07/global-economic-collapse-new-global.html
As a direct result
The economy of the United States of America (USA) is about to collapse; and will do so within the next few months unless dire and drastic corrective steps are taken by the USA White House Administration and or the Federal Reserve.
of this US economic collapse, Europe’s economy will shortly thereafter follow suit – with a resultant global aftermath that will cause the
whole world to enter into an extended period of severe deflation and depression – a new global dark age is now appearing on the event horizon. The indicators are now that these necessary
“dire and drastic corrective steps” will not be initiated; some ineffective measures will indubitably be introduced but merely to appease popular sentiment; but too late and with little corrective effect. Mr. Ben Benanke of the
Federal Reserve is outweighed by his legacy of the impending Greenspan spawned economic meltdown by a most obvious lack of expertise, lack of experience, lack of nerve
(courage) and by policy directions emanating from his ideological oriented political superiors in the White House, IMF, World Bank and elsewhere.
There can now be no doubt at all, that those institutions responsible for the stewardship of the world’s economy are not dictating nor
controlling US and global economic events and the darkness of this new age will depend on what is done now, prior to this pending
event.

CORN BAD—BEEF (SHELL)

EXTINCTION
T.E. Bearden, 2000, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation’s Institute for
Advanced Study, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”, June 24,
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the
intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to
be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response.
Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such
scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions,
once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by
one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at
all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it,
and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

CORN BAD—BEEF
COWS WHO FEED ON CORN-ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO E. COLI: NOT ONLY IS THIS
ITSELF A DANGER BUT IT MAKES THE FOOD INDUSTRY VULNERABLE TO CONTAMINATION
2008
Feedlots that use ethanol waste also threaten the food supply with E. coli outbreaks. A recent Kansas State University study shows that
distillers grain promotes the growth of E. coli. The study's authors warn of “serious ramifications,” predicting strong resistance to
feeding ethanol waste. Cattle fed brewers grains, a similar product, are six times more likely to have E. coli in their feces than cattle
fed real corn. E. coli outbreaks in factory farms are common. The use of ethanol by-products will doubly increase this phenomenon,
both increasing the presence of E. coli and expanding the industrial model that makes our food system vulnerable to contamination in
the first place.
THE BYPRODUCTS OF CORN ETHANOL CAUSE E. COLI IN COWS

Grist, Environmental news site, “USDA food-safety czar: Ethanol waste causes tainted beef -- and that's okay,” Jan. 28, 2008
In December, a study came out suggesting a link between distillers grains -- a waste product of the corn-ethanol process -- and a spike
in cases of beef tainted with the deadly E. coli 0157 virus.
You see, the government-mandated ethanol boom has dramatically pushed up corn prices. To cut costs, feedlot operators have been
substituting cheap distillers grains for pricey corn. Thus in the past year or so, we've seen an explosion in use of distillers grain as
livestock feed, especially for cows.

CORN BAD—COCA COLA (SHELL)

HIGH CORN PRICES WILL COLLAPSE COCA-COLA
Heller—2007 (Lorraine Heller is a Staff Writer for Food USA, “Coca-Cola pinched by high HFCS prices”, 3/15/07,
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=75017-coca-cola-hfcs-corn-biofuels)
Drinks giant Coca-Cola is feeling the squeeze of higher corn prices, but the impact on its soda formulations - largely sweetened with
high fructose corn syrup in the US - remains unclear.
According to media reports this week, the company said it has been faced with price increases for corn and high fructose corn syrup unlike those seen in
many years.
"We're clearly starting to feel the pinch and it's been tough," said Scott Young, a food service division executive at Coca-Cola.
Speaking at the Reuters Food Summit in Chicago earlier this week, Young said he "wouldn't be surprised" if the firm was looking at switching to different sweeteners.
However, Coca-Cola told FoodNavigator-USA.com that the company has made no announcement that it is considering alternatives to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
But according to Reuters, Young said the firm would start rolling out new syrup formulations in 2007, in an effort to help customers reduce costs. The new
formulations are expected to be more widely adopted in 2008 and 2009, said Reuters.
Indeed, a move away from HFCS would not come as a big surprise in light of the recent raw material price hikes.
Coca-Cola is not alone in the food industry to be hit by a remarkable increase in corn prices, as the market revalues corn from its
traditional feed and food uses to its value in biofuel production. This sharp increase in corn demand is reducing corn carryover and
driving up corn prices.
Just last week, USDA chief economist Keith Collins said the demand for biofuels is likely to contribute to " very profound shifts in crop production in 2007".
"Corn planted area for 2007 is now expected to increase 8.7 million acres to 87 million, slightly above the level reported in USDA Agricultural Projections to 2016, released February 14 2007. This would be the highest corn plantings in more than 60 years (since 1946),"
he said.
Corn production is expected to reach a record 12.2 billion bushels in 2007. Nevertheless, production could once again fall short of demand pulling ending stocks down further in 2007/08 and propelling corn farm prices even higher.
However, higher prices are not the only concern for food and beverage manufacturers when it comes to HFCS; the widely used sweetener has
increasingly been accused of contributing to the nation's obesity crisis.
COCA-COLA IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Power and Stausberg—2006 (Gavin Power and Matthias Stausberg are Staff Writers for the Global Compact, “The Coca-Cola
Company Joins UN Global Compact”, 3/8/06, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/NewsAndEvents/news_archives/2006_03_08.html)
Mr. Kell noted that The Coca-Cola Company has in recent years implemented a range of corporate citizenship initiatives and projects around
the world including programs related to HIV/AIDS, water sanitation and minority empowerment. The company is working in partnership with various United Nations
organizations, including UNICEF, United Nations Development Programme and UNAIDS, on many such projects. “By joining the Global Compact, Coca-Cola has an opportunity to build on
its already impressive work and help contribute to a more sustainable and inclusive global economy," he said.
About the UN Global Compact
Launched in 2000, the UN Global Compact brings business together with UN agencies, labour, civil society and governments to advance universal principles in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption. For more information,
please visit www.unglobalcompact.org.
About The Coca-Cola Company
The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company. Along with Coca-Cola®, recognized as the world's most valuable
brand, the Company markets four of the world's top five soft drink brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta® and Sprite®, and a wide range of other beverages, including diet and light soft drinks,
waters, juices and juice drinks, teas, coffees and sports drinks. Through the world's largest beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries enjoy
the Company's beverages at a rate exceeding 1.3 billion servings each day. For more information about The Coca-Cola Company, please visit www.coca-cola.com.
EXTINCTION

A2 HFCSOBESITY
HFCS DOES NOT CAUSE OBESITY
Heller—2007 (Lorraine Heller is a Staff Writer for Food USA, “Coca-Cola pinched by high HFCS prices”, 3/15/07,
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=75017-coca-cola-hfcs-corn-biofuels)
Campaigners against the ingredient point to science showing that the body processes high fructose corn syrup differently than other
sugars due to the fructose content, leading to greater fat storage.
However, industry associations and trade bodies, such as the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), say there is no scientific evidence to
suggest that HFCS is uniquely responsible for people becoming obese.
"USDA data show that per capita consumption of HFCS is actually on the decline, yet obesity and diabetes rates continue to rise. In
fact, obesity rates are rising around the world, including in Mexico, Australia and Europe, even though the use of HFCS outside of the
United States is limited or nonexistent," claims the CRA on a website dedicated to the ingredient.

CORN BAD—CALIFORNIAN ECONOMY (SHELL)

CORN ETHANOL IS KILLING THE CALIFORNIAN ECONOMY AND ENVIORNMENT
Anthony—2007 (Juliette Anthony is an environmental research consultant, a Former Board Member of The Coalition for Clean Air,
and Research Consultant on MTBE for Communities for a Better Environment, “ Corn Ethanol and Its Consequences”, 12/20/07,
http://www.truthout.org/article/juliette-anthony-corn-ethanol-and-its-consequences)
Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of them beneficial to the state's
economy or environment. They include deleterious effects on our overcommitted water resources, on our air quality, on the price of
food, and on the financial burden to our citizens while private investors profit.
Those of us in California now need to be more active in fighting serious impacts by preventing ethanol entrepreneurs from getting permits from local cities and counties to use our already limited water supplies to build and operate their plants. Water is key in California.
All of the water systems upon which the state depends, to serve both agriculture and the urban sector, are oversubscribed. Ethanol
requires large amounts of water, both to grow corn and to process it, putting corn into direct competition with our agricultural industry,
which feeds half the nation with all of its fruits, vegetables and nuts. Corn ethanol requires 3.7 to 5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol just in the manufacturing process. Corn ethanol is
the only current market-ready product, as cellulosic ethanol from other plant materials is an indeterminate number of years in the future.
"The Rush to Ethanol," by Food & Water Watch, which should be required reading for those legislators swayed by ethanol lobbyists, illustrates that even the highly touted switchgrass is not without its soil and water use problems. Cellulosic ethanol requires six gallons
For a state with such severe water difficulties, at a time when

of water for each gallon of ethanol in the manufacturing process, though the energy output is four to five times greater than for corn ethanol.
citizens are being asked to conserve, any additional intensive manufacturing water use is highly questionable.
CALIFORNIAN ECON IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECON

Gvosdev—2003 (Nikolas Gvosdev is an Editor for In the National Interest, “Recall Madness--and Much Ado about Missiles,"
8/13/03, http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue32/Vol2Issue32Realist.html )
But the real issue is this: people "inside the Beltway" sometimes seem to forget that there is no "United States" apart from the fifty states (and associated territories and commonwealths). A fiscal and economic crisis in
California has a direct impact on the power of the United States, since some 13 percent of the total U.S. output is produced by
California. California on its own is the sixth largest economy in the world, worth some $1.309 trillion--yet this represents a decline of approximately 2.3 percent from
2000, when California's economy outperformed that of France. California represents a significant share of the country's technological base and of its human capital.
The high-tech weaponry which led to a swift initial military victory in Iraq is in part a product of the technology and defense sectors of
the California economy. A state budget crisis that significantly cuts back on everything from education (including higher education, where so many innovative breakthroughs have taken place) to health care has
ramifications for how the United States projects its influence throughout the world. In previous issues of In the National Interest, other authors have pointed out the dangerous
implications of continued deficit spending by the federal government to support overseas operations, and this problem can only increase if a continuing crisis in the principal engine of America's economy continues.
EXTINCTION

CORN BAD—DEAD ZONES (SHELL)

FAILURE TO REDUCE CORN GROWTH RISKS DEAD ZONES IN THE GULF AND MARINE ECOLOGICAL
COLLAPSE
Roddy Scheer, 2008 (Reporter for emagazine.com; Gulf Dead Zone Grows With Ethanol Demand,
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4036)
Scientists believe that an oxygen-depleted “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is growing rapidly as a result of Americans’ increasing
appetite for ethanol, a carbon-neutral biofuel derived from corn that can be used as a gasoline additive or as E85, a gasoline alternative in automotive engines. Dead zones form when vast swaths of ocean
water are inundated with nitrogen-based fertilizers—such as those used to grow corn in states along the Mississippi River (which empties into the
Gulf). Marine life cannot survive in dead zones, and Gulf fishermen are now forced further and further offshore to net marketable catches. Experts estimate that the Gulf dead zone now
stretches across some 7,900 square miles.

“We might be coming close to a tipping point,” says Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the nonprofit Gulf Restoration Network. “The ecosystem might change or
collapse as opposed to being just impacted.”
Just as environmentalists were starting to make some headway convincing farmers in states along the Mississippi River to grow crops less dependent on nitrogen fertilizers, the price of corn doubled due to ethanol demand. Environmentalists are lobbying the federal
d with the Bush

government to step in and provide subsidies for farmers to use less nitrogen-based fertilizer, but such requests have been ignored by decision makers more concerned with boosting the economy than protecting marine ecosystems. An
administration making a big push to increase ethanol production over the next decade, a full-blown fisheries crisis might be inevitable.
THIS KILLS MARINE LIFE—SHRIMP SPECIFICALLY

The Associated Press 2007 (Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301669)
Marine life struggle to survive
Bottom-dwelling species such as crabs and oysters are most at risk, said Michelle Perez, an analyst with the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. "They struggle to survive," Perez said.
"They can't swim away."
Crabbers complained at a meeting in Louisiana earlier this year that they pulled up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs.
if the corn boom continues, the Gulf of Mexico could see an "ecological regime change." The fear is that the zone will grow
Rota warned that
so big that most sea life won't be able to escape it, leading to an even bigger die-off.
"People's livelihood depends on the shrimp, fish and crabs in these waters," he said. "Already, some of these shrimpers are traveling longer and longer distances to catch anything."
SHRIMP ARE KEYSTONE SPECIES AND THEIR COLLAPSE WOULD KILL THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY
The Brownsville Herald, 2006 (July 2nd, “One Hatchling at a Time”,
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/print.php?id=71515_0_10_0)
“Because the Kemp’s ridley is a keystone species, their survival is necessary to the entire ecosystem of which they are a part,” he said. Labuda’s rhetoric is familiar to the Hodgson
brothers. If a keystone species reaches extinction in the Gulf of Mexico, it could have dire consequences for the shrimp industry. “On one level,
it’s important that the turtle survives because it is a part of the healthy marine environment on which our industry relies,” Larry Hodgson said. At home in Texas, the
Hodgsons, Ray, Gordon and Labuda, have different careers and backgrounds in conservation, but on the stretch of the Mexican coast where the Kemp’s ridley makes its home, they’re each just another pair of hands, another vehicle used to bring an inch-long baby turtle
to its new home in the gulf.
THAT KILLS THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Southern Shrimp Alliance, 2004 (Nov 30th, “Shrimpers Hail Finding of Dumped Shrimp from China and Vietnam”,
http://library.enaca.org/Shrimp/Newsletter_Oct_Nov_2004.pdf )
The U.S. shrimp industry remains the most valuable fishery in the United States, directly employing over 70,000 people and
contributing billions in revenue and taxes to thousands of coastal communities, while processing imported shrimp subject to the antidumping investigations accounts for less than 3,500 jobs.
For every one job in the United States processing imported shrimp, there are 21 persons involved harvesting and processing wild-caught domestic shrimp. Yet, our industry and way of life in eight states are on the brink
of extinction from the harm caused by dumped imports.
THAT KILLS THE US ECONOMY

Kassinger, Dept Secretary of Commerce, 2003 (Theodore, Dec 18th, Testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations,
www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/108/losDec1803.wpd )
It is vital that we protect our valuable coastal resources and find means to protect the world’s fish biomass in the face of increasing demands. The fishing industry contributes significantly to the U.S.
economy. In 2002, U.S. commercial landings totaled over 9.4 billion pounds, worth $3.1 billion. U.S. commercial fisheries generated $28.4 billion (in value added) to the U.S. Gross
National Product, and 73.3 million recreational fishing trips occurred. In 2000 (the most recent year for which information is available), recreational fishing added another $18.9 billion. The Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that the global
annual demand for fish will continue to increase rapidly, to 100-120 million tons by 2010.

CORN BAD—DEAD ZONE

FAILURE TO REDUCE CORN GROWTH RISKS DEAD ZONES IN THE GULF AND MARINE ECOLOGICAL
COLLAPSE
Roddy Scheer, 2008 (Reporter for emagazine.com; Gulf Dead Zone Grows With Ethanol Demand,
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4036)
Scientists believe that an oxygen-depleted “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is growing rapidly as a result of Americans’ increasing
appetite for ethanol, a carbon-neutral biofuel derived from corn that can be used as a gasoline additive or as E85, a gasoline alternative
in automotive engines. Dead zones form when vast swaths of ocean water are inundated with nitrogen-based fertilizers—such as those
used to grow corn in states along the Mississippi River (which empties into the Gulf). Marine life cannot survive in dead zones, and
Gulf fishermen are now forced further and further offshore to net marketable catches. Experts estimate that the Gulf dead zone now
stretches across some 7,900 square miles.
“We might be coming close to a tipping point,” says Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the nonprofit Gulf
Restoration Network. “The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted.”
Just as environmentalists were starting to make some headway convincing farmers in states along the Mississippi River to grow crops
less dependent on nitrogen fertilizers, the price of corn doubled due to ethanol demand. Environmentalists are lobbying the federal
government to step in and provide subsidies for farmers to use less nitrogen-based fertilizer, but such requests have been ignored by
decision makers more concerned with boosting the economy than protecting marine ecosystems. And with the Bush administration
making a big push to increase ethanol production over the next decade, a full-blown fisheries crisis might be inevitable.
CORN ETHANOL CONTAMINATES WATER - PESTICIDES

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007) — http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm
Even though a large body of information exists for the nation's agricultural water requirements, fundamental knowledge gaps prevent
making reliable assessments about the water impacts of future large scale production of feedstocks other than corn, such as
switchgrass and native grasses. In addition, other aspects of crop production for biofuel may not be fully anticipated using the
frameworks that exist for food crops. For example, biofuel crops could be irrigated with wastewater that is biologically and chemically
unsuitable for use with food crops, or genetically modified crops that are more water efficient could be developed.
The quality of groundwater, rivers, and coastal and offshore waters could be impacted by increased fertilizer and pesticide use for
biofuels, the report says. High levels of nitrogen in stream flows are a major cause of low-oxygen or "hypoxic" regions, commonly
known as "dead zones," which are lethal for most living creatures and cover broad areas of the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and
other regions. The report notes that there are a number of agricultural practices and technologies that could be employed to reduce
nutrient pollution, such as injecting fertilizer below the soil surface, using controlled-release fertilizers that have water-insoluble
coatings, and optimizing the amount of fertilizer applied to the land.

CORN BAD—ENVIORNMENT GENERAL (SHELL)

USING BRAZILIAN SUGAR IS BETTER THAN CORN—7 WARRENTS (corn causes over cultivation, reduces crop rotation,
decreases fallow fields, increases the use of fertilizers, increasing insecticides, causes soil erosion, and uses oil, gas, and electricity to
produce)
On closer inspection, ethanol produced from corn may generate as much pollution as the fossil fuels it replaces and may create new
environmental problems. n9 Due to the growing demand for ethanol, farmers intend to plant an estimated 88 million acres of corn this
year, the equivalent of covering Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in corn. n10 In addition, farmers will likely reduce crop rotation
and replant fallow fields, which will increase the use of fertilizers and insecticides and result in greater pollution run-off into our water
system. n11 To replace the United States' current dependence on gasoline (140 billion gallons per year) would take approximately 350
million acres of corn (assuming 400 gallons per acre per year of ethanol). n12 Since greater ethanol production results from plants
with higher cellulose content, switchgrass or sugar cane should be used to produce ethanol, and thus, minimize the amount of land
cultivated. n13
Besides having a higher cellulose content, sugar cane offers several advantages over corn in the production of ethanol. First, unlike
corn, farmers plant sugar cane once every four to seven years but harvest it yearly resulting in less soil erosion. Second, sugar cane
requires less fertilizers since it can obtain some of its nitrogen from the air. Third, the energy to power the transformation from sugar
cane to ethanol comes from burning the sugar cane's waste product and not from oil, gas, or the electrical grid as with corn. n14
Unfortunately with our current technology, even if the United States produced most of its ethanol from sugar cane or other crops with
higher cellulose content it still would require excessive amounts of land for cultivation. n15
ENVIORNMENTAL DECLINE LEADS TO EXTINCTION—ALL PARTS OF THE ENVIONRMENT ARE KEY

Kline ’98 (Gary, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia Southwestern State University, Journal of Third World Studies, Vol
15, Issue 1, Spring)
Additionally, natural ecosystems provide certain less obvious services that are crucial to life as we know it.6 The atmosphere of our
planet is the product largely of ecosystem operations. About twenty-one percent of our atmosphere is made up of oxygen, the result of
plant photosynthesis which releases the gas. Approximately seventy-eight percent of the remaining air we breathe is nitrogen, which is
regulated by the nitrogen cycle of plant production. Ecosystems then influence weather and climate patterns by affecting the
circulation of air in this atmosphere. Plants, and especially forests, are instrumental in retaining and conserving our soil and water.
Destruction of forest areas results in soil erosion (deleterious to agriculture and plant life in general), floods, and droughts. The rapid
decertification of large tracts of land in places like north Africa are a direct consequence of loss of such ecosystems. Each year an area
equivalent in size to Belgium falls victim to decertification. Plant and animal life, much of it not visible to the naked eye, helps create
and maintain soil by breaking down rocks into finer and finer pieces and by adding organic material to it, enriching it for agriculture.
Except for some of the most troublesome products of Humankind, like DDT and plastics, these same plants and animals work to
dispose of wastes. Decomposed wastes are then recycled as nutrients into the food chain for the sustenance of new life. Natural
ecosystems also produce mechanisms in plants for the resistance of pests and diseases and for the pollination of flowering plants,
essential to their reproduction, including many of our food crops. It should be apparent that biodiversity and life are synonymous. The
organisms in an ecosystem are part of a "trophic pyramid," as labelled by scientists. That is, a large mass of plants supports a smaller
number of herbivores; these support a smaller number of primary carnivores and an even smaller number of second order carnivores.
Due to their more rapid rates of reproduction, the lower order life forms are generally better able to adapt to changes in their
environment than the higher forms. The latter are also disadvantaged by bioconcentration of harmful substances which make their way
into the food chain. Every organism has some niche and work to perform in the pyramid. Homo sapiens occupy a position at the top
and are therefore vulnerable to instability at the base. Human activity which threatens the pyramid is akin to playing Russian roulette.
Of this, Humankind is now more aware. As Garrison Wilkes of the University of Massachusetts put it, "We have been building our
roof with stones from the foundation."7 This problem is now manifesting itself especially in an area of human endeavor which is
essential to our existence: agriculture.

CORN BAD—EXPENCIVE
CORN COST MORE THAN GAS AND ETHANOL
C. Sugarcane versus Corn-Based Ethanol
It is largely accepted that cost has been the main barrier to the development of renewable energy in the United States. n130 This cost
barrier is particularly apparent in U.S. ethanol production. Corn-based ethanol in the United States is significantly more expensive to
produce than both gasoline n131 and Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol. n132 The low cost of sugarcane-based ethanol allows Brazil
to produce and market ethanol in competition with gasoline without the large subsidies required to make corn-based ethanol
competitive in the United States. n133
SUGAR ETHANOL IS CHEAPER THAN CORN

Bloomberg, “Latin America” 4/20/06
Brazilian ethanol could easily win a share of the U.S. market if the tariffs were lowered because Brazilian sugar-cane- based ethanol is
cheaper than U.S. corn-based ethanol and is made with none of the subsidies U.S. farmers receive, Gabrielli said.
Petrobras' only export client today is Petroleos de Venezuela, that country's state oil company, which imports it as a replacement for
tetra-ethyl lead, a toxic gasoline additive used to prevent automobile engines from making knocking or clanging noises until it was
banned by most countries on human- health concerns.
``There is no world ethanol market yet,'' Gabrielli said. `Ìn order to increase production, we need to open the markets and stimulate
different producers to increase their agricultural production as sources for ethanol.''
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL IS CHEAPER THAN CORN

Green Car Congress, “Speaking of Tariffs,” May 11 2004
Since 1980, the US has imposed a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol -- the only exception to that being ethanol from CBI
nations. (For a good overview of Ethanol Fuel Incentives in the US, see this report, released January 2004 by the California Energy
Commission.)
Another factor: Brazilian ethanol costs approximately $0.50 per gallon to produce. Corn-based production in the US costs at least
twice that, if not more. Estimates of the cost of production vary based on method as well as basic model. The Cargill math is pretty
clear.
CORN ETHANOL COST MORE TO PRODUCE THAN IS HELPS SAVE

Reuters, “US Ethanol Producers Losing Money as Corn Spikes,” June 20, 2008
NEW YORK, June 20 (Reuters) - U.S. ethanol distillers lost money on average during the week ending June 19 as flooding in the
Midwest spiked prices for corn, the country's main feedstock for the alternative motor fuel.
Ethanol producers on average were losing a few cents for every gallon of ethanol they produced. "This has never happened before,"
Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James and Associates in Houston, said about the negative profit margins that lasted through
the week.
Prolonged near-record corn prices would likely keep some producers from operating at full capacity, he said.
Some 400 million gallons per year of total U.S. ethanol capacity of 9.2 billion gpy has been shut directly by the floods. But analysts
have said shutdowns resulting from high corn prices could soon far surpass that number.

CORN BAD—EXPENSIVE
CORN ETHANOL IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE THAN SUGAR—REMOVING THE TARIFF IS KEY TO
INCREASE SUGAR ETHANOL USE
But the trajectory of ethanol prices, particularly as they compare to corn, is a big concern for ethanol producers and their shareholders.
Surging corn costs have been stripping profit from ethanol producers and forcing them to cut output, and that trend is likely to
continue.
Even worse, some small and midsize plants have faced financial collapse as their profit margins dived. Citi's Driscoll said at least five
plants have already closed and that's just the beginning. In the next few months, nearly 120 of the nation's 160 plants could risk
shutting down, he said.
Hartwig said the Renewable Fuels Association is tracking ethanol producers and will come up with an initial report as soon as next
week on how many companies might have been impacted by the spike in corn prices.
"It's far too early to be speculating" the losses of plants, he said.
Corn futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade indicate ethanol producers are facing much higher costs than they can reap by
selling their product.
Corn futures have jumped 64% this year to $7.463 a bushel Wednesday, a record closing high. In contrast, ethanol front-month futures
closed at $2.937 a gallon -- also a record high, but only up 24% this year.
Because one bushel of corn produces 2.7 gallons of ethanol on average, corn costs translate to about $2.76 a gallon of ethanol for
ethanol producers. Combined with production and transportation expenses, the costs for producing ethanol rise to more than $3 a
gallon, much higher than ethanol prices, according to Robert Sharp, an ethanol analyst at energy information provider Platts.
"If they [ethanol producers] did buy corn a year ago, they are fine; if they didn't, they are dead," said Sharp. "High corn prices are
something they can't get around."
Expansion curtailed?
This margin squeeze risks suspending the ethanol industry's rapid expansion.
Since 2000, ethanol production capacity has quadrupled in the U.S. Capacity reached 9.2 billion gallons this year, according to the
Renewable Fuels Association. But Driscoll warned that as much as 2 billion to 5 billion gallons of capacity "could go off-line" in a
few months as 118 plants with capacity smaller than 65 million gallons could close their door.
A possible drop in domestic production this year means the United States could need to increase imports from countries such as Brazil
to meet its federal mandate on biofuels.
A 2007 federal energy law requires the energy industry use 9 billion gallons of biofuels in 2008, mostly ethanol, up 91% from a year
ago. The goal is to reach 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022, of which 15 billion barrels would be corn-based ethanol. In addition to
the requirement, the federal government is paying 51 cents a gallon to companies than blend ethanol into gasoline.
The United States imported a small amount of ethanol last year, discouraged by the 54 cents per gallon tariff on every imported gallon
of ethanol. Rising domestic ethanol prices since then have been making imports more attractive: Ethanol spot prices in Brazil, where
sugarcane is the raw material, stood below $2 a gallon, according to Platts.
Ethanol makers are struggling while industry absorbs an increased amount of the nation's corn crop.
The USDA projects corn use for ethanol will reach 4 billion bushels in 2009, almost doubling the 2007 level and accounting for 34%
of corn production. In comparison, U.S. corn production is projected to rise only 11% in the same period.
For the 2008-2009 harvest, global corn stocks are expected to hit a 25-year low, the USDA said.
Ethanol use, meanwhile, is not very widespread yet. About one-third of gasoline consumed in the U.S. is blended with ethanol into
what's known as reformulated gasoline. And ethanol only makes up about one-tenth of a gallon of this reformulated gasoline.
THE NET ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CORN ETHANOL ARE NEGATIVE

Although the rise in corn prices excites farmers the ethanol industry’s growth could further concentrate agribusiness, which drains the
economic health of rural communities.

CORN BAD—FERTILIZERS/PERSTISIDES (SHELL)

THE PRODUCTION OF CORN ETHANOL INCREASES THE USE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES
A major problem with the expansion of corn production is that it is an input-intensive crop that puts enormous pressure on soils.
Traditionally, most corn farmers have practiced crop rotation, which involves planting one crop (usually soybeans) one season, and
another crop (corn) the next season on the same field. This practice allows for the soil to regenerate fertility because each crop variety
draws different nutrients from the soil while leaving different nutrients behind. Although most family farmers rotate a few different
crops in their fields, some growers will solely plant whichever crop brings in the most money. With economists expecting 2007 corn
prices to be 40percent higher than 2006 prices, more farmers may be tempted to plant only corn for a few straight seasons. Therefore,
abandoning soil improving crop rotation for continuous corn growing will necessitate increased amounts of chemical fertilizers, which
will also increase runoff and the deterioration of water quality.
WE’LL ISOLATE 3 IMPACTS

FIRST—WATER CONTAMINATION: AND FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES CONTAMINATE WATER SYSTEMS
Corn is very nutrient-intensive, and growers turn to commercial fertilizers to maintain crop yields, especially during periods of
persistently low prices. As a result, corn production consumes 40 percent of all commercial fertilizers used on crops in the United
States; commercial nitrogen is applied to 98 percent of corn fields and commercial phosphate to 87 percent.
The extensive use of commercial fertilizers in corn production is problematic because nutrients from these chemicals are known to
runoff of fields and contaminate water systems. Excess nutrients in water systems cause eutrophication-an increase in plant growth in
waterways that depletes oxygen levels in the water, making it impossible for other aquatic life forms to survive. Eutrophication
resulting from excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorous is the leading cause of impairment of surface waters in the United States,
and has been called “the most widespread water quality problem in the United States and many other nations.”

establishiment of agriculture because we tapped the groundwater by digging wells and then used it to irrigate our crops. It is still
important today for this reason (although we also now impond water in dams and divert it for agriculture using aqueducts). As the
population of the west has grown, the demands put on groundwater to provide for human well-being have been increasing, and their is
great concern today about how long our groundwater will last, and whether or not we can make sure that it is clean and drinkaable
over the long term. It is for this reason, one of the most pressing environmental issues faced by citizens the world over.
SECOND—NITRATE RESERVES: INCREASED FERTILIZER USE CREATES NITRATE RESERVES, WHICH HAVE
DISASTROUS EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
According to the Cornell University Center for Environmental Research, most farmers apply over twice the amount of nitrogen
fertilizers that their crops can put to use, allowing for the excess nitrogen to leach into the groundwater and access drinking water
supplies. When nitrogen fertilizer leaches into groundwater, it takes the form of nitrate. Excess nitrate in drinking water has been
linked to a number of adverse human health effects, including methemoglobinemia (“Blue-Baby Syndrome”), cancers (inducing
ovarian, uterine, and bladder cancer,) goiter, spontaneous abortion, and birth defects.
While nutrient runoff from all agricultural fields represents a hazard, runoff from corn operations is of particular concern relative to
biofuel feedstocks.
THIRD—DEAD ZONES: FERTILIZER IS THE WORST BIGGEST CAUSE OF THE DEAD ZONE
Soil erosion, sewage and industrial pollution also contribute to the dead zone, but fertilizer is believed to be the chief factor.
Fertilizer causes explosive growth of algae, which then dies and sinks to the bottom, where it sucks up oxygen as it decays. This
creates a deep layer of oxygen-depleted ocean where creatures either escape or die.
<INSERT IMPACT>

CORN BAD—FOOD INFECTION

CORN ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS FIND THEIR WAY INTO HUMAN FOOD
2008
Human food is perhaps the most disturbing proposed destination for refinery waste. As labeling laws stand right now, corn oil and
corn flour made from ethanol waste could enter the commodity chain without labeling, so that unsuspecting consumers would never
know if they are eating refinery by-product. Nor would they know how much sulfur, acids, or other processing residues were
contained in the many foods that contain corn oil or corn flour.

CORN BAD—FOOD PRICES (SHELL)

ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will
bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer.
accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a
bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are
increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of
edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world.
Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers,
consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.
MILLIONS
In the year since the publication of our article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor" (May/June 2007), the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans
by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. What at first seemed alarmist has turned out to be an underestimate of the
effects of biofuels on both commodity prices and the natural environment. These price increases are substantial threats to the welfare
of consumers, especially in poor developing countries facing food deficits. They are especially burdensome to the rural landless and the urban poor, who produce no food at all. Josette Sheeran, the Executive
Director of the World Food Program, calls this a global "tsunami of hunger." Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, estimates that there are 100 million newly poor and hungry
people as a result of rising food prices.

Although controversy remains over how much of the food price increase since 2006 can be attributed to biofuels, their effects cannot be overlooked. In 2008, 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for
ethanol. Although economic growth in developing countries (especially India and China) and poor crop conditions in certain parts of the food-
exporting world (such as Australia) are part of the explanation for rising commodity prices worldwide, neither offers constructive opportunities
for policy redirection. By contrast, the panoply of subsidies, tariffs and mandates protecting the biofuels sector, especially in the United States and the European Union, is ripe for reform.

CORN BAD—FOOD PRICES

ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol
demand will bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-
largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer.
accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose
to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those
grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough
calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will
translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in
ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with
potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.
MILLIONS
In the year since the publication of our article, "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor" (May/June 2007), the average price of corn has
increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. What at first seemed alarmist has
turned out to be an underestimate of the effects of biofuels on both commodity prices and the natural environment. These price
increases are substantial threats to the welfare of consumers, especially in poor developing countries facing food deficits. They are
especially burdensome to the rural landless and the urban poor, who produce no food at all. Josette Sheeran, the Executive Director of
the World Food Program, calls this a global "tsunami of hunger." Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, estimates that there
are 100 million newly poor and hungry people as a result of rising food prices.
Although controversy remains over how much of the food price increase since 2006 can be attributed to biofuels, their effects cannot
be overlooked. In 2008, 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used for ethanol. Although economic growth in developing countries
(especially India and China) and poor crop conditions in certain parts of the food-exporting world (such as Australia) are part of the
explanation for rising commodity prices worldwide, neither offers constructive opportunities for policy redirection. By contrast, the
panoply of subsidies, tariffs and mandates protecting the biofuels sector, especially in the United States and the European Union, is
ripe for reform.


ANY PRE-2008 EVIDENCE EPIC FAILS ON THE ETHANOL DEBATE - NO ONE SAW THE OIL JUMP AND ETHANOL
PROFIT COLLAPSE COMING
Last year, we predicted that upward pressure on petroleum prices would persist, allowing ethanol producers to pay higher and higher
prices for corn. At the time, oil prices were approximately $70 per barrel and rising while corn prices were roughly $3.75 per bushel
and rising. But few observers, ourselves included, imagined that within a year oil prices would reach $130 per barrel and corn futures
would exceed $6 per bushel. Meanwhile, despite a near doubling of U.S. corn ethanol production (from 3.4 billion gallons in 2004 to
6.5 billion gallons in 2007), infrastructure and distribution problems created local gluts of ethanol while the ethanol price increased
only moderately. As a result, profit margins in the ethanol industry plummeted from an average of $3.40 per gallon in June 2006--
when corn was still relatively cheap--to 60 cents per gallon by May 2008. Many ethanol investors pulled back, some expansion plans
were cancelled, and much of the bullishness over biofuels faded.
PREFERENCE TOWARDS CORN RATHER THAN SUGAR THROUGH TARIFFS WILL SPIKE FOOD PRICES AND
LEAD TO MASS DEATH THROUGH STARVATION
Charbonneau and Gardner—2008 (Louis Charbonneau and Timothy Gardner are Staff Writers for Reuters, “Bloomberg slams U.S.
energy law over corn ethanol”, 2/12/08,
http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINN1115230920080211?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A new U.S. energy law will cause an increase in global food prices and lead to starvation deaths
worldwide because it continues to promote corn ethanol, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday.
"People literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up," Bloomberg told reporters after
addressing a U.N. General Assembly debate on climate change.
The new U.S. law, which came into force late last year, increased fivefold the required amount of blending of biofuels like corn
ethanol -- creating higher demand for the grain that will push up corn prices.
By 2022 some 15 billion gallons of the required 36 billion could come from corn ethanol, with the rest mandated to come from lower-
carbon sources such as crop waste and switchgrass.
The new law favored corn ethanol by continuing to subsidize it while taxing sugar ethanol, Bloomberg said. This is because corn
ethanol is mainly domestically produced while sugar ethanol is imported from Brazil and subject to import tariffs.
CORN ETHANOL BOOST FOOD PRICES GLOBALLY

Williams—2008 (Dr. Walter E. Williams is a faculty member of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of
Economics “Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax”, 3/12/08, http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=a37eec06-5e45-
414e-9a90-59e4ad860b86)
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from
corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically.
The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a
worldwide impact on food prices.
CORN RAISES FOOD PRICES—MEXICAN TORTILLAS PROVE

Anthony—2007 (Juliette Anthony is an environmental research consultant, a Former Board Member of The Coalition for Clean Air,
and Research Consultant on MTBE for Communities for a Better Environment, “ Corn Ethanol and Its Consequences”, 12/20/07,
http://www.truthout.org/article/juliette-anthony-corn-ethanol-and-its-consequences)
Even though last year's corn harvest was the third-largest ever, food prices are rising in supermarkets. Hog and cattle farmers are
already bringing their animals to market early in an effort to save money on feed, because the cost of a bushel of corn has doubled
since September 2006. As the price of grain goes up, some people will starve. There were riots in Mexico in June because people were
not able to afford corn for tortillas.


CORN ETHANOL WILL RAISE THE PRICE OR CORN WHICH WILL NECESSITATE A SHIFT TO SUGAR ETHANOL
Reuters, “Midwest Floods May Add to Gasoline Misery,” June 18, 2008
"If we do see these forecasts of maybe a 10 percent drop in a corn crop come to fruition, it becomes less likely we're going to see any
kind of moderation in the corn prices," said Tom Knight, an energy trader at Truman Arnold in Texarkana, Texas.
"I think we'll see more small- and mid-size ethanol plants down because they are just not willing to run with negative production
economics," Knight said.
Already, VeraSun Energy Corp has announced that it is delaying the opening of two Midwest ethanol distilleries until market
conditions improve.
The delay will add to a decrease in production due to flood closures. So far, two ethanol plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, one owned by
Archer Daniels Midland and the other owned by Penford Corp, were shut by the flooding.
According to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, a total of 300 million gallons per year of ethanol production capacity was forced
offline by the floods.
A slump in domestic ethanol production, could lead to increased imports from Brazil, the world's second largest ethanol producer after
the U.S., despite a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on the fuel, experts said.
"The supply chain will catch up ... if the prices stay this high, then people will definitely start looking toward Brazilian cane ethanol,"
Cohan said.
CURRENT TARIFF ON BIOFUEL RAISES FOOD PRICES AND HURTS THE POOR
Adam Dean, writer for “Policy Innovations,” a policy magazine, “The Unethical Ethanol Tariff, ”April 4, 2007
Despite the above criticisms of biofuel consumption and free trade, the key to higher living standards for the poor of Latin America
does not lie in protectionist trade measures or abandoning ethanol production. Rather, an American commitment to free trade would
allow all to benefit from the advances in biofuel technology.
At the heart of the issue is U.S. ethanol policy. Despite the Bush Administration's explicit support for increased U.S. ethanol
consumption, the United States maintains a tariff of 54 cents per gallon for imported ethanol. This tariff limits U.S. ethanol imports
and creates a higher domestic price than would otherwise result from a more open market.
By limiting market access for Brazilian ethanol producers, who would benefit from increased exports, the U.S. tariff also limits the
subsequent benefits that would accrue to Brazilian sugar producers. Furthermore, since ethanol production in the United States is
based on corn, the tariff also leads to a higher price of corn in the United States. This artificially inflated price is then passed on to
Mexican consumers in the form of higher food prices.
In these ways, it is the U.S. tariff on ethanol imports that may have caused higher tortilla prices in Mexico and slowed the growth of
Brazilian ethanol production. If the United States were to eliminate its ethanol tariff, we would likely witness market changes that
would greatly benefit everyone involved.
The ramifications of the U.S. ethanol tariff display the ethical consequences of American trade policy. Although free trade agreements
such as NAFTA hold the potential to benefit Mexican consumers through access to cheaper goods, these benefits can be eliminated by
later market distortions, such as the ethanol tariff. In order for Mexican consumers to benefit from open markets, the United States
must be committed to a free trade policy that does not distort the price of basic commodities such as corn. Likewise, in order for
Brazilian ethanol and sugar producers to benefit from global trade, they must be granted tariff-free market access to the United States.
If the United States is to share the benefits of globalization with developing countries, it must maintain a commitment to open markets
for foreign imports and carefully consider the global impact of its trade policy.
CORN ETHANOL INCREASES CORN PRICES—MAKING FOOD PRODUCTION AND MAINTAINANCE OF

LIVESTOCK
Although biofuels are often promoted as being favorable for farmers and rural communities, it is unclear how this rapidly growing
industry will affect the agricultural economy-particularly small-scale operations-and who will reap the greatest financial rewards.
The price of corn, the nation’s most abundant food crop, is one of the most closely watched indicators in the agricultural marketplace.
The pressures that increased ethanol production place on corn prices are creating new classes of winners and losers in this delicate
economic landscape. Corn prices are already reaching more than more than $4, up from about $2 a bushel for most of the last decade.
It should be noted that for the past 10 years, corn farmers earned little because prices were so low. As ethanol production grows, corn
once destined for exporter livestock feed will likely wind up in gas tanks. Even if corn yields improve, idle lands are brought into
cultivation, and farmers switch other crops for corn, the expansion of ethanol production will continue to put pressure on the value of
the grain. As corn prices increase, livestock and food industries are increasingly concerned bout the effects this will have on their
business.


CORN PRICE HIKE SPILLSOVER
Corn is one of the cheapest foodstuffs in the United States. This is because the 1996 Farm Bill and the 2002 Farm Bill encouraged
significant overproduction of staple commodities, especially corn. Corn was sold at prices significantly lower than the cost of
production and farmers received emergency payments to compensate for historically low prices. As a result, the grain has been stuffed
into as many products as possible, serving as cheap filler in animal feed and replacing more expensive ingredients in processed foods,
like sugar.
Corn is a crop of primary importance to the U.S. meat and dairy supply, because it is a principle component in livestock feed. About
60 percent of U.S. corn and 47 percent of soy are used as livestock feed, and as ethanol’s demands on the corn market is raising corn
prices, the meat industry’s feed costs are also going up. These higher costs will inevitably be passed onto consumers in the form of
higher meat and milk prices-although meat processors did not pass on the savings from low-priced corn in the late 1990s. As corn
prices go up and the ethanol industry demands even more of the country’s corn supply, pressure will increase to expand the amount of
land dedicated to corn crops to keep the livestock industry from losing all profitability.
An alternative crop to corn in animal feed is soy, but its production is likely to drop as high corn prices give farmers incentives to
switch their acres to corn. Soy is also becoming increasingly important as a source of biodiesel, and it is possible that biodiesel
demand for soy will drive up the price of this crop even more, making it unaffordable as livestock feed as well.
In early 2007, Tyson Foods, Inc.’s CEO warned consumers that they should expect “significantly higher” food prices as a result of the
strain that ethanol was putting on U.S. corn supplies. After the 1996 Farm Bill, the chicken industry essentially received an $11 billion
subsidy in te form of low-priced feed but retail whole chicken prices remained flat when the corn price collapsed after the legislation
went into effect. Tyson Foods is the world’s largest meat producer, supplying food to millions of people in the United States and
abroad, and boasting annual revenue of over $6.5 billion.
CORN ETHANOL IS DRASTICALLY RAISING FOOD PRICES

Andy Kimbrell is founder and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, 2008 (Corn as fuel may impair food supply,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/sns-green-corn-supplyjun20,0,5746994.story)
Rising food prices are a hardship here at home, but they're truly disastrous for many beyond our borders. The staggering 83 percent
rise in food prices reported by the World Bank over the past three years hits developing nations hardest. It's a complex situation with
many causes, but the crisis is teaching us important and urgent lessons.
First among these is what we've learned about biofuels. Once considered the "green" solution to foreign oil dependence, corn ethanol
has morphed into a humanitarian and environmental disaster. Diverting one-quarter of America's massive corn harvest from food to
fuel has nearly crippled the globalized food system. A bushel of corn fetches about three times the price it did two years ago, one big
reason for quadrupling tortilla prices in Mexico. Wheat and soybean farmers, lured by higher profits, switched over to corn. As a
result, supplies of those crops are limited and wheat prices have risen an astronomical 130 percent since 2007, exacerbated by poor
Australian harvests.
If you thought corn ethanol was at least lessening our dependence on foreign oil, think again: Ethanol displaces only 3 percent of our
oil use. Additionally, the journal "Science" recently published research suggesting that biofuels are worsening global warming as well
as hunger. High demand for energy crops is driving deforestation, which in turn releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases that far
exceed minor reductions provided by the energy crops themselves.
Even those who embraced biofuels so enthusiastically a year ago are beginning to see what a chimera they actually are. Until
alternative technologies are embraced, crop-based biofuels will continue to deprive the hungry of desperately needed food.
CORN ETHANOL RAISES FOOD PRICES—SUGAR DOESNT

Redorbit.com 2008 (Stratos Renewables Comments on Advantages of Sugarcane Ethanol Amid Corn Ethanol's
Controversieshttp://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1440913/stratos_renewables_comments_on_advantages_of_sugarcane_ethanol_
amid_corn/)
"I think some of the ethanol studies are a little misleading, as there are many concrete benefits of substituting ethanol for oil that are
often not considered and frequently the studies do not adequately distinguish among different feedstocks," said Roger Ballentine,
energy and environmental advisor to Peruvian sugarcane ethanol company, Stratos Renewables Corporation (SRNW). "The key item
most often sited in these studies is the use of corn as the primary feedstock, and there are huge differences in the cost of harvesting and
producing ethanol from corn than from sugarcane. The use of corn as the primary feedstock, and the subsidies attached to the corn
agricultural industry, have been widely criticized as environmentally problematic and as contributing to high food prices - but those
criticisms don't apply to sugarcane.


CORN ETHANOL RAISES FOOD PRICES—COWS AND TORTILLAS PROVES
Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, 2006
(The Ethanol Mandate Should Not Be Expanded, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2020.cfm)
Ethanol use at current levels has also led to skyrocketing corn prices as the available supply is split between food and fuel uses. This
has led to higher prices for corn products and things such as corn-fed meat.[6] The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that the
ethanol mandate will continue to apply upward pressure on food prices in the coming years.[7] Even the price of tortillas, the dietary
staple of many low-income Mexicans, has been affected.
FOOD PRICES WILL RISE EVERY YEAR IF CORN ETHANOL ISN’T STOPPED
Robert Bryce 2008 (Investigative journalist, managing editor of “Energy Tribune”, GUSHER OF LIES: The Dangerous Delusions of
‘Energy Independence’)
As U.S. ethanol distilleries vacuum up ever increasing quantities of corn, and corn takes up an ever larger percentage of arable land,
prices for all types of food are skyrocketing. During the last two years, corn prices have more than doubled and soybean prices have
nearly tripled. In 2007 food prices in the U.S. increased by nearly 5 percent. Bill Lapp, of the Omaha-based research firm Advanced
Economic Solutions, told The Boston Globe in March that he expects food prices to increase at an annual rate of 7.5 percent for the
next five years.
CORN ETHANOL INCREASES FOOD PRICES—SPILLS OVER TO ALL FOODS

Ernest Istook is a distinguished fellow in Government Relations, 2007 (Ethanol policy - what a turkey,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120307c.cfm)
Ethanol subsidies are raising our food prices - dubbed the "Thanksgiving Tax" because it upped the cost we paid for Thanksgiving
dinner.
Turkey farmers need almost three pounds of corn for every pound of meat put on the birds. But they must outbid those who buy up the
corn to make ethanol, thanks to a 51-cents-per-gallon ethanol tax credit and other federal incentives.
America paid $69 million extra for our Thanksgiving turkeys due to ethanol mandates. That's what Joel Brandenberger of the National
Turkey Federation told a Heritage Foundation audience. But it's just a small part of what he labeled the Thanksgiving Tax.
With almost a fourth of the corn crop now diverted to ethanol, it's costlier to feed the chickens, the hogs and the grain-fed cattle. Egg
prices are up. Corn meal, corn syrup, and even my personal favorite (popcorn!) are pricier. So is almost all food, as other grains are in
higher demand as a substitute for corn.
Bottom line: America pays $9 billion a year more for our food because of ethanol policy. The problem is growing faster than any crop.
A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report says farmers are planting more corn rather than other grains, constantly reducing the
supply and thus raising the price for those crops. High grain costs are discouraging farmers from raising cattle and other animals, thus
further increasing meat and egg prices. The food industry has a website outlining the ripple effect on our groceries.
PLAN BOOSTS THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY BY LOWERING FOOD PRICES—BERNANKE AGREES

DTN Ethanol Center 2008 (Bernanke: Lower Brazil Ethanol Tariff,
http://www.dtnethanolcenter.com/index.cfm?show=10&mid=70&pid=9)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Thursday he favored cutting high tariffs on Brazilian
ethanol to help take pressure off food prices.
"As you know, I favor open trade and I think allowing Brazilian ethanol, for example, would reduce costs in the United States,"
Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee.
Most of the ethanol made in the United States comes from corn, and domestic production is protected from sugar-based Brazilian
ethanol by a steep tariff.
Bernanke said it was hard to say how much current strong demand for ethanol was boosting food prices.
"But it is the case that a significant portion of the corn crop is being diverted to ethanol, which raises corn prices," Bernanke told the
panel.
"And there's some knock-on effects. For example, some soybean acreage has been moved to corn production, which probably has
some effect on soybean prices. So there is some price effect on foodstuffs coming through the conversion to energy use," Bernanke
said.

HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD—SOUTH CHINA SEAS (SHELL)

HIGH FOOD PRICES IS ALLOWING CHINA TO EXTEND CLAIMS AGIANST THE SPRATLY ISLANDS IN UNLOS
Feria—2008 (Monica Feria is a Staff Writer for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “South China Sea flashpoint”, 4/19/08,
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/spratlys/view.php?db=1&article=20080419-131474)
AN AGREEMENT between China and 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to tamp down the Spratly
Islands dispute is unraveling as soaring food and fuel prices force nations to step up the race to find new resources offshore and beat a
deadline for extended maritime claims under the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
LEADS TO NUKE WAR

Nikkei Weekly ’95 (7-3, Lexis)
Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian countries would go to war against
each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S.,
leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.

STARVATION BAD--MORALITY
STARVATION MUST BE REJECTED – IT OUTWEIGHS EXTINCTION
WATSON 77 philosophy professor, Washington University, [WORLD HUNGER AND MORAL OBLIGATION, 1977, pp. 118-9.]
One may even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. For
example, if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will
hurt no one, he remains silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral, one distributes available food in equal shares even if everyone dies.
That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or
moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. There is a strict analogy here
between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian.
The moral world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest
principle – recant or die. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die – and it is pathetic to profess
morality if one quits when the going gets rough.

A2 SUGAR ETHANOL RAISES FOOD PRICES

CORN ETHANOL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING FOOD PRICES—UN STUDIES PROVE
Marinis—2008 (Alexandre Marinis is a Staff Writer for the Bloomberg News and The Tampa Tribune, “Ethanol Pales In Comparison
To Brazilian Sugar Cane Fuel”, 5/28/08, http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/28/bz-ethanol-pales-in-comparison-to-brazilian-
sugar-/)
That brings up the first question: If ethacane were responsible for higher food prices, wouldn't food cost more in Brazil than
elsewhere? It doesn't.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, Brazil is one of the world's cheapest producers of corn,
soybeans, beef, chicken, pork, milk and rice. In a clear sign of agricultural competitiveness, Brazil is also a leading exporter of food.
"When we talk about the influence of biofuels on the economy of grains, we are talking about the corn from the U.S., not the sugar
cane from Brazil," said Abdolreza Abbassian, secretary of the Intergovernmental Group on Grains within FAO. A recent study by the
International Monetary Fund shows that Brazil's ethacane hasn't been responsible for higher international food prices.

CORN BAD—FOOD SECURITY (SHELL)

LAND USED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF CORN ETHANOL TRADES OFF WITH LAND USED TO PRODUCE FOOD,
UNDERMINING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
food crops. Projected surges in global population and decreases in sub-tropical arable land due to less rainfall make it clear that a
reduction in the amount of land currently devoted to food production could have grave implications for international food security.
Farmers in the developing world could shift to biofuel feedstocks, removing food acreage from production and potentially eroding
food security.
LOSS OF FOOD SECURITY CAUSES GLOBAL INSTABILITY, WARS, BILLIONS OF DEATHS, AND RISKS
EXTINCTION
Winnail , 1996 (Douglas S., Ph. D., M.P.H., September-October, On The Horizon: Famine, http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm)
What is seldom stated is that optimistic forecasts for increasing grain production are based on critical long-term assumptions that
include normal (average) weather. Yet in recent years this has definitely not been the case. Severe and unusual weather conditions
have suddenly appeared around the globe. Some of the worst droughts, heat waves, heavy rains and flooding on record have reduced
harvests in China, Spain, Australia, South Africa, the United States and Canada--major grain growing regions of the world--by 40 to
50 percent. As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes, "No other
economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only
economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even wars.
The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants
into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side
effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms--could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in
temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor.
With world food stores dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years
will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However, poor
harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge.
Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today?
Where is it all leading? What does the future hold?
The clear implication is that things will get worse before they get better. Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of
people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented
global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible!
Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the
threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases, and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's
resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time!

CORN BAD—FOOD SECURITY

LAND USED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF CORN ETHANOL TRADES OFF WITH LAND USED TO PRODUCE FOOD,
UNDERMINING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
food crops. Projected surges in global population and decreases in sub-tropical arable land due to less rainfall make it clear that a
reduction in the amount of land currently devoted to food production could have grave implications for international food security.
Farmers in the developing world could shift to biofuel feedstocks, removing food acreage from production and potentially eroding
food security.
US PRODUCTION OF CORN-BASED ETHANOL IS DESTROYING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY

Lester Brown, MacArthur Fellow and the recipient of 1987 United Nations Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature
Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize, “Why Ethanol Production will Drive Food Prices Even Higher,” 2008
We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil
insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before.
The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. As a result,
prices of food products such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, as well as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In
Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some
of the worst in decades.
By late 2007, the U.S. price of a loaf of whole wheat bread was 12 percent higher than a year earlier, milk was up 29 percent, and eggs
were up 36 percent. In Italy, pasta prices were up 20 percent.
The reason: demand is simply outpacing supply. In seven of the last eight years world grain production has fallen short of
consumption. These annual shortfalls have been covered by drawing down grain stocks, but the carryover stocks—the amount in the
bin when the new harvest begins—have now dropped to 54 days of world consumption, the lowest on record. (See data.)
From 1990 to 2005, world grain consumption, driven largely by population growth and rising consumption of grain-based animal
products, climbed by an average of 21 million tons per year. Then came the explosion in demand for grain used in U.S. ethanol
distilleries, which jumped from 54 million tons in 2006 to 81 million tons in 2007. This 27-million-ton jump more than doubled the
annual growth in world demand for grain. If 80 percent of the 62 distilleries now under construction are completed by late 2008, grain
used to produce fuel for cars will climb to 114 million tons, or 28 percent of the projected 2008 U.S. grain harvest.
Historically the food and energy economies have been largely separate, but now with the construction of so many fuel ethanol
distilleries, they are merging. If the food value of grain is less than its fuel value, the market will move the grain into the energy
economy. Thus as the price of oil rises, the price of grain follows it upward.
The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those
living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off.
CONTINUED GRAIN SHORTAGES LEAD TO MASSIVE FOOD SHORTAGES, SPURRING INSTABILITY AND
CREATING FAILED STATES
Lester Brown, MacArthur Fellow and the recipient of 1987 United Nations Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature
Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize , “Food Shortages Drive Global Prices to Record Highs,” 4. 23.08
The collective effect of these trends makes it more and more difficult for farmers to keep pace with the growth in demand. With grain
stocks at an all-time low, the world is only one poor harvest away from total chaos in world grain markets.
Business-as-usual is no longer a viable option. Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries can collectively mobilize
to stabilize population, restrict the use of grain to produce automotive fuel, stabilize climate, stabilize water tables and aquifers,
protect cropland, and conserve soils. Stabilizing population is not simply a matter of providing reproductive health care and family
planning services. It requires a worldwide effort to eradicate poverty. Eliminating water shortages depends on a global attempt to raise
water productivity similar to the effort launched a half-century ago to raise land productivity, an initiative that has nearly tripled the
world grain yield per hectare. None of these goals can be achieved quickly, but progress toward all is essential to restoring a
semblance of food security.
This troubling situation is unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain
prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a
hallmark of civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the number
of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of civilization itself.

CORN BAD—GLOBAL WARMING (SHELL)

CORN ETHANOL GREATLY INCREASE CO2 AND THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING
Moreover, the supposedly "green" virtues of biofuels are not quite what they seemed. In fact, biofuels pose major risks to the
environment. In October 2007, the Nobel Prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen, who pioneered the atmospheric science of ozone
depletion, co-authored an article demonstrating that the heavy application of nitrogen fertilizer on corn (for ethanol) and on European
rapeseed (for vegetable-oil biodiesel) would produce such high levels of atmospheric nitrous oxide--which is 296 times more
damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide--that it would have a net negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
In early 2008, two articles in Science showed that forests or grasslands converted for the production of biofuels will immediately incur
a "carbon debt," due to the release of carbon dioxide from biomass and soil. This long "payback" for biofuels is disappointing in light
of the urgency of global warming. The second Science study demonstrated that biofuel production often displaces crops, moving them
to new areas where further land-use conversions are required. In the Corn Belt of the Midwest, biofuels helped to convert nearly 20
million acres from soybean production to corn production in 2007, pushing soybean prices higher while encouraging extensive
applications of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that run off into lakes and streams, enter the Mississippi River, and eventually reach
the Gulf of Mexico where they have created an oxygen-starved "dead zone." The authors found that such land-use changes nearly
double greenhouse emissions over 30 years, and increase greenhouse gases for 167 years.
ACTING NOW IS KEY

The need for urgent action is clear. In finding a solution, we must make the best choices possible with the best information available.
According to NASA’s Head Climate Scientist, James Hansen, the world has a brief 10-year window of opportunity to take
decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe. Swift and determined action to prevent the most severe
impacts of global climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity today, of which addressing emissions from
the transportation sector is a key component.
GLOBAL WARMING CULMINTATES IN THE EXTINCTION OF 40% OF THE WORLDS SPECIES

The magnitude of the challenges posed by large-scale, systemic changes to energy production, distribution, and consumption
processes are daunting. That the environmental effects of the current global energy system are unsustainable is beyond debate. Indeed,
climate change is now understood as a planetary phenomenon of potentially catastrophic consequences. The scientific evidence is
overwhelming, as recently confirmed by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC:
human activities, particularly associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, are changing the Earth’s climate at an unprecedented
scale and pace. There is no doubt that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (including CO2, NOx, and methane) is rising
as a consequence of human activity, and that these anthropogenic emissions are resulting in increased global atmospheric
temperatures. The IPCC, an organization of leading climate scientists working under the auspices of the United Nations, has
concluded that by the end of the century the planet’s average temperature could increase up to 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5F).
Temperature increases of this magnitude will have irreversible consequences:
Melting ice sheets will raise sea levels, which in turn will submerge many costal areas, permanently displacing some 200 million
people; the intensity and frequency of storms, hurricanes, floods, and droughts will increase; and forty percent of all the world’s
species will face extinction, infectious disease patterns are likely to change dramatically, and heat-related deaths will increase
exponentially.
SHIFTING TO SUGAR WOULD SOLVE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

Science Magazine, “Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future,” February 2007
Renewable energy is one of the most efficient ways to achieve sustainable development. Increasing its share in the world matrix will
help prolong the existence of fossil fuel reserves, address the threats posed by climate change, and enable better security of the energy
supply on a global scale. Most of the "new renewable energy sources" are still undergoing large-scale commercial development, but
some technologies are already well established. These include Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which, after 30 years of production, is a
global energy commodity that is fully competitive with motor gasoline and appropriate for replication in many countries.

CORN BAD—GLOBAL WARMING

CORN ETHANOL GREATLY INCREASE CO2 AND THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING
Moreover, the supposedly "green" virtues of biofuels are not quite what they seemed. In fact, biofuels pose major risks to the
environment. In October 2007, the Nobel Prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen, who pioneered the atmospheric science of ozone
depletion, co-authored an article demonstrating that the heavy application of nitrogen fertilizer on corn (for ethanol) and on European
rapeseed (for vegetable-oil biodiesel) would produce such high levels of atmospheric nitrous oxide--which is 296 times more
damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide--that it would have a net negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
In early 2008, two articles in Science showed that forests or grasslands converted for the production of biofuels will immediately incur
a "carbon debt," due to the release of carbon dioxide from biomass and soil. This long "payback" for biofuels is disappointing in light
of the urgency of global warming. The second Science study demonstrated that biofuel production often displaces crops, moving them
to new areas where further land-use conversions are required. In the Corn Belt of the Midwest, biofuels helped to convert nearly 20
million acres from soybean production to corn production in 2007, pushing soybean prices higher while encouraging extensive
applications of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that run off into lakes and streams, enter the Mississippi River, and eventually reach
the Gulf of Mexico where they have created an oxygen-starved "dead zone." The authors found that such land-use changes nearly
double greenhouse emissions over 30 years, and increase greenhouse gases for 167 years.
CORN BASED ETHANOL INCREASES TO GREEN HOUSE GASSES CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING
Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation, 2007 (Ethanol: Time to steer away,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032907a.cfm)
And that brings us to ethanols environmental impact. After all, shipping by truck, barge or rail uses … well, fossil fuels. So the more
ethanol we move, the more fossil fuel we use -- which, Al Gore and Company tell us repeatedly, spews the greenhouse gases that
contribute to global warming. In addition, all that extra corn farming means more fertilizer and pesticide use, along with increased
irrigation. More diesel fuel will be needed to run the tractors and the harvesters.
In the end, Lieberman concludes, ethanol may wind up putting about as much carbon dioxide into the air as it takes out. So, from an
environmental perspective, well be paying more to more or less maintain the status quo.

CORN BAD—MONOCROPPING (SHELL)

USING CORN FOR ETHANOL ENCROURAGES MONOCULTURES WHICH KILLS BIODIVERSITY, CAUSES CROP
FAILURE, AND BIOTERRORISM
Lee—2008 (Roy Lee is a Staff Writer for The Lowell, “Corn ethanol ineffective as viable energy source”, 5/08,
http://www.thelowell.org/content/view/2618/29/)
It is not realistic to hold U.S. corn to Brazilian sugarcane’s standards for producing ethanol, and it is unfair to constantly point to Brazil’s energy independence. It is a much easier
feat for Brazil to be energy independent since it uses less gasoline and diesel than the United States. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Brazil consumes 20 billion gallons of ethanol, diesel, and gasoline each year. The United States consumes 180.
Corn is causing enough problems by itself. Currently the federal government subsidizes ethanol by giving farmers money to grow certain crops — usually corn, wheat, soybeans and rice. Giving subsidies to
farmers who grow corn encourages monoculture, greatly reducing biodiversity and dramatically increasing the chance of crop failure
or even bioterrorism. Increasing the already-high corn subsidies for ethanol production would only increase this threat. Imagine what the United States
would do if, when all of its cars were adapted to ethanol, major crop failures or disease decimated the corn supply.
PLAN DIVERSITY ON FARMS IS KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVIAL

James K Boyce, Department of Economics & Political Economy Research and Environmental research at the University of
Massachusetts, July 2004, “A Future for Small Farms? Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture”. Political Economic Research
Institute, ideap/wp86.html
There is a future for small farms. Or, to be more precise, there can be and should be a future for them. Given the dependence of ‘modern’ low-diversity
agriculture on ‘traditional’ high-diversity agriculture, the long-term food security of humankind will depend on small farms and their
continued provision of the environmental service of in situ conservation of crop genetic diversity. Policies to support small farms can be advocated, therefore, not merely as
a matter of sympathy, or nostalgia, or equity. Such policies are also a matter of human survival.
The diversity that underpins the sustainability of world agriculture did not fall from the sky. It was bequeathed to us by the 400
generations of farmers who have carried on the process of artificial selection since plants were first domesticated. Until recently, we took this
diversity for granted. The ancient reservoirs of crop genetic diversity, plant geneticist Jack Harlan (1975, p. 619) wrote three decades ago, ‘seemed to most people as
inexhaustible as oil in Arabia.’ Yet, Harlan warned, ‘the speed which enormous crop diversity can be essentially wiped out is astonishing.’
The central thesis of this essay is that efforts to conserve in situ diversity must go hand-in-hand with efforts to support the small farmers around the world who sustain this diversity. Economists and environmentalists alike by and large have neglected this issue. In thrall
many environmentalists fail to appreciate

to a myopic notion of efficiency, many economists fail to appreciate that diversity is the sine qua non of resilience and sustainability. In thrall to a romantic notion of ‘wilderness,’
that agricultural biodiversity is just as valuable – indeed, arguably more valuable from the standpoint of human well-being – as the diversity found in tropical rainforests or the
spotted owls found in the ancient forests of the northwestern United States.
BIOTERRORISM LEADS TO EXTINCTION

Ochs in 2 [Richard, "BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS MUST BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY", June 9,
http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html]
The failure of the FBI to prosecute the perpetrator of the anthrax letters even though the FBI is believed to know who it is has led several experts to conclude that the perpetrator is untouchable because he has knowledge damaging to the government. That knowledge is
believed to be the US violation of the 1972 Convention on Biological Weapons, which states that it is illegal to "develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire" such weapons. The US is using state-of-the-art genetic splicing to make designer bioweapons. An article
by Laura Rozen in Salon (2/8/02) revealed that the "Defense Intelligence Agency hired Battelle to create a genetically enhanced version of anthrax" even though no vaccine was proven to be effective beforehand. A former Clinton administration official, Elisa D. Harris,
"was shocked to read in the New York Times" (9/4/01) about bioweapons research "that she herself had not known about, although she had served for eight years in the White House as the point person for weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation issues."What other
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered

secret, illegal and genetically modified bioweapons are in the works? If we are told "none," why should we believe anything they tell us?
biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value
or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter,"
resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of
future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax
attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be
stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be
small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence
in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination
bio-engineered agents
is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that,
by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses
are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically, the Bush administration has just
changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when our nation’s survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US
To preclude possibilities of human extinction, "patriotism" needs to be redefined

bioweapons? How slippery is this slope? Against this tendency can be posed a rational alternative policy.
to make humanity’s survival primary and absolute. Even if we lose our cherished freedom, our sovereignty, our government or our
Constitution, where there is life, there is hope. What good is anything else if humanity is extinguished? This concept should be promoted to the center of national
debate. For example, for sake of argument, suppose the ancient Israelites developed defensive bioweapons of mass destruction when they were enslaved by Egypt. Then suppose these weapons were released by design or accident and wiped everybody out? As
bad as slavery is, extinction is worse. Our generation, our century, our epoch needs to take the long view. We truly hold in our hands the precious gift of all future life. Empires may come and go, but who are the honored custodians of
life on earth? Temporal politicians? Corporate competitors? Strategic brinksmen? Military gamers? Inflated egos dripping with testosterone? How can any sane person believe that national sovereignty is more important than survival of the species? Now that extinction
is possible, our slogan should be "Where there is life, there is hope." No government, no economic system, no national pride, no religion, no political system can be placed above human survival. The egos of leaders must not blind us.

CORN BAD—OIL DEPENDENCE

CORN BASED ETHANOL WONT MAKE THE US OIL INDEPENDENT DUE TO PRODUCTION CONTRAINTS—AND
IT WOULD HURT THE POOR
Further, corn-based ethanol is not the end-all solution that will transform the United States into an energy independent nation. The use
of traditional food sources for the production of fuel poses serious consequences to the world's poor. n134 In addition, as noted above,
there are [*349] limits on how much ethanol could be produced even if an entire corn harvest was used to produce ethanol. n135
CORN WONT SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE

B. Natural Resources and Advantages
The United States, on the other hand, is unable to produce large amounts of sugarcane, due largely to differences in climate, limited
amounts of available farm land, and comparatively high labor costs. n121 Instead, the United States has focused on the more
expensive corn-based ethanol. n122 In 2006, twenty percent of the nation's corn harvest was utilized in ethanol production, n123
which supplied a mere two to three percent of the nation's non-diesel automotive fuel. n124 Even if the entire U.S. grain harvest was
CORN ETHANOL WILL FORCE THE US TO REMAINE DEPENDENT ON OIL

The ability of corn-based ethanol to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil is limited. Dedicating the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol
would displace only a small share of gasoline demand.

A2 SUGAR IS ENERGY INEFFICIENT

SUGAR ETHANOL IS MOER ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN CORN ETHANOL, BEET ETHANOL, WHEAT ETHANOL,
DIESEL, AND GASOLINE
sugar-/)
Energy Department.
As for efficiency, ethacane produces 8.2 joules of energy per unit of fossil-fuel input, compared with 1.5 joules for ethacorn and less
than 1 joule for diesel and gasoline.
Ethacane is twice as productive as ethacorn - 6,800 liters per hectare for the former and 3,100 liters per hectare for the latter. It also
produces 24 percent more fuel per hectare than the beet- or wheat-based ethanol common in Europe.
CORN IS LESS ENRGY EFFICIENT TO PRODUCE AND USE THAN SUGAR

Slash Dot, “Urging Congress to Cancel the Ethanol Tariff,” May 9 2006
The Wall Street Journal is urging Washington to discard the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. This tariff is effectively a
subsidy for corn-based ethanol produced in the USA. Yet, producing ethanol from corn is highly inefficient and consumes 1 unit of
energy for each 1.3 units of energy that burning ethanol provides. By contrast, ethanol derived from sugarcane (which is the sole
source of ethanol in Brazil) yields 8.3 units of energy. Sugercane is about 7 times more efficient than corn. Some studies even show
that corn yields only 0.8 unit of energy, resulting in a net loss of energy.
DEPENDENCE ON SUGARCANE IS NET BETTER THAN CORN ETHANOL - THIS EVIDENCE IS COMPARATIVE
Runge and Senauer, 2007 (C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law and
Director of the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. Benjamin Senauer is Professor of
Applied Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota. "How Biofuels Could Starve the
Poor" http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-
poor.html?mode=print)
For now, however, the costs of harvesting, transporting, and converting such plant matters are high, which means that cellulose-based
ethanol is not yet commercially viable when compared with the economies of scale of current corn-based production. One ethanol-
plant manager in the Midwest has calculated that fueling an ethanol plant with switchgrass, a much-discussed alternative, would
require delivering a semitrailer truckload of the grass every six minutes, 24 hours a day. The logistical difficulties and the costs of
converting cellulose into fuel, combined with the subsidies and politics currently favoring the use of corn and soybeans, make it
unrealistic to expect cellulose-based ethanol to become a solution within the next decade. Until it is, relying more on sugar cane to
produce ethanol in tropical countries would be more efficient than using corn and would not involve using a staple food.

CORN BAD—OIL PRICE

CORN BASED ETHANOL WOULD FAIL TO LOWER THE PRICE OF OIL
The Wallstreet Journal, “Floodwaters Add to Pressure on Gas Prices,” June 18, 2008
Flooding in the Midwest could mean drivers will be getting a bigger soaking at gasoline pumps nationwide.
In recent days, corn-based ethanol prices have risen along with floodwaters as commodities traders worry about damage to corn crops.
Ethanol futures are up 17% over the past week, to $2.89 a gallon, mirroring the price of corn, which has risen 13% during the same
period, according to Thomson Reuters.
Since refiners blend ethanol into gasoline, higher ethanol prices mean higher costs for refiners, which could be passed on at the pump
as Americans enter the summer driving season.
"It's coming at the worst possible time," said Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report, a newsletter on energy.
Drivers already are paying record prices. The average price of gasoline cracked $4 a gallon for the first time earlier this month, and
prices are up 36% from a year ago, according to the Energy Information Administration. (Please see related article on page A4.)
Nonetheless, gasoline's rise hasn't been nearly as dramatic as crude oil's, which is up 94% over the past year.
The relatively low price of ethanol has played a part in keeping gas prices in check compared with crude, said Mr. Schork. Now that
brake is in jeopardy of disappearing.

A2 SUGAR POLLUTES
SUGAR POLLUTES LESS THAN THE STATUS QUO—FOSSLE FUELS POLLUTES MORE, MECHANICAL CANE
CUTTING PREVENTS SLASH AND BURN POLLUTION. EVEN IF SUGAR CANE ETHANOL DOES POLLUTE THE
NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE TARIFF OUTWEIGH THE POLLUTION
sugar-/)
Arguing that ethacane pollutes more than fossil fuels is ludicrous. While oil already costs $129 a barrel and eventually will run out,
ethacane is renewable, cleaner and more efficient.
In comparison with gasoline, ethacane reduces the emission of greenhouse gases by more than 80 percent, according to the U.S.
Energy Department.
As for efficiency, ethacane produces 8.2 joules of energy per unit of fossil-fuel input, compared with 1.5 joules for ethacorn and less
than 1 joule for diesel and gasoline.
Ethacane is twice as productive as ethacorn - 6,800 liters per hectare for the former and 3,100 liters per hectare for the latter. It also
produces 24 percent more fuel per hectare than the beet- or wheat-based ethanol common in Europe.
Brazil To Challenge U.S. Tariff
The argument that ethacane pollutes the environment because the cane must be burned before being manually harvested is a
nonstarter. In the state of Sao Paulo, which produces 62 percent of Brazil's ethanol, more than half of the cane is already harvested
mechanically and manual cane-cutting will be abolished by 2014. That should also put an end to the argument that cane harvesting
relies on the equivalent of slave labor.
Nor does ethacane take from the poor and give to the rich. Agricultural subsidies in wealthy nations do that.
Far more problematic than any of these issues is the U.S. Congress' refusal to eliminate a 54-cent tariff on each gallon of imported
ethanol. This levy was introduced in 1980 to protect U.S. makers of corn-based ethanol from competitors such as Brazil, which can
produce ethacane for 22 cents per liter, while U.S. ethacorn costs 35 cents per liter. Lifting this tariff would ease the demand for corn
and take a step toward easing pressure on food prices.

CORN BAD—WATER (SHELL)

CORN ETHANOL CONTAMINATES GROUND WATER
Another issue is pollution. In Iowa there have been some instances of water pollution from refineries. But another more insidious
problem deals with the switch from soybeans to corn. Soybeans are nitrogen-fixers and require less fertilizer than corn. That means
farmers who switch to corn may not only be increasing their water use, but may also run the risk of polluting ground water and/or
contributing to algal blooms in surface water because of increased fertilizer use. Let us not forget the hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,
exacerbated by nutrients in runoff derived from Midwest farms. And, since much fertilizer comes from natural gas, what was that
about reducing our dependency on foreign energy?

establishiment of agriculture because we tapped the groundwater by digging wells and then used it to irrigate our crops. It is still
important today for this reason (although we also now impond water in dams and divert it for agriculture using aqueducts). As the
population of the west has grown, the demands put on groundwater to provide for human well-being have been increasing, and their is
great concern today about how long our groundwater will last, and whether or not we can make sure that it is clean and drinkaable
over the long term. It is for this reason, one of the most pressing environmental issues faced by citizens the world over.

CORN BAD—WATER
THE USE OF CORN FOR ETHANOL BOOST THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS THAT ARE LEAKED INTO THE GULF
OF MEXICO AND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Lilley—2006 (Sasha Lilley is a writer for CorpWatch and producer of the program Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio, “Green Fuel's
Dirty Secret” 6/1/06, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646)
Yet the enormous amounts of corn that ADM and other ethanol processors buy from Midwestern farmers wreak damage on the
environment in a multiplicity of ways. Modern corn hybrids require more nitrogen fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides than any
other crop, while causing the most extensive erosion of top soil. Pesticide and fertilizer runoff from the vast expanses of corn in the
U.S. prairies bleed into groundwater and rivers as far as the Gulf of Mexico. The nitrogen runoff flowing into the Mississippi River
has fostered a vast bloom of dead algae in the Gulf that starves fish and other aquatic life of oxygen.
To understand the hidden costs of corn-based ethanol requires factoring in "the huge, monstrous costs of cleaning up polluted water in
the Mississippi River drainage basin and also trying to remedy the negative effects of poisoning the Gulf of Mexico," says Tad Patzek
of the University of California's Civil and Environmental Engineering department.
"These are not abstract environmental effects," Patzek asserts, "these are effects that impact the drinking water all over the Corn Belt,
that impact also the poison that people ingest when they eat their food, from the various pesticides and herbicides." Corn farming
substantially tops all crops in total application of pesticides, according to the US Department of Agriculture, and is the crop most
likely to leach pesticides into drinking water.
CORN ETHANOL CONTAMINATES GROUND WATER

Another issue is pollution. In Iowa there have been some instances of water pollution from refineries. But another more insidious
problem deals with the switch from soybeans to corn. Soybeans are nitrogen-fixers and require less fertilizer than corn. That means
farmers who switch to corn may not only be increasing their water use, but may also run the risk of polluting ground water and/or
contributing to algal blooms in surface water because of increased fertilizer use. Let us not forget the hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,
exacerbated by nutrients in runoff derived from Midwest farms. And, since much fertilizer comes from natural gas, what was that
about reducing our dependency on foreign energy?
INCREASED USE OF CORN ETHANOL LEADS TO FRESH WATER SHORTAGES

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007) — http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm
If projected increases in the use of corn for ethanol production occur, the harm to water quality could be considerable, and water
supply problems at the regional and local levels could also arise, says a new report from the National Research Council. The
committee that wrote the report examined policy options and identified opportunities for new agricultural techniques and technologies
to help minimize effects of biofuel production on water resources.
Recent increases in oil prices in conjunction with subsidy policies have led to a dramatic expansion in corn ethanol production and
high interest in further expansion over the next decade, says the report. Indeed, because of strong national interest in greater energy
independence, in this year's State of the Union address, President Bush called for the production of 35 billion gallons of ethanol by
2017, which would equal about 15 percent of the U.S. liquid transportation fuels.
A National Research Council committee was convened to look at how shifts in the nation's agriculture to include more energy crops,
and potentially more crops overall, could affect water management and long-term sustainability of biofuel production. Based on
findings presented at a July colloquium, the committee came to several conclusions about biofuel production and identified options for
addressing them.
In terms of water quantity, the committee found that agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops into regions with
little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase pressure on water resources in
many parts of the United States. The amount of rainfall and other hydroclimate conditions from region to region causes significant
variations in the water requirement for the same crop, the report says.
For example, in the Northern and Southern Plains, corn generally uses more water than soybeans and cotton, while the reverse is true
in the Pacific and mountain regions of the country. Water demands for drinking, industry, and such uses as hydropower, fish habitat,
and recreation could compete with, and in some cases, constrain the use of water for biofuel crops in some regions. Consequently,
growing biofuel crops requiring additional irrigation in areas with limited water supplies is a major concern, the report says.

CORN BAD—WATER
CORN IS THE WORST CROP FOR FERTILIZER RUN OFF
Corn is more "leaky" than crops such as soybean and alfalfa — that is, it absorbs less nitrogen per acre. The prime reasons are the
drainage systems used in corn fields and the timing of when the fertilizer is applied.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each
year. Scientists had no immediate estimate for 2007, but said they expect the amount of fertilizer going into streams to increase with
more acres of corn planted.
"Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn
fertilizer's effect on the dead zone. "More corn equals more nitrogen pollution."
Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn't make sense
to grow anything else. And growing corn isn't profitable without nitrogen-based fertilizer.

CORN BAD—LAUNDRY LIST

CURRENTLY THE US IS MOVING TOWARDS A CORN MARKET THIS IS WORCE THAN SUGAR BECAUSE
CORN IS LESS EFFICIENT, UNSUSTAINABLE, CORN WONT DECREASE SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE
FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, CORN USES FOSSILE FUELS TO PRODUCE, CORN PRODUCTION CREATES
TOXINS, HURT RURAL COMMUNITIES
Sharpley—2008 (Dan Shapley is the The Daily Green's news editor and an award-winning environmental journalist, 6/23/08,
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/ethanol-obama-mccain-47062301)
Ethanol can be made from many plants. Brazil has a booming industry in sugar ethanol, and scientists are working on ways to
transform currently valueless crops like switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol. But the United States currently gets its ethanol almost
exclusively from corn, and that means ethanol politics is corn politics.
The promise of renewable fuels is potent: Rather than digging up a limited supply of hydrocarbons that have been buried for millions
of years, we can burn fuel created by the sun each season. And, not insignificantly, we can do it domestically.
That's the promise. In reality, ethanol – particularly corn-based ethanol – is a deeply flawed fuel.
A report released last year by Food & Water Watch, the Network for New Energy Choices and the Vermont Law School
Environmental Law Center described these problems with corn-based ethanol:
* Not all bio-fuels are equal. Corn, which is the source of 95% of ethanol in the U.S., is among the least efficient, least sustainable
biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol, while not yet ready for market, has more favorable energy ratios than corn and presents more room for
productivity gains, making it appealing to investors, farmers and refiners. Yet, most biofuels policies being debated in Congress would
primarily benefit corn ethanol refiners in the near future.
* Corn ethanol has little promise of reducing U.S. fossil fuel emissions. Even if the entire U.S. corn crop was dedicated to ethanol, it
would displace less than 15 percent of national gasoline use. But a modest increase in auto fuel efficiency standards, such as those
passed by the Senate last month, would cut petroleum consumption by more than all alternative fuels and replacement fuels combined.
* The current path of corn-ethanol based biofuels is unsustainable. Using coal to power ethanol refineries can increase emissions in
comparison to the gasoline fuel replaced. And since corn production uses more than twice the amount of pesticides than any other
major U.S. crop, uncontrolled ethanol industry growth could exponentially increase environmental toxins.
* Even large-scale development of cellulosic ethanol is plagued by potential environmental problems. Turning cellulose into fuel, for
instance, would require a huge expenditure of increasingly scarce water resources and the mass production of cellulosic ethanol would
likely impact soil quality and convert land currently in conservation programs.
* Ethanol is not the solution to revitalizing rural America. While higher commodity prices and cooperatively owned ethanol refineries
could be a boon to independent farmers, unregulated ethanol industry growth will further concentrate agribusiness, threatening the
livelihood of rural communities.

A2 INCREASED CORN INVESTMENT SOLVES CORN BAD

INCREASED INVESTMENT IN CORN WONT BE ENOUGH
that corn alone will solve the U.S. energy dependence problem. n128 Instead, the United States needs to focus on both corn-based
ethanol and other abundant natural resources. n129

A2 CORN AND SUGAR ARE THE SAME

THROUGH CORN AND SUGAR ETHANOL LOOK THE SAME THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT
sugar-/)
Sometimes two things look pretty much the same, like a diamond and a cubic zirconia.
There's a world of difference between the two.
The same is true of ethanol made in the United States, mainly from corn, and ethanol from Brazil derived from sugar cane. They look
the same, though that's where the similarities end between what I like to call "ethacorn" and "ethacane."
Although ethacane doesn't produce a fraction of the negative economic, environmental and social problems that ethacorn does, as
international food prices soar and environmental concerns mount, both are being thrown into the same pinata to get hammered.
Ethacorn deserves the beating, not ethacane.

SUGAR ETHANOL DECREASES CORN ETHANOL

INCREASED SUGAR ETHANOL WOULD CHALLANCE CORN ETHANOL STOPPING PRICE SHOCKS—THIS CAN
BE DONE BY REMOVING TARIFFS—WHICH WILL BE DONE INEVITABLY IN A FEW YEARS
Increased ethanol production in the US could put pressure on corn producers, who may choose to use their corn harvest for ethanol
feedstock, rather than for food stuffs.
This practice, according to Chavez, can lead to a rise in the price of corn and other corn-based food on the international market.
Chavez will likely use that to drive a wedge between Brazil and the US. He has also focused on the US ethanol tariff, which some
argue prevents more Brazilian ethanol from entering US markets.
Jeb Bush has also responded to Chavez’s criticisms. Speaking to the Brazilian congress in mid-April, he said he expected the US tariff
on Brazilian ethanol would be "slashed or eliminated" in "several years."
Opening the US ethanol market to Brazilian ethanol producers would certainly place some pressure on the use of corn as ethanol
feedstock. Using sugar cane to produce ethanol is a cheaper process. More importantly, however, is Brazil's current focus on ramping
up its sugar-cane ethanol production in preparation for global export beyond US borders.
PLAN WOULD KILL THE DOMESTIC CORN ETHANOL INDUSTRY 2 WARRENTS (KILLS INVESTOR
CONFIDENCE KILLING R&D AND SHOWS THE GOVERNMENTS PREFERENCE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES
OVER FOREIGN INDUSTRIES)
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
Representative Boswell (D-IA) introduced legislation in the House on May 19, 2006, seeking to extend the temporary ethanol tariff
until January 1, 2011. n133 Representative Boswell is a supporter of the tariff, as domestic ethanol production is important to his
constituency. According to Representative Boswell, "the tariff has helped America's ethanol producers succeed and it's simply not the
time to halt its progress at a time when the ethanol industry is picking up speed." n134 Similarly, Senator Grassley (R-IA) views the
potential removal of the tariff as undermining the purpose of the RFS in the EPAct. n135 Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Finance, argues that removing the tariff will not lower prices for consumers but will only counteract the progress made
A second argument is that the EPAct mandates represent the country's desire to obtain energy independence. The tariff, therefore,
serves as an example of the government's determination to promote the growth of the domestic industry rather than support foreign
industries. Senator Thune (R-SD) supported the EPAct as a way for the federal government to reduce foreign dependency as well as
invest in existing state ethanol programs. n137 Senator Obama (D-IL) supported the RFS portion of the EPAct primarily because of
the possibility of reducing dependency on foreign oil. n138
[*708] Since Brazil is already exporting some ethanol duty-free through the CBERA, Senator Brownback (R-KS) argues that
removing the tariff will only improve foreign access to the U.S. market without benefits or reciprocity. n139 The tariff, therefore,

BA ZIL ECON ADVANTAGE
1AC BRAZILIAN ECON ADVANTAGE

CONTENTION ( ): SWEET CASH
ALL THE INHIBITORS TO A STRON BRAZILIAN ECONOMY HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED EXCEPT FOR
COMPEITTION WITH CORN ETHANOL
Gangadharan and Larcada—2007 (Anna Gangadharan and Albert Larcada are COHA Research Associates, “Aspiring To
Leadership: Brazil, President Lula and Sugar-Cane Ethanol”, 8/24/07, http://www.coha.org/2007/08/aspiring-to-leadership-brazil-
president-lula-and-sugar-cane-ethanol)
Who Is Holding Brazil Back? President Lula Foresees a Bigger Role in the Global Economy
Lula feels ebulliently confident about his country’s future prospects, a point he made clear at a May 2007 press conference, when he
asserted, “Brazil in 2007 is another country. I do not need to talk about economic stability, nor investment credibility, nor foreign debt,
nor foreign reserves… All these things are practically resolved.” Lula also has identified Brazil as having the potential to drastically
expand its economy, a goal that appears to sit at the top of his agenda. He aims to maximize the production of sugar-cane-base ethanol
in response to the high demand for biofuel in the energy market. In March 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush traveled to Brazil to
forge agreements on sugar-cane ethanol cultivation and exportation. During his visit, Bush signed an agreement with Lula to broaden
development of biofuels such as ethanol. Prospects for economic growth are appearing rapidly, and Lula has cagily taken note of
Brazil’s potential to dominate the global energy market. But the fact is that huge obstables await Lula’s optimism regarding the future
of sugar-cane ethanol, and that a block will be posed by the politics of corn.
<INSERT BRAZILIAN ECON SHELL(S)>
ELIMINATION OF TARIFFS ON ETHANOL WOULD SPUR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THROUGHOUT BRAZIL
Dev. L. & Pol'y 25, Spring 2007, L-N)
To protect its environment the United States should eliminate the current ethanol tariff and subsidy, or at least focus the subsidy on
crops with high cellulose contents. In particular, eliminating the tariff on ethanol will promote the growth of an ethanol distribution
system because more imports would enter the country increasing the market for ethanol. n16 In addition, eliminating the ethanol tariff
would increase the demand for sugar cane, and thus, reduce third world countries' excess supply. As a result, the price of sugar cane
would increase providing additional revenue to the third world sugar cane producers. n17 The additional sugar cane revenue entering
these third world countries could foster the development of a middle class interested in protecting their own environment and
promoting sustainable development. n18 Finally, the elimination of the tariff and subsidy could rekindle the trade negotiations for a
Free Trade Area of the Americas that stalled over agriculture and service industry differences between Brazil and the United States.
n19

PLAN BOOSTS THE BRAZILIAN ECON

PLAN SOLVES DEFICITS IN THE ENVIORNMENT, INCREASES SUPPLY BOOSTING THE BRAZILIAN ECONOMY,
FOSTER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Dev. L. & Pol'y 25, Spring 2007, L-N)
To protect its environment the United States should eliminate the current ethanol tariff and subsidy, or at least focus the subsidy on
crops with high cellulose contents. In particular, eliminating the tariff on ethanol will promote the growth of an ethanol distribution
system because more imports would enter the country increasing the market for ethanol. n16 In addition, eliminating the ethanol tariff
would increase the demand for sugar cane, and thus, reduce third world countries' excess supply. As a result, the price of sugar cane
would increase providing additional revenue to the third world sugar cane producers. n17 The additional sugar cane revenue entering
these third world countries could foster the development of a middle class interested in protecting their own environment and
promoting sustainable development. n18 Finally, the elimination of the tariff and subsidy could rekindle the trade negotiations for a
Free Trade Area of the Americas that stalled over agriculture and service industry differences between Brazil and the United States.
n19
PLAN INCREASES DEMAND FOR SUGAR ETHANOL

The recent triggering of the ethanol boom has gradually further intertwined the rather erratic economic relationship between the
largest North and South American countries. In 2006, more than half of Brazil’s exported ethanol was sold to the U.S., with that figure
expected to rise dramatically in the coming years as Washington’s interest in ethanol swells. The rise in U.S. demand for Brazilian
ethanol could increase exponentially if the 54 cents–per-gallon tariff on bio-fuel is lifted.
ALL THE INHIBITORS TO A STRON BRAZILIAN ECONOMY HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED EXCEPT FOR
COMPEITTION WITH CORN ETHANOL
Who Is Holding Brazil Back? President Lula Foresees a Bigger Role in the Global Economy
Lula feels ebulliently confident about his country’s future prospects, a point he made clear at a May 2007 press conference, when he
asserted, “Brazil in 2007 is another country. I do not need to talk about economic stability, nor investment credibility, nor foreign debt,
nor foreign reserves… All these things are practically resolved.” Lula also has identified Brazil as having the potential to drastically
expand its economy, a goal that appears to sit at the top of his agenda. He aims to maximize the production of sugar-cane-base ethanol
in response to the high demand for biofuel in the energy market. In March 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush traveled to Brazil to
forge agreements on sugar-cane ethanol cultivation and exportation. During his visit, Bush signed an agreement with Lula to broaden
development of biofuels such as ethanol. Prospects for economic growth are appearing rapidly, and Lula has cagily taken note of
Brazil’s potential to dominate the global energy market. But the fact is that huge obstables await Lula’s optimism regarding the future
of sugar-cane ethanol, and that a block will be posed by the politics of corn.
INCREASING PRODUCTION OF BRAZILIAN ETHANOL BOOST THEIR ECONOMY

Moreover, Brazil’s experience of creating sustainable rural jobs, confirms that a viable biofuels industry can help sustain rural
communities in the United States and bring much needed capital and jobs to America’s rural areas.

PLAN BOOSTS THE BRAZILIAN ECON

STRONG ETHANOL MARKET KEY TO BRAZILIAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A sustainable energy future depends on an increased share of renewable energy, especially in developing countries. One of the best
ways to achieve such a goal is by replicating the large Brazilian program of sugar-cane ethanol, started in the 1970s.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987 defined "sustainable development" as development that
"meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (1). The elusiveness of
such a definition has led to unending discussions among social scientists regarding the meaning of "future generations."
However, in the case of energy, exhaustible fossil fuels represent 80% of the total world energy supply. At constant production and
consumption, the presently known reserves of oil will last around 41 years, natural gas 64 years, and coal 155 years (2). Although very
simplified, such an analysis illustrates why fossil fuels cannot be considered as the world's main source of energy for more than one or
two generations. Besides the issue of depletion, fossil fuel use presents serious environmental problems, particularly global warming.
Also, their production costs will increase as reserves approach exhaustion and as more expensive technologies are used to explore and
extract less attractive resources. Finally, there are increasing concerns for the security of the oil supply, originating mainly from
politically unstable regions of the world.

BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—AMAZON (SHELL)

PROTECT THE AMAZON
While some incorrectly try to argue that increased sugar cane production will push cattle ranches north and lead to the deforestation of
the Amazon, the industry’s smart growth is proving otherwise. The substantial expansion of sugar cane growing areas has been met by
an increase in the productivity of other crops and livestock, not by their move to environmentally sensitive areas. Growth has been
driven by productivity, not mobility or expansion into Brazil rainforests.

So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about
the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play
Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon
basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human
beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin
could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a
thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama:
What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the
face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests.
Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution
will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have
withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little
difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will
lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself
consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will
disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.14

BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—GLOBAL ECON (SHELL)

EMERGING ECONOMIES LIKE BRAZILS ARE KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY—THIS IS BEING FUELED BY
FUEL DEPENDENCY FROM ETHANOL
Cohen—2008 (Roger Cohen is a Staff Writer for the International Herald Tribune, “Cohen: The world is upside down”, 6/1/08,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/01/opinion/edcohen.php?page=1)
RIO DE JANEIRO: For a while the world was flat. Now it's upside down.
To understand it, invert your thinking. See the developed world as depending on the developing world, rather than the other way
round. Understand that two-thirds of global economic growth last year came from emerging countries, whose economies will expand
about 6.7 percent in 2008, against 1.3 percent for the United States, Japan and Euro zone states.
The sharp rise in prices for energy, commodities, metals and minerals produced mainly in the developing world explains part of this
shift. That has created the balance of payments surpluses fueling dollar-dripping sovereign wealth funds in countries like China. They
amuse themselves picking up a stake in BP here, a chunk of Morgan Stanley there, and why not a sliver of Total.
We of the developed-world Paleolithic species are fair game for the upstarts now, our predator role exhausted. The U.S. and Europe
may soon need all the charity they can get.
To place this inversion in focus, it helps to be in Brazil, where winter (so to speak) arrives with the Northern Hemisphere summer, and
economic optimism, as exuberant as the vegetation, increases at the same brisk clip as U.S. foreclosures.
Huge offshore oil finds, a sugarcane ethanol boom, vast reserves of unused arable land, mineral wealth and abundant fresh water
contribute to Brazilian buoyancy. But natural resources are only part of the story. As in China and India, an expanding internal market is bolstering growth. So is increasing corporate sophistication and global ambition.
At the annual National Forum, a gathering of business leaders, I felt like a first-world pipsqueak as leaders of the national energy company Petrobas (bigger than BP, Shell and Total) and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, or CVRD (the world's second largest mining
company), reeled off head-turning statistics.
Petrobras, which has spearheaded Brazil's push to self-sufficiency from heavy dependence on imported oil 30 years ago, will more than double oil production to 4.2 million barrels a day in 2015 from 1.9 million barrels today.
"With the latest discoveries, the South Atlantic will become a huge oil producer," predicted José Sergio Gabrielli de Azvedo, its chief executive.
Roger Agnelli of CVRD waved away the United States ("It's full of debt") to focus on the company's ambitions in Asia. It was imperative to be there, he said, because that's where growth, capital and ambition are. China, he noted, will account for 55 percent of iron ore
consumption, 31.6 percent of nickel, and 42 percent of aluminum by 2012. Case closed.
Like many other big emerging-market corporations, CVRD has been on a buying-spree. It's not just sovereign wealth funds that are acquiring first-world companies these days. It's the new giants of the NAN (Newly Acquisitive Nations).
Emerging-market mergers and acquisitions are up 17 percent this year to $218 billion, while for the rest of the world they're down 43 percent to $991 billion, according to Thomson Reuters.
The 2007 Unctad World Investment Report said developing-world direct foreign investment totaled $193 billion in 2006, compared to a 1990s annual average of $54 billion. The U.S. 2006 figure was $216.6 billion.
CVRD bought Canada's Inco, a nickel miner, for $17 billion in 2006. It came close to acquiring the Anglo-Swiss miner Xstrata for $90 billion this year. Just last week, India's Vedanta Resources reached a $2.6 billion deal to buy U.S. copper miner, Asarco. That deal is
being challenged by Grupo Mexico, creating a Latin-American-Asian fight for a U.S. company.
If you have trouble getting your mind around that, try standing on your head.
That's also a good position from which to view India's Tata Motors agreeing to buy Land Rover and Jaguar from Ford for $2.3 billion, or Tata Steel's acquisition last year of the Anglo-Dutch Corus Group steel company for $12 billion.
Globalization is now a two-way street; in fact it's an Indian street with traffic weaving in all directions.
"In an inverted world, not only have developing economies become dominant forces in global exports in the space of a few years, but
their companies are becoming major players in the global economy, challenging the incumbents that dominated the international scene
in the 20th century," said Claudio Frischtak, a Brazilian economist and consultant.
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE LEADS TO EXTINCTION

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now
possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear
weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China —
whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential
adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this
side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to
launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—GLOBAL ECON

EMERGING ECONOMIES LIKE BRAZILS ARE KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY—THIS IS BEING FUELED BY
FUEL DEPENDENCY FROM ETHANOL
RIO DE JANEIRO: For a while the world was flat. Now it's upside down.
To understand it, invert your thinking. See the developed world as depending on the developing world, rather than the other way
round. Understand that two-thirds of global economic growth last year came from emerging countries, whose economies will expand
about 6.7 percent in 2008, against 1.3 percent for the United States, Japan and Euro zone states.
The sharp rise in prices for energy, commodities, metals and minerals produced mainly in the developing world explains part of this
shift. That has created the balance of payments surpluses fueling dollar-dripping sovereign wealth funds in countries like China. They
amuse themselves picking up a stake in BP here, a chunk of Morgan Stanley there, and why not a sliver of Total.
We of the developed-world Paleolithic species are fair game for the upstarts now, our predator role exhausted. The U.S. and Europe
may soon need all the charity they can get.
To place this inversion in focus, it helps to be in Brazil, where winter (so to speak) arrives with the Northern Hemisphere summer, and
economic optimism, as exuberant as the vegetation, increases at the same brisk clip as U.S. foreclosures.
Huge offshore oil finds, a sugarcane ethanol boom, vast reserves of unused arable land, mineral wealth and abundant fresh water
contribute to Brazilian buoyancy. But natural resources are only part of the story. As in China and India, an expanding internal market
is bolstering growth. So is increasing corporate sophistication and global ambition.
At the annual National Forum, a gathering of business leaders, I felt like a first-world pipsqueak as leaders of the national energy
company Petrobas (bigger than BP, Shell and Total) and Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, or CVRD (the world's second largest mining
company), reeled off head-turning statistics.
Petrobras, which has spearheaded Brazil's push to self-sufficiency from heavy dependence on imported oil 30 years ago, will more
than double oil production to 4.2 million barrels a day in 2015 from 1.9 million barrels today.
"With the latest discoveries, the South Atlantic will become a huge oil producer," predicted José Sergio Gabrielli de Azvedo, its chief
executive.
Roger Agnelli of CVRD waved away the United States ("It's full of debt") to focus on the company's ambitions in Asia. It was
imperative to be there, he said, because that's where growth, capital and ambition are. China, he noted, will account for 55 percent of
iron ore consumption, 31.6 percent of nickel, and 42 percent of aluminum by 2012. Case closed.
Like many other big emerging-market corporations, CVRD has been on a buying-spree. It's not just sovereign wealth funds that are
acquiring first-world companies these days. It's the new giants of the NAN (Newly Acquisitive Nations).
Emerging-market mergers and acquisitions are up 17 percent this year to $218 billion, while for the rest of the world they're down 43
percent to $991 billion, according to Thomson Reuters.
The 2007 Unctad World Investment Report said developing-world direct foreign investment totaled $193 billion in 2006, compared to
a 1990s annual average of $54 billion. The U.S. 2006 figure was $216.6 billion.
CVRD bought Canada's Inco, a nickel miner, for $17 billion in 2006. It came close to acquiring the Anglo-Swiss miner Xstrata for $90
billion this year. Just last week, India's Vedanta Resources reached a $2.6 billion deal to buy U.S. copper miner, Asarco. That deal is
being challenged by Grupo Mexico, creating a Latin-American-Asian fight for a U.S. company.
If you have trouble getting your mind around that, try standing on your head.
That's also a good position from which to view India's Tata Motors agreeing to buy Land Rover and Jaguar from Ford for $2.3 billion,
or Tata Steel's acquisition last year of the Anglo-Dutch Corus Group steel company for $12 billion.


BRAZILIAN ECONOMY IS KEY TO THE LATIN AMERICAN AND GLOBAL ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY IN
LATIN AMERICA
Schulz—2000 (Donald E. Schulz is Chairman of the Political Science Department at Cleveland State University and he was Research
Professor of National Security Policy at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, “THE UNITED STATES AND
LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE”, 3/00,
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:jxrChqjDPasJ:www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub31.pdf )
What are the major threats confronting Latin America, how do they affect U.S. security interests, and how is this configuration likely
to change over the next quarter century? Currently, there are several concerns. One of the most important is the danger posed by
economic instability. By late 1998, the international financial crisis that had begun in Asia in 1997, and then moved on to devastate
Russia in the summer of 1998, hit Latin America. Brazil seemed to be teetering on the brink of disaster. Capital flight was depleting its
reserves, raising questions about the country’s ability to pay its short-term debt. As the eighth largest economy in the world, Brazil
accounts for almost half of the output of Latin America, a region which buys roughly a fifth of U.S. exports. If the Brazilian economy
went into a deep and prolonged recession, the spillover into other countries might trigger social and political turmoil that could
endanger the region’s young and still fragile democracies. Similarly, the impact on the U.S. banking system and economy would be
substantial. More than 450 of the Fortune 500 companies do business in Brazil, which receives more direct foreign investment from
the United States than any other country except China. 11 Fears about the country’s economic health were already affecting the U.S.
stock market.
BRAZIL IS KEY TO THE LATIN AMERICAN ECONOMY

Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin American in the Sarah and Douglas Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation. 2008 (Meeting Energy Challenges in the Western Hemisphere,
The future direction of energy policy in South America will, to a very large degree, be determined by developments in Brazil. With its
190 million citizens and a $1.83 trillion economy, Brazil has become the globe's eighth-largest economy. In the past decade, it has
developed strong macroeconomic stability and combined market growth with novel and effective programs aimed at tackling poverty
and improving human capital. It is a center for regional trade, via MERCOSUR, and a major player on the international commodities
and economic scene. It is also a potential leader for a more unified South America. But it can, as The Heritage Foundation's 2008
Index of Economic Freedom indicates, do much more to improve its current rank of 101st out of 157 nations.[3]
LATIN AMERICAN ECON IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECON

How does Latin America fit into this scheme? The first thing that must be said is that in a hemisphere that is increasingly integrated
and interdependent, the growth and prosperity of the Latin America economies will profoundly affect the prosperity of the United
States. Latin America is the United States’ fastest growing market, with exports in 1998 exceeding those going to the European Union.
4 By 2010, indeed, overall U.S. trade with the region is projected to exceed that with Europe and Japan combined. Some of this, at
least, is of strategic importance Venezuela alone provides as much oil to the United States as do all of the Persian Gulf states together.
5 The continued provision of Venezuelan and Mexican petroleum, as well as access to the major new oil reserves of Colombia,
constitutes an important—and arguably vital—U.S. interest which directly affects national well-being.


LATIN AMERICAN GROWTH IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Margolis—1998 (Eric, International Institute of Strategic Studies “STORM WARNINGS IN BRAZIL,” Toronto Sun, 10-9, Lexis)
If Brazil implodes, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico could quickly follow. Venezuela is already in a tailspin and has recently devalued.
Now, the really scary part. The US exports more to Latin America than it did to Asia. The vast region from the Rio Grande to
Patagonia is America's economic hinterland. If Brazil's economy comes crashing down, and takes the rest of the continent with it,
American business and banks will be dealt a devastating blow that will dwarf the Asian crisis in magnitude and severity. US banks
have far more loan exposure to Latin America than they did in Asia or Russia. Brazil's collapse would savage North American stock
markets, threatening an international depression. Finance ministers at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting this week in
Washington clearly recognize this awesome danger. They are racing to assemble a US $30 billion loan that will, hopefully, stabilize
the `real.' Pray the IMF's wizards will do better this time than they did in Asia or Russia, where their financial nostrums appear to have
actually made matters worse. After granting $140 billion in emergency loans to Asia and Russia, IMF's coffers are dry. But
Republicans in Congress are delaying appropriating new funds to the IMF, citing its many mistakes. They are right. Still, IMF should
be supported - at least until Brazil's emergency passes. Brazil's economic collapse would pose grave dangers not only to the world
financial structure, but to Latin America's political stability. Brazil has a high explosion factor. At least 70% of Brazilians are
functionally illiterate. Four percent of the population controls 80% of the national wealth. Sixty percent of Brazilians are dirt-poor
blacks, marginalized from the economy and politics, kept sedated by soccer, samba, and carnival. A financial collapse will ignite
violence and political extremism - and spread across Latin America. The financial world is overseen by three great economic
powerhouses. Japan is overlord of Asia's finances. Western Europe dominates East Europe and Russia. The US's bailiwick is Latin
America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Japan, mired in deep recession, has failed miserably to defend Asia. Europe has done
no better in Russia. If the United States fumbles its financial manifest destiny in Latin America, head for the storm cellars.

BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—SECURITY COUNCIL/MULTIPOLARITY

INCREASING EMERGING ECONOMIC POWER NECESSITATES BRAZIL GAINING A PERMANENT SEAT ON THE
UNSC AND MOVE THE WORLD TO MULTIPOLARITY
A shift in economic power is underway whose implications the developed world has not grasped. Of course the G-8 and the permanent
membership of the UN Security Council need to be expanded to reflect this change. The 21st century can't be handled with 20th-
century institutions.
That's obvious. Less obvious is how the United States, which underwrites global security at vast expense, begins to share this burden,
so that the new multi-polarity of wealth is reflected in a multi-polarity of security commitments.
Headstands are in order for the next U.S. president.

BRAZILIAN ECON GOOD—PROLIF

BRAZIL HAS NUCLEAR PROGRAMS FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES—DOWNTURN OF THE BRAZILIAN ECONOMY
TURNS PUBLIC WILL TO USING THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF VIOLENT MEANS LIKE
WEAPONIZING
Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the
1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina
were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs. 54 There were powerful military and
civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has
changed. As a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to
restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclear-related agreements with each other—
most notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear
installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime.
Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed:
. . . the military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations
than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and
ballistic missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications
of Brazil’s nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political. 55
Put simply, if changes in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program towards peaceful purposes,
future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not
be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis
and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to democracy than the
military. The example of Peru’s Fujimori comes immediately to mind.
How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only
producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included,
Brazil would have a capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial
missile producing capability. On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift
or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could
place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic
resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of
money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first place.) 56
In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such
a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to
help justify its existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to
dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon,
could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of “foreign
intervention.” Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon,
threatened to transform the region into a “new Vietnam” if developed countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon. Subsequently,
in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking
Brazilian officers. 57
Since then, of course, U.S.-Brazilian relations have improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./ international concerns over
the Amazon—the threat to the region’s ecology through burning and deforestation, the presence of narcotrafficking activities, the
Indian question, etc.—have not disappeared, and some may very well intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the growing
trend towards subregional economic groupings—in particular, MERCOSUR—continues, it is likely to increase competition between
Southern Cone and NAFTA countries. Economic conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify political differences, and could lead to
heightened politico-military rivalry between different blocs or coalitions in the hemisphere.

BRAZIL LEADERSHIP ADVANTAGE
THE TARIFF WILL KILL BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP

BRAZILIAN REGIONAL LEADERSHIP IS HIGH NOW BUT MAINTAINANCE OF TARIFFS
Hanson—2007 (Stephanie Hanson is a Staff Writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, “Brazil’s Ethanol Diplomacy”, 7/9/07,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13721/brazils_ethanol_diplomacy.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F245%2Fbrazil)
Brazil’s current trajectory is predicated on the establishment of an international market for biofuels. Creating such a market, says
Marcos S. Jank of the Brazilian Institute for International Trade Negotiations, necessitates collaboration between Brazil and the United
States, the world’s second-largest biofuels producer. The two countries signed a “strategic partnership” in March, but the United States
maintains a tariff of fifty-four cents per gallon on Brazilian ethanol. With a handful of other Latin American countries pressing to
develop their own biofuels industries, a report from the Inter-American Development Bank questions how long Brazil can dominate
the biofuels market. “Brazil’s leadership today is unquestionable,” the report says, “but it leads an industry that is very much in flux—
and likely to be revolutionized by new technology soon.” At least for now, though, the country’s influence remains indisputable. As
one former official in the agriculture ministry in Brazil told the Christian Science Monitor, “You can't make decisions without the
world's largest producer.”

BOOSTING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL MARKET INCREASES

LEADERSHIP/DIPLOMACY
A STRONG ETHANOL MARKET IS KEY TO BRAZILIAN INFLUENCE REGIONALLY AND GLOBALLY
While the US remains behind Brazil as the world's top producer of ethanol, its ethanol consumer market will help spur the creation of
a global market - one that can be in large part supplied by Brazil, fulfilling the South American giant's desire to become a global
player.
The irony of an unlikely alliance between Washington and Brasilia is lost on few. Through Brazil's success as a major supplier of the
world's ethanol market, the US can recapture much needed support for the hearts and minds of Latin Americans, something it has
struggled to do since Bush came to office.
For Brazil, ethanol is very likely the country's ticket onto the world court. And for the US, ethanol could be the ticket back into South
America.
BRAZIL’S ETHANOL MARKET IS GIVING IT REGIONAL LEADERSHIP AND BOOSTING THE LATIN AMERICAN
ECONOMIES—BUT WINNING THE BIOFUEL FASE-OFF IS KEY TO CONSOLIDATE BRAZILIAN REGIONAL
LEADERSHIP OVER VENEZUELA
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is an ethanol enthusiast (FT). Who can blame him? Money is flying into Brazil’s ethanol
industry (BusinessWeek), and now the U.S. agriculture behemoth Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (ADM) may be seeking out Brazilian
business. The Wall Street Journal reports ADM is considering a bid for Cosan, Brazil’s biggest ethanol producer. A day later, Cosan
filed to list on the New York Stock Exchange in a move that could raise the company up to $2 billion in foreign investment
(Bloomberg).
These private-sector maneuverings follow similar upheavals in the political realm. Ethanol has become Lula’s best diplomatic lever in
Latin America, where regional influence had shifted toward Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez but now seems to be edging back
toward Brazil. Chavez inveighed against biofuels throughout the spring, joining Fidel Castro and some agriculture experts who say
biofuels could starve the poor (Foreign Affairs). But he backed down in May and agreed to increase Venezuela’s ethanol imports. As
this CFR.org Podcast discusses, biofuels could allow Latin American countries to diversify their economies away from commodities.
By “winning the biofuel face-off,” writes journalist Ben Whitford in a Guardian blog, Lula has reaffirmed Brazil’s power in the region

BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP IS KEY TO LIMIT CHAVEZ CONTROL

CONTAINMENT
Brazil, away from their neutrality about Chávez’s debilitating demagoguery and populism. Traditional Latin leftists running several
countries have been reluctant to criticize populist “leftists” like Chávez, even though the moderate leftists have the most to lose from
the spread of Chavismo. To the degree that these moderate leftist countries are succeeding economically, they, along with Mexico,
Colombia, and others, owe much more to Milton Friedman than to Karl Marx. In varying degrees, they accept that free trade and
markets offer the only productive alternative to Chávez’s scapegoating, paternalistic recipe.
Bush’s March trip was the most potentially constructive action he had taken toward Latin America in years. Brazilian President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva met with him in Brazil and then again several weeks later in the United States, and cooperative programs for the
production of ethanol were on the agenda. Part of Silva’s incentive in this may be making Brazil the “big” country of Latin America,
instead of Venezuela, which is what Chávez is rather successfully pursuing. In Colombia (and Peru and Panama as well), significant
progress in the antiguerrilla war must now be backed up with immediate passage of trade legislation by the U.S. Congress. And
serious attention to immigration, a focus that disappeared after the September 11 attacks, must again be the centerpiece of relations
with Mexico. But getting Latin America’s moderate socialists and others to even tacitly side with the United States on these critical
issues will demand U.S. actions, not just words, to prove willingness to give as well as take.

RELATIONS ADVANTAGE
1AC BRAZILIAN RELATIONS ADVANTAGE

CONTENTION ( ): FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS
Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva on 30 March paid an unprecedented visit to US President George W Bush. For a
second time, the two leaders had met in two weeks, with strengthening bilateral ties at the top of the agenda and ethanol as the bond
holding the relationship together.
After the first meeting, when Bush visited Lula in Brazil, there was little more than formalities and good will. A US tariff on Brazilian
ethanol imports and claims that the US’ use of corn as feedstock for ethanol production could raise world food prices raised many
doubts. After the second meeting, however, a tangible - if testy - alliance formed to the chagrin of Washington's enemies in South
America.
Ethanol, it seems, is main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America
while presenting real possibilities of a global presence for Brazil.
<INSERT BRAZIL RELATIONS SHELL(S)>
RESOLVING BIOFULE DISAGREEMENTS THROUGH THE PLAN ARE KEY TO BRAZILIAN RELATIONS
The United States and Brazil, the two largest biofuel producers in the world, are meeting this week to discuss a new energy
partnership that they hope will encourage ethanol use throughout Latin America and that U.S. officials hope will diminish the regional
influence of oil-rich Venezuela.
U.S. officials said they expect to sign accords within a year that would promote technology-sharing with Brazil and encourage more
Latin American neighbors to become biofuel producers and consumers.
The United States and Brazil together produce about 70 percent of the world's ethanol, a fuel that President Bush has called a
cornerstone in reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
"It's clearly in our interests -- Brazil's and the United States's -- that we expand the global market for biofuels, particularly ethanol, and
that it become a global commodity of sorts," said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state, who led discussions with
For the United States, the initiative is more than purely economic. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has exploited regional
frustrations with the market-driven economic prescriptions that the United States has promoted throughout the region for years, and he
has used oil revenue to promote several regional economic alliances.
THE ETHANOL TARIFF IS THE KEY ISSUE—IT MUST COME BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE

RELATIONS LOW NOW

After the first meeting, when Bush visited Lula in Brazil, there was little more than formalities and good will. A US tariff on Brazilian
doubts. After the second meeting, however, a tangible - if testy - alliance formed to the chagrin of Washington's enemies in South
America.
Ethanol, it seems, is main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America
BRAZIL WANTS THE US TO END THE ETHANOL TARIFF

Brazzil Magazine, “Brazil's Lula Doesn't Get What He Wanted from Bush: End to Subsidies and Tariffs,” April 1, 2007
The Camp David meeting, this Saturday, March 31, between American President George W. Bush and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva produced optimistic statements and vague promises, but no concrete results for Brazil, which wanted an end to
the tariff charged Brazilian ethanol in the US market. Neither there was any hint that the United States will reduce soon its farm
subsidies.
CONTINUED US SUPPORT OF ETHANOL TARIFFS IS PERCEIVED AS AN INSULT BY BRAZIL, DESTROYING

RELATIONS
Times Online, “Brazil to Press Bush for Cut in US Ethanol Tariff,” March 9, 2007
President Lula da Silva will demand that the United States lower tariffs on its environmentally friendly ethanol fuel when he meets
President Bush in São Paulo today.
Brazil is the world’s biggest exporter of ethanol and is promoting it around the globe as a cleaner alternative to petrol. Last year the
US imported about half of all Brazilian ethanol exports, but it is expected that an increase in local production will lead to a fall in
Brazilian imports this year.
Mr da Silva criticised the American tariff before the visit. “They talk a lot about free trade, but they like to protect their own products.
The high US duties on Brazil’s ethanol make no sense. If we are going to have free trade, it should give us the opportunity to buy and
sell openly,” he said.
TARIFFS ARE STRAINING RELATIONS NOW

United Press International, “Brazil’s Leader Defends Ethanol,” June 11, 2008
Today, Brazil is producing enough ethanol to meet its growing domestic needs, and, with the help of some foreign investment, one day
could make the leap to becoming a major international vendor of alternative fuels, a bandwagon the Bush administration would like to
join, considering the president's repeated pledge to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
However, analysts warn that closer alternative energy ties with the United States won't be easy, considering the much debated import
tariffs on Brazilian ethanol and federal protection in the form of subsidies the U.S. corn-based ethanol industry enjoys.
US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE SCREWED UNTIL TARIFFS ARE REMOVED

Open Democracy, international affairs dictionary, “Brazil, the United States, and Ethanol,” 3/3/07
There are worries about the prospects of this cooperation on bioenergy. In the short term, the first concern is the American refusal to
talk about the high tariff that protects US corn farmers, whose ethanol is more costly and carbon-emitting to produce than Brazil's
sugar cane-based fuel. In the long term, the most significant concern ought to be safeguarding the Amazon forest from further harm as
a result of expanded sugar-cane plantation. Between one issue and the other, Bush and Lula could pledge to narrow their differences in
World Trade Organisation negotiations by boosting the global economy and easing poverty among millions of people. But neither
seem optimistic that the talks - which have already lasted more than five years - will conclude any time soon.

RELATIONS LOW NOW

US-BRAZIL RELATIONS LOW NOW BECAUSE OF CONTENTION OVER DOHA
Hearing Before the Committee of Foreign Affairs, “US-Brazil Relations,” September 19 2007
As large producers and exporters of agricultural commodities, Brazil and the United States are sometimes competitors. Their failure to
reach agreement on the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization, together with the European Union and India, has added an
unnecessary heavy cloud on the horizon of a world economy again threatened by a crisis in the financial markets.
From Brazil’s perspective, it is difficult to understand that the U.S. government could not improve its Doha offer of a ceiling of
subsidies for agriculture below $17 billion annually at a moment when rising commodity prices have reduced the amount of actual
U.S. support payments to the farming sector to $11 billion in 2006 and to less than $10 billion projected for this year. Such a move
would have un- locked the Doha Round, producing a reciprocal movement from Brazil, a country where the need to improve
international competitiveness by lowering tariffs for goods, and continuing the liberalization of services is increasingly recognized as
fundamental to higher sustained growth and prosperity. Growing investments abroad by our multinational companies and the
successful development and commercialization by Brazilian innovators of patented products and processes, including in the
pharmaceutical area, have renewed the interest of businesses, government and academia in the protection of investments and
intellectual property afforded by a credible international trade regime.

REMOVING TARIFFS BOOSTS RELATIONS

RECENT REGIONAL ETHANOL PUSHES HAVE INCREASED US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS BUT THAT
RELATIONSHIP BE AT RIASK IF THE US DOESTN REMOVE ETHANOL TARIFFS. THIS RELATION IS KEY TO
DECREASE ENERGY RELIANCE ON CHAVEZ
President Bush announced a new energy partnership with Brazil on Friday to promote wider production of ethanol throughout the region as an
alternative to oil, the first step in an effort to strengthen economic and political alliances in Latin America.
The agreement, reached as Bush kicked off a six-day tour of the region, was crafted to expand research, share technology, stimulate new investment and develop common international standards for biofuels. The United States and Brazil, which make 70 percent of the
world's ethanol, will team up to encourage other nations to produce and consume alternative fuels, starting in Central America and the Caribbean.
The new alliance could serve not only to help meet Bush's promise to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption but also to diminish the
influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the fiery leftist who has used his country's vast oil reserves to build support among neighbors. Analysts have called it the beginning of a new OPEC-style cartel for ethanol makers, a characterization
U.S. officials dispute because they say they want to expand, not control, production.
"It's in the interest of the United States that there be a prosperous neighborhood," Bush said during a hard-hat tour of a fuel depot here with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
"And one way to help spread prosperity in Central America is for them to become energy producers, not become -- not remain
dependent on others for their energy sources."
Lula, pointing to economic and environmental benefits of ethanol, said the alliance marks "a new moment for the global car industry, a new moment for fuel in general in the world and possibly a new moment for humanity."
Bush on Friday refused to discuss Lula's desire to reduce a 54 percent tariff on

But ethanol politics are complicated at home and abroad. Under pressure from farm-state lawmakers in the United States,
imported Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol, which protects domestic corn-based ethanol producers. That led to charges of double standards, given the Bush administration's
longtime advocacy of free trade.
ethanol has also drawn criticism from environmentalists and others who complain that it will create more problems. Because the United States makes ethanol from
The emphasis on
corn, it has already caused price increases, for example, for tortillas in Mexico. Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane, and critics say increased production would result in further deforestation of the Amazon.
Greenpeace issued a statement saying that limits on carbon emissions, which Bush opposes, would be a better way to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. "The U.S. government must take a giant leap forward quickly in order to make the necessary
steps to combat global warming," said John Coequyt, an energy specialist with Greenpeace. "An aggressive focus on ethanol, without a federally mandated cap on emissions, is simply a leap sideways."
Some specialists, though, said the deal could have a significant impact on energy.
"This is the first effort to jump-start a Western Hemisphere ethanol market, involving both trade and local development, which would reduce the pressure of high oil prices on the balance of payments of countries in the region," said Dan Yergin of Cambridge Energy
Research Associates. "It also represents the fact that Brazil is moving to the fore as an energy leader, along with Venezuela, in the region."
Chávez with his 'ethanol diplomacy,' but Lula clearly is not," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "He is happy to have good commercial relations
with the United States and expand these in any area, but he has made it clear that he is not going to downgrade his good relations with Venezuela."
The ethanol pact came as Bush sought to renew U.S. commitments to a region estranged from the United States. The president appeared irritated when a
Brazilian journalist asked during a brief news conference what he was doing to "make up for the losses" in relations with the region.
"I strongly disagree with your description of U.S. foreign policy," Bush replied. "That may be what people say, but it's certainly not what the facts bear out."
The president repeated his assertion that he has doubled direct foreign assistance to Latin America to $1.6 billion since 2001, without mentioning that his latest budget actually proposes cutting that aid to $1.47 billion. Moreover, analysts question his math, saying he is
using a false comparison to exaggerate increases in aid.
Lula hoped to use the meeting with Bush to project himself as an alternative to Chávez, able to enter
Rogerio Schmitt, a political analyst here, said
partnerships with leaders of all ideological leanings. Whether the United States would equally benefit by being seen as an alternative to Chávez is another matter, he said. "Most people in Brazil see Chávez as a lunatic,
a fool," Schmitt said. "But his popularity here is still probably higher than President Bush

BIOFULES/ETHANOL KEY ISSUE ON RELATIONS

BIOFULES ARE THE KEY ISSUE TO US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS
ETHANOL IS THE KEY ISSUE TO US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS

Mexidata, a Latin American news source, “The Win-Win Brazil and USA ethanol alliance,” March 30, 2007
The ethanol alliance between Brazil and the US cements an opportunity for each country to expand influence: on the world court for
Brasilia and in South America for Washington.
After the first meeting, when Bush visited Lula in Brazil, there was little more than formalities and goodwill. A US tariff on Brazilian
doubts. After the second meeting, however, a tangible — if testy — alliance formed to the chagrin of Washington's enemies in South
America.
Ethanol, it seems, is a main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America
THE ETHANOL TARIFF PREVENTS ANY NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRAZIL—REMOVAL IS KEY TO ANY CHANCE
FOR RELATIONS

RESOLVING DOHA CONFLICTS KEY TO RELATIONS

DOHA KEY TO US-BRAZIL TRADE
A positive resolution of the Doha Round, still possible, would reaffirm the centrality of a rules-based trading regime and create the
conditions for the United States and Brazil to explore mutually beneficial bilateral or plurilateral trade deals. In that context, the
unilateral concession of tariff exemptions the United States grants Brazilian exports under the Generalized System of
Preferences(GSP) would become less relevant. The Brazilian and American companies that benefited from the GSP tariff exemptions
(which covered $3.6 billion out of $ 24.4 billion Brazil exported to the United States in 2005) are certainly most appreciative of
Congress’ decision last year to renew the program for two years, with a few limitations. While the GSP program continues to be
important for some sectors—and should be preserved—, it is clearly a second best solution in the Brazilian case. Assuming the
conclusion of a Doha agreement and an intensifying bilateral trade relationship, the benefits of this program should be reciprocated by
Brazil, made permanent and incorporated in a mutually advantageous deal.

ETHANOL INCREASES US-LATIN AMERICA RELATIONS

A SHIFT TO BRAZILIAN ETHANOL IS KEY TO WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF LATIN AMERICAN
Mexidata, a Latin American news source, “The Win-Win Brazil and USA ethanol alliance,” March 30, 2007
The irony of an unlikely alliance between Washington and Brasilia is lost on few. Through Brazil's success as a major supplier of the
world's ethanol market, the US can recapture much needed support for the hearts and minds of Latin Americans, something it has
struggled to do since Bush came to office.
For Brazil, ethanol is very likely the country's ticket onto the world court. And for the US, ethanol could be the ticket back into South
America.

RELATIONS ARE KEY TO INCREASE REGIONAL ETHANOL USE

STRONG US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS IS KEY TO A STRONG BIOFUEL REGIME REGIONALLY—WHICH KEY TO
SOLVE INSTABILITY
But U.S. officials said the most valuable result of an alliance would be that it would encourage more countries to get involved in
production and use of ethanol. This would create an internationally tradable commodity, much like oil is today, Burns said. That
would lessen the power that oil has over the region, he said.
"If you boil down all the issues causing political instability in the region, many of them do come down to energy -- the expropriation
of a petroleum company in Ecuador, Venezuela and its oil dominance, the nationalization of natural gas and other energy sources in
Bolivia," said Dean, of the Interamerican Ethanol Commission. "So there clearly is a compelling need for an energy security regime."
According to Carvalho, the Brazilians are aware that such concerns -- particularly about Venezuela's oil influence -- have spurred talks
of the ethanol partnership.
"Of that I have absolutely no doubt," he said.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—AMAZON (SHELL)

US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE AMAZON
cooperation on forests, remote sensing, and fire science. We hope to make that relationship even stronger in the coming years. We look forward to discussing our many bilateral environmental
interests during a high-level Common Agenda on the Environment meeting later this year in Brasilia, and to further strengthening our already strong partnership to protect and manage
important natural resources. The U.S. and Brazil plan to encourage the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency through workshops, information exchanges, technical assistance, and training. Our recent bilateral
energy discussions helped strengthen our joint commitment to clean energy efforts, while a new energy strategy developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) holds the potential for additional
bilateral collaboration with NGOs and the private sector. Working together, we have installed hybrid-renewable village power systems in the Amazon, and we are
beginning to build partnerships with universities to look at biomass resources and develop markets for clean energy. Officials of the state of São Paulo are working with the U.S. to promote technologies that can mitigate local air
quality problems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. and Brazil hope to collaborate closely to promote sustainable forest management, particularly in
the area of reduced impact logging. USAID partners look forward to working with Brazil to develop forest management tracking
technologies involving fire-detecting satellites operated by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) for forest management, modeling of logging damage in disturbed forests, and Landsat-based maps reflecting
compliance with Brazil’s Forest Code. A consortium of Brazil-based institutions, together with USAID and the U.S. Forest Service,
have created a new “Natural Ecosystems Sustained” program for forest management in Brazil that includes marketing of
environmental goods and services and landscape-level planning and policy. Brazil and the U.S. now coordinate closely on initiatives
such as satellite technology to detect forest fires. Conservation of migratory birds is another key issue for cooperation. The U.S. looks forward to working with Brazil, and more
in regional environmental issues across South America, the U.S. Department of State established one of the first of twelve regional
environmental “Hub” offices around the world at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia in 1999.


BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHAVEZ

U. S. EFFORTS TO CONTAIN CHAVEZ RE FAILING NOW – STRONG TRADE RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL ARE KEY
TO SUCCESS
Roberts 2007 (James M. Roberts is Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and
Economics at The Heritage Foundation; If the Real Simón Bolívar Met Hugo Chávez, He'd See Red:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/bg2062.cfm)
Slow Washington Response. Until recently, the United States has been too busy to worry about Venezuela. September 11 distracted top U.S. policymakers from paying enough attention to
Latin America in general and Venezuela in particular. Moreover, although Washington officials saw the democratically elected Chávez as thuggish and did not like his increasingly undemocratic practices, they did not
see him as directly threatening U.S. interests. Now that it has become clear that he is a direct threat, Washington has finally begun to act.
In contrast, Cuba's attention to Venezuela has been sustained and effective. That is because Havana has had the need, the opportunity, and the means to be the most significant foreign influence in the Venezuelan crisis.[93]
What the U.S. Should Do
Chávez will continue his efforts to turn Venezuela's neighbors against the United States through petro-
What should Washington do to counter Hugo Chávez?
diplomacy and rhetorical rants against the U.S. and free markets. The Bush Administration has wisely refused to react to his taunts and
threats, but it must deliver the message of good governance, the benefits of the free market, democratic principles, and respect for the rule of law more aggressively.
Specifically, the Bush Administration should:
Push for the Organization of American States to censure the Chávez government for its crackdown on press freedom.
Attempt to restart negotiations with Brazil toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.
Pursue bilateral FTAs with Paraguay and Uruguay to isolate Chávez and to ensure that they continue to play by the rules of the free market. Linking trade
agreements to commitments to good governance and free-market practices allows the U.S. to deal with Latin American countries
based on their actions and practices.
Work actively with neighbors and allies to combat security threats through cooperative efforts to battle transnational terrorism, crime, and trafficking in illegal substances. This would create permanent working relationships and serve to counter anti-American messages.
Congress should:
For its part,
Immediately permit duty-free imports of Brazilian ethanol as an incentive for Brazil.

Approve the trade promotion agreements as originally negotiated with Panama, Peru, and especially Colombia to continue the momentum for job-creating growth from free trade in the region. Free trade agreements are one of the
best tools the U.S. has to counter anti-American and anti-democratic forces in Latin America.
Increase funding for additional focused, efficient development assistance to the region through the Millennium Challenge Corporation to address income disparities and the need for economic and political reforms that Chávez is exploiting rather than addressing.
Hold new hearings about the national and energy security threat, both to the U.S. and to Venezuela's neighbors, from the increasingly totalitarian and militaristic Chávez regime, which appears to tolerate narcotics smuggling and has a clear anti-U.S. agenda.
Extend Andean Trade Preferences for Bolivia and Ecuador before they expire in February 2008. Although their leftist leaders have personally embraced Chávez, both countries have distanced themselves somewhat from his actual policies. Extending trade preferences
would be a gesture of cooperation that would give the U.S. more leverage to press these countries to return to the path of market-based democracy.
Conclusion
the United States has been Venezuela's main trade and investment partner and its biggest oil market, but global energy demand
Historically,
is growing. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Middle East, and although the U.S. market is close by, Hugo
Chávez wants to diminish its importance. This would make the U.S. even more reliant on oil from the volatile Persian Gulf.
Chávez aspires to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and the Caribbean by uniting the region under a socialist regime that he
would lead. He can be expected to continue his petro-diplomacy and rhetorical rants against the U.S. and free markets.
Unless the U.S. increases its presence through additional support for democratic market-based institutions, Hugo Chávez's aspirations
could bear bitter fruit. A strong and resolute U.S. government should seek to avoid repeating past mistakes and instead act to
encourage true reform in the region
STRONG US-BRAZILIAN ALLIANCE IS KEY TO CHECK CHAVEZ

Laura Carlsen is a program director of the Americas Program at the Center for International Policy, 2007 (The Agrofuels Trap,
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4533)
The new alliance between the U.S. government and its allies in the region to convert Latin America into a source of agrofuels not only
benefits transnational corporations and big business; it also helps counteract the growing influence of Venezuela and other countries
seeking to break away from U.S. hegemony. The ethanol alliance seeks to consolidate a new power line in Latin America that runs
directly between the United States and Brazil, with the dynamic force being the transnational corporations. This could undermine
efforts to consolidate Mercosur, and erode recent regional integration efforts such as the Bank of the South and the Union of Southern
Nations. Raul Zibechi, analyst with the CIP Americas Program, says the U.S. is "using Brazil to consolidate a strategic alliance that
seeks to isolate Venezuela and the countries that follow its policies of Latin American unity as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony."

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—DEMOCRACY (SHELL)

US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Jeffrey J. Schott, 2003, Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics, “US-Brazil Trade Relations in a New Era,”
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/schott1103-2.pdf
Second, the United States benefits when its neighbors prosper and democratic processes deepen. The FTAA would help strengthen the
economic foundation on which Latin American and Caribbean countries have built their democratic societies. Furthermore, the
prospect of improved trade relations can act as a magnet for attracting support among Latin American countries for other important US
political and foreign policy goals, including cooperation on drug interdiction, improving environmental and labor conditions,
supporting educational reforms, and reinforcing democracy. Thus, an FTAA could have important spillover effects on overall US
relations with the region.
LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS KEY TO GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

Fauriol, Weintraub—1995 (director of the CSIS Americas program and professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas
(Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone”, lexis)
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all
countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of
democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States
is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its
efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in
its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans are
somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding
exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/
alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are
taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than
anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in
the world.
GLOBAL DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT MANY SCENARIOS FOR WAR AND
EXTINCTION.
Diamond, 95 (Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the
former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs
intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes
and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and
unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions
for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of
this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one
another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do
not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not
sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.
Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable
climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize
to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their
own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable
foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOOD—BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION

FAILURE OF LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY CAUSES PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR CONFLICT
A second major interest is the promotion of democracy. At first glance, this might appear to be a peripheral concern. For much of its
history, the United States was perfectly comfortable with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, so long as they did not threaten
higher priority interests like regional security or U.S. economic holdings. But that is no longer the case. U.S. values have changed;
democracy has been elevated to the status of an “important” interest. In part, this has been because American leaders have gained a
greater appreciation of the role of legitimacy as a source of political stability. Governments that are popularly elected and respect
human rights and the rule of law are less dangerous to both their citizens and their neighbors. Nations which are substantively
democratic tend not to go to war with one another. They are also less vulnerable to the threat of internal war provoked, in part, by state
violence and illegality and a lack of governmental legitimacy. 6 In short, democracy and economic integration are not simply value
preferences, but are increasingly bound up with hemispheric security. To take just one example: The restoration of democracy in
Brazil and Argentina and their increasingly strong and profitable relationship in Mercosur have contributed in no small degree to their
decisions to forsake the development of nuclear weapons. Perceptions of threat have declined, and perceptions of the benefits of
cooperation have grown, and this has permitted progress on a range of security issues from border disputes, to peacekeeping,
environmental protection, counternarcotics, and the combat of organized crime. Argentina has also developed a strong bilateral
defense relationship with the United States, and is now considered a non-NATO ally.

LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOOD—AMAZON

LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY KEY TO THE AMAZON
IPS 98 Inter Press Service 2-17
Democracy and state-of-the-art technologies are the most important instruments for saving the Amazon jungle, Brazil's Minister of
the Environment, Gustavo Krause, said today. The possibility of curbing deforestation by enforcement by environmental inspectors
is "a myth ,"an objective unreachable in such a vast area, more than half of Brazil's total territory, even "with two or three armies,"
said the minister. Satellite surveys, which are being perfected and will allow precise identification of the hardest-hit areas, opens
possibilities for more effective control. But an alliance with "the local population, capable of promoting sustainable development,"
is also indispensable, he added. The world must "change its vision of the Amazon, which is not a demographic vacuum," said
Krause. It must take into account "endogenous forces" in efforts to protect the jungle and its biodiversity. The use of satellite
images has been made even more necessary by the changing pattern of destruction of the Amazon jungle, said Eduardo Martins,
the president of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment (IBAMA, the Ministry of the Environment's executive body). The most
recent survey, carried out in 1997, identified 50,000 deforested areas measuring less than 50 hectares in size, compared to only 142
larger than 2,000 hectares, he pointed out. That proliferation of small deforested areas indicates that peasant farmers are largely to
blame today for burning and cutting down the forests, said Martins, who added that when most of the offenders "cannot even pay"
the fines, enforcement becomes exceedingly difficult.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—HEGE

STRONG BRAZILIAN RELATIONS ARE UNIQUELY KEY TO REGAINING U.S. HEGEMONY.
Raúl Zibechi is a member of the Editorial Council of the weekly Brecha de Montevideo, teacher and researcher of social movements
at the Multiversidad Franciscana de América Latina, and adviser to social groups: 2007 (United States and Brazil: The New Ethanol
Alliance, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4051)
Political objectives also come into play in Washington's move to cement the ethanol alliance. A long-term alliance that projects Brazil
as a global player, which is the objective of the Lula government, would allow the United States to recuperate the hegemonic role that
it has been losing over the past years.
Washington cannot consolidate its hegemony only through military measures like Plan Colombia. It also needs to win over groups of
leaders like those in the Lula government and important and dynamic business groups like those that have flourished in Brazil and
especially in São Paulo.
Jeb Bush was very clear about this, stating that biofuels can strengthen the relationship between the United States and Latin America
"serving as a catalyst to remove barriers to free trade within the region." The executive director of the Inter-American Ethanol
Commission, Brian Dean, went even further, stating that ethanol can accomplish what the FTAA failed to do.10
The strategic accord also foresees the formation of what O Estado de São Paulo calls the "ethanol OPEC" or the "Green OPEC"—an
allusion to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. This explains the reactions of other Latin American countries.
On Feb. 21 presidents Néstor Kirchner and Hugo Chávez met in Venezuela. They signed a series of economic cooperation pacts,
among them the creation of the Bank of the South. For now Brazil will not participate and Paraguay and Uruguay are expected to join
later along with Bolivia and Chile. The two countries also agreed to begin joint drilling of a series of wells between the state-owned
Argentine oil company Enarsa and the Venezuelan PDVSA that are programmed to begin production in 2009. The project is expected
to provide Argentina with 300,000 barrels a day of oil as a way out of its energy crisis.
Under the plan, Argentina supports Venezuela by installing agro-industrial plants and Venezuela bought US$800 million in Argentine
bonds—it had already bought another US$800 million previously—to place on the international market. The cooperation in economic
issues is crucial for both partners.
Argentina wants to assure fuel supplies since in a few years it could switch from being a net exporter to a net importer. Venezuela
needs Argentine help to develop its agricultural technology for the generation of an agro-industrial base that it lacks. In short, they are
complementary—one needs the other's petroleum, the other needs food.
But the political pacts are as important as the economic ones. Just when Brazil is poised to enter into a strategic alliance with the
United States, both presidents indicated their disgruntlement with the path followed by Lula.
"Some have said that Lula or I have to stop Chávez. They are wrong. Absolute error—we are building with our brother, the Bolivarian
president of this republic, respectful of internal situations, and we say that when our peoples express themselves they should be
heard," said Kirchner.11
Chávez responded saying that the empire never tires "of sowing animosity among us, the presidents of Latin America." In what
seemed to be an indirect reference to other presidents, he said, "There in Buenos Aires some people say that Argentina's relationship
with Chávez is a mistake. I'm sure these are the same ones who sold out to the empire." In this context, the two presidents heralded
their accords as "geopolitically strategic businesses."
Now both presidents went a step further. On March 9, when Bush visits Tabaré Vázquez in the presidential residence near the Uruguayan city of
Colonia, the two presidents will hold a meeting of heads-of-state with a clearly anti-U.S. message just 50 kilometers away, across the river in Buenos
Aires.
Clearly, these events indicate a growing contradiction between governments that before appeared to be more or less on the same wavelength. The
political-business alliance between the United States and Brazil around ethanol is a blow against regional integration based on oil and gas that for
several years has been loosely constructed between Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and recently Ecuador. For a while, many thought that Lula's Brazil
shared the same emphasis. But now that the ambitious strategic alliance with the United States has been unveiled, all seems to indicate that Lula
opted for the large São Paulo industrialists.
In line with this choice, Lula told Bolivian President Evo Morales in mid-February, after signing a hard-wrought agreement for Brazil to begin to pay
a more just price for Bolivian gas, "You can be sure, compañero Evo, that the world will come around in the next 15 years to biofuels."12
In other words, he was saying that all the countries of the region should join in the Brazil-U.S. alliance and admit Brazilian superiority
in ethanol production. The Latin American institutional "left"—represented mainly by the Workers Party in Brazil and the Broad Front
in Uruguay—is lending a hand to the United States in a delicate moment for world hegemony. Social movements maintain that the
production of biofuels "is sustained by the same principles that caused the oppression of Latin American peoples" as Brazil's Landless
Movement declared in early March, and that the Brazil-U.S. partnership for ethanol aims to weaken the regional integration promoted
by the oil and gas producing countries, as Via Campesina has pointed out.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION (SHELL)

STRONG US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO PREVENT BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION
Washington’s relative deference to the hemisphere’s candidate for major power status. Even though lately Brazil has cost the White House a good deal of grief over trade-related issues,
and in spite of U.S. accusations over Brazil’s nuclear intent and its past disputes with Washington over the issue, the fact that Lula agreed to head the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti and supply over 1,000 troops to the efforts—by far the largest contingent—has won
the Brazilian leader a heavy draught of amnesia on the nuclear front. Critics would say that in this respect, Lula entered into a humiliating arraignment with Dr. Faustus.
Whether or not Brazil currently has the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons is unknown. The IAEA said, at the conclusion of its investigation, that a report on Brazil’s recent nuclear developments would be ready by the end of November, but no report as of yet has
been released.
During Brazil’s 1964-1985 era of military rule, episodic remarks, usually made off the record by both military and civilian figures, indicated that Brazil was attempting to develop nuclear technology for military purposes. In 1975, the Brazilian military government
abandoned an UN-approved nuclear information and technology sharing agreement with the U.S. in order to receive nuclear technology from West Germany, which allowed for more Brazilian-made components to be incorporated in the nuclear power plants it was
installing at the time. Although West Germany was a NATO ally, Washington was less than enthusiastic over the arrangement. Prior to 1975, Brazil’s nuclear technology was used solely to produce nuclear energy, but when Brazil began its association with the West
German Kraftwerk Union—a Siemens affiliate that did not require IAEA safeguards until U.S. pressure forced the company to adopt them—the South American country began a secret program to conceivably develop an atomic device, which in 1987, observers foresaw
as occurring by 2000.
In addition to its nuclear program, Brazil was a major conventional arms exporter during the 1980s. Because Brasilia was indiscriminate in seeking out clients for its military products, the country was arguably the world’s leading arms trader to human rights violators
and rogue nations during this period. In 1984, Brazil’s arms sales hovered around $3 billion, which represented a 600 percent increase over 1980. Along with West German nuclear technology, Washington feared the ramifications of Brazil’s possible exporting of nuclear
weapons to countries like Libya and Iraq, both significant customers of Brazil’s conventional arms trade. Even after the military government stepped down in 1985 and Brazil began the transition towards democracy, the selling of weapons to Iraq continued.
Recent speeches by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are reminiscent of the country’s past dark days. During his 2002 campaign, he expressed his unhappiness over the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which lists Brazil as one of the world’s182 non-nuclear weapon
states (non-NWS). Speaking in his man-of-the-people guise, Lula asked, “If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?” As presidential candidate, Lula explained how developing countries who are
signatories of the NPT are disadvantaged by its conditions. Whereas NWS are allowed to keep the nuclear technology they already possess, non-nuclear countries are prohibited from developing technology that covertly could be used in nuclear weapons programs,
leaving them, in Lula’s words, holding a slingshot and looking down the barrel of a cannon.
During Lula’s campaign, a number of members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush “to express [their] concern regarding Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva … and his recent public statement criticizing Brazil’s adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” The U.S. legislators concluded by requesting that the president direct the State Department to investigate the “potentially serious national security matter” developing in Brazil. The Bush administration chose to ignore the letter, deciding
.
instead to initiate a new diplomatic relationship with Lula centering on Brazil’s decision to lead the UN mission to Haiti
comprehensive IAEA inspection of the Resende nuclear facility. Lula said at the time that the denial was merely to protect his government’s coveted technological innovations from theft by outsiders,
claiming that these facilities will enrich uranium more efficiently and will operate longer and more economically than other plants. In a November 17 report by National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, a number of specialists denied that Brazil had the means to develop
its own advanced enriching technology. Furthermore, nuclear experts like Henry Sokolski, director of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, believe that Brasilia may have received its centrifuge from the black market and may want to conceal this. However,
Brazilian nuclear scientists stand by their claim that their centrifuge is more technologically advanced than any other currently available, despite withering international skepticism that it is even Brazilian-made.
In October, after several months of negotiations, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology finally reached an accord with the IAEA to allow for complete inspection of the country’s nuclear facilities, with the exception of the Resende Plant centrifuge. The plant at
Resende enriches uranium that the Ministry says fuels Brazil’s two nuclear power plants, which together provide 4.3 percent of the country’s electricity. While Brazil does mine uranium, it is also home to an established reserve of oil and natural gas. These traditional
fuels are providing an increasingly reliable source for much of Brazil’s energy needs instead of the interrupted power produced by Brazil’s first nuclear plant, the long-troubled Angra I, or “Firefly.” Despite the questionable virtues of Brazil’s alleged new type of
centrifuge, the IAEA and Lula were able to agree on a plan that allowed inspectors to check the pipes leading into and out of the centrifuge, but not the facility itself.
Before IAEA inspectors arrived in Brazil, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited President Lula and Foreign Minister Amorim. In the meeting, Powell announced that they “talked about things having to do with the IAEA, the nuclear issue that has come up in the course
of the day. And I reaffirmed to the President and to the Minister that the United States has absolutely no concerns about Brazil doing anything with its nuclear program except developing power in a most controlled, responsible manner.” Upon his return to the United
States, Powell reiterated that: “We know for sure that Brazil is not thinking about nuclear weapons in any sense.” In its desire to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Brasilia seems to have won the favor of the United States with only limited
kowtowing to the Bush administration through its welcomed role in leading the UN mission to Haiti.
At the conclusion of the inspections, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology told the London-based online news source LatinNews that IAEA personnel had left the Resende plant “satisfied with what they saw.” That publication reported that the IAEA inspectors
had finished their tour of Brazilian nuclear facilities and that IAEA would announce their findings by the end of November. But at the end of November, an official with the IAEA told COHA that “Brazil is a continuing issue” and that the agency will carry on its review
of its findings until satisfied with the depth and scope of the result. However, the agency could not give a timetable for the release of the final report.
given the current information on Brazil’s domestic and international goals,

it is safe to assume that, as of now, Brazil is not producing nuclear weapons nor threatening regional stability. Nevertheless,
theoretically, Brazil remains an excellent candidate to be a nuclear power, considering the availability of uranium, skilled personnel
and the enrichment facility technology that it appears to possess. Fortunately, Brazil’s ambitions to become the Latin American
hegemon and a leader of the development bloc in the UN have so far taken precedence over any covert plans to join the nuclear club.

One category consists of states with the ability but not the will to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to engage in arms races with neighbors.
The latent capabilities of these states should be very much in the mind of the policymaker. All have unexploited NBC weapons capabilities. Among these are many “repentant proliferants” (in
Sandy Spector’s term) that have abandoned strategic weapons or their development programs (e.g., South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, Belarus, and !Kazakhstan).These countries are rightly a focus of proliferation
concern for a number of reasons. Only one is the ease with which disinterest might again become interest. Many receive transfers of militarily sensitive technology,
and some are conduits for further trade. These states are also essential to the promulgation of international norms about weapons and war and the
functioning of multilateral regimes reflecting those norms. Without their participation in the effort to combat proliferation, the
response to proliferation will be limited to a few countries, mostly those of the developed world, with deleterious consequences.


TURNS ARE JUST SILLY
This brings us then to the question of what is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard answers to the question of what ís at stake: human lives, and stability.
Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, all of them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions, and much more quickly than conventional
weaponry(though it too is capable of killing millions).A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter of course could cause suffering and death unknown in human experience. Such a
war would cast a harsh light on the argument now in vogue that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction. Strictly from the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the world
community has an interest in preventing the emergence of an international system in which the possession and use of Nuclear Biological
Chemical weapons is accepted as normal and customary. The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It focuses on
the weapons-acquiring state and its neighbor sand the risk of war that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental wars. Although it is an old truism that proliferation is destabilizing, it is not always true not where
the acquisition of strategic leverage is essential to preservation of a balance of power that deters conflict and that is used to create the conditions of a more enduring peace. But those circumstances have proven remarkably rare. Instead, the risks
associated with the competitive acquisition of strategic capabilities have typically been seen to outweigh the perceived benefits to
states that have considered nuclear weapons acquisition. Argentina and Brazil, for example, like Sweden and Australia before them, have gotten out of the nuclear weapons business because they see no reason to
live at the nuclear brink even if living there is within their reach. But the standard answers don’t really take us very far into this problem any more. To grasp the full stake requires a broader notion of stability, and an appreciation of the particular historical moment in
we are moving irreversibly into an international

which we find ourselves. It is an accident of history that the diffusion of dual-use capabilities is coterminous with the end of the Cold War. That diffusion means that
system in which the wildfire-like spread of weapons is a real possibility. The end of the Cold War has brought with it great volatility in
the relations of major and minor powers in the international system. What then is at stake? In response to some catalytic event, entire regions
could rapidly cross the threshold from latent to extant weapons capability, and from covert to overt postures, a process that would be highly competitive and risky, and
which likely would spill over wherever the divides among regions are not tidy. This would sorely test Ken Waltz’s familiar old heresy that more may be better! î7óindeed,
even Waltz assumed proliferation would be stabilizing only if it is gradual, and warned against the rapid spread of weapons to multiple states. At the very least, this
would fuel Nuclear Biological Chemical terrorism, as a general proliferation of NBC weaponry would likely erode the constraints that heretofore have inhibited states from sponsoring terrorist use of
these capabilities. Given its global stature and media culture, America would be a likely target of some of these terrorist actions. What kind of catalytic event might cause such wildfire-like proliferation? The possibilities are not numerous and thus we
should not be too pessimistic, although history usually surprises. One catalyst could be a major civil war in a large country in which NBC weapons are used. Another catalyst might be a crisis in which Nuclear Biological Chemical
weapons are used to call into question the credibility of US security guarantees. Such a crisis would have far-reaching consequences, both within and beyond any particular region. If the threat
of the use of such weapons is sufficient to dissuade the United States from reversing an act of aggression, or if their use is successful in defeating a US military operation, there would be hell to pay. How, for example, would Japan respond to a US decision not to seek to
reverse NBC-backed aggression on the Korean peninsula? How might NATO partners respond to a collapse of US credibility in East Asia? This stake isn’t just America’s stake.
PROLIF WOULD ESCALATE RAPIDLY INCREASING THE LIKLEYHOOD OF NUCLEAR WAR, COLLAPSE OF
DETERRENCE, AND PROLIFERATION OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
Utgoff, 2002, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, & Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis (Victor A., “Proliferation,
Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, Summer, p. 87-90)
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers
had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in
more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional
alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s
capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are
becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that
the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire
happens,
proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to
world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear
the dynamics of getting to a

proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First,
highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who
succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation.
Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear
weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second,
as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or
more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such
weapons failing into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Worse still,
in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected
times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure,some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear
capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.’ These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe
this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states ‘known to possess nuclear weapons did
engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear
weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examples Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain’s efforts to take them
back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide
for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a ‘victory or destruction’’ policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat. And
Japan’s war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested ‘Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?” If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use of
nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these
weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of
view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states. Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be


seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the
confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognize clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think
carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may
We can almost hear

too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action.
the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. ‘These people are not willing to die for this interest’. ‘No sane person would actually use such weapons’.
‘Perhaps the opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons’. ‘If I don’t hit them
back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed’. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within,
might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time,
and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise
enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances,
but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.’ Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the
maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of
Escalation of
missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants
before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is
likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild
West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a
while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION

STRONG US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO PREVENT BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION
Washington’s relative deference to the hemisphere’s candidate for major power status. Even though lately Brazil has cost the White House a good deal of grief over trade-related issues,
and in spite of U.S. accusations over Brazil’s nuclear intent and its past disputes with Washington over the issue, the fact that Lula agreed to head the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti and supply over 1,000 troops to the efforts—by far the largest contingent—has won
the Brazilian leader a heavy draught of amnesia on the nuclear front. Critics would say that in this respect, Lula entered into a humiliating arraignment with Dr. Faustus.
Whether or not Brazil currently has the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons is unknown. The IAEA said, at the conclusion of its investigation, that a report on Brazil’s recent nuclear developments would be ready by the end of November, but no report as of yet has
been released.
During Brazil’s 1964-1985 era of military rule, episodic remarks, usually made off the record by both military and civilian figures, indicated that Brazil was attempting to develop nuclear technology for military purposes. In 1975, the Brazilian military government
abandoned an UN-approved nuclear information and technology sharing agreement with the U.S. in order to receive nuclear technology from West Germany, which allowed for more Brazilian-made components to be incorporated in the nuclear power plants it was
installing at the time. Although West Germany was a NATO ally, Washington was less than enthusiastic over the arrangement. Prior to 1975, Brazil’s nuclear technology was used solely to produce nuclear energy, but when Brazil began its association with the West
German Kraftwerk Union—a Siemens affiliate that did not require IAEA safeguards until U.S. pressure forced the company to adopt them—the South American country began a secret program to conceivably develop an atomic device, which in 1987, observers foresaw
as occurring by 2000.
In addition to its nuclear program, Brazil was a major conventional arms exporter during the 1980s. Because Brasilia was indiscriminate in seeking out clients for its military products, the country was arguably the world’s leading arms trader to human rights violators
and rogue nations during this period. In 1984, Brazil’s arms sales hovered around $3 billion, which represented a 600 percent increase over 1980. Along with West German nuclear technology, Washington feared the ramifications of Brazil’s possible exporting of nuclear
weapons to countries like Libya and Iraq, both significant customers of Brazil’s conventional arms trade. Even after the military government stepped down in 1985 and Brazil began the transition towards democracy, the selling of weapons to Iraq continued.
Recent speeches by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are reminiscent of the country’s past dark days. During his 2002 campaign, he expressed his unhappiness over the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which lists Brazil as one of the world’s182 non-nuclear weapon
states (non-NWS). Speaking in his man-of-the-people guise, Lula asked, “If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?” As presidential candidate, Lula explained how developing countries who are
signatories of the NPT are disadvantaged by its conditions. Whereas NWS are allowed to keep the nuclear technology they already possess, non-nuclear countries are prohibited from developing technology that covertly could be used in nuclear weapons programs,
leaving them, in Lula’s words, holding a slingshot and looking down the barrel of a cannon.
During Lula’s campaign, a number of members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush “to express [their] concern regarding Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva … and his recent public statement criticizing Brazil’s adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” The U.S. legislators concluded by requesting that the president direct the State Department to investigate the “potentially serious national security matter” developing in Brazil. The Bush administration chose to ignore the letter, deciding
.
instead to initiate a new diplomatic relationship with Lula centering on Brazil’s decision to lead the UN mission to Haiti
comprehensive IAEA inspection of the Resende nuclear facility. Lula said at the time that the denial was merely to protect his government’s coveted technological innovations from theft by outsiders,
claiming that these facilities will enrich uranium more efficiently and will operate longer and more economically than other plants. In a November 17 report by National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, a number of specialists denied that Brazil had the means to develop
its own advanced enriching technology. Furthermore, nuclear experts like Henry Sokolski, director of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, believe that Brasilia may have received its centrifuge from the black market and may want to conceal this. However,
Brazilian nuclear scientists stand by their claim that their centrifuge is more technologically advanced than any other currently available, despite withering international skepticism that it is even Brazilian-made.
In October, after several months of negotiations, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology finally reached an accord with the IAEA to allow for complete inspection of the country’s nuclear facilities, with the exception of the Resende Plant centrifuge. The plant at
Resende enriches uranium that the Ministry says fuels Brazil’s two nuclear power plants, which together provide 4.3 percent of the country’s electricity. While Brazil does mine uranium, it is also home to an established reserve of oil and natural gas. These traditional
fuels are providing an increasingly reliable source for much of Brazil’s energy needs instead of the interrupted power produced by Brazil’s first nuclear plant, the long-troubled Angra I, or “Firefly.” Despite the questionable virtues of Brazil’s alleged new type of
centrifuge, the IAEA and Lula were able to agree on a plan that allowed inspectors to check the pipes leading into and out of the centrifuge, but not the facility itself.
Before IAEA inspectors arrived in Brazil, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited President Lula and Foreign Minister Amorim. In the meeting, Powell announced that they “talked about things having to do with the IAEA, the nuclear issue that has come up in the course
of the day. And I reaffirmed to the President and to the Minister that the United States has absolutely no concerns about Brazil doing anything with its nuclear program except developing power in a most controlled, responsible manner.” Upon his return to the United
States, Powell reiterated that: “We know for sure that Brazil is not thinking about nuclear weapons in any sense.” In its desire to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Brasilia seems to have won the favor of the United States with only limited
kowtowing to the Bush administration through its welcomed role in leading the UN mission to Haiti.
At the conclusion of the inspections, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology told the London-based online news source LatinNews that IAEA personnel had left the Resende plant “satisfied with what they saw.” That publication reported that the IAEA inspectors
had finished their tour of Brazilian nuclear facilities and that IAEA would announce their findings by the end of November. But at the end of November, an official with the IAEA told COHA that “Brazil is a continuing issue” and that the agency will carry on its review
of its findings until satisfied with the depth and scope of the result. However, the agency could not give a timetable for the release of the final report.
given the current information on Brazil’s domestic and international goals,

it is safe to assume that, as of now, Brazil is not producing nuclear weapons nor threatening regional stability. Nevertheless,
theoretically, Brazil remains an excellent candidate to be a nuclear power, considering the availability of uranium, skilled personnel
and the enrichment facility technology that it appears to possess. Fortunately, Brazil’s ambitions to become the Latin American
hegemon and a leader of the development bloc in the UN have so far taken precedence over any covert plans to join the nuclear club.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—NUCLEARIZATION

BRAZIL HAS NUCLEAR PROGRAMS FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES—COLLAPSE OF US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS
TURNS PUBLIC WILL TO USING THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF VIOLENT MEANS LIKE
WEAPONIZING
Until recently, the primary U.S. concern about Brazil has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In the
1970s, the Brazilian military embarked on a secret program to develop an atom bomb. By the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina
were aggressively pursuing nuclear development programs that had clear military spin-offs. 54 There were powerful military and
civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles within both countries. Today, however, the situation has
changed. As a result of political leadership transitions in both countries, Brazil and Argentina now appear firmly committed to
restricting their nuclear programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into various nuclear-related agreements with each other—
most notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their nuclear
installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control Regime.
Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott Tollefson has observed:
. . . the military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space programs depends less on technological considerations
than on political will. While technological constraints present a formidable barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and
ballistic missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The critical element, therefore, in determining the applications
of Brazil’s nuclear and space technologies will be primarily political. 55
Put simply, if changes in political leadership were instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program towards peaceful purposes,
future political upheavals could still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian supremacy is not so strong that it could not
be swept away by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the current democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic crisis
and growing poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to democracy than the
military. The example of Peru’s Fujimori comes immediately to mind.
How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only
producing at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included,
Brazil would have a capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial
missile producing capability. On the other hand, the country has a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift
or to sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could
place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of economic
resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of
money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with Argentina in the first place.) 56
In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued with nationalistic ambitions for great power status, is not unthinkable, and such
a regime could present some fairly serious problems. That government would probably need foreign as well as domestic enemies to
help justify its existence. One obvious candidate would be the United States, which would presumably be critical of any return to
dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the spectre of a predatory international community, covetous of the riches of the Amazon,
could help rally political support to the regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have been warning of “foreign
intervention.” Indeed, as far back as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz Abreu, then chief of the Military Command of the Amazon,
threatened to transform the region into a “new Vietnam” if developed countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon. Subsequently,
in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military exercises near the Brazilian border provoked an angry response from many high-ranking
Brazilian officers. 57

BRAZIL NUCLEARIZATION BAD—HEGE

WILDFIRE PROLIF COLLAPSES HEG
Any country whose security depends to some extent on a regional or global order guaranteed by Washington has a stake in preventing
such wildfire-like proliferation. This is truest of America’s closest security partners, but it is true of the many small and medium-sized
states that depend, to some degree, on collective mechanisms for their security. It seems reasonable to expect that many of these states
would respond to a loss of US credibility and to the fear of greater regional instability by moving up the latency curve. If they were
also to cross the threshold to weapons production, the international system would have a hard time coping. It seems likely that such
proliferation would cause the collapse of nonproliferation and arms control mechanisms. This, in turn, would precipitate a
broader crisis of confidence in the other institutions of multilateral political and economic activity that depend on some modicum of
global stability and cooperation to function. The consequences could be very far-reaching. These international mechanisms and
institutions have been a primary means of giving order to an anarchic international system. The United States, in particular, has found
them useful for exercising influence and power. What’s at stake, then, is the international order built up over the last half century, the
multilateral institutions of economic and security governance, the patterns of cooperation among states, and the expectations of a more
orderly future. This is an order that the United States played a central role in creating and sustaining. It is built largely on American-
style liberal political and economic values. It is run by and through formal and informal institutions that operate according to rules
Washington helped formulate. This is an order backed by US security guarantees in those regions where the threat of interstate war
remains real and system-threatening and more generally by collective security principles safeguarded at the United Nations by the
United States, among others. Were it to unravel, the world would change fundamentally. Would such a crisis actually play out in this
way? A catalytic event might well have the opposite effect to the one described here: it could well galvanize the international
community into strengthening the institutions of multilateral cooperation, assuming that the United States is willing and able to
reenergize its commitment to their leadership. Let us hope so. Moreover, there may be no such catalytic event. Instead, and in the
absence of reinvigorated leadership of the anti proliferation effort, we may see something more subtle but no less destructive, and that
is a growing number of states that move up the latency curve without also formally abandoning their treaty obligations, creating a
dangerously misleading fiction in the form of an extant legal regime with little or no impact on the behavior of states. But let us also
set aside the complacent assumption that the current distribution of Nuclear Biological Chemical assets is somehow fixed in perpetuity
or that a radical erosion of the current order would not have serious consequences. Among many US policymakers and analysts, there
is still great resistance to the notion that the collapse of the anti proliferation project would have far-reaching implications. Most
analysts seem to believe that international politics would then proceed much as they do today. Perhaps some partial collapse would
have this effect some further loss of credibility of one or two instruments of arms control, for example, might not actually precipitate
the collapse of the treaty regime. But if wildfire-like proliferation somehow comes to pass, it seems likely that a lot would be up for
grabs in international politics. Basic relations of power would be in great flux. New coalitions would form, with new forms of
competition among those seeking to lead them. American influence abroad could be eclipsed and quite rapidly. Americans might like
to believe that, in such a world, they could retreat into a Fortress America. Whether others would allow us this luxury is very much an
open question, especially if America’s retreat occasions some particular pain on their part that motivates them to seek revenge. And
even if the United States some how remained secure, many long-time US friends and allies, and millions of civilians in conflict-prone
regions, might not.

BRAZIL NUCLEARIZATION BAD—GLOBAL PROLIF

One category consists of states with the ability but not the will to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to engage in arms races with
neighbors. The latent capabilities of these states should be very much in the mind of the policymaker. All have unexploited NBC
weapons capabilities. Among these are many “repentant proliferants” (in Sandy Spector’s term) that have abandoned strategic
weapons or their development programs (e.g., South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, Belarus, and !Kazakhstan).These countries are
rightly a focus of proliferation concern for a number of reasons. Only one is the ease with which disinterest might again become
interest. Many receive transfers of militarily sensitive technology, and some are conduits for further trade. These states are also
essential to the promulgation of international norms about weapons and war and the functioning of multilateral regimes reflecting
those norms. Without their participation in the effort to combat proliferation, the response to proliferation will be limited to a few
countries, mostly those of the developed world, with deleterious consequences.
TURNS ARE JUST MORONIC
This brings us then to the question of what is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard answers to the
question of what ís at stake: human lives, and stability. Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, all of
them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions, and much more quickly than
conventional weaponry(though it too is capable of killing millions).A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter of course
could cause suffering and death unknown in human experience. Such a war would cast a harsh light on the argument now in vogue
that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction. Strictly from
the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the world community has an interest in preventing the emergence of an
international system in which the possession and use of Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons is accepted as normal and customary.
The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It focuses on
the weapons-acquiring state and its neighbor sand the risk of war that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental
wars. Although it is an old truism that proliferation is destabilizing, it is not always true not where the acquisition of strategic leverage
is essential to preservation of a balance of power that deters conflict and that is used to create the conditions of a more enduring peace.
But those circumstances have proven remarkably rare. Instead, the risks associated with the competitive acquisition of strategic
capabilities have typically been seen to outweigh the perceived benefits to states that have considered nuclear weapons acquisition.
Argentina and Brazil, for example, like Sweden and Australia before them, have gotten out of the nuclear weapons business because
they see no reason to live at the nuclear brink even if living there is within their reach. But the standard answers don’t really take us
very far into this problem any more. To grasp the full stake requires a broader notion of stability, and an appreciation of the particular
historical moment in which we find ourselves. It is an accident of history that the diffusion of dual-use capabilities is coterminous with
the end of the Cold War. That diffusion means that we are moving irreversibly into an international system in which the wildfire-like
spread of weapons is a real possibility. The end of the Cold War has brought with it great volatility in the relations of major and minor
powers in the international system. What then is at stake? In response to some catalytic event, entire regions could rapidly cross the
threshold from latent to extant weapons capability, and from covert to overt postures, a process that would be highly competitive and
risky, and which likely would spill over wherever the divides among regions are not tidy. This would sorely test Ken Waltz’s familiar
old heresy that more may be better! î7óindeed, even Waltz assumed proliferation would be stabilizing only if it is gradual, and warned
against the rapid spread of weapons to multiple states. At the very least, this would fuel Nuclear Biological Chemical terrorism, as a
general proliferation of NBC weaponry would likely erode the constraints that heretofore have inhibited states from sponsoring
terrorist use of these capabilities. Given its global stature and media culture, America would be a likely target of some of these terrorist
actions. What kind of catalytic event might cause such wildfire-like proliferation? The possibilities are not numerous and thus we
should not be too pessimistic, although history usually surprises. One catalyst could be a major civil war in a large country in which
NBC weapons are used. Another catalyst might be a crisis in which Nuclear Biological Chemical weapons are used to call into
question the credibility of US security guarantees. Such a crisis would have far-reaching consequences, both within and beyond any
particular region. If the threat of the use of such weapons is sufficient to dissuade the United States from reversing an act of
aggression, or if their use is successful in defeating a US military operation, there would be hell to pay. How, for example, would
Japan respond to a US decision not to seek to reverse NBC-backed aggression on the Korean peninsula? How might NATO partners
respond to a collapse of US credibility in East Asia? This stake isn’t just America’s stake.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—OIL DEPENDENCY/GREENHOUSE GASSES

US-BRAZIL RELATIONS KEY TO WEAN THE US OF DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OILS
Paul Merolli, staff writer for The Oil Daily, “Biofuels central to US-Brazil Relations,” August 6, 2007
For the US, Burns said, there is "no more important partner in the hemisphere than Brazil" in this regional struggle. He said that
cooperation between the world's two largest producers of ethanol -- together Brazil and the US produce 75% of the world's ethanol --
would help reduce US dependence on foreign oil while contributing to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for
climate change.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS GOOD—OIL DEPENDENCE (CHAVEZ AND IRAN)

BRAZILIAN ENERGY RELATIONS KEY TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FROM VENEZUELA AND IRAN
Raúl Zibechi is a member of the Editorial Council of the weekly Brecha de Montevideo, teacher and researcher of social movements
at the Multiversidad Franciscana de América Latina, and adviser to social groups: 2007 (United States and Brazil: The New Ethanol
Alliance, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4051)
When Nicholas Burns visited Brazil in early February, he gave an interview to the newspaper O Estado de São Paulo that reveals
Washington's plans for the region. "We are very dependent on oil. So we have to develop alternative fuels, we have to decrease our
gasoline consumption. We produce corn ethanol because we have large cornfields. You (Brazil) produce ethanol from sugarcane. We
are both world leaders. We control more than 70% of the world market. We believe that this is a connection with Brazil, it is an area in
which we can grow together and we can lead the development of a world market with very positive consequences for the environment
and for the economy. Biofuels will become the biggest and most positive point of connection between Brazil and the United States."1
Burns added that Brazil can play a major role in stimulating ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean, where
sugarcane plantations cover vast areas in private sector partnerships. He was very clear in pointing out that the agreement with Brazil
on the development of biofuels will contribute to decreasing the dependency of U.S. imports from Venezuela and Iran. "We don't want
to be dependent on those countries," Burns concluded.

LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHINESE HEGE

REPAIRING US-LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS IS NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE THE RISE OF CHINA AS A
CHALLENGER TO US HEGEMONY, THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO FOR THE DECLINE OF US LEADERSHIP
Malik, a professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 2k6 (Mohan, Power and Interest News Report,12 June 2006,
''China's Growing Involvement in Latin America,'' http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=508&language_id=1)
China's forays into Latin America are part of its grand strategy to acquire "comprehensive national power" to become a "global great
power that is second to none." Aiming to secure access to the continent's vast natural resources and markets, China is forging deep
economic, political and military ties with most of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. There is more to China's Latin American activism than just fuel for an economic
juggernaut. China now provides a major source of leverage against the United States for some Latin American and Caribbean countries. As in
many other parts of the developing world, China is redrawing geopolitical alliances in ways that help propel China's rise as a global superpower. Beijing's
courtship of Latin American countries to support its plan to subdue Taiwan and enlist them to join a countervailing coalition against
U.S. global power under the rubric of strengthening economic interdependence and globalization has begun to attract attention in Washington. Nonetheless, Beijing's relations with the region are neither too cozy nor frictionless. For Latin America and
the Caribbean countries, China is an enviable competitor and rival, potential investor, customer, economic partner, a great power friend and counterweight to the United States, and, above all, a global power, much like the United States, that needs to be handled with
China's interest in Latin America is

care. As in Asia and Africa, China is rapidly expanding its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America -- a region the United States has long considered inside its sphere of influence.
driven by its desire to secure reliable sources of energy and raw materials for its continued economic expansion, compete with Taiwan
for diplomatic recognition, pursue defense and intelligence opportunities to define limits to U.S. power in its own backyard, and to
showcase China's emergence as a truly global great power at par with the United States. In Latin America, China is viewed differently in different countries. Some Latin American
countries see China's staggering economic development as a panacea or bonanza (Argentina, Peru, and Chile view China as an insatiable buyer of commodities and an engine of their economic growth); others see it as a threat (Mexico, Brazil, and the Central American
republics fear losing jobs and investment); and a third group of countries consider China their ideological ally (Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela). While China's growing presence and interests have changed the regional dynamics, it still cannot replace the United States as a
Nonetheless, China is
primary benefactor of Latin America. Chinese investment in the region is US$8 billion, compared with $300 billion by U.S. companies, and U.S.-Latin America trade is ten times greater than China-Latin America trade.
the new kid on the block with whom everyone wants to be friendly and Beijing cannot resist the temptation to exploit resentment of
Washington's domineering presence in the region to its own advantage. For Washington, China's forays into the region have significant
political, security and economic implications because Beijing's grand strategy has made Latin America and Africa a frontline in its
pursuit of global influence. China's Grand Strategy: Placing Latin America in the Proper Context China's activities in Latin America are part and parcel of its long-term grand strategy. The key elements of Beijing's grand strategy can be
identified as follows: Focus on "comprehensive national power" essential to achieving the status of a "global great power that is second to none" by 2049;Seek energy security and gain access to natural resources, raw materials and overseas markets to sustain China's
economic expansion;Pursue the "three Ms": military build-up (including military presence along the vital sea lanes of communication and maritime chokepoints), multilateralism, and multipolarity so as to counter the containment of China's regional and global
aspirations by the United States and its friends and allies; Build a network of Beijing's friends and allies through China's "soft power" and diplomatic charm offensive, trade and economic dependencies via closer economic integration (free trade agreements), and mutual
security pacts, intelligence cooperation and arms sales.
Economic PenetrationChina's double digit growth for more than a quarter of a century has fed an appetite for resources from around the world, including Latin America, to fuel its economic expansion. Beijing sees Latin America and the Caribbean countries as an
important source of energy resources, raw materials, commodities and as a market for Chinese manufactured goods. During the last five years, China has concluded a number of energy, natural resource, tourism, education, aviation, space and investment agreements that
will guarantee long-term access to valuable natural resources and markets, as well as bolster Beijing's presence in the region. Sino-Latin American trade reached $50 billion in 2005, with China emerging as the region's third largest trading partner. Latin American
exports to China are growing at a brisk 47 percent a year, with Mercosur countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay accounting for 85 percent of the total, according to data from the Inter-American Development Bank. China's trade volume surpassed
Japan's total trade with the region in 2004, and is moving up the lists of major trading partners for a number of regional countries. China is now the second largest trading partner for Peru and Brazil; the third largest for Chile; the fourth largest for Argentina; and trade
with China now falls within the top ten for Paraguay and Uruguay. Significantly, China is investing more in Latin America than any region outside Asia. During his November 2004 visit to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Cuba, President Hu Jintao pledged that China
would invest more than $100 billion in Latin America over a decade. Chinese investment and purchases are seen as vital for economies short on capital and struggling to emerge from a long recession. In Argentina, for example, Hu announced nearly $20 billion in new
investment in railways, oil and gas exploration, construction and communications satellites, a huge boost for a country whose economic vitality has been sapped since a financial collapse in December 2001. China is busy buying huge quantities of iron ore, bauxite,
soybeans, timber, zinc and manganese in Brazil. It is buying tin from Bolivia, oil from Venezuela, and copper from Chile where it has displaced the United States as the leading market for Chilean exports. More importantly, Chinese firms have an edge over their
international competitors because Beijing enthusiastically pursues deals with so-called pariah states where Western companies are either barred by sanctions or constrained from doing business because of concerns over human rights, repressive policies, labor standards
and security issues. For example, the Chinese government, unlike the United States, does not lecture the Latin American countries on human rights, good governance, democracy, fiscal prudence and drug trafficking. In addition, Chinese state-owned corporations, using
generous lines of credit from the Chinese government and financial institutions, are not averse to entering into uneconomic deals, driven as they are less by market and profit considerations and more by their government's strategy to establish strategic footholds and lock
up resources. Strategic Motivations First and foremost is the Chinese strategic objective of limiting U.S. dominance worldwide. The world's rising
superpower, China, has long viewed the world's reigning superpower, the United States, as its major global strategic rival that needs to
be contained and balanced. Notwithstanding Beijing's rhetoric of "peace and development," China's strategic posture is based on the realist paradigm of "comprehensive national power" with which it seeks to defend its interests and intimidate,
aggrandize, and support the enemies of its enemies. Faced with a dramatic expansion of U.S. military power ("hard power") all around China's periphery after
the September 11 attacks, Beijing responded by unveiling its "soft power" strategy in the form of a diplomatic "charm offensive," the
notion of "China's peaceful rise," and laid greater emphasis on multilateralism and economic integration. As per the August 2002 central leadership's decision to
bring about a shift in the "international correlation of forces," Beijing also stepped up its drive to gather as many friends and allies as possible to form a countervailing coalition to the United States without antagonizing Washington for fear of jeopardizing access to the
Despite
U.S. market, capital and technology. Put simply, Beijing's strategic objective of expanding its influence is to be achieved under the rubric of strengthening economic interdependence and globalization so as to avoid provoking Washington.
Beijing's repeated assurances to U.S. officials that it intends to stay out of political and military affairs in Latin America, Africa and
other resource-rich regions with significant Chinese investments, China is quietly throwing its weight behind those countries in
Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America that seek to counter the United States and its policies. Beijing's growing role
in Latin America has also coincided with elections that have brought populists and leftists to power in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay and Bolivia. In particular, Brazil, Cuba, and Venezuela have made no secret of their game plan to play "the China card" to
offset U.S. influence and trade dominance. In most country cases, when the U.S. withdraws or is negligent militarily, politically or
economically, the Chinese move in. Thus, Beijing's courting of those Latin American leaders who are at loggerheads with Washington
(such as Lula da Silva of Brazil, Castro of Cuba, Chavez of Venezuela, Toledo of Peru, and Morales of Bolivia) could be seen as part of Beijing's "containment through surrogates" strategy
with its roots in the classic strategic principle of "make the barbarians fight while you watch from the mountain top" (zuo shan guan hu dou). This
strategy has the additional benefit of plausible deniability. It certainly fits into the "vacuum-filling" pattern of past Chinese behavior in North Korea, Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sudan, Iran, Nigeria, Nepal,
and Zimbabwe. Many interpret Beijing's growing presence in Latin America as a "tit-for-tat" response to the U.S. presence in China's own backyard. In fact, courting the strategically-located, resource-rich but isolated and turbulent countries run by authoritarian leaders
and fishing in troubled waters, while simultaneously chanting the mantra of "non-interference in domestic affairs" and "peace and development," have long been key characteristics of Chinese foreign policy. In the case of Latin America, China's moves come at a time
when leaders from Mexico to Argentina seem increasingly disillusioned with a United States pre-occupied with the Middle East, and bent on tightening border controls closer to home. As chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere, Congressman Dan Burton noted: "Weak legal systems, lax enforcement of labor standards and an immature institutionalization of the respect for human rights are fertile ground for Beijing's agenda and China is definitely exploiting this opening." Beijing's
customary denials notwithstanding, "the successful Chinese model" of "development minus democracy" or "development before democracy" is being sold to the developing world as an alternative model for ending poverty, and it resonates well across the world. The
pitch is certainly winning an audience in Africa and Latin America. This "contest of ideas" further opens the door for Beijing to position itself to play the role of balancer and neutralizer right in Washington's backyard. Notwithstanding China's insistence that its Latin
American dealings are aimed at promoting "world peace, stability and common development," a military dimension is also evident. General Bantz John Craddock, commander of the Miami-based Southern Command, told the House Armed Services Committee recently
that China's military is stepping up its involvement, "offering resources to cash-strapped militaries and security forces with no strings attached." He added: China's increasing influence in the region is an emerging dynamic that can't be ignored. China needs to protect its
access to food, energy, raw materials, and export markets. This has forced a change in its military strategy, to promote a power-projection military, capable of securing lanes and protecting its growing economic interests abroad. Beijing is training increasing numbers of
Latin American military personnel, taking advantage of a void created by a 2002 U.S. law barring military training and aid to a dozen Latin countries -- Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad
and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela -- that refuse to exempt U.S. citizens from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. These countries had, in the past, received U.S. training and aid. During a recent trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS GOOD—CHINESE HEGE

described the result of the law "the same as shooting ourselves in the foot." (The Bush administration is reportedly considering exercising a provision in the law that allows the government to waive the rule and restore military aid to Latin Americans.) Chinese military
officials have made more than 20 trips to Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years. Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan has visited Brazil and Cuba. As part of their "strategic partnership," Brazil and China have jointly developed a satellite program, are
discussing Brazilian sales of uranium for Chinese nuclear reactors, and the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer has recently set up a plant in China. China also has had exchanges of senior defense officials with Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile and provided military aid
and training to Jamaica and Venezuela. In addition to its growing commercial prowess in Caribbean ports such as the Bahamas, Beijing has been operating two intelligence stations out of Cuba since 1999. Media reports speak of cooperation among the Chinese, Cuban
and Venezuelan intelligence agencies. In August 2005, Venezuela decided to buy the Chinese JYL-1 mobile air defense radar and surveillance system. In his testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Roger Pardo-Maurer, deputy assistant
secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs, said that the United States needs "to be alert to rapidly advancing Chinese capabilities, particularly in the fields of intelligence, communications and cyber-warfare, and their possible application in the region. We
would encourage other nations in the hemisphere to take a close look at how such activities could possibly be used against them or the United States." Additionally, rivalry with Taiwan for diplomatic recognition is another strategic motivation behind China's courting of
Latin America -- home to 12 of the 25 countries that officially recognize Taiwan. Luring these 12 countries toward the "one China" policy remains a key objective of Beijing's Latin America policy. In short, China's Latin America policy has shifted from its Cold War-era
export of Maoist ideology to a more single-minded pursuit of national self-interest in the form of access to raw materials, markets and spheres of influence through investment, trade and military ties so much so that it now bears remarkable resemblance to the classical
goals pursued by the 19th and early 20th century imperialist great powers. The Dragon in Latin America: The Fear Factor This mercantilist shift in Chinese foreign policy explains some of the tension in Sino-Latin American relations. China is certainly not popular
everywhere in the region. In fact, frictions, tensions and conflicts of interest are emerging due largely to the unequal nature of the Sino-Latin American relationship. China is a fear-inducing competitor of Latin American countries in the areas of labor-intensive
manufactured products, jobs, investment, development and environment.
In a classic re-run of the trade relations established by European colonial powers, Latin Americans (and Africans) export raw materials to China while importing cheap Chinese products which compete with, and undercut, local industries. While the share of Chinese
manufactured goods sold in Latin America increased from one to 13 percent between 1980 and 2005, the Latin American share in world trade has dropped 1.8 percent during the past 15 years, largely because of competition from China. Beijing's primary interest in
infrastructure projects that would improve access to, and transportation of, resources, raw materials and commodities (as in Myanmar, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Central Asia) to fuel China's economic expansion causes unease in the region. Many Latin American
economists and analysts warn against falling into the trap of being a supplier of commodities for China's value-added manufacturing enterprises, and thus
assume the posture of a Chinese colony or economic dependency like Myanmar.
China's cheap labor has undercut the competitiveness of Mexican goods and increased unemployment, especially in textiles and electronics sectors in Mexico and elsewhere in Central America. Mexico's trade deficit with China made it oppose Beijing's entry into the
World Trade Organization. Mexican trade barriers are said to have cost China some $20 billion during the last 15 years. Brazil's early enthusiasm for China has also cooled. The euphoria over "strategic partnership" has already given way to a fear of Chinese imports,
disappointment over unkept Chinese promises of investment worth $10 billion, anger over Beijing's undermining of Brazil's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, concern over the potential environmental costs of China-aided developmental projects
given Beijing's poor record of environmental conservation, and anxiety over the leftist-leaning Lula government placing ideology over pragmatism in its dealings with China. Many Brazilian businesses and experts now want their government to "fight for a more equal
relationship, raising concerns from trade flows to environmental damage." Most Latin Americans do not wish to replace U.S. dominance with Chinese dominance over their countries. Furthermore, with so much foreign investment going to China, Latin America is
finding it difficult to obtain the capital it needs to finance its own growth. Finally, despite the proliferation in the number of Chinese language classes, the cultural barriers that separate China and Latin America remain formidable. Geography, history, culture and values
inextricably tie Latin America's present and future to the United States. In short, Beijing's relations with Latin America are neither too cozy nor frictionless. Different countries and sectors in Latin America benefit differentially from economic ties with China. While
labor-intensive manufacturers (in Brazil, Mexico and Central America) are losers, energy and resource extractors and high-tech goods suppliers (in Venezuela, Uruguay, Peru, Argentina and Chile) are winners. Nonetheless, the point is that for Latin America and the
Caribbean countries, China is no longer a distant Asian power, but a mighty rival, indispensable partner, potential investor, as well as a great power friend and counterweight to the United States, and, above all, a global power that needs to be handled with care.
With the United States preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, Beijing has obviously been busy carving out a large
Implications for Washington
sphere of influence for itself in Asia, Africa and Latin America. With the presence of China being felt everywhere, from the
backwaters of the Amazon to mines in the Andes, U.S. dominance in its own backyard is no longer unquestioned or unrivaled. Opinion is
divided on whether China's economic engagement is guided only by commercial interests or is a ruse to divert attention from Beijing's geostrategic goals in the region. Some contend that the Chinese presence in Latin America marks the end of the Monroe Doctrine,
. Over the long term, Chinese intentions in Latin America may not be as benign as some China-watchers suggest. Nor
while others are more skeptical
can China's expansion be equated with Japan's or Spain's interest in Latin America because of the highly competitive nature of the
U.S.-China relationship. Beijing calculates that one of the consequences of the burgeoning Sino-Latin American trade and resource
dependency will be a widening of the gap between U.S. and Latin American interests. As U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Pardo-
Maurer points out: "China has its own set of political, economic and military interests, requiring us to carefully distinguish between legitimate commercial initiatives and the possibility of political or diplomatic efforts to weaken the democratic alliances we have
the very presence of China does make U.S. diplomacy difficult. Increasingly,
forged." While Beijing's forays do not indicate a seismic change in the balance of power within Latin America,
"the China option" affords Latin American countries greater room to maneuver and an additional source of leverage vis-à-vis
Washington. While the Chinese may not want to be drawn into Venezuela, Brazil or Cuba's problems with the United States, that does
not mean that these countries will not play "the China card" in their relations with the United States. Likewise, the revival of the old
ideological debate over which political system -- Chinese authoritarianism or Western democracy -- delivers more people from
poverty, and whether wealth or elections are a greater measure of freedom does not bode well for Washington's efforts to promote
transparency and democracy. Beijing's strategic interests and unconditional investments prop up many authoritarian regimes, thereby
undercutting Washington's ability to persuade them to change their behavior. Just as the United States can no longer take the Latin
American countries' allegiances for granted, its access to the region's resources is also far from assured. Washington is increasingly
concerned over Beijing's efforts to "lock up" oil and mineral supplies with new ventures in Latin America, Africa, Central Asia and Russia, and the Middle East.
Hong Kong-based Takungpao News recently quoted General Xiong Guangkai, the former PLA deputy chief of staff, as saying that "in the long term, the strategic race for the world's energy may result in
regional tension and even trigger a military clash." In particular, Beijing's newly cultivated energy alliances with populist left-wing leaders in Latin America have caused alarm in Washington and prompted the dispatch
in May 2006 of Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, to hold first-ever talks with his Chinese counterpart on China's role in a region that some analysts fear could become a site for great power rivalry.

A2 CHAVEZ WILL BREAK RELATIONS

BRAZIL WILL IGNORE CHAVEZ’S ATTEMPTS TO BREAK US-BRAZILIAN RELATIONS
Logan—2007 (Sam Logan is a Staff Writer for the ISN Security Watch, “The win-win ethanol alliance; The ethanol alliance between
Brazil and the US cements an opportunity for each country to expand influence: on the world court for Brasilia and in South America
for Washington”, 4/24/07, L-N)
Chavez is cautious about losing Brasilia's potential support for other regional endeavors, including a Bank of the South alternative to
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Many agree Chavez will work to undermine the US-Brazil ethanol alliance behind the scenes
while publicly supporting the idea of ethanol and criticizing the US approach. But Lula will not be swayed. He has placed Brazil on a
path toward the future of a global ethanol market, and the US, not Venezuela, is his choice partner.

A2 US-BRAZIL RELATIONS TRADE-OFF WITH US-VENEZUELAN RELATIONS

US-BRAZIL AND VENEZUELA-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE NOT ZERO-SUM
Chávez with his 'ethanol diplomacy,' but Lula clearly is not," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research in Washington. "He is happy to have good commercial relations with the United States and expand these in any area, but he
has made it clear that he is not going to downgrade his good relations with Venezuela."

CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE
1AC CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE

CONTENTION ( ): HUGO’S SWEET CANE
CHAVEZ IS GROWING IN STRENGTH NOW AND WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO TERRORIST TRAINING GROUNDS.
OPEN TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND A SHIFT TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES ARE KEY TO PREVENT
CATASTROPHE.
rules an oil-rich nation that exports 1.1 million barrels of oil to the United States per day, roughly equivalent to what we
This strong man
import from Saudi Arabia. President Chavez has already colluded with other OPEC nations to raise oil prices, and when he
of which they say will be used as a ``mechanism for liberation'' against American allies. This could help achieve the vision that Mr. Chavez has stated: Let's save the human race; let's
finish off the U.S. empire.
now he's back.
south.
them free.
SPECIFICALLY COOPERATION WITH BRAZIL OVER BIOFUELS IS KEY TO LIMIT HIS REGIONAL INFLUENCE
The United States and Brazil, the two largest biofuel producers in the world, are meeting this week to discuss a new energy partnership that they hope will
encourage ethanol use throughout Latin America and that U.S. officials hope will diminish the regional influence of oil-rich
Venezuela.
U.S. officials said they expect to sign accords within a year that would promote technology-sharing with Brazil and encourage more Latin American neighbors to become biofuel producers and consumers.
The United States and Brazil together produce about 70 percent of the world's ethanol, a fuel that President Bush has called a cornerstone in reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
"It's clearly in our interests -- Brazil's and the United States's -- that we expand the global market for biofuels, particularly ethanol, and that it become a global commodity of sorts," said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state, who led discussions with
For the United States, the initiative is more than purely economic. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has exploited regional frustrations with the
market-driven economic prescriptions that the United States has promoted throughout the region for years, and he has used oil revenue
to promote several regional economic alliances.
<INSERT CHAVEZ BAD SHELL(S)>

1AC CHAVEZ ADVANTAGE

BRAZIL’S ETHANOL MARKET GIVES IT THE UNIQUE ABILITY TO CHALLAGE VENEZUELA—WINNING THE
BIOFUEL FACE-OFF THROUGH THE PLAN LOADS THE BRAZILIAN GUNS OF INFLUENCE AGAINST CHAVEZ
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is an ethanol enthusiast (FT). Who can blame him? Money is flying into Brazil’s ethanol
industry (BusinessWeek), and now the U.S. agriculture behemoth Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (ADM) may be seeking out Brazilian
business. The Wall Street Journal reports ADM is considering a bid for Cosan, Brazil’s biggest ethanol producer. A day later, Cosan
filed to list on the New York Stock Exchange in a move that could raise the company up to $2 billion in foreign investment
(Bloomberg).
These private-sector maneuverings follow similar upheavals in the political realm. Ethanol has become Lula’s best diplomatic lever in
Latin America, where regional influence had shifted toward Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez but now seems to be edging back
toward Brazil. Chavez inveighed against biofuels throughout the spring, joining Fidel Castro and some agriculture experts who say
biofuels could starve the poor (Foreign Affairs). But he backed down in May and agreed to increase Venezuela’s ethanol imports. As
this CFR.org Podcast discusses, biofuels could allow Latin American countries to diversify their economies away from commodities.
By “winning the biofuel face-off,” writes journalist Ben Whitford in a Guardian blog, Lula has reaffirmed Brazil’s power in the region

COOPERATION ON BIOFULES ARE KEY TO CHALLENGE CHAVEZ

THE US AND BRAZIL ARE COOPERATING AND ETHANOL USE IN LATIN AMERICA—FURTHER COOPERATION
IS KEY TO CHALANGING CHAVEZ’S INFLUENCE IN THE REGION
The United States and Brazil, the two largest biofuel producers in the world, are meeting this week to discuss a new energy
partnership that they hope will encourage ethanol use throughout Latin America and that U.S. officials hope will diminish the regional
influence of oil-rich Venezuela.
U.S. officials said they expect to sign accords within a year that would promote technology-sharing with Brazil and encourage more
Latin American neighbors to become biofuel producers and consumers.
The United States and Brazil together produce about 70 percent of the world's ethanol, a fuel that President Bush has called a
cornerstone in reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
"It's clearly in our interests -- Brazil's and the United States's -- that we expand the global market for biofuels, particularly ethanol, and
that it become a global commodity of sorts," said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state, who led discussions with
For the United States, the initiative is more than purely economic. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has exploited regional
frustrations with the market-driven economic prescriptions that the United States has promoted throughout the region for years, and he
has used oil revenue to promote several regional economic alliances.

BRAZILIAN LEADERSHIP IS KEY TO LIMIT CHAVEZ CONTROL

CONTAINMENT
Brazil, away from their neutrality about Chávez’s debilitating demagoguery and populism. Traditional Latin leftists running several
countries have been reluctant to criticize populist “leftists” like Chávez, even though the moderate leftists have the most to lose from
the spread of Chavismo. To the degree that these moderate leftist countries are succeeding economically, they, along with Mexico,
Colombia, and others, owe much more to Milton Friedman than to Karl Marx. In varying degrees, they accept that free trade and
markets offer the only productive alternative to Chávez’s scapegoating, paternalistic recipe.
Bush’s March trip was the most potentially constructive action he had taken toward Latin America in years. Brazilian President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva met with him in Brazil and then again several weeks later in the United States, and cooperative programs for the
production of ethanol were on the agenda. Part of Silva’s incentive in this may be making Brazil the “big” country of Latin America,
instead of Venezuela, which is what Chávez is rather successfully pursuing. In Colombia (and Peru and Panama as well), significant
progress in the antiguerrilla war must now be backed up with immediate passage of trade legislation by the U.S. Congress. And
serious attention to immigration, a focus that disappeared after the September 11 attacks, must again be the centerpiece of relations
with Mexico. But getting Latin America’s moderate socialists and others to even tacitly side with the United States on these critical
issues will demand U.S. actions, not just words, to prove willingness to give as well as take.

BRAZILIAN RELATIONS KEY TO CHECK CHAVEZ

U. S. EFFORTS TO CONTAIN CHAVEZ RE FAILING NOW – STRONG TRADE RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL ARE KEY
TO SUCCESS
Roberts 2007 (James M. Roberts is Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and
Economics at The Heritage Foundation; If the Real Simón Bolívar Met Hugo Chávez, He'd See Red:
Slow Washington Response. Until recently, the United States has been too busy to worry about Venezuela. September 11 distracted top U.S. policymakers from paying enough attention to
Latin America in general and Venezuela in particular. Moreover, although Washington officials saw the democratically elected Chávez as thuggish and did not like his increasingly undemocratic practices, they did not
see him as directly threatening U.S. interests. Now that it has become clear that he is a direct threat, Washington has finally begun to act.
In contrast, Cuba's attention to Venezuela has been sustained and effective. That is because Havana has had the need, the opportunity, and the means to be the most significant foreign influence in the Venezuelan crisis.[93]
What the U.S. Should Do
Chávez will continue his efforts to turn Venezuela's neighbors against the United States through petro-
What should Washington do to counter Hugo Chávez?
diplomacy and rhetorical rants against the U.S. and free markets. The Bush Administration has wisely refused to react to his taunts and
threats, but it must deliver the message of good governance, the benefits of the free market, democratic principles, and respect for the rule of law more aggressively.
Specifically, the Bush Administration should:
Push for the Organization of American States to censure the Chávez government for its crackdown on press freedom.
Attempt to restart negotiations with Brazil toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.
Pursue bilateral FTAs with Paraguay and Uruguay to isolate Chávez and to ensure that they continue to play by the rules of the free market. Linking trade
agreements to commitments to good governance and free-market practices allows the U.S. to deal with Latin American countries
based on their actions and practices.
Work actively with neighbors and allies to combat security threats through cooperative efforts to battle transnational terrorism, crime, and trafficking in illegal substances. This would create permanent working relationships and serve to counter anti-American messages.
Congress should:
For its part,
Immediately permit duty-free imports of Brazilian ethanol as an incentive for Brazil.

Approve the trade promotion agreements as originally negotiated with Panama, Peru, and especially Colombia to continue the momentum for job-creating growth from free trade in the region. Free trade agreements are one of the
best tools the U.S. has to counter anti-American and anti-democratic forces in Latin America.
Increase funding for additional focused, efficient development assistance to the region through the Millennium Challenge Corporation to address income disparities and the need for economic and political reforms that Chávez is exploiting rather than addressing.
Hold new hearings about the national and energy security threat, both to the U.S. and to Venezuela's neighbors, from the increasingly totalitarian and militaristic Chávez regime, which appears to tolerate narcotics smuggling and has a clear anti-U.S. agenda.
Extend Andean Trade Preferences for Bolivia and Ecuador before they expire in February 2008. Although their leftist leaders have personally embraced Chávez, both countries have distanced themselves somewhat from his actual policies. Extending trade preferences
would be a gesture of cooperation that would give the U.S. more leverage to press these countries to return to the path of market-based democracy.
Conclusion
the United States has been Venezuela's main trade and investment partner and its biggest oil market, but global energy demand
Historically,
is growing. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Middle East, and although the U.S. market is close by, Hugo
Chávez wants to diminish its importance. This would make the U.S. even more reliant on oil from the volatile Persian Gulf.
Chávez aspires to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and the Caribbean by uniting the region under a socialist regime that he
would lead. He can be expected to continue his petro-diplomacy and rhetorical rants against the U.S. and free markets.
Unless the U.S. increases its presence through additional support for democratic market-based institutions, Hugo Chávez's aspirations
could bear bitter fruit. A strong and resolute U.S. government should seek to avoid repeating past mistakes and instead act to
encourage true reform in the region
STRONG US-BRAZILIAN ALLIANCE IS KEY TO CHECK CHAVEZ

The new alliance between the U.S. government and its allies in the region to convert Latin America into a source of agrofuels not only
benefits transnational corporations and big business; it also helps counteract the growing influence of Venezuela and other countries
seeking to break away from U.S. hegemony. The ethanol alliance seeks to consolidate a new power line in Latin America that runs
directly between the United States and Brazil, with the dynamic force being the transnational corporations. This could undermine
efforts to consolidate Mercosur, and erode recent regional integration efforts such as the Bank of the South and the Union of Southern
Nations. Raul Zibechi, analyst with the CIP Americas Program, says the U.S. is "using Brazil to consolidate a strategic alliance that
seeks to isolate Venezuela and the countries that follow its policies of Latin American unity as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony."

TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES DECREASE

CHAVEZ POWER
CHAVEZ IS GROWING IN STRENGTH NOW AND WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO TERRORIST TRAINING GROUNDS.
OPEN TRADE WITH LATIN AMERICA AND A SHIFT TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES ARE KEY TO PREVENT
CATASTROPHE.
rules an oil-rich nation that exports 1.1 million barrels of oil to the United States per day, roughly equivalent to what we
This strong man
import from Saudi Arabia. President Chavez has already colluded with other OPEC nations to raise oil prices, and when he
of which they say will be used as a ``mechanism for liberation'' against American allies. This could help achieve the vision that Mr. Chavez has stated: Let's save the human race; let's
finish off the U.S. empire.
now he's back.
south.
them free.

INCREASING BIOFUELS KILLS CHAVEZ OIL COALITIONS

PLAN KEY TO DISRUPTING THE CHAVEZ COALITION
The memorandum of understanding signed in Sao Paolo may well be the first building block of a biofuels alliance that could provide
an alternative to the anti-American oil-and-gas, quasi-socialist alliance that is emerging between Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and
Ecuador. Venezuela is spreading its influence throughout the region by supporting the nationalization of energy assets and providing
subsidized energy to poor countries. Chavez is also promoting the PetroCaribe initiative, which facilitates the sale of discounted oil to
Caribbean nations. In order to embarrass the U.S. government, Chavez also sells subsidized heating oil to the states of Massachusetts
and Maine.
By emphasizing the importance of involving Central American and Caribbean countries in the ethanol equation, the United States has
an opportunity to boost new industries in these nations. Jamaica, which was the first nation to sign a bilateral agreement with
Venezuela under the PetroCaribe pact, is also Brazil's leading choice as an intermediate destination for the refinement of ethanol
destined for the United States.

DECREASING OIL DEPENDENCE DECREASES CHAVEZ’S CONTROL

PLAN REDUCES OIL DEPENDENCE AND DAMAGES CHAVEZ REGIONAL CONTROL
Andrews, Rohter, and Wald—2007 (Edmund L. Andrews, Larry Rohter, and Matthew L. Wald, “U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote
Ethanol in West”, 3/2/07 Section A; Column 4; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1, L-N)
President Bush, hoping to reduce demand for oil in the Western Hemisphere, is preparing to finish an agreement with Brazil next week
to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to administration officials.
The agreement could lead to substantial growth in the ethanol industry in Brazil as technology and manufacturing equipment
developed there is exported to other countries in the region.
Much of the ethanol produced there is made from sugar cane and is far cheaper to produce than the corn-based ethanol that has been
nurtured by protective tariffs and government mandates in the United States.
But the agreement has already begun to prompt complaints from politicians from corn-producing regions of the United States. They
fear that the plan would lead to an increase in imports of cheap foreign ethanol and undercut American producers.
By increasing ethanol production and consumption, particularly in countries that produce sugar, officials of the Bush administration
hope to reduce the region's overall dependence on foreign oil and to take some of the pressure off oil prices.
As a side effect, American officials contend, the program could also reduce the influence of Hugo Chavez, the president of oil-rich
Venezuela.
DEPENDENCE ON VENEZUELAN OIL PREVENTS ATTACK ON CHAVEZ

Human Events, “Hizballah in Venezuela: Will the US Move?” 6/23/2008
The U.S. government appears to be getting closer to move decisively against the regime of Hugo Chavez. In doing so, it could -- and
probably should -- declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism. This could create a major political and economic crisis due to the
importance of Venezuela as an oil exporting country and the extreme dependence of the U.S. on oil imports. However, this is one
potential crisis that seems to be no longer avoidable, one that is no longer if but when.

CHAVEZ BAD—COMMUNISM
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO TAKE CHAVEZ LIGHTLY – RISE OF COMMUNISM IN LATIN AMERICA WILL SPREAD
ENDING IN THE DEATH OF MILLIONS
Frisch, 2005 (Gordon, Research Editor/Geopolitical Analyst for International Harry Schultz Letter, the world's premier international
investment, financial, geopolitical newsletter with subscribers in 71 countries, “Commentary on Global Issues,” 3/05,
http://www.jrnyquist.com/frisch_2005_0305.htm)
The China Factor: In November 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao conducted a two-week tour of Latin America and concluded
several major trade agreements and over 400 business deals with several emerging leftist governments. China�s rapidly
industrializing economy needs massive natural resources, and Latin America is natural resources rich. China is capital rich, and Hu
Jintao promised to spend over $100 billion in the next decade on Latin American infrastructure, natural resources and trade and
investment deals, including oil. Politically, it appears business agreements between communist China�s �state capitalism� and
dysfunctional, left-leaning, anti-U.S. governments in Latin America are marriages made in Marxist utopia. China has now been
granted observer status at the OAS (Organization of American States), and is likely to conclude a bilateral trade deal with Chile
(formerly the staunchest U.S. ally in Latin America) by the end of 2005.
The Domino Theory: In The New American magazine (Jan 24), William F. Jasper reminds readers of The Domino Theory that was
central to the Vietnam War. It was believed that �If the West didn’t oppose the Communist forces backed by Moscow and Beijing,
the theory went, the countries of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would fall to Communism, one by one, in quick succession. Millions of
people would be slaughtered, and whole nations would be turned into concentration camps. The Asian nations in the region that didn’t
fall to overt Communist takeover would come under Red China’s dominance, nonetheless. The liberal intelligentsia sneered at such
simplistic and paranoid notions. They were wrong, of course, fatally horribly wrong. The �simplistic� theory proved to be fact.
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam did fall like dominoes. Millions were slaughtered, and the survivors were enslaved in concentration
camps. The rest of Asia has come under China’s economic and military dominance.� The implications of The Domino Theory for
Latin America ought to be glaringly obvious. Judging from events, it appears the dominos have already begun to fall.

CHAVEZ BAD—CHINA
CHAVEZ IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ENERGY DEPENDENCE IN SOUTH AMERICA TO BUILD AN ALLIANCE
WITH CHINA THAT WILL BE USED FOR WAR WITH US. STRENGTHENING LATIN AMERICAN EXPORT
MARKETS AND DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES TO OIL ARE KEY TO PREVENT CHAVEZ SUCCESS.
Johnson and Cohen, 2004 (Stephen, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America, and Ariel, Ph.D., Research Fellow in International
Energy Security and Russian and Eurasian Studies in The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for International Studies at The
Heritage Foundation, “Minimizing Mischief in Venezuela, Stabilizing the U.S. Oil Supply,” Aug 12,
Beyond the hemisphere, Chávez is preparing to shift PDVSA's customer base toward Asia and an increasingly oil-thirsty China,
making Venezuela less dependent on petroleum sales to immediate neighbors. A deal signed on July 14, 2004, to build oil and gas
pipelines between the Maracaibo Basin in Venezuela and the Caribbean and Pacific coasts in Colombia may seem innocuous, but it
would enable Venezuela to ship petroleum to China without using the Panama Canal. This would make it more critical than ever for
Chávez to secure a pliant government in Colombia to keep this facility operating in Venezuela's interest.16 Chávez would thus have
the luxury of cutting deliveries to those who opposed him, forcing them to seek other sources at greater cost. By destabilizing and
replacing democratic governments in hydrocarbon-rich Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador, he also could achieve a regional energy
monopoly that could support rogue regimes and frustrate U.S. interests in the hemisphere.
Mismanagement Threatens the Future
During its 20-year history before Chávez, PDVSA built a reputation for smooth operation and competence, but the 2002-2003 national strike devastated the oil giant. Some 35,000-40,000 skilled workers, including fire fighters, walked out while spillage and fires
ensued. Production capacity dropped from three mbd to 600,000 barrels. Chávez fired 18,000 skilled managers and workers, further undermining PDVSA's precarious situation.17 To regain and maintain pumping capacity at an estimated 2.5 mbd, PDVSA engineers
reportedly "goose" wells by pumping air and water into them to coax Venezuela's viscous petroleum to the surface, endangering the long-term viability of existing fields.
Despite recent high oil prices that have provided a fresh infusion of cash, PDVSA remains in disarray. Venezuelan economist Gustavo García calculates that this year's internal investment fell from $5 billion to $4.3 billion while salaries went up 60 percent despite no
apparent increase in productivity or number of employees.18 Without reinvestment in equipment and maintenance, PDVSA will not be able to maintain current production levels. Moreover, Chávez has reportedly channeled between $1.6 billion and $3.7 billion from
PDVSA into a special account that he is using to finance social programs to influence voters in the upcoming referendum on his presidency.19
Recall and Prospects
President Chávez's Bolivarian Constitution contemplates a referendum process for recalling public officials. Fortunately, opponents of various political stripes--including some former Chávez allies--have agreed to settle differences with the president at the ballot box.
The bad news is that Chávez has tried to intimidate and divide opponents or otherwise block a vote.
Two months after President Chávez's brief departure from office in 2002, the government invited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and later the Organization of American States (OAS) to broker talks between the administration and the opposition, leading to a
binding referendum as an alternative to civil conflict. Shortly thereafter, the National Electoral Council (CNE) was packed with Chávez allies who blocked several efforts for a recall.
Finally, the CNE allowed an official period for gathering signatures--known as the firmazo--in late 2003. Once organizers collected names on government forms, it changed the rules on how the forms should have been filled out and then dragged out a review process to
"repair" or rehabilitate some of the disqualified signatures.
In May 2004, under pressure from the OAS and the Carter Center, Chávez grudgingly allowed a re-examination, known as the reafirmazo, of nearly a million signatures thrown out by the partisan CNE. It turned out that petition organizers had 2.56 million names--
130,000 more than were needed to trigger a recall. As a result, the CNE scheduled a referendum for August 15, 2004.
For its part, Venezuela's opposition umbrella group--the Democratic Coordinator--has united to support a 10-point platform to create jobs, attract investment, fight poverty, strengthen local government, institute checks and balances, rebuild public institutions, and open
the government to citizen participation. Moreover, if Chávez loses the referendum, opponents promise to hold a primary to select their candidate. Chávez has declared that he will run again for his Fifth Republic Movement party even though the constitution is unclear
on whether he can do so.
Despite the opposition's willingness to play by the rules, many signs point to possible fraud by the government, even though some polls show the president with a 50-50 chance of winning the referendum. Specifically:
· The CNE will use new touch-screen voting machines from a company of which it is part owner. Technical glitches and power outages could disenfranchise thousands, thus producing fewer votes than needed to recall the president.20 Rigged software
could alter vote totals. Similar touch-screen systems without paper trails are under fire in the United States.21
· Government teams in military trucks have circulated in pro-Chávez neighborhoods, credentialing new voters. No such efforts have been made in opposition barrios. The regime also has been naturalizing foreign residents at a frantic pace--some
236,000 from May through June in a program called "Misión Identidad."22
· Chávez continues to intimidate opponents. On numerous occasions, he has accused them of trying to assassinate him. National police claim they found fake ID cards, computers, and printers in raids on offices of an opposition party in June 2004, but
witnesses say they saw agents carry in suspicious bundles. The government even charged the directors of Sumate, a non-governmental organization (NGO) that helped organize the referendum, with conspiracy to commit treason for accepting a $53,000 grant for
electoral observation from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy even though the Chávez administration has accepted thousands of doctors, teachers, and intelligence agents from Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
· Chávez has earmarked from $1.6 billion to $3.7 billion worth of state oil income to spend on poor voters during the campaign. He commands radio and TV stations to broadcast his speeches without equal time for opponents. In June, he revealed plans
to enlist millions of "patriotic" electoral patrols to surveil neighborhoods under the authority of a campaign committee of high government officials known as the Comando Maisanta.
Curbing Mischief
Hugo Chávez is no democrat. At home, he has concentrated the powers of the state in his presidency, expropriating budgets from
municipal governments, strengthening the national police, and packing the Supreme Court with cronies.23 Abroad, he appears to be in
the initial stages of creating a confederation of nations opposed to the United States that is sustained by oil and united by an
improvised nationalist ideology. History suggests a future of conflict and poverty, both for those under his rule and for all those who
are allied with him.
Other countries in Latin America share some of Venezuela's economic characteristics--abundant resources and high rates of poverty
that make them easy prey for populist demagogues. A bloc of states united in leftist authoritarianism and oil extortion could ignite the
flames of armed confrontation again in the Western Hemisphere. To avoid needless conflict as well as a possible energy crisis, the
United States should help direct Venezuela back toward democracy, develop alternate sources of petroleum, and engage Latin America
more effectively to help allies strengthen democratic institutions and market economies.

CHAVEZ BAD—COMMUNISM
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO TAKE CHAVEZ LIGHTLY – RISE OF COMMUNISM IN LATIN AMERICA WILL SPREAD
ENDING IN THE DEATH OF MILLIONS
Frisch, 2005 (Gordon, Research Editor/Geopolitical Analyst for International Harry Schultz Letter, the world's premier international
investment, financial, geopolitical newsletter with subscribers in 71 countries, “Commentary on Global Issues,” 3/05,
The China Factor: In November 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao conducted a two-week tour of Latin America and concluded
several major trade agreements and over 400 business deals with several emerging leftist governments. China�s rapidly
industrializing economy needs massive natural resources, and Latin America is natural resources rich. China is capital rich, and Hu
Jintao promised to spend over $100 billion in the next decade on Latin American infrastructure, natural resources and trade and
investment deals, including oil. Politically, it appears business agreements between communist China�s �state capitalism� and
dysfunctional, left-leaning, anti-U.S. governments in Latin America are marriages made in Marxist utopia. China has now been
granted observer status at the OAS (Organization of American States), and is likely to conclude a bilateral trade deal with Chile
(formerly the staunchest U.S. ally in Latin America) by the end of 2005.
The Domino Theory: In The New American magazine (Jan 24), William F. Jasper reminds readers of The Domino Theory that was
central to the Vietnam War. It was believed that �If the West didn’t oppose the Communist forces backed by Moscow and Beijing,
the theory went, the countries of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam would fall to Communism, one by one, in quick succession. Millions of
people would be slaughtered, and whole nations would be turned into concentration camps. The Asian nations in the region that didn’t
fall to overt Communist takeover would come under Red China’s dominance, nonetheless. The liberal intelligentsia sneered at such
simplistic and paranoid notions. They were wrong, of course, fatally horribly wrong. The �simplistic� theory proved to be fact.
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam did fall like dominoes. Millions were slaughtered, and the survivors were enslaved in concentration
camps. The rest of Asia has come under China’s economic and military dominance.� The implications of The Domino Theory for
Latin America ought to be glaringly obvious. Judging from events, it appears the dominos have already begun to fall.

CHAVEZ BAD—OIL COALITIONS

CHAVEZ IS BUILDING A MAJOR ALLIANCE - SOON HE WILL CONTROL GLOBAL OIL MARKETS
Johnson, Cohen, and Shirano, 2006 (Stephen, Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America; Ariel, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in
Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security; William Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center
for Foreign Policy Studies, all at Heritage Foundation, “Countering Hugo Chavez’s Anti-U.S. Arms Alliance,” Sept.
6,http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/em1010.cfm)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has embarked on a military buildup, to counter alleged U.S. plans to invade his country, and has
recently visited Russia, Iran, China, Syria, and other countries to finalize purchases and lobby for a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
Chavez’s aggressive policies could endanger U.S. allies in Latin America and a major source of U.S. oil imports.
Like Fidel Castro in 1961, Chávez is acquiring Russian assault rifles, combat aircraft, and possibly surface-to-air missiles, and he
shares a hegemonic and anti-American international agenda with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unlike Castro, he is not
dependent on a sponsor state and can finance his own adventures with booming state petroleum sales.
Because Chávez has no limits on acquiring or transferring arms, U.S. policymakers should strengthen regional alliances to prevent
aggression, sanction Chávez in international forums, and press suppliers like Russia to withhold sales of offensive weapons systems.
The New Castro? Venezuela’s current arms buildup resembles events in the Caribbean in 1958, when Fidel Castro wrote a guerrilla
companion that his destiny was to wage war against the United States. In 1960, Cuba began to receive Soviet weapons shipments,
including light bombers, MiG jet fighters, SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, and finally nuclear-tipped SS-4 medium-range ballistic
missiles, which provoked a U.S.–Soviet showdown in 1962.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when Cuba and the Soviet Union tried to establish satellite regimes in Africa and Central America, they
armed, among others, Nicaragua’s Sandinista revolutionaries and El Salvador’s Farabundo Martí Liberation Front. The United States
thwarted those plans by backing a Central American transition to democracy.
Mentored by Castro, Chávez is keenly aware of prior defeats and how to avoid them. Though freely elected, he has replaced Venezu-
ela’s checks and balances with a crony congress, silenced critics with draconian media laws, and placed the state oil company under
his thumb as head of the National Oil Council. Unbridled by popular will or economic sense, Chávez wants to block U.S. influence
and become a power unto himself—picking up where Castro left off.
Courting Outside Partners. Soon after his election in 1998, Chávez began to curtail 50 years of U.S.–Venezuelan military cooperation.
Finally, in 2004, his government asked the U.S. military mission to leave Venezuela’s armed forces headquarters in Caracas. Anti-drug
operations and training of Venezuelan pilots in U.S.-supplied F-16 fighters ceased. Shortly thereafter, Venezuela began to seek arms
from Russia. The Bush Administration suspended arms sales in May 2006, and Spain and Sweden are withholding weapons with U.S.
components.
Chávez has signed contracts worth $3 billion for 24–30 military airplanes and more than 50 helicopters, has agreed to buy some
100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles to arm a new reserve force, and reportedly is seeking short-range surface-to-air missiles. During the
last week of July 2006, he was in Moscow to finalize the purchase of the Su-30 supersonic fighter-bombers and Mi-35 assault heli-
copters. He also signed an agreement to purchase a Kalashnikov weapons and munitions plant.
In Belarus, Chávez announced a strategic alliance with President Alexander Lukashenko to keep “hands at the ready on the sword”
against imperialism. Iranian President Ahmadinejad awarded him a medal and promised collaboration on developing new oil fields. In
China, Chávez pledged to shift more petroleum exports to Beijing. Meanwhile, ties with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il could
facilitate the acquisition of intermediate-range missiles.
Venezuela is replacing some military equipment that has fallen into disrepair, but setting up a Russian weapons plant and striking
alliances with state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Cuba, and North Korea) is alarming. Chávez already allows Colombian rebels to
resupply in Venezuela and funds like-minded Bolivarian movements in neighboring countries. Venezuelan Kalashnikovs could help
them go from street marches to armed attacks. The Su-30 will be Latin America’s most advanced attack aircraft. With North Korean
ballistic missiles, Venezuela could threaten neighbors and the United States, and a gelling global oil alliance could limit U.S. imports
at a critical moment.

CHAVEZ BAD—NUKES
CHAVEZ WILL SOON HAVE NUCLEAR TECH – IT WON’T BE USED FOR PEACE
Webb-Vidal, 2007 (Andy Webb-Vidal is a journalist specializing in Latin America and is an independent financial and political risk
consultant; Dumb and Dumber, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3987)
But in the nuclear arena, something sinister may be afoot. Emulating his soul-brother Ahmadinejad, Chávez has voiced his regime’s
desire to acquire nuclear technology, and Iranian officials have said they would oblige. And that may already be underway. In recent
months, there have been persistent whispers in intelligence circles suggesting that Iranian scientists and engineers are prospecting for
uranium ore in the granite bedrock under the southeastern jungles of Venezuela, a region rich with mineral deposits. It’s difficult to see
why Chávez would want nuclear technology for peaceful, energy-producing ends: Venezuela has the largest hydrocarbon reserves in
the Americas and it already makes good use of its ample hydroelectricity generation potential.
CHAVEZ IS TRYING TO GET NUCLEAR BOMBS FOR USE AGAINST NON-LEFTIST STATES: THAT MEANS US.
Johnson 2006 (Stephen Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation; Is
Hugo Chávez a threat?, http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/hl938.cfm)
Outside his borders, Chávez threatens non-leftist states. Financed by the national oil industry he directly controls, the president sees
himself taking over Fidel Castro’s leadership of the Latin American left and strengthening hemispheric ties to such rogue nations as
Iran and North Korea.
He has proposed energy cartels, such as PetroCaribe and PetroSur, to integrate Latin America’s state hydrocarbon industries under one
roof minus the participation of private U.S. companies. And, despite controlling the seventh largest oil and tenth largest natural gas
reserves in the world, Chávez announced last May plans to acquire nuclear technology from Iran, fueling fears that he may try to
develop a bomb.

CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM HIZBALLAH SPECIFIC (SHELL)

CHAVEZ HAS BEEN FUNDING AND SUPPORTING VENEZUELAN TERRORIST GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH
HIZBALLAH, MAKING VENEZUELA A PRIME LOCATION FOR RISING LATIN AMERICAN TERRORISTS
That Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’ regime is enabling Islamic terrorist organizations to take root in South America is no
longer in question. What will the US do?
In December 2002 freelance journalist Martin Arostegui published an article in Insight Magazine (“Chavez plans for a terrorist
regime”) in which he reported the arrival in Venezuela of Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah, a member of Hizballah. Venezuelan officials
received him at the airport. In connection with his presence in the country Arostegui interviewed the former Venezuelan Intelligence
Director, General Marcos Ferreira, who said Fattah represented only the tip of the iceberg in a Cuban-Venezuelan operation to
promote the infiltration of terrorists from Hizballah into the U.S. Between 200 and 300 Cuban intelligence, he added, were already
active in this project within Chavez inner circle, led by Cuban Captain Sergio Cardona. Ferreira also identified Ramon Rodriguez
Chacin, the current Minister of the Interior of Chavez, as Chavez’s designated link with the terrorists.
In 2005, Barbara Newman reported that the Venezuelan Island of Margarita had become a main center of financing for Hizballah in
Latin America and that members of this organization were entering the U.S. with Venezuelan documents obtained in that island.
In 2006 I reported on the installation by Hizballah of small cells in the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, bordering with
Colombia. (Gateway Pundit, September 1, 2006).
Also in 2006, a report by a U.S House of Representatives sub-committee led by Texas Representative Michael McCaul (R-Tx)
asserted that the government of Hugo Chavez was providing support to terrorists, including false identity documents that “could prove
useful to radical Islamic groups”. Venezuela, the report added, “is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere,
providing assistance to the Islamic radicals from the Middle East”.
In the last weeks a fresh wave of detailed information about the links between Hugo Chavez and Hizballah has emerged. Writing for
Caracas newspaper “El Nuevo Pais”, Venezuelan exiled journalist Patricia Poleo has published two articles (June 13 and June 20,
2008) in which she describes how Hizballah in Lebanon is training young Venezuelans in the use of firearms and explosives. “The
young Venezuelans”, she says, “are members of Chavez’s political party PSUV, and are recruited by, among others, Tarek el Ayssami,
current Venezuelan Vice-Minister of the Interior and by Gahzi Nasr Al Din, at the Venezuelan Embassy in Damascus, Syria [later
moved to the Venezuelan embassy in Lebanon]”. Poleo says that, after the Venezuelans trained in Lebanon return to their country, they
link with radical groups of their same party and of the Bolivarian University. These groups, Poleo adds, are closely connected with
Hizballah in Venezuela and with Iraqi Al-Qaeda members living in Venezuela, as well as with the Venezuelan chapter of the
Palestinian Democratic Front, led by Salid Ahmed Rahman, who has his office in downtown Caracas. Poleo says that there are ten or
more training camps of Hizballah in Venezuela. She identified one of the most notorious members of Hizballah in Venezuela as
explosives expert Abdul Ghani Suleiman Wanked, who is Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s right hand.
HIZBALLAH IS PLANNING AN ATTACK ON THE WEST

Jerusalem Post, “US intel: Hizballah attack imminent,” June 19, 2008
US and Canadian intelligence agencies warned Thursday that Hizbullah attacks on Jewish targets around the world could be imminent.
ABC News quoted intelligence officials as saying that Hizbullah had activated sleeper cells in Canada, and that top terror operatives
had left Lebanon for the US, Canada and Africa.
According to the officials, Hizbullah wants to avenge February's assassination of its operations head Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus,
for which the Shi'ite group holds Israel accountable.
Israel has repeatedly denied the allegation.
There was no reliable intelligence regarding the possible targets of such an attack, the sources told ABC News, adding, however, that
Hizbullah operatives had recently been seen conducting surveillance on the Israel Embassy in Ottawa and on several Toronto
synagogues.
"There are concerns Hizbullah might be ready to do something along those lines," ABC quoted a senior US counterterrorism official
as saying.
CIA and National Security Agency officials quoted by the report said British and Canadian agencies began receiving a flow of
intelligence on February 17, only a few days after Mughniyeh's funeral, regarding a possible Hizbullah attack.
"They want to kill as many people as they can, they want it to be a big splash," former CIA intelligence officer Bob Baer, who claimed
he met with Hizbullah leaders in Beirut last month, was quoted by ABC as saying. "They cannot have an operation fail and I don't
think they will. They're the A-team of terrorism."

CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM HIZBALLAH SPECIFIC (SHELL)

A HEZBOLLAH ATTACK IS EMINENT AND WILL OCCUR IN NORTH AMERICA-IT IS CHAVEZ’S SUPPORT OF
TERRORISM THAT MAKES SUCH AN ATTACK LIKELY
Rick Moran, policy analyst and radio show host, “Analysts Believe Hezbollah Preparing an Attack,” June 20, 2008
ABC News is reporting that western analysts believe the Iranian-Lebanese terrorist group Hezb'allah is preparing to attack "Jewish
targets" someplace in the west, perhaps North America:
Intelligence officials tell ABC News the group has activated suspected "sleeper cells" in Canada and key operatives have been tracked
moving outside the group's Lebanon base to Canada, Europe and Africa.
Officials say Hezbollah is seeking revenge for the February assassination of Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mugniyah, killed
by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.
The group's leaders blamed Israel, an allegation denied by Israeli officials.
There is no credible information on a specific target, according to the officials.
Suspected Hezbollah operatives have conducted recent surveillance on the Israeli embassy in Ottawa, Canada and on several
synagogues in Toronto, according to the officials.
In addition to Canada, it is believed that South America is also a likely target. Translations of some Spanish language articles
on Fausta Wertz's site of suspected Venezualean connections to Hezb'allah reveal a disturbing alliance between Hugo Chavez and
Middle Eastern based terrorists.
A few days ago, Fausta reports that Venezualeans of Arab ancestry were being recruited to take part in training at Hezb'allah sites in
Lebanon. Then came the news that the State Department has designated a Venezualean diplomat as a supporter of Hezb'allah:
The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Nsr al Din and Fawzi Kan'an, along with two travel agencies owned and controlled
by Kan'an, as terror supporters
Nasr al Din has counseled Hizballah donors on fundraising efforts and has provided donors with specific information on bank
accounts where the donors' deposits would go directly to Hizballah.
Ghazi Nasr al Din has met with senior Hizballah officials in Lebanon to discuss operational issues, as well as facilitated the travel of
Hizballah members to and from Venezuela. In late January 2006, Nasr al Din facilitated the travel of two Hizballah representatives to
the Lebanese Parliament to Caracas to solicit donations for Hizballah and to announce the opening of a Hizballah-sponsored
community center and office in Venezuela. The previous year, Nasr al Din arranged the travel of Hizballah members to attend a
training course in Iran.
The Treasury Dept. statement lists 12 aliases for Nasr al Din, who was born on December 13, 1962 in Lebanon.
It was in 1994 that Hezb'allah attacked an Argentina Jewish Community Center killing 85 people. Clearly the terrorists have the will to
strike but do they have the means?
Given their massive support from Iran, there can be little doubt of that.
NUCLEAR TERRORISM LEADS TO EXTINCTION

Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the
weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to
capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody.
So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where
they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can
determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the
invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD,
proved to be unfounded.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of
the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped
up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It
would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to
survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge
victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers.
When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

CHAVEZ BAD—TERRORISM
CHAVEZ IS USING INFLUENCE TO HARBOR AND TRAIN TERRORISTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD. RISING
ANTI-AMERICANISM IN THE REGION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT WHERE THE ATTACKS WILL COME
FROM.
Gordon, Research Editor/Geopolitical Analyst for International Harry Schultz Letter, the world's premier international investment,
financial, geopolitical newsletter with subscribers in 71 countries, “Commentary on Global Issues,” 3/05,
In today�s global geopolitical theater many stages and acts are running simultaneously. While the audience is held mostly spellbound
by center stage�the Mideast and terrorism with all of its high drama�almost unnoticed, but barely less important, are the strategic
acts playing out on other stages: Russia and the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Central Asia, African genocide and AIDS, China
and Latin America. Of considerable importance is Latin America, a knife poised at the soft underbelly of one of the main actors on
center stage: the United States.
In 19th-century wars of independence, strong leaders rose to power whose commanding legacies persist to this day in every nation of
South America and into Central America and the Caribbean. These strongmen embodied the best (and worst) of large landowners,
generals, and beguiling charm, all rolled into one, and they were called caudillos. One of the greatest caudillos was Simon Bolivar
(1783-1830), called El Liberator, and �the George Washington of South America,� who led the nations of Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Panama and Venezuela to independence from Spain. Bolivar still commands vastly more respect than modern-day oligarchs,
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, both wannabe caudillos who are in reality just tinhorn communist dictators. But that doesn�t stop
Castro, and especially Chavez, from falsely hitching their wagons to Bolivar�s star to further their own goals of uniting Latin
America into a single anti-U.S. communist bloc.
Sadly, and not without some basis, most Latin Americans categorize U.S. involvement in their affairs as either commercial
opportunism (e.g., corporate banana empires) or militaristic imperialism (such as Nicaragua and the Iran-Contras or Colombia�s
ongoing drug wars), punctuated by long periods of outright neglect. This sets the Latin American stage for anti-U.S. sentiment in a
region of massive poverty and which, with the exception of Chile, has never known real democracy, and where doors open to anyone
promising to alleviate misery�Che Guevara, Castro, Chavez or Red China. Preoccupied at center stage, most U.S. citizens are
ignorant of developing political threats in Latin America, but ignorance is perilous. Here�s a rundown of the political state of affairs
in various Latin American nations highlighting the need for concern.
Venezuela: Hugo Chavez originally came to power by military coup although polls today indicate he is supported by less than one-
third of the country�s population. Chavez, whose personal hero is Fidel Castro, and who visited and praised Saddam Hussein, now
rules Venezuela, which is the U.S.�s second most important oil provider. He has nationalized Venezuelan oil and many other
companies and put them under direct government control.
In September 2001, Major Juan Diaz Castillo, Chavez�s former pilot and Air Force Operations Chief, who defected, said Chavez
used the Venezuelan Air Force to send humanitarian aid to the Taliban, he wanted to send troops to help the Taliban but couldn�t
circumvent U.S. blockades, and he donated large amounts of money to al Qaeda. Intelligence indicates the Chavez regime may also be
protecting and training thousands of Colombian and Arab terrorists, including members of Hezbollah. Margarita Island marks the key
location for these terrorist operations and funding.
Chavez rules by near martial law, Cuban intelligence officers train his security and intelligence forces and operate key naval facilities,
and Venezuela�s government is permeated with Cuban intelligence personnel. Chavez has hired hundreds of Cuban teachers to insert
anti-American, pro-socialist propaganda into the educational system. Analysts warn that Chavez�s plans for Venezuela bear an
uncanny resemblance to Castro�s blueprint to turn Chile into a Marxist state in the 1960s-70s, when Castro sent thousands of Cuban
paramilitaries there to assist Allende.
In January 2003, Major Diaz gave critical insight about Chavez to interviewer J.R. Nyquist: �Hugo Chavez is working to form a
bloc of countries to fight the U.S. For Hugo Chavez the U.S. is the enemy. And he is convinced that by forming a bloc of countries he
can attack the U.S. in various ways. One way would be an economic attack. And on top of this he is not only looking for an alliance
with a bloc of countries but also an alliance with terrorist groups because this will give him a direct way to attack the U.S. He sees in
the terrorists a force with a defined intention to attack the U.S.

TERRORISM DOESN'T COME CHEAP: CHAVEZ IS MOVING FUNDS TO EVERY MAJOR TERRORIST
ORGANIZATION IN PREPARATION FOR A WAR AGAINST THE WEST.
Correa and Castillo, 2003
(Maria Angelica and Major Juan Diaz, Interviewer and Major in Venezuelan Air Force who served as personal pilot to Chavez ,
“Insider Speaks: "Chavez's $1M To Al Qaeda Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg,"” 1/29,
http://militaresdemocraticos.surebase.com/articulos/en/20030129-03.html)
" - Chavez originally wanted to do much more than just send money to Afghanistan. He wanted to help with a military presence: Venezuelan
troops on Afghan soil, helping the Taliban of course, and not the U.S. forces ... or, as Chavez put it, helping the Afghan people in a spirit of solidarity and humanitarian assistance. That was the first idea that came to his mind, but also the first idea to be abandones, for
obvious reasons. We studied the proposal and came to the conclusion that it was simply not feasible to send one hundred men there. In fact, we concluded that it was actually inhumane to send the Venezuelan soldiers over there."
" - Venezuelan soldiers in Afghanistan? Explain that."
" - The first instructions I got was that we would be sending one hundred men to Afghanistan, one hundred troops, in a sort of company, speaking in military terms. They would go with their officers, basically to make up a presence on Afghan soil, to help the people of
Afghanistan. But this supposed help had a political undertone. Don't forget that Afghanistan at the time was the Taliban, and the Taliban was facing the U.S. invasion. By sending Venezuelan military there, Chavez wanted to show the world which side he was on. He did
not want to fight the U.S., but he wanted the world to see that he was standing up to the U.S. - apparently he figured that he could get important political capital out of that.
But when we started planning the logistics, we found out that it would be nearly impossible in practical terms to make it happen. Apart from the 100 soldiers, we also needed to carry another 40 men from Civil Defense plus we needed to transport cargo. All told, we
needed three 330 airplanes and something like 35 hours in the air, continously. This would be impossible without stops for refueling. Now, the conditions in which a Hercules travels are not the best. I suggested to Chavez that we should fly just eight hours at a strech,
with stops for refueling. That would give us approximately four separate legs of the journey. Basically, we calculated that it would take us between three and four days to get our men from Venezuela to Afghanistan. And not just that. They would travel three or four days,
in poor conditions not fit for human transport. In a Hercules, since it is a cargo plane, there are no formal seats and no bathroom, no food facility, and due to the altitude, it is cold. The plane is not heated in the cargo hold. So think about it: our troops would be arriving
on the other side of the world, in a hostile war-torn climate, after having travelled in totally exhausting conditions for many days. They would arrive too tired to complete a mission which was not even clearly defined. In Afghanistan, we already knew that the
International Red Cross had their own people on the ground, and Afghan government officials. So we came to the conclusion that it was best to just send a small group or a single person there, in a commercial plane, with money for whatever was needed. Rather than
sending Venezuelan military there."
" - So, did that one person or a small group go instead?"
" - No, that too was changed. The ambassador in India offered to handle the contacts, so when he became part of the plan, we decided not to send anyone from Caracas."
" - When you still wanted to send troops to Afghanistan, was it going to be official?"
" - Yes, of course. Chavez even announced his intention of doing so in his weekly TV program Alo Presidente in late September, 2001. You can get a transcript of that program and a lot of curious surprises will appear. For instance, he said that the United States deserved
the attack, that they had brought it upon themselves. He also called the U.S. president a criminal, and accused him of killing children. He talked about the help that he was going to give to the Afghan people. Chavez also offered to receive Afghan refugees in Venezuela.
he really wanted to do was to harbor Al Qaeda, under the guise of them pretending to be Afghan refugees. In in fact, they got the message. Because in the
We think that we
. He received people
months that followed, an increasing number of Arabs came to Venezuela and found a safe haven here. Some even got new identity papers, from the Venezuelan government. None of them were refugees, but rather radical islamist
from a group which was already accused of terrorism by the U.S. and this is a problem that Venezuela is still suffering from."
Bin Laden is Chavez's hero
" - Apart from Al Qaeda, can you name other terrorist groups that Chavez to your knowledge has helped?" " - The links that Chavez has established with well known worldwide terrorist groups are notorious. Directly or through Fidel Castro, Chavez has contact to major
terrorist leaders worldwide. The groups that he most works with, however, are the leftist Colombian guerrillas. FARC, in particular, is a favorite of his. We have a big problem in Venezuela, and it is the civil war in Colombia. There is strongly documented proof that
Hugo Chavez has given all sorts of help to these terrorist cells. He has given them weapons, financing, and has let them have training camps on the Venezuelan side of the border. What's more, several of their leaders have found a safe haven in Venezuela, and he has met
with many of the guerilla bosses in Caracas, with his DISIP secret service acting as their personal bodyguards. These terrorists enter the country through the airport and pass undetected through immigration. They have inside help by Chavez."
" - We have seen information about radical islamist terrorist organizations operating out of Margarita. Is that true?"
" - Yes, absolutely. The military resisters in the pro-democracy opposition movement have compiled a dossier with information about this. General Marcos Ferreira has, with proof, fully documented how muslim terror groups entered the country and how Chavez
harbored them. Various individuals from guerilla and terrorist organizations have been given Venezuelan passports and cedulas by the Chavez regime."
" - Do you know what happened to Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah? [Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah was an Arab with connections to the 9/11-bombing who, among other things, trained at New Jersey flight schools along
with Hani Hanjour who crashed the American Airlines flight into the Pentagon. After Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah was detained by the FBI, he flew to Venezuela on Delta flight # 397, and was helped enter the country by Venezuela's DISIP Secret Police without
passing through immigration.]"
" - He is currently safe in Venezuelan territory, specifically Margarita. We are blowing the whistle on the way that Chavez helps radical muslim terrorists. Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah was given refuge by the Venezuelan
government. They are harboring him, and many other highly trained operatives. But officially, as far as border control is concerned, this individual and many others are not even in the country. He entered with government help and bypassed the normal controls so that
no record of his presence would appear. Now the government should explain why they are doing this. In cases like these, what is it exactly that Venezuela is covering up? Explain this not just to Venezuela's own citizens, but to the world, because these individuals have
strong and proven terrorist connections and it is hard to comprehend why Chavez would want to shelter them like this. Just give us an explanation. "
" - For how long have you been an eye-witness to Venezuela's government connections with known terrorist groups?"
" - From September 2001 onwards. I thought it was strange that he would give these sort of orders, and have us work on plans like helping the Taliban regime in Afghanistan."
" - But when was the first time?"
" - I personally found out only in September 2001. I think this was when Chavez realized the importance of terrorism in world politics."
" - What did you hear about Al Qaeda at that time?"
" - Chavez was impressed with the 9/11 attacks, it was clear that he admired this great master stroke, and he also admired Osama Bin
Laden as a person, in fact, Bin Laden was like an idol to him. I was personally disturbed and puzzled by this. In fact, I even thought for a while that Hugo Chavez
was joking. But after the million dollars was sent, I found out that he wasn't. Chavez was deadly serious."
" - From what you could tell, from your presence in the meetings, what was the purpose of the help that Chavez wanted to give?"
" - A number of those of us who participated discovered that Chavez had ulterior motives which went far beyond merely a desire to help those leaders [the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden]. I would call it a compulsive obsessions, like the attitude which you expect from a
person who is not normal and mentally stable. And this coming from a country who has no relations whatsoever with Afghanistan, and no sort of involvement at all in any of the issues that those people were dealing with."
" - What were Chavez's compulsive obsessions about?"
" - He wanted to get close to those leaders."
" - There is evidence of terrorist cells in Panama, in northern Brazil, and in Margarita which is Venezuelan territory. When you talk about getting close, what type of closeness do you refer to?"
" - Simply the contacts that have been established, and the continuation of a future working relationship. What else could be expected?"
" - What other Chavez-activities, related to national or international terrorism, do you possess knowledge of?" " - Too many to mention, so let me give you just the more important highlights: Arms trafficking from Asia to the Colombian narco-terrorists. The help given
to radical Middle Eastern networks, and harboring muslim terrorists. Assistance and advice between these terrorist groups and the Venezuelan government. Training of Venezuelan government employees in Libya, Argelia and Syria, which are countries known as state
sponsors of terrorism."
" - You mentioned arms trafficking from Asia. Where, speficially?"
" - From various parts of Asia, but mostly Chinese-made."
" - What is the Chavez connection to China?"
" - Extremely significant. It is not coincidence that Chavez meets with the top of the Chinese leadership so easily and so often. He has been to China more than once and the Chinese president has toured Venezuela, too. Remember that the Chavez government keeps huge
sums of money in Chinese banks, specifically in Shanghai and Hong Kong. In turn, China has invested more in Venezuela than in all other Latin American countries combined."
" - How do you know that the illegal weapons came from China?"
" - Thanks to investigations that some of us made. For instance, another one of the dissident military officers is the man who was the head of all transport shipping on the Orinoco River until November 2002. When we came together in Plaza Altamira, we each had
different inside knowledge and we then started putting the pieces together. A disturbing picture emerged. The puzzle is still not complete, but we know enough to say with absolute certainty that what is known so far about the Chavez terrorist connections is just the tip of
the iceberg."
" - In your opinion, to which extent does Chavez aid and abet international terrorism?"
" - The help that Chavez gives to terrorism is enormous. In his first year of taking power, Chavez became a penpal with one of the
founders of violent Middle Eastern terrorism, Carlos The Jackal. Chavez himself wanted to be a guerilla fighter. He considers terrorism to be a worldwide guerilla
movement. This is why he expresses solidarity and offers help to terrorists: He considers himself to be one of their kind. Now, remember also that the million dollars for
Al Qaeda is merely one single item of proof. It is by no means the only evidence. When you start investigating, you will find that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Chavez has consciously helped not just Al Qaeda, but several
other terrorist organizations. I can name at least five: Al Qaeda, ELN, EPL, ETA and FARC. But judging from the information which the Militares Democraticos resistance movement is now collecting in Plaza Altamira, they are by no means the only ones. By the
time we get to the bottom of this, I fully expect to see at least a dozen of the world's major terrorist organizations represented. They are
all receiving financing and other assistance from the Hugo Chavez regime."

WITH FUNDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, TERRORISTS CAN EASILY GET WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Bunn, Weir, and Holdren, 2003 (Matthew, Anthony, John, Harvard University, “Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A
Report Card and Action Plan” 3/12/03, www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/cnwm_chapter2.pdf)
Since September 11, many officials have said that while there were warnings, there was no intelligence specific enough to tell the U.S.
government what actions to take. Here, that is not the case – the warning signs are undeniable:
■ By word and deed, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network have made it clear that they are seeking nuclear weapons to
use against the United States and its allies.2 Bin Laden has called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) a “religious
duty.”3 Intercepted al Qaeda communications reportedly have referred to inflicting a “Hiroshima” on the United States.4 Al Qaeda
operatives have made repeated attempts to buy stolen nuclear material from which to make a nuclear bomb. They have tried to recruit
nuclear weapon scientists to help them. The extensive downloaded materials on nuclear weapons (and crude bomb design drawings)
found in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan make clear the group’s continuing desire for a nuclear capability. 5 Detailed analysis of al
Qaeda’s efforts suggests that, had they not been deprived of their Afghanistan sanctuary, their quest for a nuclear weapon might have
succeeded within a few years – and the danger that it could succeed elsewhere still remains.6
■ If they got the materials, making a bomb is at least potentially within the capability of a large and well-organized terrorist group.
With enough HEU, terrorists could potentially make a simple “gun-type” bomb, little more than firing two pieces of HEU into each
other to form a critical mass. Making a bomb from plutonium (or from a stock of HEU too small for a gun-type bomb) would be more
difficult, because it would have to be an “implosion” bomb, in which explosives are set off all around a nuclear material core, crushing
it down to a smaller, denser configuration where the nuclear chain reaction will begin. Getting these explosives right was a
tremendous challenge in the Manhattan Project, when such a thing had never been done before. It would still be a significant challenge
– but today the relevant explosive technology is in wide use in conventional military and even commercial applications. Detailed
examinations by U.S. nuclear weapons experts have concluded again and again that with enough nuclear material in hand, it is
plausible that a sophisticated terrorist group could build at least a crude nuclear explosive – including, potentially, an implosion bomb,
though that would be substantially more difficult for them than a gun-type bomb.7 These conclusions were drawn before September
11 demonstrated the sophistication and careful planning and intelligence gathering of which al Qaeda is capable. Indeed, Department
of Energy (DOE) internal security regulations envision the possibility of an “improvised nuclear device” – a nuclear bomb the
terrorists might be able to put together while they were still inside the facility where they stole the HEU.8
■ The amounts needed to build a bomb are small. With an efficient implosion design, a baseballsized lump of plutonium weighing 4
kilograms (about 10 pounds), or a softball-sized lump of HEU weighing perhaps three times as much, is enough.9 For a less-efficient
gun-type design, four to five times more HEU would be needed. Unless proper security and accounting systems are in place, a worker
at a nuclear facility could put enough material for a bomb in a briefcase or under an overcoat and walk out.

A2 OIL DAS
YOUR IMPACT TURNS ARE NON-UNIQUE: SOON CHAVEZ WILL STOP SENDING US OIL IN FAVOR OF CHINA .
Stratford, 2005 (Non-partisan Strategic Foreign Policy Analysts, “Analysis on the Venezuela-USA Oil Relationship”, 1/17,
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntl50621.htm)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been ratcheting up the rhetoric over cutting off US markets from Venezuelan oil supplies
during the past several weeks. On the surface the idea seems preposterous. Along with Mexico, Canada and Saudi Arabia, Venezuela
has ranked among the top four US oil suppliers for decades and currently supplies approximately 11 % of US oil needs.
Located just across the Caribbean from the US Gulf Coast, it is ideally situated to supply the US market. Denying that in order to
supply customers in Asia or Europe would cut deeply into Venezuela's profit margins.
However, Chavez's primary rationale is not economic, it is political. Opposition to the United States is an ideological fact for him, and
he wants to reduce Venezuela's economic links to the superpower to his north -- even if it means a little less cash for his coffers.
Now, we do not take Chavez exactly at his word. We never expect him to stop all shipments to the United States, not out of love or
kindness, but because the primary customer for Venezuelan crude in the United States is CITGO, a subsidiary of PdVSA, the state-
owned Venezuelan oil company. Chavez might be many, many things, but he is not about to cut off supplies to one of his own
companies -- or at least not before he sells it (although that is another issue we will get to in good time).
CITGO uses about 860,000 bpd to supply its refineries and approximately 700,000 bpd of that total comes from PdVSA. To fill
domestic refinery needs, Venezuela keeps about another 1.3 mm bpd at home, of which some 900,000 bpd of product is shipped
abroad with the remaining 400,000 bpd being used at home.
That leaves Venezuela with only about 600,000 bpd of additional crude exports to play with. In a global system where demand is at
about 80 mm bpd, 600,000 bpd can be mopped up pretty quickly.
But Chavez has even selected where he wants his country's crude to go: China. Chinese representatives have been hop scotching all
over Latin America during the past few months attempting to pen trade and investment deals. For China, energy security is an acute
issue.
The Persian Gulf states enjoy a near monopoly on exports to Asia, resulting in a stiff premium on supplies. Venezuela's heavy crude
might be of inferior quality to the lighter, sweeter streams that come from the Middle East, but it does not have to steam past regional
rivals Australia, India, Singapore or Vietnam to reach Shanghai.
The lower cost of Venezuelan crude -- not to mention the lack of a premium -- should also offset the higher transport cost of getting it
across the Pacific. Venezuela is already in advanced negotiations with Panama to trim some of that transport cost. Panama possesses a
pipeline -- the Petroterminales de Panama -- that transports crude from its Pacific to its Atlantic coast.
Chavez wants to reverse the flow so Venezuelan crude can reach the Pacific basin. The process is rather simple and cheap -- and with
oil prices where they are Venezuela can afford it. Should an agreement be struck, Venezuelan cargos could be steaming to Asia by
August. At maximum capacity the Petroterminales de Panama can handle 800,000 bpd.
The one hitch in the plan is that Venezuelan crude is so thick that very few Chinese refineries can run it at all. Refitting sufficient
capacity to use the stuff could take up to two years. Currently, China could handle no more than 100,000 bpd according to sources in
the US Department of Energy.
But even here Venezuela has a bridge to make things work out. Singapore currently has spare capacity of about 300,000 bpd which is
capable of handling the Venezuelan crude, and the US West Coast has plenty of refineries that would be willing to take a few cargos to
supplant or supplement -- Middle Eastern deliveries even if only on a temporary basis.
When Venezuelan crude oil hits the Pacific, Chavez will have his pick of potential customers -- even if the Chinese are not among
them at first. That leaves only the pesky issue of CITGO, a front on which no moss is gathering. On Jan. 13, Chavez restructured the
PdVSA board of directors and installed Bernard Mommer, until now PdVSA's UK director, in the new line-up. Mommer favours
PdVSA selling all of its international holdings.
Add that PdVSA President Rafael Ramirez's first assignment for the new board was to completely review all of PdVSA's contracts and
agreements with foreign firms, and it appears ground is being laid for a rolling Venezuelan disengagement from the United States.

CHAVEZ OIL DEPENDENCE BAD—TERRORISM

THE US WILL SOON INTERVENE IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE CONTINUED SUPPORT OF TERRORISM-IT IS
ONLY OUR STRONG DEPENDENCE ON VENEZUELAN OIL THAT PREVENTS US FROM DOING SO
The U.S. government appears to be getting closer to move decisively against the regime of Hugo Chavez. In doing so, it could -- and
probably should -- declare Venezuela a state sponsor ot terrorism. This could create a major political and economic crisis due to the
importance of Venezuela as an oil exporting country and the extreme dependence of the U.S. on oil imports. However, this is one
potential crisis that seems to be no longer avoidable, one that is no longer if but when.

WTO ADVANTAGE
1AC WTO ADVANTAGE

CONTENTION ( ): I’LL GIVE YOU CORN…IF YOU GIVE ME SOME SUGA
WE’LL ISOLATE 2 INTERNAL LINK: FIRST—DOHA: FIRM ETHANOL TARIFFS HAS PUT DOHA AT A STANDSTILL
—REMOVAL WOULD RESUME SUCSESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS
“I think it’s very unlikely that we’ll see an agreement in the Doha negotiations. Not because of the problems in the agricultural sector, but because of the industrial
good sector. It has to do with opening the markets of countries like Brazil and India for industrial products of western economies. That’s the real sticky part right now. In addition, although the
import tariffs are part of the Doha negotiations, ethanol has achieved a sensitive status as a sector or product. This means that if tariffs
are reduced, the reduction will be less for ethanol. The other option could be an agreement between the EU and Mercosur, or perhaps between the EU and Brazil. An agreement that allows a
certain volume of Brazilian ethanol to come into the EU without import duties is currently the most feasible option”.
because at the time that an agreement is reached, you should be able to compete and make your ethanol much cheaper. There is also a political
argument that you should have your own strategic production capacity, as being dependent on imported ethanol is against one of the EU’s objectives of energy independence and security of supply. That being said, the 10% of 2020 we can achieve with EU production.
We have the raw material and land available. The European commission has calculated that 14% is feasible, and at least 11% is certain. I therefore see no reasons for concern about ethanol imports, as they will probably remain at acceptable levels”.
DOHA COLLAPSE ENSURES WTO COLLAPSE

Lee Hudson Teslik, 2007 (Council on Foreign Relations, Courting WTO Concerns,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12918/courting_wto_concerns.html)
Should Doha fail, the consequences would be broadly felt, especially in the developing world. Stalled efforts at multilateral trade deals
could well prompt developed countries to strike bilateral deals with other developed countries and to ignore less efficient budding economies from which they don’t have as
much to gain. This report from the Carnegie Endowment examines the potentially enormous economic benefit Doha could have for developing countries.
Just as worrisome is the effect a Doha collapse could have for the World Trade Organization.The WTO is already sufficiently riddled by ambivalence about its authority that many
countries, including the United States, have simply ignored rules they don’t like. Most recently, the United States has stonewalled (BBC) on a WTO ruling pertaining to U.S. internet gambling legislation. A new CFR
Special Report focusing on the WTO’s dispute-settlement system argues that taking a casual attitude toward WTO authority is “reckless”: It fails to recognize the WTO’s value, both as an arbiter of trade
disputes and as a mechanism through which the inherent inefficiencies of cross-border trade can be smoothed over to the advantage of
all parties involved.
Moreover, the report says if the Doha round or other diplomatic attempts at trade liberalization fail, the number of disputes brought before WTO
tribunals could multiply significantly. This could clog operations and could “increase resentment of the WTO in the United States,
weakening U.S. commitment to its traditional postwar role as the bulwark of the international trading system.” In a recent CFR Online Debate, Daniel J.
Ikenson, a trade expert at the CATO Institute, says such resentment can even verge on irrationality: “To some true believers, dispute settlement losses concerning U.S. trade remedy laws can only be explained with the framework of some broader conspiracy.” But his
debate opponent, Robert E. Lighthizer, who heads the international trade department at the Skadden law firm, warns of overreach: “WTO panels have increasingly seen fit to sit in judgment of almost every kind of sovereign act—including U.S. tax policy, appropriation
policy, environmental measures, and public morals, to name a few.”
At their core, questions about the WTO’s role are part of a broader, theoretical dialogue about the benefits and pitfalls of globalization, but they have very real consequences. One recent estimate from a paper by the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
U.S. incomes are 10 percent higher across the board than they would be if the U.S. economy were self-sufficient. Nor are the effects limited to the
says
Recent U.S. negotiations with Brazil over ethanol trade were motivated in large part by President Bush’s goal of “energy
economic realm.
independence,” an initiative aimed at improving national security as much as economic efficiency.
<INSERT WTO GOOD SHELL(S)>

1AC WTO ADVANTAGE

SECOND—DISPUTES:IF THE US WONT REMOVE THE TARIFF THEIRSELVES THAN BRAZIL WILL THROUGH A
SUIT IN THE WTO AND THEY WOULD WIN
sugar-/)
ethanol. This levy was introduced in 1980 to protect U.S. makers of corn-based ethanol from competitors such as Brazil, which can produce ethacane for 22 cents per liter, while U.S. ethacorn costs 35 cents per liter. Lifting this tariff
would ease the demand for corn and take a step toward easing pressure on food prices.
Brazil is threatening to challenge the U.S. tariff at the World Trade Organization. Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the WTO, has already
said Brazilian ethacane "isn't competing with food" and "is more respectful to the environment than the corn-based ethanol in the U.S.
and Europe."
Sooner or later, the WTO might have the chance to decide whether the world can finally have a real substitute for oil. Until then, we'll
have to live in a world where fake goods are passed off as the real thing.
DISPUTES LIKE THE ONE BRAZIL WOULD RAISE WOULD OVERLOAD THE DSM
Lubman—2000. (Stanley Lubman is a Consulting Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, “Bird in a Cage: Chinese Law Reform
After Twenty Years”, Northwestern School of Law Journal of International Law & Business 20 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 383,
Spring/00, http://www.freechina.net/2004/comment/00012.htm)
China's failure to meet the GATT standard, no matter how it is expressed, could well engender a considerable number of disputes. Although some American supporters of Chinese accession have argued that accession would place China within the reach of a "strong
dispute settlement mechanism to punish violations in a timely, decisive way," n112 there should be no illusions about the limited extent to which the WTO dispute resolution procedures can be used to enforce adherence to China's obligations as a member of the WTO.
Disputes arising out of alleged Chinese failures to comply with obligations of membership could become so numerous as to overload the
WTO dispute settlement process, and the processes of obtaining decisions and implementing them could be very time-consuming. n113
THIS COLLAPSES THE WTO AS AN EFFECTIVE MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM

Okediji and Prosser—2003 (Ruth L. Okediji is a Professor at Emory Law School William L. Prosser is a Professor at the University
of Minnesota Law School, “HE NEXUS SYMPOSIUM: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FORUM ON THE IMPACT OF
INTERNATIONAL PATENT & TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST HIV & AIDS: ARTICLE: PUBLIC WELFARE
AND THE ROLE OF THE WTO: RECONSIDERING THE TRIPS AGREEMENT”, Emory International-Law Review 17 Emory Int'l
L. Rev. 819, Spring/03, L-N)
The WTO dispute settlement process has been presented with several important challenges since its inception in 1995. A sampling of the disputes handled so far demonstrate that the issues raised concern differences in interpretations of TRIPS. More interestingly, some
of the disputes reflect the failure of diplomatic negotiations during the pre-TRIPS era, and the dispute settlement process provides a
new forum to resolve issues that have been a source of long-standing tension between developed countries. n208 The system does not yet
appear to be strained, n209 despite the demonstrated force of the process.
[*887] From an international perspective, the WTO Dispute Body’s decisions have not been greeted with any measurable displeasure among scholars. n210 The decisions maintain a fidelity to the multilateral
system as the end for which the WTO exists. This has been accomplished through several judicial mechanisms. They include the interpretive rule of
“strict constructionism,” n211 the rejection of the “legitimate expectations” test n212 (in other words, careful adherence to the explicit rules of the TRIPS
Agreement and nothing more), and the implicit preservation of the moratorium on claims of nullification or impairment. n213 Each of these mechanisms reflect attempts to
circumscribe construction of TRIPS provisions as required by Article 19(2) of the DSU. n214 Indeed, in construing the requirement of Article 23, n215 the United States 201-210 Panel n216 found that the most relevant objects and
purposes of the DSU, and of the WTO in general, “are those which relate to the creation of market conditions conducive to individual
economic activity in national and global markets and to the provision of a secure and [*888] predictable multilateral system.” n217 It further found that
“of all WTO disciplines, the DSU is one of the most important instruments to protect the security and predictability of the multilateral
trading system and through it that of the marketplace and its different operators.”

1AC WTO ADVANTAGE

COLLAPSE OF THE WTO ONLY EXACERBATES THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE TRADE SYSTEM—THE
ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE A SHIFT FROM MULTILATERAL TO BILATERAL TRADE
Legrain 2K (Phillipe Legrain is special adviser to Mike Moore, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, he was
previously trade and economics correspondent at The Economist. "Should The Wto Be Abolished? - World Trade Organization";
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_9_30/ai_68742882/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1)
A convincing case for the WTO's abolition must show two things. First, that the world would be better off without the WTO. Second,
that the WTO's abolition is preferable to any politically feasible reform. You fail to show either.
Abolishing the WTO would not destroy globalisation, capitalism, or US corporate power. But it would wipe out a forum for
governments to negotiate multilateral trade rules and a mechanism for holding them to those rules. That would make every country
worse off, but the biggest losers would be the poor and the weak.
One benefit of rules is that they apply to big, rich countries as well as small, poor ones. When America blocked imports of Costa Rican underwear, Costa Rica appealed to the WTO.
It won, and America lifted its restrictions. Do you honestly think Costa Rica would have such clout in Washington without the WTO? Granted, the dispute-settlement mechanism is not perfect: America has a
battery of lawyers to fight its corner, whereas small countries scrimp. It should be improved. But it is already much better than the alternative: the law of the jungle, where might
makes right.
Another merit of WTO rules is that they tie governments' hands. Once countries open their markets to foreign trade and investment,
they cannot close them again at whim. Without this stability, companies would be reluctant to invest abroad, particularly in developing
countries with a protectionist or politically unstable record. Abolishing the WTO would further marginalise developing countries.
If there were no prospect of further multilateral liberalisation and no body to enforce existing rules, trade barriers would creep up as protectionists gain
the upper hand. The world might split into hostile regional blocks, with rich-country exporters seeking captive markets in developing
countries. Developing countries, which need access to rich-country markets more than rich countries need access to theirs, would have to join on unfavourable terms or be left out in the cold.
In any case, there would be less trade. And less trade means slower economic growth, stagnating living standards and more people
trapped in poverty -- like in the Great Depression. Over the past 50 years, the 15-fold rise in world trade has driven a seven-fold rise in world output. Thanks to trade, Japan and South Korea are no longer developing countries. Jeffrey Sachs and
Andrew Warner of Harvard University found that developing countries with open economies grew by 4.5 per cent a year in the 1970s and 1980s, while those with closed economies grew by 0.7 per cent a year. At that rate, open economies double in size every 16 years,
Of course, in the short term, some people lose from trade liberalisation. But in the long run, everyone gains: even
while closed ones must wait a hundred.
the poorest South Koreans today are much richer than their counterparts 30 years ago.
<INSERT BILATERAL TRADE BAD SHELL>

REMOVAL OF TARIFFS IS KEY TO DOHA

DOHA IS AT A STANDSTILL BUT REMOVAL OF ETHANOL TARIFFS WOULD LEAD TO LIKELY SUCCESS OF
NEGOTIATIONS.
“I think it’s very unlikely that we’ll see an agreement in the Doha negotiations. Not because of the problems in the agricultural sector,
but because of the industrial good sector. It has to do with opening the markets of countries like Brazil and India for industrial
products of western economies. That’s the real sticky part right now. In addition, although the import tariffs are part of the Doha
negotiations, ethanol has achieved a sensitive status as a sector or product. This means that if tariffs are reduced, the reduction will be
less for ethanol. The other option could be an agreement between the EU and Mercosur, or perhaps between the EU and Brazil. An
agreement that allows a certain volume of Brazilian ethanol to come into the EU without import duties is currently the most feasible
option”.
because at the time that an agreement is reached, you should be able to compete and make your ethanol much cheaper. There is also a
political argument that you should have your own strategic production capacity, as being dependent on imported ethanol is against one
of the EU’s objectives of energy independence and security of supply. That being said, the 10% of 2020 we can achieve with EU
production. We have the raw material and land available. The European commission has calculated that 14% is feasible, and at least
11% is certain. I therefore see no reasons for concern about ethanol imports, as they will probably remain at acceptable levels”.
REMOVAL OF ETHANOL TARIFFS UNIQUELY KEY TO DOHA

Biofuels Digest 2008 (Brazilian president: “The developed world imports oil with no tariffs, yet they place an absurd tariff on
Brazilian ethanol”, http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/04/28/brazilian-president-the-developed-world-imports-oil-with-no-tariffs-
yet-they-place-an-absurd-tariff-on-brazilian-ethanol/)
In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called on industrial nations to “stop your hypocrisy”, and drop agricultural tariffs on
Brazilian ethanol to save the Doha round of world trade talks. The Doha round, launched in 2001, has failed to produce an agreement
because of disputes between developed and undeveloped countries over agricultural subsidies and tariffs.
Lula said it was “inconceivable” that developed nations have blamed biofuels for higher global food prices while tariffs are in place.
“The world does not produce biofuels and has 800 million people who go to sleep hungry. Those who criticize biofuels have never
criticized the price of oil. The developed world imports oil with no tariffs, yet they place an absurd tariff on Brazilian ethanol,” he
said.
REMOVING ETHANOL TARIFFS KEY TO SMOOTHING DOHA TALKS

Matthew Ocheltree, Research Assistant, and Kate Vyborny, Junior Fellow Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006 (The
Global Market for Agriculture: Can the US Succeed?, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=853)
Ambassador Abdenur praised the U.S. position in the Doha Round, and commented on Senator Chambliss’ points on alternative fuel
production, pointing out that while the U.S. has no duties on imports of petroleum, it imposes a 54 cent tariff per gallon on ethanol,
which Brazil would like to export to the U.S. in greater quantities. Ambassador Abdenur emphasized the challenge of achieving
agreement with the European Union in the Doha agriculture negotiations; he stressed the important commitments that Brazil has
already made in the Doha Round, as well as its indication of future flexibility in the negotiations. He pointed out that Brazil has
offered to consider as much as a 50 percent reduction in tariffs on non-agriculture market access (NAMA) if the EU is able to make
further commitments on agricultural market access. This flexibility is key in moving forward in the negotiations.

REMOVAL OF TARIFFS IS KEY TO DOHA

REMOVAL OF ETHANOL TARIFFS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL DOHA NEGOTIATIONS
The New York Times, 2007 (Bush, Following Up on Trip, Meets With Brazilian Leader,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEFDE1E30F932A35757C0A9619C8B63)
In their second meeting in a month, Mr. Bush and Mr. da Silva talked about the stalled Doha round of trade negotiations and their
newly signed deal to cooperate in the development and production of ethanol.
But the two announced no new breakthroughs.
Speaking at a joint news briefing, Mr. Bush said he was willing to reduce farm subsidies ''in a substantial way,'' a statement that was
likely to get some notice by the farm lobby and its Congressional supporters but was unlikely to convince skeptical European partners.
But he repeated American demands for fuller access to foreign markets. Developing nations have resisted those demands without
greater subsidy and tariff reductions than Mr. Bush is offering.
For his part, Mr. da Silva repeated his call for an end to the United States tariff on ethanol produced in Brazil, something Mr. Bush
says is Congressionally mandated and out of his control.

US-BRAZIL KEY TO DOHA

DOHA IS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE DUE TO FAILURE OF TIT-FOR-TAT PROTECTIONISM BETWEEN THE US
AND BRAZIL
Elliott—2007 (Larry Elliot is an Economics Editor at The Guardian, “Doha trade talks hang by a thread”, 6/21/07
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2108532,00.html)
The troubled Doha round of global trade talks was pushed to the brink of final collapse tonight after a make-or-break meeting between
four of the leading players ended in failure. Amid fears that the end to more than five-and-a-half years of talks would lead to a new era
of tit-for-tat protectionism, negotiations between the United States, the European Union, Brazil and India broke down two days ahead
of schedule. The WTO's director-general Pascal Lamy vowed tonight that the discussions would carry on among all WTO members in
Geneva next week, but privately, trade sources admitted that the Doha round was now hanging by the slenderest of threads.
DOMESTIC ENERGY ISSUES AND BRAZIL RELATIONS KEY TO DOHA

Clare M. Ribando, 2007 (Analyst in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division; CRS Report for
Congress: Brazil-U.S. Relations, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/RL33456.pdf)
Trade issues are central to the bilateral relationship between Brazil and the United States, with both countries being heavily involved
in subregional, regional, and global trade talks. Brazil has sought to strengthen Mercosul and to establish free trade agreements with
most of the countries in South America, while also pursuing efforts to negotiate a Mercosul-European Union free trade agreement and
to advance the global trade talks through the Doha Development Round. The United States has been actively involved in the Doha
negotiations and has pressed for action on the region-wide Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), while simultaneously
undertaking a series of bilateral or subregional agreements with many hemispheric countries.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Negotiations.47 The WTO Doha round talks were revived in 2004 after stalling in September 2003
in Cancun, Mexico, when Brazil led the G-20 group of developing countries that insisted that developed countries agree to reduce and
eventually eliminate agricultural subsidies as part of any settlement. In late July 2004, WTO members agreed on the framework for a
possible Doha round agreement, and negotiators worked throughout the year to achieve preliminary agreements by the Sixth WTO
Ministerial Conference in mid- December 2005 in Hong Kong. For most observers, the Hong Kong Conference produced a mixed bag
with modest results. In a result that was disappointing to Brazil, the ministers, bowing to the demands of the European Union, delayed
the elimination of agricultural export subsidies until 2013 (not 2010), although subsidies for cotton were to be eliminated by 2006. In a
result that was disappointing to the United States, formulas for reducing tariff barriers in the manufactured goods and service sectors
were largely postponed.
Deadlines were established in Hong Kong for concluding negotiations by the end of 2006, but the talks were suspended indefinitely in
July 2006 after key negotiating groups failed to break a deadlock on agricultural tariffs and subsidies. The EU blamed the United
States for not improving its offer of domestic support, while the United States responded that no new offers were put forward by the
EU or the G-20 to make an improved offer possible. Because of the negotiating stalemate, it is considered unlikely that any agreement
can be reached in time for consideration before U.S. trade promotion authority (TPA) expires on July 1, 2007.

CONCESSIONS KEY TO DOHA

U.S. CONCESSIONS ARE KEY TO SAVE DOHA
Merco Press—2007 (“Doha Round Global Trade Talks Heading for “Deep Freeze,” 7/4/07
http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10852&formato=HTML)
World Trade Organisation (WTO) chief Pascal Lamy said this week the Doha Round global trade talks risks heading into a "deep
freeze" but could be saved if key countries made small concessions. In a speech to a United Nations Economic and Social Council
meeting in Geneva, Lamy said nations digging in their heels in the nearly six-year-old negotiations could sabotage big gains to the
global economy if they did not moderate their positions. "Today the Doha Round is at a crossroad: the path towards success or the
slow move towards a deep freeze," Lamy said. The Doha round launched in late 2001 is meant to boost trade flows and help
developing countries whose producers have struggled to overcome market barriers and price-distorting subsidies.

DOHA KEY TO THE WTO

DOHA COLLAPSE ENSURES WTO COLLAPSE
Lee Hudson Teslik, 2007 (Council on Foreign Relations, Courting WTO Concerns,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12918/courting_wto_concerns.html)
Should Doha fail, the consequences would be broadly felt, especially in the developing world. Stalled efforts at multilateral trade deals
could well prompt developed countries to strike bilateral deals with other developed countries and to ignore less efficient budding
economies from which they don’t have as much to gain. This report from the Carnegie Endowment examines the potentially enormous
economic benefit Doha could have for developing countries.
Just as worrisome is the effect a Doha collapse could have for the World Trade Organization. The WTO is already sufficiently riddled
by ambivalence about its authority that many countries, including the United States, have simply ignored rules they don’t like. Most
recently, the United States has stonewalled (BBC) on a WTO ruling pertaining to U.S. internet gambling legislation. A new CFR
Special Report focusing on the WTO’s dispute-settlement system argues that taking a casual attitude toward WTO authority is
“reckless”: It fails to recognize the WTO’s value, both as an arbiter of trade disputes and as a mechanism through which the inherent
inefficiencies of cross-border trade can be smoothed over to the advantage of all parties involved.
Moreover, the report says if the Doha round or other diplomatic attempts at trade liberalization fail, the number of disputes brought
before WTO tribunals could multiply significantly. This could clog operations and could “increase resentment of the WTO in the
United States, weakening U.S. commitment to its traditional postwar role as the bulwark of the international trading system.” In a
recent CFR Online Debate, Daniel J. Ikenson, a trade expert at the CATO Institute, says such resentment can even verge on
irrationality: “To some true believers, dispute settlement losses concerning U.S. trade remedy laws can only be explained with the
framework of some broader conspiracy.” But his debate opponent, Robert E. Lighthizer, who heads the international trade department
at the Skadden law firm, warns of overreach: “WTO panels have increasingly seen fit to sit in judgment of almost every kind of
sovereign act—including U.S. tax policy, appropriation policy, environmental measures, and public morals, to name a few.”
At their core, questions about the WTO’s role are part of a broader, theoretical dialogue about the benefits and pitfalls of globalization,
but they have very real consequences. One recent estimate from a paper by the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
says U.S. incomes are 10 percent higher across the board than they would be if the U.S. economy were self-sufficient. Nor are the
effects limited to the economic realm. Recent U.S. negotiations with Brazil over ethanol trade were motivated in large part by
President Bush’s goal of “energy independence,” an initiative aimed at improving national security as much as economic efficiency.
OUR RESPONSE TO THE COMING COLLAPSE OF DOHA DETERMINES WHETHER COUNTRIES GIVE UP ON
MULTILATERAL TRADE ALTOGETHER
Ramady—2007 (Mohamed Ramady is a Associate Professor of finance and economics at King Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals, “The WTO IS dead: Long Live the WTO,” 7/23/07,
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=98841&d=23&m=7&y=2007)
The long wait is over. After last minute and often acrimonious wrangling, the latest negotiations to try to secure a new global trade
deal under the so-called "Doha Round", have collapsed without agreement. Those involved — from the European Union, US, India
and Brazil blamed the other for the collapse for not offering enough concessions. The Indians and Brazilians worked more concessions
in agriculture, while the US and the Europeans wanted services and industrial product concessions. Some tried to put a brave face on
the deadlock, with Europe's Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson stating that the collapse of the current talks does not mean that
negotiations "cannot be put back on track." Some fresh concessions are being offered, with the US saying it would cut farm subsidies
to $17 billion a year, while the European Union said it was willing to increase access to its agricultural sector. However, these two
trading blocs insisted that India and Brazil should reduce protectionism on farm goods and open up manufacturing to competition. The
question now is which "track" the WTO will take after the collapse of Doha Round? The whole principle of WTO trade agreements is
that it is based on a "multilateral" approach with a "fair playing field". The existence of WTO has, it is claimed, disciplined nations,
stopped selfish protectionism and "beggar-they-neighbor" trade policies. Small countries have the same voice as the largest trading
nations and can take each other to WTO arbitration on an equal footing. The fact that all are equal, the existing 149 members with
their veto over any final deal, ensured that negotiating new or improved rules of trade have become more complicated over time. This
is especially true as new services and products have come into the market that put existing producers at a comparative disadvantage.
There are those that are not unhappy at the collapse of true Doha Round, as they believe that the whole process of negotiations and
concessions are done in secrecy and that the smaller nations can only sit watch and finally sign up to whatever was agreed. Those that
feel this way say that the collapse will provide a good opportunity to develop an alternative approach to trade, and environmental
pressure groups such as "Friends of the Earth", greeted the collapsed talks as good news. They, and others, argued that this was a good
opportunity to develop an alternative approach to trade that works more favorably for developing countries and the environment.

A2 DOHA ALT CAUSE—DEMOCRATS/TPA

DEMS WILL RENEW TPA TO COMPLETE DOHA – THEY DON’T WANT THE US TO BE SEEN AS KILLING IT
Eric OMBOK, 7/18 2007, Staff Writer for Business in Africa, “Africa: Doha - a Hard Nut to Crack,”
Congress vests the power of negotiation and conclusion of trade deals, including the Doha talks, in the President, under the auspices of
the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). President Bush's TPA expired in June but he has sought a renewal. If Congress fails to extend
this authority, the Doha talks will be slung back into deep freeze until the next US president takes up the challenge of reviving the
TPA. This is a source of concern as revival of the TPA requires support of the Democrats who are hostile to free trade than their
Republican counterparts. But notably leading Democrats have indicated that the Democrats do not want the US to be seen as the
primary cause that the Doha Round is not completed. This may be interpreted to mean that while a broad and comprehensive
extension of TPA could still be withheld; there may be a less ambitious and simpler extension of the present TPA, by about six months,
and limited in scope just to complete the Doha negotiations by the end of this year.
DEMOCRATS WON’T KILL DOHA – THEY PERCEIVE IT AS THE ONLY MULTILATERAL INSTITUTION LEFT
THAT BUSH HASN’T SCREWED UP
Sunday Telegraph 12-3-06
With the WTO boss warning of the first outright failure of a multilateral trade deal since the 1930s, I suggest the necessary fast-track
extension won't happen. In last month's US elections, the Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress, with many winning
candidates railing against "job-killing trade pacts''. Since Bush took office in 2001, the US has lost nearly 3m manufacturing jobs -
many to low-wage economies overseas. Under those circumstances, can fast-track possibly be extended? "I don't know,'' says Lamy.
"I'm not sure anyone really knows - Republican or Democrat. There are free-traders and protectionists in both parties''. Lamy
acknowledges that Republicans "have traditionally been more supportive of trade deals'', but says the Democrats may yet pull a
surprise. "They are - by their nature - the party of multilateralism,'' he says. "Democrats need to remember that taking the US into
multi-lateral agreements is a good thing''. After schisms with the United Nations on Iraq, and rows over Kyoto, Lamy observes that the
WTO is "pretty much the only pillar of multilateralism left untouched by this US administration''. So maybe the Democrats may
hesitate before isolating America further? He also reports that the White House has not yet given up on Doha. "All the conversations I
have recently had with President Bush suggest his gut instinct is to facilitate open trade and carry on pursuing this round.''

A2 DOHA ALT CAUSE—EUROPEAN UNION AGRICULTURE

CONCESSIONS CAN OVERCOME DIFFERENCES ON AG AND SAVE DOHA
KeralaNext, July 05, 2007, “EU, Brazilian Leaders Agree on Enhancing Cooperation,”
http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=1043850
Leaders from the European Union (EU) and Brazil vow to enhance cooperation on issues of common interest at the conclusion of a
one-day summit in Lisbon on Wednesday. The summit, the first between the two sides, made Brazil the seventh strategic partner of the
27-member bloc, after the United States, Canada, China, Japan, India and South Africa. The summit was of great importance as Brazil
will serve as the "path" to the establishment of a strategic cooperation plan between the EU and Latin American countries, Portuguese
Prime Minister Jose Socrates, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said at a joint press conference. Socrates said the
summit also sent "a positive signal" to the re-launching of the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks, which has been shelved
due to disagreement on farm subsidies. "It is still possible to save Doha. Brazil and the EU want to save Doha ... A deal is still
possible," Socrates said. Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva said farm subsidies practiced in rich countries like the United
States have undermined the interest of developing countries, but a win-win solution could be found to revive the talks. When talking
about biofuel and global warming, the Brazilian president said biofuel was an alternative energy source and would help to reduce
carbon emissions. Brazil has immense potential and offers one of the biggest responses to fighting climate change, European
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said. "The European Union and Brazil will work together in this field and we should
consider collaborating to create a scheme for the 2012 post-Kyoto era," Barroso said. The first Brazil-EU entrepreneurs meeting was
held in the Portuguese capital the same day.

PLAN SOLVE BRAZILIAN WTO DISPUTE

IF THE US WONT REMOVE THE TARIFF THEIRSELVES THAN BRAZIL WILL THROUGH A SUIT IN THE WTO AND
THEY WOULD WIN
sugar-/)
Brazil is threatening to challenge the U.S. tariff at the World Trade Organization. Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the WTO, has
already said Brazilian ethacane "isn't competing with food" and "is more respectful to the environment than the corn-based ethanol in
the U.S. and Europe."
Sooner or later, the WTO might have the chance to decide whether the world can finally have a real substitute for oil. Until then, we'll
have to live in a world where fake goods are passed off as the real thing.
DISPUTES LIKE THE ONE BRAZIL WOULD RAISE WOULD OVERLOAD THE DSM
Lubman—2000. (Stanley Lubman is a Consulting Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, “Bird in a Cage: Chinese Law Reform
After Twenty Years”, Northwestern School of Law Journal of International Law & Business 20 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 383,
Spring/00, http://www.freechina.net/2004/comment/00012.htm)
China's failure to meet the GATT standard, no matter how it is expressed, could well engender a considerable number of disputes.
Although some American supporters of Chinese accession have argued that accession would place China within the reach of a "strong
dispute settlement mechanism to punish violations in a timely, decisive way," n112 there should be no illusions about the limited
extent to which the WTO dispute resolution procedures can be used to enforce adherence to China's obligations as a member of the
WTO. Disputes arising out of alleged Chinese failures to comply with obligations of membership could become so numerous as to
overload the WTO dispute settlement process, and the processes of obtaining decisions and implementing them could be very time-
consuming. n113
THIS COLLAPSES THE WTO AS AN EFFECTIVE MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM

Okediji and Prosser—2003 (Ruth L. Okediji is a Professor at Emory Law School William L. Prosser is a Professor at the University
of Minnesota Law School, “HE NEXUS SYMPOSIUM: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FORUM ON THE IMPACT OF
INTERNATIONAL PATENT & TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST HIV & AIDS: ARTICLE: PUBLIC WELFARE
AND THE ROLE OF THE WTO: RECONSIDERING THE TRIPS AGREEMENT”, Emory International-Law Review 17 Emory Int'l
L. Rev. 819, Spring/03, L-N)
The WTO dispute settlement process has been presented with several important challenges since its inception in 1995. A sampling of
the disputes handled so far demonstrate that the issues raised concern differences in interpretations of TRIPS. More interestingly, some
of the disputes reflect the failure of diplomatic negotiations during the pre-TRIPS era, and the dispute settlement process provides a
new forum to resolve issues that have been a source of long-standing tension between developed countries. n208 The system does not
yet appear to be strained, n209 despite the demonstrated force of the process.
[*887] From an international perspective, the WTO Dispute Body’s decisions have not been greeted with any measurable displeasure
among scholars. n210 The decisions maintain a fidelity to the multilateral system as the end for which the WTO exists. This has been
accomplished through several judicial mechanisms. They include the interpretive rule of “strict constructionism,” n211 the rejection of
the “legitimate expectations” test n212 (in other words, careful adherence to the explicit rules of the TRIPS Agreement and nothing
more), and the implicit preservation of the moratorium on claims of nullification or impairment. n213 Each of these mechanisms
reflect attempts to circumscribe construction of TRIPS provisions as required by Article 19(2) of the DSU. n214 Indeed, in construing
the requirement of Article 23, n215 the United States 201-210 Panel n216 found that the most relevant objects and purposes of the
DSU, and of the WTO in general, “are those which relate to the creation of market conditions conducive to individual economic
activity in national and global markets and to the provision of a secure and [*888] predictable multilateral system.” n217 It further
found that “of all WTO disciplines, the DSU is one of the most important instruments to protect the security and predictability of the
multilateral trading system and through it that of the marketplace and its different operators.”

WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—TRADE WARS

WTO REGULATIONS ARE KEY TO MEDIATE INTERNATIONAL TRADE DISPUTES, COOLING TENSIONS ACROSS
THE GLOBE – AND IT SOLVES ALL THE BENEFITS OF REGIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATIONS
Condon ’02 [Bradly J., Professor of International Law and Business at the Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico, “NAFTA,
WTO and global business strategy: how AIDS, trade and terrorism affect our economic future”, p. 180-1]
WTO dispute-settlement rules prohibit unilateral action against violations of the trade rules. Rather, WTO members must seek
recourse in the multilateral dispute-settlement system and comply with its rulings. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has the
sole authority to establish panels, adopt panel and appellate reports, maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and
recommendations, and authorize retaliatory measures in cases of nonimplementation of recommendations. The Dispute Settlement
Body The WTO dispute-settlement process resembles NAFTA chapter 20 in many ways, but they are not identical. The first step
consists of consultations between the governments. If consultations fail and both parties agree, the WTO director-general offers good
offices, conciliation or mediation to settle the dispute. If consultations fail to arrive at a solution after sixty days, the complainant can
ask the DSB to establish a panel to examine the case. The DSB must establish a panel unless there is a consensus against the decision.
The WTO Secretariat will suggest the names of three potential panelists to the parties to the dispute, drawing as necessary on a list of
qualified persons. If there is real difficulty in the choice, the director-general can appoint the panelists. Each party to the dispute
transmits to the panel a submission on the facts and arguments in the case, in advance of the first substantive meeting. At that first
meeting, the complainant presents its case and the responding party its defense. Third parties that have notified WTO of their interest
in the dispute may also present views. Formal rebuttals are made at the second substantive meeting. In cases where a party raises
scientific or other technical matters, the panel may appoint an expert review group to provide an advisory report. The panel submits to
the parties sections of its report that outline that facts presented and the arguments made by the parties, giving them two weeks to
comment. The panel then submits to the parties an interim report, including its findings and conclusions, giving them one week to
request a review. The period of review is not to exceed two weeks, during which the panel may hold additional meetings with the
parties. Next, a final report is submitted to the parties. Three weeks later, it is circulated to all WTO members. Where the panel finds a
measure to be in violation of a WTO agreement, the panel recommends that the member concerned bring the measure into conformity
with the agreement in question. It may also suggest ways in which the member could implement the recommendation. Panel reports
are adopted by the DSB within sixty days of issuance, unless one party notifies its decision to appeal or a consensus emerges against
the adoption of the report.
THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCESS REGULATES CONFLICTS

Keohane ’98 [Robert O., Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, “International Institutions: Can Interdependence
Work?”, Spring, http://ereserves.library.arizona.edu/pdf/volgy/pol365/f24inte.pdf]
The procedures and rules of international institutions create informational structures. They determine what principles are acceptable as
the basis for reducing conflicts and whether governmental actions are legitimate or illegitimate. Consequently, they help shape actors?
expectations. For instance, trade conflicts are increasingly ritualized in a process of protesting in the WTO-promising tough action on
behalf of one’s own industries, engaging in quasi-judicial dispute resolution procedures, claiming victory if possible, or complaining
about defeat when necessary. There is much sound and fury, but regularly institutionalized processes usually relegate conflict to the
realm of dramatic expression.

WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—EQUAL TRADE

WTO REGULATIONS ARE KEY TO EQUAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ACROSS THE BOARD
Watkins ’03 [Kevin, Oxfam Head of Research, “Cancun and World Trade debate”, Australian Financial Review, August 22nd,
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/2003/08/23/cancun-and-world-trade-debate/]
International trade, linked to flows of foreign investment and technology, is the most powerful motor driving global economic
integration. It has consistently grown faster than the world economy as a whole, so that national economies have become steadily
more interdependent. And WTO rules matter because they are part of a global governance structure for managing this
interdependence. They shape the terms on which countries at widely divergent levels of development - from Tanzania to India to the
US - enter and compete in the global market. Before the creation of the WTO in 1995 trade rules were of limited relevance.
Negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO’s predecessor, were technocratic affairs limited to tariffs on
merchandise. The core principles of the old regime - a commitment to liberalisation and non-discrimination - were transferred to the
WTO. But the rules of the game were strengthened, deepened and extended into critical areas of national public policy. Today, the
WTO’s remit covers not only trade in goods, but also laws on intellectual property protection, foreign investment, the provision of
services and taxation. When governments sign up for membership of the WTO they embrace the whole package - and even the
strongest can be brought to book. The EU recently provoked outrage in the US when it won the right to impose $US4 billion worth of
trade sanctions in a dispute over tax subsidies granted to US exporters. In retaliation, the Bush administration has initiated a WTO
dispute aimed at overturning a de facto EU moratorium on genetically modified crops. Apart from reflecting the sorry state of
transatlantic relations, these cases highlight a simple fact: the WTO is a club with rules that bite.
COLLAPSE OF WTO REGULATIONS MEANS RICHER COUNTRIES WILL PRESSURE WEAKER COUNTRIES INTO
UNFAIR TRADE DEALS
Watkins ’03 [Kevin, Oxfam Head of Research, “Cancun and World Trade debate”, Australian Financial Review, August 22nd,
Some anti-globalisers will view any proposal to reform the WTO as ill-conceived. But what are the alternatives? If you want a glimpse
into the future of a world with a weakened multilateral system take a look at the content of regional and bilateral trade pacts. Robert
Zoellick, the US trade representative, now arrives at international meetings waving the US-Singapore free trade agreement and
holding it up as a model for all countries. Its provisions include duty-free market access for US exports, a legal provision prohibiting
future import taxes, unrestricted rights of entry and profit repatriation for US investors, and intellectual property rules that make the
TRIPS agreement look tame. The US would probably be happy to see the end of the WTO and is busy building a trade empire that
projects the realities of its unrivalled power. Witness the creation of a Middle East free-trade zone - and the decision not to allow
Egypt entry as punishment for its refusal to support the US case against the EU over genetically modified food. The WTO’s rules are
rigged in favour of the strong. Yet abolition is not an option. Apart from removing a source of pressure on the US and the EU to open
markets, cut farm subsidies and halt protectionist abuses, it would risk a ruinous spiral of conflict. Rich countries would bulldoze poor
ones into deeply unequal trade treaties. The multilateralism of convenience and bilateral power politics that the Bush administration is
promoting in other international institutions would prevail. Ultimately, that is in nobody’s interest - Cancun is the place to draw a line
in the Mexican sand.

WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM GOOD—EQUAL TRADE

BULLYING ISN’T INTRINSIC TO WTO REGULATIONS – THE CAUSE IS A FAILURE OF RECASTING BAD POLICY
Watkins ‘03
[Kevin, Oxfam Head of Research, “Cancun and World Trade debate”, Australian Financial Review, August 22nd,
Lobbying by powerful vested interests on WTO-related issues should not come as a surprise. International trade and the rules that
govern it affect powerful private interest groups, from French farmers to European banks and American pharmaceutical giants. Their
lobbying on trade is an extension of their efforts to secure forms of market regulation tailored to their interests. The problem is that the
countervailing forces in the system are too weak to assert the primacy of the wider public interest. WTO processes can exacerbate this
problem. Behind the facade of a consensus approach, northern governments have all too often negotiated deals in private, presenting
them as a fait accompli, and imposing them by bullying. But an equally serious problem is that public interest groups have failed to
mobilise the domestic and international alliances needed to recast the policies that northern governments take to the WTO. Cutting the
subsidies that sustain export dumping, curtailing the power of financial conglomerates, overcoming protectionist interests and
overturning patent laws guarded by the pharmaceutical industry are preconditions for achieving real change at the WTO. Yet many of
these battles are being lost, or not even engaged, in the domestic politics of rich nations.

WTO COLLAPSEBILATERAL TRADE

COLLAPSE OF THE WTO ONLY EXACERBATES THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE TRADE SYSTEM - THE
ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE PROLIFERATION OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF
TRADE RULES
Legrain 2K (Phillipe Legrain is special adviser to Mike Moore, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, he was
previously trade and economics correspondent at The Economist. "Should The Wto Be Abolished? - World Trade Organization";
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_9_30/ai_68742882/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1)
A convincing case for the WTO's abolition must show two things. First, that the world would be better off without the WTO. Second,
that the WTO's abolition is preferable to any politically feasible reform. You fail to show either.
Abolishing the WTO would not destroy globalisation, capitalism, or US corporate power. But it would wipe out a forum for
governments to negotiate multilateral trade rules and a mechanism for holding them to those rules. That would make every country
worse off, but the biggest losers would be the poor and the weak.
One benefit of rules is that they apply to big, rich countries as well as small, poor ones. When America blocked imports of Costa
Rican underwear, Costa Rica appealed to the WTO. It won, and America lifted its restrictions. Do you honestly think Costa Rica
would have such clout in Washington without the WTO? Granted, the dispute-settlement mechanism is not perfect: America has a
battery of lawyers to fight its corner, whereas small countries scrimp. It should be improved. But it is already much better than the
alternative: the law of the jungle, where might makes right.
Another merit of WTO rules is that they tie governments' hands. Once countries open their markets to foreign trade and investment,
they cannot close them again at whim. Without this stability, companies would be reluctant to invest abroad, particularly in developing
countries with a protectionist or politically unstable record. Abolishing the WTO would further marginalise developing countries.
If there were no prospect of further multilateral liberalisation and no body to enforce existing rules, trade barriers would creep up as
protectionists gain the upper hand. The world might split into hostile regional blocks, with rich-country exporters seeking captive
markets in developing countries. Developing countries, which need access to rich-country markets more than rich countries need
access to theirs, would have to join on unfavourable terms or be left out in the cold.
In any case, there would be less trade. And less trade means slower economic growth, stagnating living standards and more people
trapped in poverty -- like in the Great Depression. Over the past 50 years, the 15-fold rise in world trade has driven a seven-fold rise in
world output. Thanks to trade, Japan and South Korea are no longer developing countries. Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of
Harvard University found that developing countries with open economies grew by 4.5 per cent a year in the 1970s and 1980s, while
those with closed economies grew by 0.7 per cent a year. At that rate, open economies double in size every 16 years, while closed ones
must wait a hundred. Of course, in the short term, some people lose from trade liberalisation. But in the long run, everyone gains: even
the poorest South Koreans today are much richer than their counterparts 30 years ago.
WTO COLLAPSE SPARK BILATERAL FTAS

Ramady 07 visiting associate professor of finance and economics at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Mohamed,
“The WTO IS dead: Long Live the WTO,” Arab News 7/23)
There are some practical consequences for the death of the WTO multilateral approach, should it reach that point. These involve trade
dispute settlements — how could such trade disputes be settled in the absence of a WTO body? If current members feel that
multilateralism is dead, then they could become more litigious and foster a new "beggar-they-neighbor" policy.
If a multilateral trading system collapses, then the alternative is for bi-lateral agreements between countries and trading blocs. This
seems to have been the trend over the past few years, as evidenced also by the various Free Trade Agreements (FTA's) that the GCC
countries have signed or tried to sign with both the US and the European Union. Indeed, over half of current world trade is said to
occur under regional or bilateral trade deals, and the GCC customs union is one such example of regional trade bloc.

BILATERAL TRADE BAD—DOHA

BILATERAL TRADE AGREMENTS KILL DOHA
Bhagwati ’05 [Jagdish, Professor of Economics and Political Science at Columbia University, Economic Policy Adviser to the
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “From Seattle to Hong Kong”, Foreign Affairs, December,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051201faessay84701/jagdish-bhagwati/from-seattle-to-hong-kong.html]
There are two added reasons why this outbreak of ever more FTAs poses particular danger to Doha. First, the largely reactive Asian
FTAs will not necessarily include the United States; this will fuel resentment in the U.S. public against trade because few will know
that the blame does not belong in Tokyo or Beijing but in Washington with its trade leadership. This danger is particularly acute since
the FTAs between China and other developing countries do not carry any discipline whatsoever. Where a developed country like
Japan is involved, Article 24 of the GATT provides some discipline, such as that nearly all tariffs must go to zero within the FTA, so
one cannot pick and choose the levels of preferential tariff reduction and the sectors where they will apply for trade partners in the
FTA. But if an FTA is among developing countries only, as the Chinese one will be in much of Asia, then it comes under the "enabling
clause" of the GATT, which entitles the member countries literally to liberalize preferentially among themselves in whatever manner
they wish, with no other WTO members being able to assert any nondiscriminatory MFN rights. But even more damaging to the U.S.
ability to liberalize trade is the fact that, given the widespread fear of freer trade in the population, it is almost insane to present
Congress with a string of piffling FTAs and ask representatives to go to bat for trade liberalization again and again. Each time they do
so they use up some political goodwill. Increasing resistance is surely the most likely prediction, and if pork were not used liberally,
the result would be catastrophic, not just disturbing. Is this a sensible way to run trade policy in the United States? It is against this
backdrop that one must assess the argument that Doha is in real trouble because the U.S. president's fast-track authority expires in July
2007. If we go over that date -- as we will if Hong Kong does not show what Lamy has called "two-thirds" success (a statement the
import of which is clear but the full meaning of which is elusive) and the deal is not essentially done by the end of 2006 -- then the
renewal of U.S. fast-track authority becomes a real problem. Of course, Doha was declared when there was none. But for all the
reasons just stated, a renewal is truly problematic, and the failure to have reached conclusion of Doha might just add to the difficulties
in maintaining momentum and progress.

BILATERAL TRADE BAD—FREE TRADE

BILATERAL TRADE KILLS FREE TRADE
A. UNREGULATED COMPETITION
Jagdish Bhagwati, 2003, Professor of Economics at Columbia, and Aryind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Maryland,
Financial Times, 7/14, “Bilateral Trade Treaties are a Sham,” l/n
The fact of the matter is that nearly all scholars of international economics today are fiercely sceptical, even hostile to such
agreements. By contrast, politicians everywhere have succumbed to a mania that originated in Europe but is now eagerly promoted by Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, with
Asia - the last holdout - now joining in. We are witnessing possibly the biggest divide between economists and politicians in the postwar period. Unfortunately, the economists are right. The
First, bilateral trade deals are
politicians' lemming-like rush into bilateral agreements poses a deadly threat to the multilateral trading system. There are three reasons.
undermining an essential principle of the World Trade Organisation: that the lowest tariff applicable to one member must be extended
to all members (the most favoured nation status rule). While it is true that the architects of the WTO/General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade exempted free trade areas
from the MFN rule, they surely did not foresee that a proliferation of agreements would fragment the trading system. By the end of last year, 250 FTAs had been notified to the WTO. If those
currently under negotiation are concluded, that number will approach 300. The result is a "spaghetti bowl" of rules, arbitrary definitions of which product
comes from where and a multiplicity of tariffs depending on source. Second, if the Europeans started this fad, the Americans are now pursuing it with zeal,
exploiting their hegemonic power and the lure of preferential access to a multi-billion dollar market. Unlike Brussels, Washington has adopted bilateral FTAs to
advance the agendas of domestic lobbies, agendas that are not related to trade. The US is using one-on-one agreements with small countries as models for other
multilateral trade agreements, hawking them around the world as the ideal way to further trade liberalisation. Third, America's tactic is weakening the power of poor
countries in multilateral trade negotiations. Bilateral deals fragment the coalitions of developing countries, as each abandons its
legitimate objections to the inclusion of extraneous issues in trade treaties. Having abandoned these objections in a bilateral deal with
the US, how can those countries pursue them in WTO negotiations? The process of trade liberalisation is becoming a sham, the
ultimate objective being the capture, reshaping and distortion of the WTO in the image of American lobbying interests. The protection of
intellectual property provides a good example of US tactics. Washington has used both inducements and punishments to secure its interests. During negotiations over the North America Free
Trade Agreement, Mexico was told that the price of a deal was acceptance of intellectual property protection provisions. It was a price Mexico was prepared to pay. But the US has also
demanded that other countries accept similar provisions or face retaliatory tariffs. Subsequently, during the Uruguay round of trade liberalisation, the US was able to insert the trade-related
intellectual property regime (TRIPs) into the WTO, even though no intellectual case had ever been made that TRIPs, which is about royalty collection and not trade, should be included. Mexico
also had to accept provisions on environmental and labour standards annexed to the Nafta treaty. But such standards were put right at the centre of the free trade agreement with Jordan, drafted
in the last days of the Clinton administration. And with the Bush administration currently negotiating an agreement with Central America, Democrats
are under pressure from
the labour and environmental lobbies to demand not just the enforcement of local standards but higher standards altogether. In the free trade
agreements with Chile and Singapore, the US Treasury insisted on inserting a ban on the use of capital controls, even though the International Monetary Fund has finally come round to the
view that they might, on occasion, be justified. Chile and Singapore finally gave in, agreeing to a dispute settlement and compensation mechanism in case the controls were used. Washington
Thanks to the myopic and self-serving policies of the world's only superpower, bilateral free trade agreements
has created another precedent.
are damaging the global trading system. They are undermining the most favoured nation rule ensuring equal treatment in the WTO.
Bilateral deals have become a vehicle for introducing extraneous issues into the WTO for the benefit of narrow US domestic interests.
They are thereby distorting the role of the WTO. Charles Kindelberger, the great international economist who died last week, looking back at the 19th and 20th centuries, developed the notion
of the "altruistic hegemon" that delivered the public good of a multilateral trading system. Today, we have a "selfish hegemon" precisely delivering the opposite.
B. FORCE EXPORT TRADE-OFFS

Jagdish, Bhagwati, 1988, Professor of Economics and Political Science at Columbia University, Economic Policy Adviser to the
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “Protectionism”, p. 124-5
The bilateral confrontations also have the demerit, stressed in chapter 4, of becoming a form of export protectionism. Faced with
demands they cannot refuse, the weaker trading partners are likely to satisfy bilateral U.S. demands by simply taking trade away from
others and giving it to the United States. This is not an opening of markets. It is, rather, a way of increasing U.S. exports by diverting
them from more efficient suppliers who have less political clout. In chapter 4 I gave several examples of this perverse outcome in
cases where the United States had undertaken bilateral, eyeball-to eyeball trade diplomacy. The impeccable “trade—expanding”
intentions of Representative Richard Gephardt, Senator John Danforth, and others would yield, not efficiently expanding global trade,
but a world economy in which the politically powerful nations would expand their exports to weaker nations at the expense of less
powerful but more efficient rivals. The overwhelmingly likely outcome then would be a proliferation of voluntary import expansions
—discriminatory, quantitative commitments by specific countries to increase specific imports from the United States. Such expansions
would recreate exports in the image of imports already plagued by the spread of discriminatory voluntary export restrictions. This
would be a giant step backward.

BILATERAL TRADE BAD—FREE TRADE

C. GETS JACKED BY PROTECTIONISTS
Jagdish, Bhagwati, 2002, Professor of Economics and Political Science at Columbia University, Economic Policy Adviser to the
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “Free trade today”, p. 51-4
I can identify four reasons for this insidious development in the United States, where the arguments on unfair trade have intruded
heavily into the political space, aiding the cause of protectionism—since virtually any asymmetry with another country can be cited as
tantamount to unfair trade. First, fairness rather than justice is the defining moral principle in the United States, as compared to the
more socially structured European and Japanese societies. So equality of access trumps equality of success; equal opportunity trounces equal outcomes. American
protectionists, compared to those elsewhere, have therefore found it strategically smarter to use “unfair trade” as their political weapon
against foreign firms even as it has become unfashionable and unproductive—thanks, in no small measure, to our success in strengthening the case for free
trade and because of the dramatic postwar success of open societies and economies and the contrasting failure of the autarkic ones—to seek protection by claiming that you cannot compete.
Second, intensification of competition worldwide and the “thinning” of comparative advantage have meant that firms increasingly
look over their rivals’ shoulders, objecting to all sorts of advantages that these rivals allegedly enjoy from differential domestic
policies and institutions. They ask typically for level playing fields, by which they mean the equalization of burdens, the harmonization of costs, through the ironing out of as many
differences as possible across countries.4
Third, the American sense of decline in the 1980s and early 1990s, or what in the first lecture I called the diminished-giant syndrome, also fueled the
steady drift to fair trade, especially under President Clinton. True, he inherited this drift, but he accentuated it greatly. Thus, President Bush had largely refused to surrender to Japan-
baiting as Japan rose to be a hugely successful rival. The talk grew of the twenty-first century as Asian, just as the nineteenth century was British and the twentieth century American. President
Clinton came to the White House literally surrounded by Japanophobes who cried foul at every opportunity.5 Japan was regarded as Superman and his evil foe Lex Luthor rolled into a
fearsome juggernaut. Demonized thus, Japan was energetically pursued through President Clinton’s first term as a wicked and unfair trader whose exports were predatory and imports were
Fourth, President Clinton’s second term was witness to further capture by the fair traders from yet another angle. This time,
exclusionary.
the reinforcement came through regionalism (i.e., preferential trade agreements, or PTAs, a subject that I will address more fully in the last lecture).
During the NAFTA debate, it was now Mexico’s turn to be demonized as an unfair trader. Congressional Democratic leaders worked the political circuit thoroughly, to almost defeat NAFTA by
claiming that free trade with Mexico was unfair because its labor and environmental standards were not as good as America’s and because its democracy was flawed. Funnily, of course, at the
time of the Canada—United States Free Trade Agreement, the boot was on the other foot: it was the Canadian opponents of the agreement who had objected to America’s lower social
standards! But the U.S. Congress was not gripped with self-examination and in a mood to reject CUFTA because of a disparity on standards running the wrong way. Evidently, “fair trade” is a
handy tool, to be used to advantage against others, but not to be allowed to embarrass oneself. An
important lesson about PTAs emerges from this experience.
When it comes to trade liberalization with only one or a few nations, in a typical PTA such as NAFTA, it is easy for protectionists to
zero in on these few countries’ warts and turn them into unfair trade issues. This is far more difficult to do when, as in the Uruguay Round, many countries
negotiate several matters. Thus, Mexico’s environmental, labor, and democratic shortcomings became defining issues during NAFTA; but the Uruguay Round debate was unscathed by them.
Now, of course, such matters have grown into larger fair trade issues, like a laboratory-grown monster, and threaten the multilateral negotiations as well. But PTAs, or regional discriminatory
trade agreements, were the Dr. Frankenstein.6
D. HIGH TRANSACTION COSTS

Viet D. Do and William Watson, 2006, PhD Candidate, Department of Economics, McGill University; Associate Professor and Chair,
Department of Economics, McGill University, “Economic Analysis of Regional Trade Agreements”, chapter in “Regional Trade
Agreements and the WTO Legal System”, ed. Bartels and Ortino, p. 17-8
Imagine a world in which every country had a bilateral free trade agreement with every other country. Though all tariffs would be
zero, trade might yet be very difficult. Would-be multinational traders would have to familiarize themselves with many different sets
of trading rules, including rules of origin. Such a world would be a boon to trade lawyers but seems likely to discourage trade by
raising transactions costs. How much more convenient it would be if all countries had the same rules! Or, rather; to take a more
scientific view, how much more convenient would it be if all countries had the same rules? In estimating the transactions costs of the new regionalism it
is important to be explicit on the point of comparison. If costs are compared to transactions costs as they would be in an end-of-the-rainbow world in which all tariffs were zero and non-tariff
barriers had been eliminated, then it is true that in a multiple-RTA world costs might well be substantially higher. On
the other hand, even in a perfectly liberalized world
there would be national differences in habit, regulation, commercial practice and so on with which exporters would have to familiarize
themselves. The French presumably would continue to speak French and the Germans German for some time to come. And, despite Brussels’ best efforts, in many respects they might well
continue to regulate their economies in idiosyncratic ways. Such differences impose fixed costs on exporters that are part of the reason why small firms tend not to export. In fact the end-of-
the-rainbow world is not the point of departure. MFN tariffs are not generally zero. Exporters must familiarize themselves with a wide range of tariffs and non-tariff barriers as-is. The cost of
Would transactions costs in an RTA-riddled world be that much higher than in a world in which
doing business across borders is already substantial.4°
each nation-state established its own tariffs and ran a full set of non-tariff barriers? It may depend on the type and number of RTAs. Some RTAs—the EU,
for instance— bring several countries together under common trading rules and behind a common tariff wall. Trade within such RTAs may well involve fewer transactions costs than it used to.
Indeed, reducing transactions costs so as to make trade easier within Europe has been a primary goal of the EU. Moreover, in most cases RTAs accept WTO rules as their foundational law.
Would-be traders into them will find themselves in familiar legal territory. If the WTO’s 149 Members divided themselves up into 10 or 15 RTAs within each of which WTO rules held sway
and tariffs were zero, multinational traders might well find this a more congenial arrangement than a world of 150 nation-states heading only slowly toward common rules and zero tariffs under
the auspices of the WTO.

BILATERAL TRADE BAD—TRADE POLITILIZATION (SHELL)

BILATERAL FTAs ENSURE SUBORDINATION OF TRADE GOALS TO FOREIGN POLICY
Luke, Peterson, July 18, 2003, Trade Consultant at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, “Pledging Allegiance to
US Foreign Policy”, http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2003/0721usbilat.htm
There may come a day when the G-8 protestors who daubed graffiti on the Geneva headquarters of the World Trade Organization will find themselves pining for the much maligned WTO. At the Doha Round of world trade talks, the United States is already making
plans for life without another multilateral institution. Last month, Robert Zoellick, the Bush Administration’s point-man on trade relations, told Reuters that the U.S. is building a “Coalition of liberalizers” in case the Doha Round doesn’t reach fruition. The impetus for
the U.S.’s new go-it-alone posture was a decision last August by the U.S. Congress to grant the President so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Armed with TPA, the Administration can negotiate free trade deals which Congress can either approve or reject, but
cannot subject to amendment or lengthy analysis. And the new negotiating authority has freed the President to consummate relationships with multiple trading partners. In fewer than nine months, talks have been launched with Chile, Singapore, Australia, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Morocco, and are being explored with a number of other Asian, African and South American nations. This explosion of regional and bilateral trade talks has been a major factor in the WTO Doha Round. U.S.
enthusiasm for the multilateral forum has flagged, as the Administration has recognized that it can extract much deeper concessions from trading partners by playing them off one another in one-on-one negotiations. Recently, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick
By advancing
spelled out the Bush Administration’s new strategy in testimony before the U.S. Congress: “Since securing TPA, the President has had the key backing we needed to press ahead with trade liberalization globally, regionally and bilaterally.
on multiple fronts, we are creating a competition in liberalization.” Zoellick also gave some indication of what it takes for countries to win this competition for a trade deal
with the United States: a willingness to prostrate themselves to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. In a separate speech before the Washington-
based Institute for International Economics, Zoellick warned that under the Bush Administration: “(A free trade agreement) is not something one has a right to. It’s a
privilege.” And when it comes to prospective trade partners, Zoellick noted that the Bush Administration now expects “cooperation — or better — on foreign policy and
security issues.” Indeed, Zoellick conceded that this new litmus test would make it difficult for the U.S. to consider a free trade deal with New Zealand, a nation which had failed to support the U.S.-led war on Iraq, and has long refused to allow nuclear
powered vessels into its waters. While sounding the death knell for New Zealand’s free trade aspirations, the Administration’s new policy has been music to the ears of neighbouring Australia. A loyal member of the “Coalition of the Willing,” Australia recently saw its
trade negotiations with the U.S. placed on a fast-track, by order of the U.S. President. Washington’s new trade policy also has been generating unease in other national capitals. Chile, which had concluded negotiations on a trade pact with the U.S. late last year, saw that
agreement placed in jeopardy when it became clear that Chile would not use its UN Security Council seat to vote for second UN Resolution on Iraq in March. Although the U.S.-Chile deal simply needed to be translated and signed, for several months its fate remained
as uncertain as that of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. Only a concerted lobbying campaign by business and key U.S. Senators encouraged the Administration to break its sullen silence late last month, and to announce that the agreement will be signed after all. Other
countries are less likely to squeak through the door. According to one Washington-based trade news publication, the Administration has put the world on notice of its “long memory” for diplomatic slights. And as countries like Chile or New Zealand slide down, or off,
the priority list, more compliant nations, like Bahrain, are moving up the queue. Although trade in oil between the U.S. and Bahrain is already largely free, and there are few other serious economic benefits to be had by the U.S. from a trade pact with the tiny Gulf state,
No longer does the Administration’s approach to

the Administration views Bahrain as a testing ground for broader free trade deals with other Middle Eastern nations willing to move closer to U.S. policy objectives.
trade liberalization appear to be guided by economic considerations. The long-standing theory of comparative advantage — the notion that countries
should focus on producing what they produce best, and trade with others for their other needs — seems to have been supplanted by a theory of comparative sycophantage, as countries
jostle with one another to pledge their allegiance to U.S. foreign policy goals.
POLITICIZATION OF TRADE MAKES CONFLICT INEVITABLE

Thomas DiLorenzo, 2K, Professor of Economics @ Loyola College in Maryland. “Trade and the Rise of Freedom. The Mises
Institute. 31 January. http://www.mises.org/story/376
Thus, it is not democracy that is a safeguard against war but, as the British (classical) Liberals were to recognize, it is free trade. To Richard Cobden and John Bright, the leaders of the British Manchester School, free trade -- both domestically and internationally -- was
in a world of trade and social cooperation, there are no incentives for war and conquest. It is government
a necessary prerequisite for the preservation of peace. For
interference with free trade that is the source of international conflict. Indeed, naval blockades that restrict trade are the ultimate act of war, and have been for centuries. Throughout history,
restrictions on trade have proven to be impoverishing and have instigated acts of war motivated by territorial acquisition and plunder
as alternatives to peaceful exchange as the means of enhancing living standards. It is no mere coincidence that the 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization -- a cabal of bureaucrats,
politicians, and lobbyists which favors government-controlled trade -- was marked by a week-long riot, protests, and violence. Whenever trade is politicized the result is inevitably conflict that quite
often leads, eventually, to military aggression.

A2 BILATERAL TRADE HIGH/FTAS NOW

NATIONS ARE ABANDONING BILATERAL AGREEMENTS NOW—ONLY A RISK THAT A FULL COLLAPSE OF
MULTILATERAL TRADE MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE
Pavan, Krishna, 2005, Chung Ju Yung Professor of International Economics at Johns Hopkins University and Faculty Research
Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Consultant to the World Bank and the IMF, “Trade Blocs: Economics and
Politics”, p. 137-8
In reaching the conclusion that multilateral progress may be impeded by bilateral agreements, the two theoretical frameworks (Krishna
[1998] and Levy [1997]) both consider incentives for member countries to expand PTAs. Baldwin (1995), on the other hand, examines
incentives for non- members to want to enter into expanding PTAs. He argues that the incentives for non-members to join an existing
FTA increase as the number of member countries in the agreement rise. The argument is a straightforward one. Imagine that non-
members need to balance out the economic benefits of entry into the PTA (i.e., the benefit of gaining the preferential access) with
other costs of entry (e.g., political costs). Consider now an initial equilibrium in which the non-member country is indifferent between
joining and not joining. Other non-members with higher political costs may, on balance, have even less incentive to join the PTA. An
exogenous shock that improves the level of integration of the PTA or the size of the PTA will now tip the balance for the marginal
non-member in favor of joining. This, in turn, leads non-bloc countries mutually less specialized, thus diminishing the ex-post demand
for multilateral free trade to greater incentives for the remaining non-members — thus, the domino effect.57 The question of the
interaction between multilateralism and preferential trade is a difficult one. Some of the research papers discussed suggest that PTAs
may be an impediment to multilateral liberalization, others suggest otherwise.58 This makes it difficult to reach robust policy
conclusions with great certitude. The rapid proliferation of complex and overlapping PTAs and the distortions that they bring to the
trading system have led many economists to reassert strongly their faith in the multilateral process, for it is clear that elimination of
multilateral barriers eliminates all incentives for preferential trading as well.

WTO GOOD—CHINA WAR (SHELL)

THE WTO AGREEMENT IS AT A CRITICAL CROSS-ROADS - COLLAPSE OF THE WTO LEADS TO CONFLICT-
RIDDEN BILATERAL AGREEMENTS THAT MAKE U.S.-CHINA TRADE CONFLICT INEVITABLE
G. John Ikenberry, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton, jan/feb 2008, Foreign Affairs "The Rise of China and
the Future of the West"
The United States should also renew its support for wide-ranging multilateral institutions. On the economic front, this would include building on the
agreements and architecture of the WTO, including pursuing efforts to conclude the current Doha Round of trade talks, which seeks
to extend market opportunities and trade liberalization to developing countries. The WTO is at a critical stage. The basic standard of nondiscrimination
is at risk thanks to the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements. Meanwhile, there are growing doubts over whether the WTO can in
fact carry out trade liberalization, particularly in agriculture, that benefits developing countries. These issues may seem narrow, but the fundamental character of the
liberal international order -- its commitment to universal rules of openness that spread gains widely -- is at stake. Similar doubts haunt a host of other multilateral
agreements -- on global warming and nuclear nonproliferation, among others -- and they thus also demand renewed U.S. leadership.
The strategy here is not simply to ensure that the Western order is open and rule-based. It is also to make sure that the order does not fragment into an
array of bilateral and "minilateral" arrangements, causing the United States to find itself tied to only a few key states in
various regions. Under such a scenario, China would have an opportunity to build its own set of bilateral and "minilateral" pacts.
As a result, the world would be broken into competing U.S. and Chinese spheres. The more security and economic
relations are multilateral and all-encompassing, the more the global system retains its coherence.
UNRESTRAINED U.S.-CHINA TRADE CONFLICT ESCALATES TO A SHOOTING WAR THAT WOULD DESTROY
THE U.S.
Henry C K Liu, Chairman of a New York-based private investment group, 2005 (Asia Times, Online:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/global_economy/GH20Dj01.html)
The resultant global economic depression from a trade war between the world's two largest economies will in turn heighten
further mutual recriminations. An external curb from the US of Chinese export trade will accelerate a redirection of
Chinese growth momentum inward, increasing Chinese power, including military power, while further encouraging anti-
US sentiment in Chinese policy circles. This in turn will validate US apprehension of a China threat, increasing the prospect
for armed conflict.
A war between the US and China can have no winners, particularly on the political front. Even if the US were to prevail militarily through its
technological superiority, the political cost of military victory would be so severe that the US as it currently exists would not be
recognizable after the conflict and the original geopolitical aim behind the conflict would remain elusive, as the Vietnam War and
the Iraq war have demonstrated. By comparison, the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, destructive as they have been to the US social fabric, are mere minor scrimmages
compared with a war with China.
GAME OVER
Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2001, The Nation, p 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious U.S. militarists know that china’s miniscule nuclear capacity
is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status
constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a
war that no wanted,a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such
a war would bankrupt the Unites States, deeply divided Japan, and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s
most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given
the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent
effect.

WTO GOOD—TRADE WARS (SHELL)

WTO PREVENTS ESCALATION OF TRADE CONFLICTS INTO WAR
Raymond J. Waldmann, chairman of the Washington Council on International Trade, 5/11/99 (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, l/n)
The answer is simple: Because trade matters to the U.S. economy, to Washington state and to Seattle and because the WTO matters to trade. The Geneva-based WTO is the only global body dedicated to developing
international trade rules. From the U.S. perspective, the WTO is our voice and vote for dealing with trade issues. The WTO provides the rules-based system of international trade on which we rely. Members negotiate
agreements ensuring that: -- Countries may not raise their tariffs or other border taxes whenever they feel like it, and thereby exclude American products from their markets; -- Countries may not impose unjustified technical
barriers such as inspection requirements on U.S. wheat, apples and other agricultural products just to protect their home markets, nor may they favor products from specific countries; -- Countries may not allow or encourage
piracy of intellectual property, thereby protecting our software and computers, books and films, CDs and tapes; -- Countries are restricted from violating the rules on subsidies and export assistance, and flooding the world
with government-subsidized products whose prices we could not match. Trade is not a panacea for the political, economic and social problems of the world. But it is a force for peace and cross-cultural contact.
Countries are less likely to go to war against their trading partners than they are against strangers. The WTO furthers the process of
protecting against commercial skirmishes and potential trade wars by forging agreement among nations on trade protocols. Without
the WTO, trade would be too dangerous a proposition for countries to leave to their trade ministries, and eventually trade disputes
could become national security issues. A non-WTO world would more closely resemble the international economy before World War
II, where countries used trade as tools of foreign policy, and international commerce was a pawn of aggressor states. As Franklin D. Roosevelt's
former secretary of state Cordell Hull said, "When goods do not cross borders, armies do." Fortunately we do not live in that world. Indeed, if the WTO didn't exist, we would have to create it.
And that is precisely what the United States and 22 other countries did in 1948. Today, 134 members of the WTO are dedicated to preventing trade conflicts from getting out of hand. By nature, the wheels of international law
move slowly, but the WTO patiently and continuously improves its rules and institutions in order to make the world a better place. Through successive rounds of trade talks going back to 1949, the GATT and its successor the
WTO have reduced tariffs on goods from industrial countries from an average of more than 40 percent in 1948 to today's 3.9 percent. As a result, trade has exploded; today it is 26 times the volume of 1949. Through GATT
The WTO has already: -- Dramatically reduced tariffs and other barriers to
and WTO, countries have tackled and solved some of the thorniest problems of trade, and have settled hundreds of trade disputes.
Solved more than 100 trade disputes in the past four years
trade, so that today's exporters and consumers are able to shop for the best deals almost anywhere in the world; --
between countries before they got out of hand and turned into bitter trade wars; -- Made great strides in clarifying the rules of the road so that every country is aware of its
rights and obligations; -- Established basic criteria for the protection of intellectual property and investments made in foreign countries; -- Established appropriate penalties for countries violating the predetermined trade
norms. It tries to make sure countries don't violate those norms, but if they do, it provides appropriate penalties; -- Opened up a new dialogue on transparency within the WTO, and on environmental and human rights
concerns. As we enter a new era of high-tech global trade, there is every reason to expect the WTO will continue its efficient work improving the standards of living for all.
TRADE WARS ESCALATE TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

Vincent H. Miller, and James R. Elwood, 1988, founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty; Vice-
President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, “Free Trade or Protectionism? The Case Against Trade Restrictions,”
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html
Trade Wars: Both Sides Lose When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B", the
government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war
in which both sides lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . . . When Goods Don't
Cross Borders, Armies Often Do History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe
suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival
governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and
later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports – a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a
half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began
erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US
President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act,
which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result?
World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The
depression in turn led to World War II. The #1 Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the
relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the
world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies?
Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes,
trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von
Mises

WTO GOOD—NUKE WINTER (SHELL)

WTO SOLVES MULTIPLE SCENARIOS FOR GLOBAL NUCLEAR WINTER
Copley News Service, 12/1/99 (l/n)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear
winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World T rade Organization's meeting in Seattle
apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own
prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for
the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear
disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is
environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike
yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament
movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war
protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have
been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other
countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so
important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for
the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational
corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not
the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing
number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for
whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without
world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.
Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work
together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade.
They should be celebrating it.
NUCLEAR WINTER CAUSES EXTINCTION

Alan Phillips, Physicians for Global Survival, November 2001 (Peace Research, l/n)
The atmosphere of nuclear winter would be abnormal in other ways. There would be a large, long-lasting temperature inversion
causing severe smog. Large amounts of toxic products of combustion would be trapped in the inversion: dioxins, furans, PCBs,
cyanides, sulphuric and sulphurous acids, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The amounts of them would make
our present concerns about atmospheric pollution seem utterly trivial. There would also be toxic chemicals such as ammonia and
chlorine, and organic solvents, from damaged storage tanks. Oxides of nitrogen would reach the stratosphere and result in depletion of
the ozone layer. The depletion is predicted to be many times as severe as the current depletion, which is properly causing concern. The
restoration of the ozone layer takes many years, compared with many months for the smoke clouds to dissipate. The combination of
all these atmospheric disturbances would have disastrous effects on world food production. If the war occurred in the months before,
or during, the growing season, crop yields that year would be reduced nearly to zero in the Northern Hemisphere. Tropical vegetation
of all kinds would be killed by frost, except perhaps on islands or at the coastlines. The Southern Hemisphere would probably be
affected, though less severely. Combined with the enormous destruction of infrastructure and production of all kinds, distribution of
food stocks, and the small crops that might be harvested, would be greatly limited. Very widespread starvation would result. The
further problems of atmospheric pollution, prolonged excess ultraviolet radiation, elevated ionizing radiation from the radioactive
fallout, the breakdown of law and order, epidemics, and the collapse of medical services could possibly combine to cause extinction of
the human species after a few generations of miserable existence by diminishing groups of survivors. There is little doubt that some,
perhaps many, other species would become extinct.

WTO GOOD—REGIONAL TRADE BLOCKS (SHELL)

WITHDRAWAL OF US MULTILATERAL TRADE LEADERSHIP CAUSES THE DETERIORATION OF GLOBAL
TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, IN FAVOR OF HOSTILE REGIONAL BLOCS
C. Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics, 2001 [Foreign Affairs, April, Lexis]
A MORE SUBTLE CAUSE of the present crisis is the decline of effective U.S. leadership in the global economic system. This in turn stems
from a domestic popular backlash against globalization and the resulting political stalemate in Washington. During the postwar period, the pervasive tension
between regionalism and multilateralism (mainly as a result of increasing European integration) was generally resolved in favor of multilateralism
due to steady American leadership in that direction. The United States insisted on a new round of global trade liberalization after each major step in the European
integration process, which otherwise would have created additional trade discrimination and likely emulation around the world. Thus the primacy of GATT was
maintained. Indeed, a positive dynamic between regional and global trade liberalization remained consistent for more than four decades. Even when the United States itself
began to embrace regionalism -- from bilateral free trade with Canada to the North American Free Trade Agreement to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) -- it
was careful to simultaneously pursue new multilateral initiatives to ensure an umbrella of global trade liberalization. Washington's ability to maintain such
leadership has been severely curtailed over the past five years, however. Despite the strength of America's economy and the reduction of its unemployment
rate to a 30-year low, the popular backlash against globalization has produced a political stalemate on most international economic issues. As a result, the president has had no
effective authority to negotiate new trade agreements since 1994. Legislation to replenish the IMF languished for a year in the midst of the Asian crisis, until it was rescued
fortuitously by the farm community's interest in restoring its exports to Asia. Even relatively straightforward issues -- such as extending permanent normal trade relations to China
or offering enhanced market access to Africa and the Caribbean -- required lengthy, all-out presidential and business campaigns to persuade Congress. Largely as a result of this
domestic standstill, America's international economic posture has been compromised. The United States' initial refusal in 1997 to contribute to the IMF support package for
Thailand for fear of further riling Congress, for example, earned lasting enmity throughout Asia. The main reason for the debacle at Seattle was the United States' inability to
propose a new round of trade negotiations that would meet the legitimate interests of other major players. Lacking the domestic authority to lower its own trade barriers,
Washington was forced to offer an agenda that sought to reduce protection only in other countries -- a prospect that was understandably unappealing to the rest of the world.
Similarly, in 1997 -- 98 APEC negotiations, the United States unsuccessfully pushed a program of sector-specific liberalization that focused almost wholly on U.S. export interests.
And six years after the idea of the FTAA was launched in Miami, little progress has been made toward hemispheric trade liberalization. This international leadership
vacuum has had two subtle but profound effects on the world economy. Like a bicycle on a hill, the global trading system tends to slip
backwards in the absence of continual progress forward. Now, with no serious multilateral trade negotiations taking place anywhere in the world, the
backsliding has come in the form of intensified regionalism (which is inherently discriminatory), as well as mercantilist and
protectionist disputes across the Atlantic. An East Asian free trade area -- and along with it, a three-bloc world -- will likely emerge if the United States remains on
the sidelines of international trade for another five years. Such U.S. impotence would also mean that the traditionally positive impact of regional
liberalization on the multilateral process would give way to increasing antagonism and even hostility between the regional blocs.
The other chief effect of the leadership vacuum is increased international disregard of, or even hostility toward, the United States on the
economic front. Because of its weight in the world economy, its dynamic growth, and its traditional leadership role, the United States remains the most important player in the
global economic system. The other economic powers generally seek to avoid confronting it directly. The EU, for example, has tried to avoid overt battles, despite its escalating
range of disputes with the United States. East Asian governments are careful to assure Washington that their new regional initiatives are fully consistent with existing global norms
and institutions -- a conciliatory stance that is in sharp contrast to Mahathir's shrill rhetoric of a decade ago and Japanese Vice Minister of Finance Eisuke Sakakibara's aggressive
1997 promotion of the AMF. In reality, however, the United States is perceived as wanting to call the shots without putting up much of its own money or making changes in its own
laws and practices. These specific economic complaints fuse with and feed on more general anti-American sentiments throughout the world. Hence, the two other economic
superpowers are proceeding on their own. The EU has launched the euro, a new association agreement with Mexico, and negotiations with Mercosur (the trade bloc comprising
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay); East Asia is pursuing the AMF and the East Asian free trade area. The result is a clear and steady erosion of both the
United States' position on the global economic scene and the multilateral rules and institutions that it has traditionally championed. If not checked soon,
this erosion could deteriorate into severe international conflicts and the disintegration of global economic links.
REGIONAL TRADE BLOCKS RISK NUCLEAR WAR

Michael Spicer, Economist; member of the British Parliament, 1996, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121
A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will
possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would
manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear
weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

WTO GOOD—A2 LABOR

DEMANDS TO MIX LABOR STANDARDS WITH WTO REGULATIONS CAUSE PROTECTIONISM – WE HAVE TO
WORK WITH EXISTING MODELS
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “Free trade today”, p. 70-1]
But then we are also missing the other bird: the advancing of the social agenda. One definite result of pushing for labor (and - purely
domestic-pollution-related environmental) standards at the WTO has been the near unanimity of opinion in the developing countries
that the real aim of the rich countries’ trade unions and governments is to deter competition—that is, intrusionism. Thus, these
demands are widely seen as protectionism hiding behind a moral mask. In short, the moral case is devalued by the context and the
means by which it is being pursued. It is therefore seriously compromised and impaired. So we wind up missing the other bird as well.

WTO GOOD—A2 NO SOCIAL CLAUSE

A “SOCIAL CLAUSE” WOULDN’T DO ANYTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO – IT’S JUST A MEANS FOR
RICH COUNTRIES TO PROSECUTE POOR ONES
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “Free trade today”, p. 71]
In fact, the latter point is not just a matter of perception; in my judgment it is also the real face of what is going on. You see it in the
self-protecting and other-directed de facto selectivity of the trade-sanctionable issues that the rich countries want to put into the Social
Clause at the WTO. Here, the talk has now shifted to putting into it the “core” labor standards that have been agreed to at UN meetings
such as the Social Summit in Copenhagen. But think about the matter a little and you see the calculation behind what is actually being
proposed. Not all these core standards are to be taken as matters to be implemented on fast-track. For instance, gender discrimination
is not on the fast-track for implementation. If it was, nearly all trade would cease. So where do the rich nations want fast-track rapid-
fire action? You guessed it right: on child labor. Why? Because that is where the poor countries can be confidently expected to be the
defendants, while the rich nations can equally confidently expect to be the plaintiffs.
A “SOCIAL CLAUSE” WOULD JUST DAMAGE FREE TRADE MORE AND INSPIRE PROTECTIONISM AS A FORM
OF COMPENSATION
Director General of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, “Free trade today”, p. 72-3]
Recall also the U.S. policy of suspending the entire exports from an industry where only some fraction is subject to a lapse (as in
recent actions taken against all shrimp exports from India for nonuse of turtle-excluding devices, when the bulk of the shrimp farming
is on farms, not oceans). Explicitly putting these issues on the table for immediate, fast- track implementation would surely put
America’s textile and agricultural exports at serious risk. So do not expect them to be, no matter the moral talk. Instead, expect action
only on those “moral” issues, and within them only on those aspects, where a “side” effect, but most important effect, is the protection
of your industries.2’ None of this cynical exploitation of moral issues for de facto protectionism should be a matter for surprise. After
all, trade negotiations and treaties typically relate to competitiveness; and this aspect will dominate whatever the genuine moralists
among us want. As George Stigler would have said: the moral issue will be captured by those bothered by competitiveness
considerations (and, in this instance, by those that bear particularly on poor-country exports of labor-intensive products such as textiles
and shoes). At a poker game where men drink whiskey and tell dirty jokes, do not expect the players to burst into singing madrigals.

A2 GLOBALIZATION BAD
GLOBALIZATION WILL NOT BE STOPPED ALONG SIDE TRADE – THE BEST WE CAN DO IS MAKE
GLOBALIZATION BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE
Tarullo 2007 (Daniel K. Tarullo is a Professor of Law, A.B., Georgetown; M.A., Duke; J.D., University of Michigan; "The Case for
Reviving the Doha Trade Round": http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/doha.pdf)
At home, there is an opportunity to begin bridging the partisan divide over trade that grew ever wider in the past decade. Doha
presents an occasion to achieve greater consensus on the contents of an important trade agreement and to embed that agreement in a
broader set of policies to improve the productivity and living standards of all Americans. Successful completion and approval of the
Doha Round could thus be a constructive step towards a U.S. trade policy that is growth-oriented, politically sustainable, and socially
equitable. The importance of seizing these opportunities can best be understood against the larger backdrop of globalization and, more
generally, of the economic changes of which globalization is an important part. These changes have contributed to a significant,
sustained increase in income inequality in the United States. They have also elicited widespread anxiety over the prospect of an
accelerated loss of middle-class jobs as large new pools of educated workers enter the labor force in China, India, and other emerging
markets. Trade agreements have been a lightning rod for the anxieties and anger associated with these changes. Yet the globalization
of the U.S. economy will proceed regardless of whether the United States ever signs another trade agreement. Eschewing additional
agreements will not stop emerging market nations from further developing their industrial capacities and improving the productivity of
their workers. Nor will it stop other developed countries from pursuing new trade agreements of their own. If the United States does
abdicate its leadership role in trade and other international economic arrangements, then it will see its ability to shape the rules by
which global economic actors must play inevitably diminish. The challenge, then, is to manage globalization to ensure that the
benefits of globalization, both at home and abroad, are not limited to one privileged group while the costs are borne by others. This
paper sets forth in more detail the reasons why completion of the Doha Round can further progressive economic and social aims in
America and in the global economy. The paper then offers an outline of pragmatic, principled policies that will enable the United
States to seize upon these opportunities.
GLOBALIZATION IS INEVITABLE – FREE TRADE IS THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE EFFECTS
Oxfam, April 2002, “Rigged Rules and Double Standards,” http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/trade_report.htm
Why campaign on trade, and why now? There are three answers to this question. The first is that the existing trade system is
indefensible. No civilised community should be willing to tolerate the extremes of prosperity and poverty that are generated by current
trade practices. And none of us should be willing to accept the abuse of power, injustice, and indifference to suffering that sustains
those practices. The second reason for action can be summarised in a simple phrase: 'enlightened self-interest'. What is happening
today is not just indefensible, it is also unsustainable. Large parts of the developing world are becoming enclaves of despair,
increasingly marginalised and cut off from the rising wealth generated through trade. Ultimately, shared prosperity cannot be built on
such foundations. Like the economic forces that drive globalisation, the anger, despair, and social tensions that accompany vast
inequalities in wealth and opportunity will not respect national borders. The instability that they will generate threatens us all. In
today's globalised world, our lives are more inextricably linked than ever before, and so is our prosperity. As a global community, we
sink or swim together. No country, however strong or wealthy, is an island. The third motivation for Oxfam's trade campaign is the
conviction that change is possible. The international trading system is not a force of nature. It is a system of exchange, managed by
rules and institutions that reflect political choices. Those choices can prioritise the interests of the weak and vulnerable, or they can
prioritise the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Trade is reinforcing global poverty and inequality because the international trading
system is managed to produce these outcomes. The rules of the game reflect the power of vested interests. Concerted public
campaigning can change this. As demonstrated by the international campaign to cancel the debts of poor countries, public action can
force the interests of the poor on to the international agenda. And it can achieve real gains for human development. Ultimately, there is
a clear choice to be made. We can choose to allow unfair trade rules to continue causing poverty and distress, and face the
consequences. Or we can change the rules. We can allow globalisation to continue working for the few, rather than the many. Or we
can forge a new model of inclusive globalisation, based on shared values and principles of social justice. The choice is ours. And the
time to choose is now.

A2 GLOBALIZATION BAD
GLOBALIZATION IS INEVITABLE—THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW IT IS CARRIED OUT—POLICIES THAT
CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF THE POOR ARE VITAL.
Schneider, 2000 (Mark, Former Director of Peace Corps, Globalization, information technology and the Peace Corps in the 21st
Century, June 7, http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/4150.html)
These are some of the areas we are targeting today as ways to accelerate development. But as we enter the 21st century, there is an even broader challenge that developing
countries face, and one that Peace Corps volunteers are uniquely positioned to help them address. The challenge is globalization, an issue that is now at the center of the debate about how the
"new economy" affects people in the poorest countries. The expansion in international trade, the unnerving instantaneous, 24-hour movement of capital, and the never-ending
news day are realities. The test is whether globalization also can be harnessed to foster greater international solidarity and a greater sense
of community among all peoples, whether all people will share in the benefits. I believe Peace Corps volunteers can play a role in answering that question. I believe we can
help make globalization "personal" and "local" by bringing the benefits of the information revolution into the hands of the students, the health workers, the campesinos, the women's groups, the indigenous artisans
.
cooperatives, and the teachers with whom volunteers live and work Moises Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy, recently wrote, "The l990s began in Berlin and ended in Seattle" where a crowd sought "to rebuild walls that
might shield them from the ills unleashed by 'globalization.'" On the one hand, to explain the attack on globalization, Naim pointed to some of the ways that economic reforms had failed to achieve all of their objectives. He
cited the ten emerging economies that endured financial crises in the l990s, the flight of capital and jobs, and the evidence of increasing inequity and unremitting poverty that force three billion people to live on two dollars
per day. On the other hand, Naim also noted the progress that has occurred in parallel with the increasing integration and globalization of the world's economies, such as the expansion of world trade, a sharp reduction in the
hyper-inflation that plagued many countries in the 1980s, a booming U.S. economy, lower tariffs on industrial goods, and the ability of those same emerging economies to recover more quickly from financial crises than ever
before. But while we can debate the pros and cons of globalization, I believe that there is a consensus on one key point. Virtually every current international
development expert, from the most conservative member of the IMF to the most liberal NGO, agrees that current levels of inequity and poverty in the developing world are
unacceptable. The World Bank Development Report this year found that the richest third of countries achieved about a 50 percent increase in their per capita GDP from l970 to l995; but the per capita GDP of those
in the poorest third showed virtually no increase. Even though we can point to important gains in social conditions, too many people in too many countries still live in extreme poverty. There is now broad
agreement that more and better human capital investment, such as devoting more resources to quality education for girls as well as boys and improving access to primary health care,
are vital to achieve sustainable levels of economic growth. Experts on both sides of the debate, I am pleased to note, increasingly are calling on governments to be more accountable and
democratic, to manage natural resources in ways that protect our children's economic future, and to give the poor greater access to credit for micro and small businesses, infrastructure, title to property, and legal protection.
One reflection of the new policy consensus are the conclusions of the 2000 World Development Report that after fifty years of development experience, the four key lessons learned are: "First, macroeconomic stability is an
essential prerequisite for achieving the growth needed for development. Second, growth does not trickle down; development must address human needs directly." Here,
let me add that this is a fundamental and crucial change from the diagnosis at the outset of the 90's. "Third, no one policy will trigger development. Fourth, institutions matter; sustained development should be rooted in
processes that are socially inclusive and responsive to changing circumstances." Again, this recognition of the key role of government particularly with respect to local government and the rule of law, constitute welcome
additions to the previous prescriptions for economic development. Moreover, it is not just the experts who are concerned about the effects of globalization on the world's poorest people. The Program on International Policy
Attitudes at the University of Maryland just released a study on how ordinary Americans view the complexities of globalization, and it contains some very interesting conclusions. Let me quote just one point. "Most
Americans," the study said, "perceive poor countries as not getting a net benefit from international trade, and they support giving preferential trade treatment to poor countries. Very strong majorities believe that the U.S. has a
moral obligation to promote development in poor countries and that doing so ultimately would serve US economic interests." Recognizing the importance of poverty reduction and enhancing equity, however, is one thing,
changing policies, offering incentives, transferring resources and knowledge is another. The growing consensus of the need for those changes is a major step forward. That consensus plays to Peace Corps' strengths. Peace
Corps traditionally has worked at the local level helping communities satisfy human needs, strengthening grassroots institutions, and transferring the skills and knowledge for sustainable development. In the 21st century, I am
convinced that Peace Corps is even better prepared and better positioned than virtually any other agency or institution to bring information technology to the task of poverty reduction . To be sure, technology is no panacea --
. Yet if the poor are unable to participate in the information technology revolution that
it will not solve all of the problems that confront people in the developing world
we now take for granted, the equity gap will widen even further.

THE TARIFF IS PROTECTIONIST

THE TARIFF IS AN EXAMPLE OF PROTECTIONISM
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
A. Tariff as part of overall ethanol scheme
In light of a government seeking to promote the use of alternative fuels, a tariff on imported ethanol appears counterintuitive. This is
especially true in light of subsidies and mandates seeking to increase producer and consumer reliance on ethanol. Nevertheless,
imported ethanol is subjected to a two-part duty: "a regular duty of 2.5% ad valorem; and a secondary duty of 14.27 cents per liter or
54 cents per gallon." n98
On one hand, the tariff is an example of protectionism. n99 It is an example of the government favoring domestic producers in
violation of international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). n100 The word "protectionism" has
a negative connotation, with opponents stressing that it requires extensive administrative costs while raising prices and reducing
quality through the elimination of competition. n101

OIL ADVANTAGE
PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCY

ETHANOL COOPERATION AND PRODUCTION OF SUGAR ETHANOL ARE KEY TO DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCY
SPECIFICALLY DEPENDENCE ON CHAVEZ
Andrews, Rohter, and Wald—2007 (Edmund L. Andrews, Larry Rohter, and Matthew L. Wald, “U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote
Ethanol in West”, 3/2/07 Section A; Column 4; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1, L-N)
President Bush, hoping to reduce demand for oil in the Western Hemisphere, is preparing to finish an agreement with Brazil next week
to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to administration officials.
The agreement could lead to substantial growth in the ethanol industry in Brazil as technology and manufacturing equipment
developed there is exported to other countries in the region.
Much of the ethanol produced there is made from sugar cane and is far cheaper to produce than the corn-based ethanol that has been
nurtured by protective tariffs and government mandates in the United States.
But the agreement has already begun to prompt complaints from politicians from corn-producing regions of the United States. They
fear that the plan would lead to an increase in imports of cheap foreign ethanol and undercut American producers.
By increasing ethanol production and consumption, particularly in countries that produce sugar, officials of the Bush administration
hope to reduce the region's overall dependence on foreign oil and to take some of the pressure off oil prices.
As a side effect, American officials contend, the program could also reduce the influence of Hugo Chavez, the president of oil-rich
Venezuela.
PLAN EMPIRICALLY DECREASES OIL DEPENDENCY

Brazil's success in the utilization of alternative energy has significantly outpaced nearly all other countries, including wealthier, more
developed nations. Today more than forty percent of Brazil's energy comes from renewable, alternative sources; in most richer
nations, renewable energy accounts for only seven percent of the energy supply. n15 In the transportation industry alone, ethanol, an
alternative to gasoline that Brazil manufactures from sugarcane, accounts for twenty percent of the industry's energy supply - far
greater than most other nations. n16
BRAZILIAN SUGAR ETHANOL IS A SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE TO OIL 5 WARRENTS (persistence and

requirements, low production cost, predictability, production efficiency, and gasoline free infrastructure)
There are several reasons why the ethanol and sugarcane industries in Brazil have survived and recently made a comeback. First,
Brazil did not give up on ethanol and continuously required that all gasoline contain some percentage of ethanol. n38 This requirement
created, at a minimum, a level of demand for ethanol that provided enough encouragement for the industries to remain alive and
improve their technology and production abilities.
Second, Brazil's ability to efficiently produce ethanol is another central reason for its success. Brazil produces sugarcane-based
ethanol at about half the cost of the corn-based ethanol produced by the United States. n39 Third, Brazil is well positioned to produce
sugarcane-based ethanol due to vast quantities of fertile land that receive ample rainfall. n40
[*337] Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Brazil invested in making ethanol production more efficient and has subsequently
reaped the rewards of that investment. n41 The efficient production of sugar-based ethanol can not occur overnight but instead results
from decades of hard work and gradual improvements. "Over the past 20 years, [the government-funded ethanol research lab] has
developed some 140 varieties of sugar, which has helped lower growing costs by more than one percent a year." n42
Finally, of particular importance is the fact that following the 1973 oil crisis, Brazil invested in an infrastructure that allows ethanol to
fully compete with gasoline. Over twenty-nine thousand filling stations across the country are equipped with ethanol pumps, n43
which enables the market to function and allows consumers to choose equally between ethanol and gasoline. n44

PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCY

SUGAR ETHANOL IS KEY TO DECREASE CONSUMPTION
Adam Dean, writer for “Policy Innovations,” a policy magazine, “The Unethical Ethanol Tariff, ”April 4, 2007
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and U.S. President Bush met last week at Camp David to discuss the future of ethanol.
As the world's largest producer of sugar and a pioneer in the production of ethanol, Brazil is a key ally in Bush's plan to reduce
America's foreign oil dependence and environmental footprint.
Imports of Brazilian ethanol could be a major step toward achieving Bush's goal of reducing American gasoline consumption by 20
percent over the next ten years. As ethanol can be produced from sugar, increased consumption of the fuel in the United States could
also lead to a higher commodity price for sugar producers in Brazil, with the potential to lift thousands out of poverty.
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL IS A PRIME SOURCE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY WITH THE POTENTIAL TO REPLACE
GASOLINE
James Hoare, “Jeb Bush Urges End to Ethanol Tariff,” published by the Heartland Institute, August 1, 2006
Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar, however, and costs between one-third and one-half as much as regular gasoline. The ethanol
mileage tradeoff is therefore mre than compensated by the cheap price of sugar-based ethanol.
But the "54-cent-a-gallon tariff on sugar-based ethanol essentially freezes it out of the U.S. market," noted a June 17 Chicago Tribune
house editorial.
"Brazil has the world's most advanced ethanol industry, and it has a cost advantage because sugar is a more efficient alcohol feedstock
than corn," observed St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist David Nicklaus in a June 10 article. "But the U.S. slaps a 54-cent-a-gallon
tariff on Brazilian ethanol. In other words, our government is trying to encourage development of alternative fuels, while turning its
back on a plentiful source of them."
Added the Tribune, "If this nation is serious about a future in which ethanol plays an ever-greater role in powering cars and trucks,
let's do it in a way that makes some economic sense. Reduce or eliminate the subsidies and tariffs, and let's find out if ethanol can
really become a credible, competitive alternative to gasoline without the federal largess that has propped up the industry for decades.
Let the most economic ethanol win."
AMERICANS WOULD USE ETHANOL AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GASOLINE IF THE PRICES WERE LOWERED AND
THE TARIFFS REMOVED
With the tariff in place, ethanol currently costs more per gallon than gasoline even in places where corn grows plentifully. KELO-TV
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for example, reported on June 13 ethanol was selling at $2.85 a gallon--five cents more than regular
gasoline.
"Ethanol is becoming cost-competitive in the free market, with the added benefit of being a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline,"
Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr said. "But essential to free-market competition is the elimination of prohibitive and
protectionist tariffs.
"If free markets are allowed to operate, I believe ethanol will ultimately prove to be a fuel of choice in America," said Lehr.
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL CAN DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE

Production of ethanol from sugarcane can be replicated in other countries without serious damage to natural ecosystems. Worldwide,
some 20 million hectares are used for growing sugarcane, mostly for sugar production (5). A simple calculation shows that expanding
the Brazilian ethanol program by a factor of 10 (i.e., an additional 30 million hectares of sugarcane in Brazil and in other countries)
would supply enough ethanol to replace 10% of the gasoline used in the world. This land area is a small fraction of the more than 1
billion hectares of primary crops already harvested on the planet.

PLAN DECREASES DEPENDENCE

BRAZILIAN ETHANOL WOULD SUCESSFULLY SUPPLANT GAS
The Brazilian ethanol program started as a way to reduce the reliance on oil imports, but it was soon realized that it had important
environmental and social benefits (8). Conversion to ethanol allowed the phasing-out of lead additives and MTBE (methyl tertiary
butyl ether) and reduced sulfur, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide emissions. It helped mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
efficiently, by having a net positive energy balance (renewable energy output versus fossil fuel inputs); also, sugarcane ethanol in
Brazil costs less than other present technologies for ethanol production (Table 2) and is competitive with gasoline in the United States,
even considering the import duty of US$0.54 per gallon and energy-efficiency penalties (30% or less with modern flexible fuel vehicle
technologies) (9). The summer wholesale price of gasoline in the United States is about $1.9 per gallon; the corn ethanol wholesale
price is around US$2.5 per gallon (10). Cellulose ethanol is a promising option in the long term, but is not being produced on a
commercial scale. The longer-term target is as low as 60 cents per gallon, but this will require major advances in producing, collecting,
and converting biomass. A more realistic research target is to reduce the cost of production to US$1.07 per gallon until 2012 (11).
SUGARCANE ETHANOL IS KEY TO ENERGY SECURITY

Promoting economically viable alternative energy sources to alleviate energy dependence is an idea whose time has come. The 9/11
attacks, systemic instability in the Middle East, and high oil prices all drive the point home. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set out a
consumption mandate of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. Rapidly increasing demand for ethanol surpassed the target of
4 billion gallons consumed in 2006. Demand also outpaced supply in 2006, necessitating imports totaling 653 million gallons, mostly
from Brazil and the Caribbean.
New Goals. In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush ambitiously called for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline
consumption by 2017. He also called on the U.S. energy industry to consume 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels (largely ethanol)
by that same year. This implies a seven-fold increase in ethanol production, which is all but impossible due to limited land availability
in the U.S. and demand for corn as an animal feedstock. Thus, Brazil, the world's largest exporter of ethanol, is crucial to making up
the deficit.

PLAN DECREASES GAS PRICES

REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD LOWER THE PRICE OF GAS AT THE PUMP
Stallcup—2008 (Evan Stallcup is a Sociologist, “Midwest floods may send gas up 15%”, 6/13/08,
http://overpopulationthreat.blogspot.com/ )
Another potential solution that is gathering support in Congress is reducing or eliminating the foreign ethanol tariff. The import tariff
of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol keeps the price of imported ethanol high in an effort to support domestic farmers.
Much of imported ethanol is made from sugar cane, which is cheaper to produce than domestic corn-based ethanol.
Energy industry experts say lifting the tariff entirely will likely lower gas prices by 10 cents a gallon, but legislation that proposed
canceling the tax found little support in Congress. As a result, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., recently
introduced a compromise bill to reduce the tariff to 45 cents.

PLAN PREVENTS DRILLING IN ANWR

ETHANOL TRADES OFF WITH OIL AND IS KEY TO PREVENT ANWR DRILLING
The Detroit News, “U.S. Needs New Approach to Energy Security,” June 25, 2008
Gas prices are too high. Family budgets are squeezed, and business bottom lines are hurt. People are right to demand answers and
action.
Some people say commodity traders and speculators are bidding up the price of oil. Others fault the plunging value of the U.S. dollar,
the obscene profits of the oil industry, surging demand for oil in China and India, and rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.
All of these factors contribute to the pain consumers are experiencing at the gas pump.
Some other explanations don't cut the mustard. The executives of the nation's oil companies recently testified that the problem is that
too many areas of the United States are closed to drilling. They want Congress to open more offshore areas as well as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development. Considering that these oil companies pocketed $36 billion in profits during the
first three months of 2008 alone, this explanation strikes me as a little self-serving, but it is also not supported by the facts.
Vast areas of the United States are already open to drilling. All told, there are 68 million acres of public land and offshore areas that
have been leased to the oil and gas companies that are not in production. Despite this huge backlog, the energy companies continue to
sit on these leases.
Before opening more public lands to the oil industry, is it too much to ask that they invest some of their record profits to develop the
leases they already own?
The House of Representatives will soon debate a bill to require energy companies to demonstrate that they are diligently developing
the leases they already hold, or return the leases to the federal government. If we are serious about boosting U.S. energy output,
Congress should pass this bill without delay.
Of course, there are areas where we shouldn't drill. A few years ago, some people were calling on Michigan to open the Great Lakes to
oil drilling. This idea was rejected. In Alaska, the ANWR is the only portion of the North Slope that is protected from oil exploration
and drilling. Are we ready to turn the Great Lakes and the Arctic Refuge over to the oil companies just on the possibility that they
might find a few months' worth of oil there?
Another area of dispute is the role that biofuels will play in our nation's energy mix. Biofuels have come under criticism recently
because of the rise in food prices. In fact, most of the run-up in food prices is due to other factors, especially soaring global demand
for grain, poor weather and restrictive agricultural policies around the world.
The United States cannot afford to close the door on biofuels. The key is to develop the next generation of biofuels, particularly
cellulosic ethanol, which is made from nonfood plants like switchgrass, wood chips and agricultural waste.

A2 OIL DEPENDENCE GOOD

BUSH PROMISED THE US TO DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCY ON THE MIDDLE EAST—THE ETHANOL TARIFF IS
QUITE IRRELAVANT TO THAT PROMISE
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
A major opponent of the tariff is the President of the United States. n110 This may conflict with his goals to increase domestic ethanol
production. In the 2006 State of the Union, President Bush announced a goal to make "ethanol practical and competitive within six
years." n111 In this speech, the President stressed the need for alternative fuel as a means of attaining energy independence.
Similarly, upon signing the EPAct in 2005, President Bush emphasized how the Act is a step towards energy independence. When
discussing the RFS portion of the EPAct, President Bush touted it as accomplishing many things, including reducing dependency on
foreign energy. n112 The emphasis, however, is specifically placed on being independent from Middle Eastern energy sources. n113
influx of alternative fuels from more "friendly" nations will not undermine his goals. However, Latin America, like the Middle East,
has a history of political instability. If energy independence in general is President Bush's goal, it is questionable whether being less
dependent on foreign oil is worth being more dependent on foreign ethanol.
WE WILL INEVITABLY DECREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL THROUGH ETHANOL—THIS IS GOOD
5 WARRENTS (INCREASES ECONOMIC SECURITY, REDUCES DEFICITS, DECREASES SUPPORT FOR
TYRANNICAL LEADERS, DECREASES FUNDING FOR TERRORISM, AND INCREASE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
LEADERSHIP)
[*25] The United States is recognizing the value and importance of energy diversification, but it may also be creating greater
environmental harm in the process. n1 If America decreases its dependence on foreign oil it will create greater economic security for
itself, reduce its current account deficit, provide less financing for tyrannical leaders and terrorists with American petro-dollars, and
improve its environmental credentials. n2 To reduce America's craving for oil, the government encourages domestic ethanol
production; the United States is behind only Brazil, the world's largest producer of ethanol, and combined the two produce over 70
percent of the world's ethanol. n3 Currently the U.S. domestic ethanol industry is growing as a result of alternative fuels becoming
politically popular, and the addition of a subsidy and tariff applied to ethanol. n4 However, arguably the ethanol tariff and subsidy do
not provide any substantial environmental benefits for the United States or the world. n5

T ANSWERS
A2 ALT ENERGY T
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL IS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY THAT IS RENEWABLE
Brazil's success in the utilization of alternative energy has significantly outpaced nearly all other countries, including wealthier, more
developed nations. Today more than forty percent of Brazil's energy comes from renewable, alternative sources; in most richer
nations, renewable energy accounts for only seven percent of the energy supply. n15 In the transportation industry alone, ethanol, an
alternative to gasoline that Brazil manufactures from sugarcane, accounts for twenty percent of the industry's energy supply - far
greater than most other nations. n16
SUGAR ETHANOL IS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL

Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
The use of sugar and corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel is hardly a novel concept. In fact, Henry Ford touted ethanol as the "fuel
of the future" in 1925. n1 Yet in 2007, the majority of Ford's namesake vehicles run solely on petroleum. However, a rising awareness
of climate change and concern about reliance on Middle Eastern oil supplies have triggered renewed interest in the development of
ethanol as a fuel source. Not only has technology improved so that ethanol is more efficient, society's attitude is ripe to accept the
advancement.
ETHANOL IS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL

Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
A versatile alternative fuel, there is no universal system to produce or promote ethanol. In fact, the type of crop used to create ethanol
varies from country to country based on feasibility of growth. Additionally, nations use different [*695] methods to process ethanol. In
addition to climate, factors such as politics and technology will affect ethanol production and use. The ultimate goal, of course, is to
implement the most efficient ethanol strategy for that particular country.
ETHANOL IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO OIL

The federal government should abolish its tariff on imported ethanol to make possible an affordable alternative to foreign oil, urged
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on June 5 after meeting with Brazil's Minister of Agriculture, Roberto Rodrigues. Brazil is the world's
leading ethanol producer, exporting 700 million gallons of inexpensive, sugar-based ethanol each year.
"We don't put a tariff on crude imported from a country like Venezuela, but yet we put a tariff on ethanol, which is a renewable source
of energy that provides a clean alternative," explained Bush. "We're at a point now where we need to develop strategies to begin that
process."
ETHANOL IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GAS

Added the Tribune, "If this nation is serious about a future in which ethanol plays an ever-greater role in powering cars and trucks,
let's do it in a way that makes some economic sense. Reduce or eliminate the subsidies and tariffs, and let's find out if ethanol can
really become a credible, competitive alternative to gasoline without the federal largess that has propped up the industry for decades.
Let the most economic ethanol win."

A2 RENEWABLE T
ETHANOL IS RENEWABLE
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
II. Ethanol 101
Ethanol n3 is "clean-burning, high-octane fuel that is produced from renewable sources." n4 Though the most common feedstocks are
sugar cane and corn, any crop that contains abundant sugars can produce ethanol. n5 Also, there are several different methods of
producing ethanol, though the most common is the "dry mill" process. n6
ETHANOL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY

Ethanol is poised to become one of America's most important renewable energy sources in the near future. A complex web of state and
federal subsidies to ethanol producers, refiners, and corn growers supports this fuel. Without these subsidies, America's thriving
ethanol trade would not exist. This article outlines the most important laws that provide the financial largesse upon which ethanol
production depends--the analysis of the sustainability of ethanol is left to the reader. Rather, the goal of this article is to explain how
these laws and policies operate, with the aim of helping the reader understand the strong influence of government intervention
throughout all aspects of ethanol production and distribution. In short, this article will demonstrate that American ethanol production
has become the business of government.

A2 INCENTIVES T (REMOVING TARIFF=/=INCREASING SUBSIDIES T)

EVERY DECREASE IN THE TARIFF IS AN INCREASE IN SUBSIDIES FOR SUGARCANE ETHANOL—THIS CARD IS
THE MONEY SHOT
Renewable Fuels Association, 2005 (THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE
SECONDARY TARIFF ON ETHANOL,
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/Ethanol_Tariff_Position_Paper.pdf)
Renewable fuels are produced only in countries where programs have been created to assist in their production. Thus, any reduction in
the U.S. secondary tariff on ethanol would result in U.S. taxpayers further subsidizing imported ethanol beyond the subsidies that are
already be given in the country of production. Since imported ethanol receives the 51cent per gallon tax credit, if the U.S. tariff on
ethanol is removed or dips below 51 cents, then U.S. taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing imported ethanol. The subsidy would
be equal to the difference between the tax credit and the amount of any reduced tariff. For example, if the ethanol tariff were reduced
to ten cents a gallon, then U.S. taxpayers would be paying an additional 41-cent incentive for every gallon of imported ethanol. U.S.
taxpayers should not be required to subsidize imported ethanol because it is counter to the purpose and many benefits of the U.S.
ethanol program – to foster the domestic production of a renewable fuel.
REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON GAS PRICES AND IS FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS
SUBSIDIZING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL PRODUCTION
Removing the tariff on imported ethanol would do nothing to reduce prices at the pump, said Renewable Fuels Association President
Bob Dinneen. When you peel back the layers of this onion, you quickly realize removing the tariff doesn’t pass the smell test. Doing
so would be the equivalent of asking American taxpayers to subsidize already heavily supported Brazilian ethanol production at a time
when Brazil‚ supply of ethanol is tight and U.S. supplies are more than sufficient.
CONGRESS CONSIDERS REMOVING THE TARIFF A SUBSIDY

Senator Chuck Grassley, 2006 (Letter to the President,
http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=bd9671d5-e37f-471f-bbac-
b35bbbade586&Month=5&Year=2006)
Moreover, other countries, like Brazil, subsidize ethanol and sugarcane production. Lifting the import tariff would only further
subsidize these industries, but at the expense of American tax payers. United States gasoline refiners receive a 51 cent tax incentive for
every gallon of ethanol they blend into gasoline, regardless of origin. Even imported ethanol from Brazil, for instance, qualifies for
this tax incentive. Brazil has built its ethanol industry through 35 years of tax incentives, production subsidies, mandates, export
enhancement, infrastructure development, debt forgiveness and currency devaluation. Foreign countries, like Brazil, do not need U.S.
tax dollars to compete effectively.

A2 ALT ENERGY INCENTIVES T

AND THE USFG DEFINES SUBSIDIES AND TAX DEPRECIATIONS AS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES-OUR
EVIDENCE IS CONTEXTUAL
The Environmental Quality Control Council, 2004
The EQC Energy Policy Subcommittee requested that an explanation of the types of incentive policies that the State of Montana, the
Federal Government, and other selected states currently have in place for the alternative energy sources be provided in this report. The
rationale for this request was that the Subcommittee wanted to understand Montana's current incentive policy framework and to
evaluate the status of other selected state and federal incentive programs. This chapter will provide an explanation of the overall
framework for alternative energy incentive policies, including an inventory of incentive policies and a discussion of potential funding
mechanisms. Each subsequent chapter that analyzes a specific alternative energy source will explain the specific incentive policies in
place for that particular alternative energy resource.
Alternative Energy Incentive Policy Framework
The National Wind Coordinating Committee through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) commissioned a study in
1999 that reviewed and analyzed state policy options that supported wind energy development.
This analysis, although focused on wind energy, provides an extremely logical framework that can be applied generally to most
alternative energy incentive policies, both at the state and federal level. Figure 2-1 illustrates a noninclusive inventory of alternative
energy incentives and policies currently used in the U.S.2
Relying heavily on the NCSL report, Table 2-1 summarizes descriptions and explanations of each incentive policy type. 3
These incentives run the gamut from heavy governmental involvement to market-based approaches. The effectiveness of these
incentives is not analyzed in this report.
Tax Incentives
Production Tax Credits
A production tax credit provides an investor or owner of the qualifying alternative energy property with an annual
tax credit based upon the amount of energy produced or generated.
Investment Tax Credits
An investment tax credit allows an investor of an alternative energy project to reduce its tax obligation by some
portion of the amount invested in the project.
Sales Tax Reductions
Exemptions or reductions in state or local sales taxes that apply to the transfer or exchange of energy, material, and
land assets reduce the overall tax burden for alternative energy projects.
Property Tax Reductions
Exemptions or reductions in state or local property taxes decrease the tax burden for alternative energy projects.
Accelerated Depreciation
Some assets lose value over time. Tax depreciation attempts to approximate the loss of asset value over time by
allowing a portion of the investment to be deducted from taxable income in any given year.
Direct Cash Incentives
Production Incentives
Direct production incentives can take the form of direct cash subsidy or price support payment based on
energy production, not capital investment.
Investment Incentives (Grants)
Investment incentives can take the form of direct cash payment to defray capital costs of energy projects.
Low-Cost Capital Programs
Government-Subsidized Loans
Debt costs can affect as well as determine whether an alternative energy project is built. Government can lower the
cost of debt by providing direct low-cost loans.
Project Loan Guarantees
Project loan guarantees provide government-backed assurance or security to a lender that the loan will be repaid.
This provides risk insurance for the project costs
Project Aggregation
Combining multiple alternative energy projects can in some instances decrease project financing. Project
aggregation services can be provided by multiple entities, including government, nonprofit organizations, or private
companies.
Distributed Resource Policies
Standard Contracts for Small Distributed Projects
Long-term standard power purchase contracts with predefined interconnection requirements with, in some

cases, fixed power purchase rates for sellers of alternative energy that meet certain size, type, and
ownership requirements. Standard contracts simplify negotiations, reduce transaction costs, speed the
contracting process, improve chances of project financing, and treat all sellers of alternative energy equally.
Net Metering
A policy mechanism that allows electricity customers to install their own grid-connected alternative energy
generation system and allows the customer to be billed only for the net electricity consumed over the entire
billing period. If the customer produces more electricity than is consumed, the customer receives credit
against future electricity consumption.
Line Extension Policies
Historically, utility customers have subsidized line extensions for new customer hook-ups. Usually,
customers are granted a free footage allowance within which the costs are borne entirely by the utility and
its customers.
Customer Choice Opportunities
Utility-Supplied Renewable Energy Pricing Options
Some utility customers are willing to pay a premium, if given the choice, to buy renewable energy. Providing
customers with a choice creates a voluntary market for renewable energy.
Alternative Energy Marketing from Retail Sellers
In a restructured electricity market, some retail suppliers of electricity have used alternative energy as a marketing
tool to differentiate products.
Aggregated Consumer Purchases
Aggregation of small customers to purchase alternative energy creates increased bargaining power and resources to
purchase alternative energy at lower prices
Fuel Source Disclosure Requirement and Certification
Differentiating alternative energy from other sources of energy through disclosure of energy generation sources provides
information to customers that allow those customers to make a choice on the type of energy they want to consume. Certifying
the fuel source means verifying that the production of alternative energy has occurred. Certification may also refer to an
endorsement by a particular entity.
General Environmental Regulations
Externality Valuation in Resource Planning
Taking into account in selecting energy resources the full social costs of the energy resource during resource
planning and acquisition, usually through an integrated resource planning process.
Externality Valuation in Environmental Dispatch
Taking into account the full social costs when deciding which energy resources should be dispatched (utilized).
Emission Taxes
The Clean Air Act gives states the ability to use market mechanisms such as emission charges or taxes as a way to
comply with federal environmental standards.
Emission Caps/Marketable Permits
The Clean Air Act provides states with the authority to impose emission caps along with marketable permits. This
type of program involves setting a limit for total emissions of a particular pollutant and then allocating emission
allowances to individual sources.
Other Policies
Government Purchases
Direct governmental purchases of alternative energy can help foster alternative energy development. The impact of
governmental purchases can be powerful, given that public institutions are some of the largest buyers in the country.
Site Prospecting, Review, and Permitting
This refers to a number of activities that a state can undertake to help prepare and facilitate alternative energy
development. These include resource assessments, distribution and transmission studies, advanced environmental
analysis, zoning, and site permitting.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Under this type of policy, a state would require every retail power supplier to support a specific amount (i.e., 10%)
of energy produced from alternative energy source

A2 E85 T
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL CAN MAKE E100
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
A. Brazilian ethanol programs
Economists and politicians alike have looked to Brazil as the leader on alternative fuel programs. Based on the statistics, it is easy to
see why. For example, more than 50% of vehicles in Brazil, the largest country in South America, n17 are flexible fuel. n18
Furthermore, many vehicles in Brazil are capable of running on 100% ethanol, unlike the maximum of 85% ethanol capability in the
United States. n19 This success can be attributed to extensive government action since the 1970s.

COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS
A2 STATES CP
FEDERAL INTERVETION KEY—BRAZIL PROVES
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
Without direct federal intervention (like that used in Brazil), the United States struggled to increase ethanol production to the level
necessary to make it a viable alternative to petroleum. Additionally, the ethanol movement was confronted with strong opposition from
the petroleum industry. n61 Opposition to ethanol programs came from agricultural and environmental sources as well. n62
PERM: DO BOTH—STATE ACTION MIGHT WORK; BUT FEDERAL ACTION IS NEEDED TO FURFILL
JURISTICTION
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
[*700] Much of the increase in the production of ethanol is also due to various state programs. The South Dakota ethanol program, for
example, invests in ethanol plants and provides incentives for consumers and producers. n69 Iowa, currently home to twenty-five
ethanol plants, boasts that it has the "capacity to manufacture 1,030 million gallons of ethanol." n70 Each state has a different strategy
for implementing ethanol, on top of the federal mandates and subsidies. This allows the state to construct a plan that fits the needs of
the jurisdiction. n71 However, ethanol production continues to encounter severe logistical issues that inhibit industry growth. n72 For
example, the majority of gas stations are not properly equipped to offer ethanol.
YOUR OFFENSE IS NON-UNIQUE AND EMPIRICALLY DENIED

Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
The EPAct n73 is the most recent example of the federal government's efforts to promote ethanol. The EPAct established a Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) that mandates the use of renewable fuels. n74 This is the first time Congress has created such a mandate. n75
This portion of the law requires "the inclusion of specific aggregate volumes of renewable fuel in motor vehicle fuel sold or dispensed
in the contiguous United States." n76 This mandate signifies potential federal intervention in the ethanol industry.
PERM: DO BOTH—STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES ARE NEEDED

Ethanol is poised to become one of America's most important renewable energy sources in the near future. A complex web of state and
federal subsidies to ethanol producers, refiners, and corn growers supports this fuel. Without these subsidies, America's thriving
ethanol trade would not exist. This article outlines the most important laws that provide the financial largesse upon which ethanol
production depends--the analysis of the sustainability of ethanol is left to the reader. Rather, the goal of this article is to explain how
these laws and policies operate, with the aim of helping the reader understand the strong influence of government intervention
throughout all aspects of ethanol production and distribution. In short, this article will demonstrate that American ethanol production
has become the business of government.

A2 CAFÉ CP
PERM DO BOTH THIS IS KEY TO SOLVE ENERGY DEPENDENCE
The United States can and should learn from Brazil's strategy of focusing on multiple avenues to decrease dependence upon foreign
oil sources. Domestic oil production has not and will not solve the U.S. energy supply problem, but neither will ethanol alone. Instead,
the United States should focus on several potential avenues in addition to alternative energies, including but not limited to ethanol.
An important part of the U.S. strategy, in addition to finding alternative energy sources, should be to follow Brazil's emphasis on
automobiles and their fuel use. n147 As the United States learned from its first experience mandating CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel
Economy) standards, automobile manufacturers can increase the efficiency of vehicles when required to do so. n148 Although EPAct
2005 started down the right path by providing incentives to businesses and consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, n149 the
United States should further increase CAFE standards and require automobile manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

A2 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL CP
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL HURTS THE ENVIORNMENT
Sharpley—2008 (Dan Shapley is the The Daily Green's news editor and an award-winning environmental journalist, 6/23/08,
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/ethanol-obama-mccain-47062301)
* Even large-scale development of cellulosic ethanol is plagued by potential environmental problems. Turning cellulose into fuel, for
instance, would require a huge expenditure of increasingly scarce water resources and the mass production of cellulosic ethanol would
likely impact soil quality and convert land currently in conservation programs.

A2 HAVE US MAKE SUGAR ETHANOL CP

BRAZIL IS IDEAL TO PRODUCE SUGARCANE—AND ATTEMPTS TO PRODUCE IT IN THE US WILL FAIL
B. Natural Resources and Advantages
When Brazil decided to support and develop sugarcane-based ethanol as an alternative to oil, it had the natural resources to make that
happen. Brazil is blessed with ample rainfall, large quantities of unused fertile land, and cheap labor, n119 which makes it an ideal
location to produce large amounts of sugarcane. n120
The United States, on the other hand, is unable to produce large amounts of sugarcane, due largely to differences in climate, limited
amounts of available farm land, and comparatively high labor costs. n121 Instead, the United States has focused on the more
expensive corn-based ethanol. n122 In 2006, twenty percent of the nation's corn harvest was utilized in ethanol production, n123
which supplied a mere two to three percent of the nation's non-diesel automotive fuel. n124 Even if the entire U.S. grain harvest was
Simply put, the differing natural resources in the United States and Brazil make it impossible for the United States to use either sugar
or corn-based ethanol as a means of becoming fully independent given current technologies. However, in 1973 Brazil did not possess
the technology to produce ethanol as efficiently as it does today. n126 Instead, over the past [*348] three decades Brazil invested in
and researched the production of sugar-based ethanol so that today it is capable of efficiently producing ethanol. n127
that corn alone will solve the U.S. energy dependence problem. n128 Instead, the United States needs to focus on both corn-based
ethanol and other abundant natural resources. n129
NO SOLVENCY—INFRASTRUCTURE
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
V. Conclusion
The removal of the tariff on foreign ethanol has the potential to compromise the progress of the domestic ethanol industry. Tariff
opponents stress the need to increase the supply of ethanol, regardless of origin, to drive down the price of the fuel. While this may
please the consumer filling up at the gas station, it is not consistent with the government's desire to increase energy independence.
Based on an examination of ethanol's history in Brazil, it is apparent that the United States must do more than merely keep the tariff in
order to achieve success in the ethanol industry. The United States lacks the infrastructure that exists in Brazil to allow ethanol to
reach the consumer. Similarly, alternative fuel vehicles must be promoted. While the automobile industry is picking up steam in
manufacturing FFVs, there is still much ground to be covered. Without a continuous and cohesive strategy, the United States will not
reach the level of success ethanol enjoys in Brazil.

DISADS ANSWERS
INVESTMENT LINK NON-UNIQUES

INVESTMENTS ARE INCREASING IN BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AND IT WOULD PROVIDE AS A VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE TO CORN BASED ETHANOL WHILE NOT OVERUSING BRAZIL’S LAND
Benjamin—2008 (Jeff Benjamin is a staff writer for the Investment News, “High oil prices fuel Brazil's ethanol boom; Hot market
lures institutions; retail access may come through funds”, NEWS Pg. 3, 5/12/08, L-M)
Record-setting oil prices are driving investments in Brazil's bustling sugar cane ethanol industry.
Private-equity investors in particular are leading the way by funding ventures to buy ethanol plants and sugar cane plantations.
The private-equity group within The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. of New York is among the backers of Brazilian Renewable Energy
Co. Ltd., a Sao Paulo-based company that plans to have 10 ethanol mills running by 2015, as well as a pipeline to transport ethanol to
the port of Santos in that country.
In addition to deals backed by private-equity funds, London-based BP PLC this month agreed to pay $60 million for a stake in
Tropical Bioenergia SA, an Edeia, Brazil-based sugar and ethanol joint venture.
According to published reports, BP plans to invest more than $550 million in Brazil's ethanol industry, which would make the British
oil giant's shares a de facto play on sugar cane ethanol.
As the trend evolves, financial advisers could start to see various forms of retail-investor access to Brazilian ethanol through mutual
funds and publicly traded companies.
`Ì love the idea of investing in Brazil when I'm well-compensated for the risks,'' said Paul Sutherland, president of Financial and
Investment Management Group Ltd., a Traverse City, Mich.-based mutual fund company that manages $700 million.
He said he is considering a trip to Brazil to meet with locals and ``kick the bricks'' in order to get a better understanding of the
investment opportunities there.
A long road
`Èven if you're investing through a private-equity fund, you really have to do a look-through to show that the economics work,'' Mr.
Sutherland said, noting that problems with squatters, environmentalists and local politicians may make the road to profits ``very long.''
Some of the risks of investing in Brazil have been tempered, according to the New York-based Standard & Poor's ratings service,
which two weeks ago upgraded the nation's credit rating to investment-grade.
The announcement, which came two months after Brazil established itself as a net foreign creditor, could pave the way for advisers,
mutual fund managers and pension funds to follow private equity into Latin America's largest country.
``The upgrade by S&P is very significant because it lowers the cost of capital. It will attract more-conservative institutional investors,''
Mr. Sutherland said.
Brazil's ethanol industry is appealing to outside investors because it represents a viable and proven alternative to corn-based ethanol,
the increased production of which has been driving up commodities prices.
Over the past two years, foreign companies have acquired a dozen Brazilian ethanol plants.
``Since it's primarily a tropical plant, there is nothing as efficient as sugar cane to produce ethanol, which is why Brazil is probably the
only country in the world that can produce enough ethanol to export,'' said Pedro Seraphim, a partner at the Sao Paulo-based law firm
Tozzini Freire Advogados.
Last year, Brazil produced more than 5 billion gallons of ethanol, second only to the 6.5 billion gallons produced in the United States.
Combined, the two countries' output represents 90% of the world's ethanol produced for fuel.
A key distinction between corn ethanol produced in the United States and elsewhere, and Brazil's sugar cane ethanol, is the potential to
increase volume without adversely affecting other commodities or food prices.
``The volumes we're producing right now are achieved with only 1% of Brazil's agricultural land, and we don't have the problem of
the [sugar cane] crops' being a food staple,'' Mr. Seraphim said. `Ìn the United States and Europe, where sugar cane is not a natural
crop, they have to resort to other sugars to make ethanol.''
Brazil's apparent advantage in ethanol production isn't due simply to its geographic good fortune; the country began moving to ethanol
fuel during the energy crunch of the 1970s, and these days, 90% of the cars on Brazil's roads are capable of running on ethanol or on
an ethanol-gasoline blend.
In fact, all ``gasoline'' sold in the country is a 25% ethanol blend, and most fuel stations offer a pure-ethanol pump so consumers can
do their own blending based on current prices.
As of last week, the average price of a liter of blended gas in Brazil was $1.56 ($5.89 per gallon), while pure ethanol sold for 84 cents
per liter, or $3.17 per gallon.
Exporting ethanol
Brazil is already exporting almost 15% of its annual ethanol production, but investors are focused on the potential, according to Mr.
Seraphim. Only about 19 million acres of the country's 865 million acres of agricultural land are dedicated to sugar cane, he said.

COOPERATION ON ETHANOL LINK NON-UNIQUES

US-BRAZILIAN TALKS WILL INCREASE ETHANOL DEVELOPMENTS BUT NOT IN THE US
On the contrary, talks will focus on promoting more ethanol developments in other countries in the Western Hemisphere, and
standardizing ethanol fuel to make it a more fungible global commodity, Brazilian industry officials said. Eduardo Pereira de
Carvalho, the president of Brazil's largest sugarcane growers association, Unica, said he met with Lula last week to prepare for talks
with Bush.

ETHANOL BILLS LINK NON-UNIQUES

MULTIPLE BILLS NON-UNIQUE THE DISAD LINK
INCREASING THE SCOPE: PENDING ETHANOL LEGISLATION AND SUBSIDIES
There are currently a number of bills circulating in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that call for amendments
promoting the expansion of ethanol use through subsidies to ethanol producers and distributors. Importantly, none of the bills alter the
subsidy scheme that has been used in the past. As a result, all of the new bills merely add more layers of government intervention and
support.
[*29] The first is the American Fuels Act of 2007. n58 The proposed Act offers an incentive for the retail sale of E-85 (fuel blends of
85 percent ethanol and fifteen percent gasoline) starting at $ 0.35 per gallon (before 2010) and decreasing to $ 0.10 per gallon in 2012.
Furthermore, the bill has incorporated another financial incentive that pays for 50 percent of the equipment used to blend and process
ethanol. The incentive caps at $ 2,000,000, the amount that ethanol producers can garner from the government for the equipment. n59
The bill also includes tax credits for manufacturers of flexible fuel motor vehicles.
Another proposed law is the Dependence Reduction Through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy Act ("DRIVE Act"), introduced in the
House of Representatives. The bill includes an "Ethanol Action Plan" that calls for ten percent ethanol in the transportation fuel supply
by December 31, 2015. n60 This bill also proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by increasing the ethanol tax credit
from thirty percent to fifty percent of the cost of any qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property put into service by the
taxpayer. A refueling property will qualify as an alternative fuel vehicle refueling property if at least 85 percent of the volume is
ethanol (amongst other alternative fuels).
The Biofuels Security Act of 2007 calls for the increase of renewable fuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030. The bill also requires the
installation of E-85 pumps at an increasing percentage of refueling stations by "major oil companies" at owned and branded stations.
The Biofuels Security Act also provides incentives for the manufacture of dual fuel vehicles in order to promote the use of vehicles
that utilize ethanol and other alternative fuels.
Many of the proposed subsidies being contemplated for ethanol producers are taking the form of tax incentives. These subsidies
operate by making ethanol producers pay less in taxes, thus keeping more money for investment. One such amendment to the IRS is
the E-85 Investment Act of 2007, which would increase the incentives for E-85 "fuel vehicle refueling property" related to ethanol
from 30 percent to 75 percent. n61 Another bill, the Independence from Oil with Agriculture Act of 2007, proposes permanent tax
incentives for alternative energy. n62 The Renewable Fuels and Energy Independence Promotion Act of 2007 further anticipates
permanent tax incentives for ethanol and biodiesel. n63 The "To Encourage Alternatively Fueled Vehicle Manufacturing up for Energy
Independence Act of 2007," also known as "TEAM up for Energy Independence Act," plans to amend the IRS Code to impose an
excise tax on automobiles sold in the United States that are not compatible with alternative fuels. n64 Other legislation promoting the
use of ethanol is the "Congress Leads by Example through Alt-fuel Resources Act," or the CLEAR Act, which proposes to prohibit the
use of a Member's Representational Allowance to provide any individual with a vehicle, including providing an individual with a
vehicle under a long-term lease, which is not an alternative fuel vehicle. n65
As their names indicate, these legislative bills attempt to capitalize on the yet unproven exogenous benefits promised by ethanol
producers. Although this pending legislation will not necessarily be enacted into law, it is important to realize that Congress is
contemplating an array of ethanol subsidies. If even a minority of these ethanol subsidies were passed, it would add to the growing
government largess that artificially supports ethanol production.

A2 EXPLOITATION/SLAVERY DAS
MECHANICAL CANE CUTTING WILL PREVENT SLAVE-LIKE LABOR AND THE NEGATIE ASPECTS OF THE
TARIFF OUTWEIGHS THE IMPACT OF SLAVE LABOR
sugar-/)
Brazil To Challenge U.S. Tariff
The argument that ethacane pollutes the environment because the cane must be burned before being manually harvested is a
nonstarter. In the state of Sao Paulo, which produces 62 percent of Brazil's ethanol, more than half of the cane is already harvested
mechanically and manual cane-cutting will be abolished by 2014. That should also put an end to the argument that cane harvesting
relies on the equivalent of slave labor.
LULA IS WORKING TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS

This hearing is about U.S.-Brazil relations. And for that very reason, we should consider what might be done to improve those
relations for the good of both nations, including Brazilian and American workers. The AFL–CIO believes that President Lula has
taken some significant steps to improve the lives of Brazilian workers, and, especially, those of the working poor. His administration
has also made important and good-faith efforts to enhance freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, reduce child labor,
combat employment discrimination, and diminish the incidence of forced labor. In our global economy, improving living standards
and labor rights compliance for the benefit of Brazilian workers will only contribute to the welfare of working women and men in the
United States.
YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS ARGS ASSUME THE SQO-IN A WORLD OF US-BRAZIL RELIANCE, WE WILL
COLLABORATE TO SOLVE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
But not surprisingly, Brazil’s progress on labor rights is incomplete, and no single Brazilian President, even a trade unionist and a
friend, can accomplish everything by himself. Both our governments should seriously discuss how the United States might continue to
assist what have proven to be the best and most effective Brazilian public policies and civil society campaigns to improve labor rights
compliance, especially in the fields of child labor eradication and the elimination of forced labor. Continued success often depends on
continuity of commitment, and I would pay special attention to where ILO assistance to Brazil has been effective in the recent past.

A2 RICH POOR GAP DAS

SUGAR ETHANOL DOES NOT TAKE FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH—CORN SUBSIDIES DO AND
EVEN IF SUGAR DID THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE TARIFF ARE WORSE
sugar-/)

A2 OVERPRODUCTION AND DEFORESTATION (AMAZON) DAS

CURRENT TRENDS IN THE AMAZON WILL CAUSE A 55% REDUCTION BY 2030 ONLY A RISK THE AFF REDUCES
THAT
Benjamin—2007 (Alison Benjamin is a Staff Writer for the Guardian, “More Than Half of Amazon Will Be Lost by 2030, Report
Warns”, 12/6/07, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/06/5647/)
Trends in agriculture and livestock expansion, fire, drought and logging could severely damage 55% of the Amazon rainforest by
2030, the report says. And, in turn, climate change could speed up the process of destruction by reducing rainfall by as much as 10%
by 2030, damaging an extra 4% of the forests during that time.
THE TARIFF IS THE MOST LIMITING FACTOR ON US IMPORTATION OF SUGAR BASED ETHANOL;
INCREASING PRODUCTION WOULDN’T INCREASE THE PRICE OF SUGAR OR DEGRADE THE RAINFOREST
Blount and Tornaghi—2007 (Jeb Blount and Cecilia Tornaghi are Staff Writers for the Bloomberg News, “Brazil awaits easing of
ethanol tariffs to sell more in U.S.; Second-biggest Maker; Country planting more sugarcane for fuel market”, FINANCIAL POST;
Pg. FP17, 4/17/07, L-N)
The tariffs are the main factor limiting Brazil, the largest ethanol exporter, from selling more of the biofuel to the United States,
Petrobras president Jose Sergio Gabrielli said on Jan. 26. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said on Feb. 14 that there is no
reason to cut the tariffs until they expire Dec. 31, 2008.
Record high Brazilian harvests of grains and other crops show that increased ethanol production isn't hurting food output, as alleged
by Cuban President Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Mr. Bressan said. Increased planting of sugarcane used to
make ethanol in Brazil is occurring mostly on degraded ranch land and not in rainforest regions, he said.
BRAZIL WOULD GROW SUGAR IN NON-AMAZON REGIONS—ENVIORNMENTAL CONDITIONS AND EXCESS

LAND
sugar-/)
Brazil also has all the room needed to grow sugar cane and increase agricultural productivity without tearing down a single tree in the
Amazon. Five hundred years ago, the Portuguese learned the Amazon isn't the best region to grow sugar cane, which requires a long
dry season.
Out of 320 million hectares of arable land in Brazil, only 3.2 million hectares, or 1 percent, are used to grow sugar cane for ethanol.
Moreover, Brazil has 100 million hectares of underutilized pastures suitable for agriculture. That's more land than France and
Germany combined.
While every hectare, equal to about 2.5 acres, of Brazilian pasture feeds one cow, in many countries there are as many as six cows per
hectare. If Brazilian ranching becomes slightly more intensive, the country could easily boost production of food and biofuels without
destroying the forest.
THE AMAZON DOESN'T PROVIDE THE RIGHT CONDITIONS FOR SUGARCANE

Alan Clendenning, Associated Press "Brazil: Ethanol farming won't impact Amazon rain forest". Oakland Tribune. Jul 10, 2007.
FindArticles.com. 24 Jun. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070710/ai_n19354074
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- Brazil's president said Monday that his nation's booming ethanol business won't hurt the Amazon rain
forest, dismissing criticism that increased production of the alternate fuel could lead to deforestation.
Silva, referring to concerns raised during his European visit last week, said it is unjustified to think that increased production of sugar
cane for ethanol could prompt more jungle clearing.
He said that Amazon weather conditions aren't favorable for the sugar cane used to produce ethanol and suggested critics are trying to
prevent Brazil from advancing economically by taking advantage of rising demand for biofuels.
"The Portuguese discovered a long time ago that the Amazon isn't a place to plant cane," Silva said, and added, "The cartel of the
world's powerful is trying to prevent Brazil from developing, trying to prevent Brazil from being transformed into a great nation."
BRAZILIAN ISN’T HARMING THE AMAZON—US OFFICIALS CONCEDE

Ethanol and Biodiesel News, 2007 (U.S. officials say Brazil's ethanol doesn't devastate Amazon,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5711/is_200707/ai_n23749388)
U.S. officials said Brazil's ethanol production isn't harming the Amazon rainforest, Reuters reported last week.
"Economics don't drive ethanol production in the rain forest. Yield rates in very wet environments are roughly half of that in temperate
environments," Gregory Manuel, International Energy Coordinator at the U.S. State Department, was reported as saying.

A2 OVERPRODUCTION AND DEFORESTATION (AMAZON) DAS

PROTECT THE AMAZON
While some incorrectly try to argue that increased sugar cane production will push cattle ranches north and lead to the deforestation of
the Amazon, the industry’s smart growth is proving otherwise. The substantial expansion of sugar cane growing areas has been met by
an increase in the productivity of other crops and livestock, not by their move to environmentally sensitive areas. Growth has been
driven by productivity, not mobility or expansion into Brazil rainforests.
BRAZIL WILL DOUBLE THEIR ETHANOL PRODUCTION WITHOUT INCREASING LAND USE
First, thanks to emerging cellulosic biofuels technology, using the existing byproducts of sugar and ethanol production, namely the
bagasse, the Brazilian industry expects to double ethanol production without increasing land use. And cooperating with existing
research and development efforts in the U.S. and beyond, promising technologies can be combined with existing infrastructure to
make a range of fuel products, beyond automobiles and competitive with lower crude oil prices.
BRAZIL HAS LAND THAT CAN BE CLEARED FOR ETHANOL WITHOUT LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
Dennis Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues, 2006 (Farming for Ethanol Would Have Serious Consequences for
Forests, Food Production, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19333)
Moreover, if we really need ethanol to break the power of OPEC, why not import low-cost ethanol from Brazil? We currently have a
2.5 percent tariff on ethanol plus a surcharge of 54 cents per gallon. Cut out the tariff and Brazil would be planting more sugarcane for
ethanol exports by next year.
That is where the "spare" cropland in the world is, Brazil, where another 60 million hectares of acid savannah could be plowed
without much loss of biodiversity, and 100 million hectares of pasture could be shifted to crops if the U.S. ethanol subsidy were sent
down there to finance the roads they don't have yet--a much better investment of our money.
Brazil is warm and wet enough to grow rain-fed sugar cane, which currently produces ethanol three times more productively than a
cornfield can. The cane yields twice as much, needs only half as much fertilizer, and uses no coal or natural gas for processing.
INCREASING PRODUCTION WOULD NOT HURT THE AMAZON—YOUR ARGUMENT IS BIASED AND FROM OIL
COMPANIES
United Press International, “Brazil’s Leader Defends Ethanol,” June 11, 2008
Da Silva, an ardent supporter of Brazilian ethanol, made defending the world's leading producer of the biofuel one of the focal points
of his most recent national address.
"I believe the main attacks against biofuels come from oil companies," said the Brazilian president earlier this week.
"We are aware of the interests held by countries that don't produce ethanol, or produce ethanol from wheat or corn, which are not as
competitive."
Hoping to dispel some of the anti-ethanol rhetoric regarding its environmental impact and the treatment of sugarcane cutters, da Silva
noted that the cane processed into Brazil's sugar-based ethanol isn't grown anywhere near the Amazon and called "absurd" accusations
that the industry was in part responsible for deforestation.

A2 MALTHUS (INCREASED PRODUCTION INCREASES LAND USE)

BRAZIL PROVES MALTHUS’ LAND-PRODUCTION MODEL FALSE
sugar-/)
Renewability A Plus For Ethacane
Proving economist Thomas Malthus wrong, in the past 15 years, Brazil increased the amount of land used to grow grains by 21
percent, while production soared 119 percent.

A2 CORN INDUSTRY DA
RISING PRICE OF CORN DUE TO ATTEMPTS TO PRODUCE ETHANOL WILL COLLAPSE THE CORN INDUSTIRES
INEVITABLY
REMOVING THE TARIFF BOOSTS THE DOMESTIC ETHANOL INDUSTRY

Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
IV. The Impact of the Removal of the Ethanol Tariff
Currently, the U.S. ethanol industry is unable to match the price of Brazilian-produced ethanol. n95 However, every gallon of ethanol
imported into the United States is subjected to a fifty-four cent tariff. n96 Congress must now decide whether to renew the tariff,
scheduled to expire on October 1st, 2007. n97 Congress has most recently considered the future of alternative fuels in the passing of
the EPAct, specifically with the RFS. If the RFS is a sign of Congress's intent to merely increase ethanol usage, then the tariff may not
be necessary. The removal of the tariff may jumpstart the ethanol market in the United States by forcing domestic manufacturers to
produce ethanol at a competitive rate. Alternatively, if Congress intended the RFS to be part of a greater domestic ethanol scheme,
then the tariff may be necessary to bolster domestic ethanol production. [*703] If, as the legislative history suggests, the RFS
mandate's purpose is to foster energy independence, then the tariff should be renewed.
CORN SUBSIDIES ONLY BENEFIT MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND EVEN FARMERS ADVOCATE THEIR REMOVAL
Illinois-based agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the nation’s top ethanol producer, is a lightning rod for critics who
claim that such subsidies-over 10$billion from 1980 to 1997-are in fact corporate welfare that do not benefit family farmers. Even pro-
ethanol U.S. Energy secretary Samuel Bodman has said that Congress should consider ending the program when it expires in 2010.
CORN ETHANOL FARMS DESTROY LOCAL ECONOMIES

Factory farms also affect rural communities when pollution causes illness among local residents, lowers property values, and
negatively affects local economies. Through contract growing, a remote corporation, not the livestock owner, controls all aspect of
raising the animals. But it is the farmer that shoulders the risk, debt payments on barns and facilities, waste, and dead animal disposal.
BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AND ETHANOL TECHNOLOGY IS THE MOST ADVANCED IN THE WORLD-THE
COMPETITION BENEFITS OUR INDUSTRY
Open Democracy, international affairs dictionary, “Brazil, the United States, and Ethanol,” 3/3/07
Brazil has the cheapest, most energy-efficient ethanol in the world, as well as the most advanced technology for producing it. The
country has been developing ethanol since the mid-1970s, after the first oil shock in 1973. American ethanol is an important resource
for the US economy, but it depends on protectionism and subsidies. It would be great for the competitiveness of US producers to face
imported ethanol in a free-trade situation. Such competition would benefit both consumers and taxpayers.

A2 CORN INDUSTRY DA
INFLATIONARY PRICES OF CORN WILL SOON COLLAPSE PROFITS DESTROYING THE CORN INDUSTRY
Although farmers throughout the hemisphere have benefited from higher corn prices, George Naylor of the National Family Farm
Coalition warns that the short-term gains will be paid for dearly in the not-so-distant future, and that--as always--it's the family
farmers who will pay. At an August 30 international conference on agrofuels in Mexico City he predicted that higher prices will not
hold as farmers cultivate more acreage and farmers who converted to agrofuel crops could end up losing their farms. In Brazil, the
price for sugar cane has already begun a downward trend.
The question is whether agrofuel production should be opposed outright or pushed toward socially and environmentally sustainable
options. The problem is in the pushing. Given the tremendous economic and political power of the interests behind agrofuels, the
application of the model will invariably favor earnings over environment, and investment returns over human rights. In this context,
the chances that local communities and small farmers will benefit from the boon evaporate faster than alcohol.
ETHANOL ONLY BENEFITS BIG COMPANIES BUT DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR ECONOMY
2008
Idyllic television ads to the contrary, the ethanol boom will not help the U.S. transition to a green future. And it will not save family
farms or revitalize rural economies. Instead, it will allow a few corporations to consolidate control over our food and fuel systems,
turning more land into factory farms. The issue of disposal of distillers grains is only one aspect of this so-called sustainable, fuel
source. In the ethanol boom, from field to refinery and gas tank, to feedlots and our dinner tables, the big winners will be large
corporations, not small farmers, not unsuspecting consumers, and certainly not our environment.

A2 FOOD DISRUPTION DA
BRAZIL CAN PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE ENOUGH ETHANOL WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE FOOD SUPPLY
Brazil, however, has enough resources to greatly increase sugarcane production for use as ethanol. n136 Brazil is therefore able to
cheaply produce ethanol n137 without having to devote an entire crop of sugar to ethanol production or risk potential disruption of the
food supply. n138

A2 TRADE DEFICIT DA
ETHANOL CAN LESSAN THE TRADE DEFICIT
Energy L. J. 693, 2007, L-N)
In 2004, ethanol replaced 143.3 million barrels of imported oil, reducing the trade deficit in the United States by $ 5.1 billion. n63 In
other words, ethanol production replaced about "400,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004." n64 Since 1990, the size of the ethanol industry
has tripled. n65
Rober t Holm es killed the Mol iver l egacy

A2 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE DA
BOOSTING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL EMPIRICALLY BOOST FLEX-FUEL VEHICLES BOOSTING CONSUMER
CONFIDENCE
A recent development in Brazil that has also greatly encouraged ethanol use is the design and implementation of flex-fuel vehicles.
n49 Brazil's President touts that three-quarters of the new cars produced in [*338] Brazil are flex-fuel vehicles able to run on either
ethanol or gasoline. n50 These vehicles have proven popular with consumers since their ability to run on either fuel reassures them
that the situation of the late 1980s and early 1990s will not recur. Consumers no longer worry about the future price of ethanol
increasing, the availability of ethanol, or their cars becoming valueless, since their flex-fuel vehicles are able to run on either ethanol
or gasoline. n51

A2 OIL PRICES DA
REMOVING THE TARIFF WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON GAS PRICES AND IS FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS
SUBSIDIZING BRAZILIAN ETHANOL PRODUCTION
Removing the tariff on imported ethanol would do nothing to reduce prices at the pump, said Renewable Fuels Association President
Bob Dinneen. When you peel back the layers of this onion, you quickly realize removing the tariff doesn’t pass the smell test. Doing
so would be the equivalent of asking American taxpayers to subsidize already heavily supported Brazilian ethanol production at a time
when Brazil‚ supply of ethanol is tight and U.S. supplies are more than sufficient.
PLAN DECREASES OIL PRICES AND PRESSURES OPEC

Beyond that, increased ethanol production and trade in the Western hemisphere and beyond will send a strong signal to oil producing
countries and their cartel, OPEC: Stop driving prices up by regulating production, or else your customers will buy more ethanol to
satisfy their fuel needs.

A2 OIL INDUSTRIES DA
PLAN HELPS THE OIL INDUSTRY
Joint Statement of U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley and John Thune; Tariff on Imported Ethanol; Thursday, May 4, 2006:
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2005/prg050406.pdf
Today’s energy crisis underscores the need for our country to develop domestic energy supplies, and alternative energy like ethanol is
key to reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. So lifting this tariff would be counter-productive to the widely supported
goal of promoting home-grown renewable sources of energy. It would reward the oil companies because the oil companies would be
the major buyers of imported ethanol. And lifting the tariff would save these companies big money with no guarantee that they would
pass the savings on to the consumer. So lifting the tariff would be a victory for the oil companies, a kick in the face to rural America
where the ethanol comes from, and leave consumers with the same high gas prices we have today.
WIDESPREAD USE OF ETHANOL HELPS THE OIL INDUSTRY BY PROLONGING THE INDUSTRIES LIFESPAN
Oil companies look to agrofuels to prolong their life and diversify their business. Agrofuels do not necessarily require changes in
patterns of consumption or restructuring the fossil-fuel based economy. By mandating a 5 to 10% component of ethanol or biodiesel in
regular gasoline, the use of fossil fuels can be stretched out several generations.
Likewise the automotive industry can maintain or even increase sales as people are obliged to buy new cars adapted to ethanol use. All
this can be done while burying the arguments of those who urge the ultimate taboo in a capitalist system--a reduction of consumption.

Brazil Master Aff - Fellows

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

Brazil Master Aff - Fellows

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENTUCKY FELLOWS BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AFF

2008-2009 T3H SECKS (STEVEN, MOLIVER, BECKS)

BRAZILIAN ETHANOL AFF

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 1

CORN BAD—AMAZON........................................................................................................................................... ...........40

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 2

CORN BAD—OIL PRICE............................................................................................................................................ ........76

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 3

LATIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOOD—AMAZON............................................................................................... ......110

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 4

WTO ADVANTAGE........................................................................................................................................ ...................145

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 5

A2 OIL DEPENDENCE GOOD.................................................................................................................... .....................179

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 6

Plan: The United States federal government should

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 7

AND THIS MAKES A SWITCH TO ETHONAL IS INEVITABLE

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 8

WE’LL ISOLATE 4 IMPACTS: FIRST—AMAZON DEFORESTATION

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 9

AMAZON COLLAPSE LEADS TO EXTINCTION

SECOND—FOOD PRICES: CORN ETHANOL BOOST FOOD PRICES GLOBALLY

LEADS TO NUKE WAR

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 10

FOURTH—WATER: CORN ETHANOL CONTAMINATES GROUND WATER

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CAUSES EXTINCTION

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 11

WE’LL ISOLATE 2 IMPACTS: FIRST—BRAZILIAN NUCLEARIZATION: STRONG US-BRAZIL RELATIONS ARE

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 12

we are moving irreversibly into an international

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 13

the dynamics of getting to a

We can almost hear

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 14

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 15

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 16

as a result of rising food prices.

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 17

REMOVING THE TARIFF CATALYZES RELATIONS

BRAZIL RELATIONS REST ON ENGAGEMENT IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND TARIFF REMOVAL

refused to discuss Lula's desire to reduce a 54 percent tariff on

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 18

SCENARIO TWO IS DOHA

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 19

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 20

CHAVEZ SUPPORT MAKES A TERRORIST ATTACK INEVITABLE IN THE STATUS QUO

perhaps North America:

group's Lebanon base to Canada, Europe and Africa.

massive support from Iran, there can be little doubt of that.

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 21

THE END OF THE ROAD IS SOLVENCY

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 22

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 23

1AC INHERENCY AND SOLVENCY

AND THIS MAKES A SWITCH TO ETHONAL IS INEVITABLE

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 24

THE TARIFF IS IN PLACE AND WONT BE REMOVED UNTILL IT EXPIRES IN 09

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 25

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 26

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 27

SUGAR ETHANOL IS EFFECTIVE

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 28

REMOVING THE TARIFF CAUSES R&D AND SOLVES CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

K fellows is sexy, but not as sexy as we are. 29