Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Index
Index................................................................................................................................................................................1
Democratic Unity DA – 1NC Shell.................................................................................................................................3
Democratic Unity DA – 1NC Shell.................................................................................................................................4
UQ: Democratic unity high.............................................................................................................................................5
UQ: Democratic unity low..............................................................................................................................................6
UQ: Democratic unity low..............................................................................................................................................7
UQ: Drilling not coming - BRINK.................................................................................................................................8
UQ: Drilling coming.......................................................................................................................................................9
UQ: Drilling coming.....................................................................................................................................................10
UQ: Drilling coming.....................................................................................................................................................11
LINK: Subsidy cuts divide democrats..........................................................................................................................12
LINK: Subsidy cuts divide democrats..........................................................................................................................13
LINK: Subsidy cuts divide democrats..........................................................................................................................14
Internal Link: Unity blocking drilling...........................................................................................................................15
Internal Link: Unity blocking drilling...........................................................................................................................16
Mpx: Spills....................................................................................................................................................................17
Mpx: Spills....................................................................................................................................................................18
Mpx: Spills....................................................................................................................................................................19
MPX: Fisheries.............................................................................................................................................................20
Mpx: Fisheries...............................................................................................................................................................21
Mpx: Ethanol.................................................................................................................................................................22
Mpx: Polar Bear Module...............................................................................................................................................23
Mpx: Polar Bear/Ecosystem - Extensions.....................................................................................................................24
Mpx: Polar Bear/Ecosystem - Extensions.....................................................................................................................25
Mpx: Polar Bear/Ecosystem - Extensions.....................................................................................................................26
Mpx: Environment........................................................................................................................................................27
Mpx: Environment........................................................................................................................................................28
Mpx: Environment........................................................................................................................................................29
Mpx: Coral Reefs..........................................................................................................................................................30
Mpx: Coral Reefs..........................................................................................................................................................31
Mpx: Species loss..........................................................................................................................................................32
Mpx: Warming..............................................................................................................................................................33
Mpx: Warming..............................................................................................................................................................34
Mpx: Drilling hurts the GOM.......................................................................................................................................35
Mpx: GOM - Fisheries..................................................................................................................................................37
Mpx: GOM - Species....................................................................................................................................................38
Mpx: GOM - Biological diversity/US Economy..........................................................................................................39
Mpx: Laundry list..........................................................................................................................................................40
A2: Drilling lowers oil prices........................................................................................................................................42
A2: Drilling lowers oil prices........................................................................................................................................43
A2: Drilling lowers oil prices........................................................................................................................................44
Oil Prices Down............................................................................................................................................................45
AFF - A2: Spills ...........................................................................................................................................................46
AFF – A2: Spills...........................................................................................................................................................47
AFF – A2: Spills...........................................................................................................................................................48
AFF – A2: Spills...........................................................................................................................................................49
AFF – A2: Spills...........................................................................................................................................................50
AFF – A2: Spills – Oil Increase Species.......................................................................................................................51
AFF – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs.............................................................................................................................52
AFF – Drilling Doesn’t Harm Reefs.............................................................................................................................53
AFF – A2: Fisheries......................................................................................................................................................54
AFF – A2: Polar Bears..................................................................................................................................................55
AFF – A2: GOM...........................................................................................................................................................56
AFF – Drilling Good – Seepage Turn...........................................................................................................................57
AFF – Drilling Good – Cuban Drilling Turn................................................................................................................58
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 2
Scholars Lab File Title
AFF – Drilling Good – Tanker Spills Turn ..................................................................................................................59
AFF – Drilling Good – Resource Wars Turn................................................................................................................60
AFF – Drilling Good – Increases the US Economy......................................................................................................61
AFF – Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices ........................................................................................................62
AFF – Drilling Good – Decreases Energy Prices.........................................................................................................63
AFF – Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy.........................................................................................64
AFF – Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy.........................................................................................65
AFF – Drilling Good – Energy Prices Key to the Economy ........................................................................................66
AFF – Drilling Good – Prices Up.................................................................................................................................67
AFF – Drilling Good – Increases Trucking..................................................................................................................68
AFF – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy .....................................................................................................69
AFF – Drilling Good – Trucking Key to Economy......................................................................................................70
AFF – Drilling Good – Increases Tourism....................................................................................................................71
......................................................................................................................................................................................71
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 3
Scholars Lab File Title
B. Link-
Drilling spills are frequent and have chronic impacts on the marine environmnet
FAO 3 (http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12364/en)
Drilling accidents are usually associated with unexpected blowouts of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons from
the well. Only tanker oil spills compete with drilling accidents in regularity and severity. Some rare
occurrences could lead to catastrophic situations involving intense and prolonged hydrocarbon gushing.
Often they involve hydrocarbon spills and blowouts during drilling operations. Usually, these accidents do not
attract any special attention. Nonetheless, the ecological hazards and associated environmental risks can be
considerable - especially given their frequency - and could ultimately lead to chronic impacts on the marine
environment.
Kilgore 8 (Ed, Ed Kilgore is the policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/29/blue_dogs_lie/
It's not as though there's a stable and easily identifiable band of rebellious right-leaning Democrats in
Congress who are screwing up everything. According to Congressional Quarterly's (subscription-only) voting
analysis, House Democrats achieved the highest level of party unity in history last year, with 92 percent
sticking together on party-line votes (as compared with the low of 58 percent back in 1972). Senate
Democrats' party-unity rating in 2007 was 87 percent, just below their all-time high of 89 percent
(achieved in 1999 and 2001), and far above the levels common in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.
Robinson 8 (7-30, Dan, Dan Robinson is a quarter century news veteran who has had
numerous roles throughout Voice Of America since 1979,
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-30-voa1.cfm)
Obama sounded a note of bipartisanship, saying he hopes to be able to work with what he called right-
minded Republicans if he is elected president. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described Democrats as
unified in their enthusiasm about Senator Obama, and their excitement about his ideas. "We had a
wonderful discussion about energy infrastructure, health care, America's leadership role in the world.
We congratulated Senator Obama for his trip, for presenting that face of America to the world, and for
his ideas to take us into the future," she said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 6
Scholars Lab File Title
Diamond 8 (8-1, Robbie, Diamond has a Masters in Law and Diplomacy from The Fletcher School,
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/safe-applauds-bipartisan-energy-
proposal/story.aspx?guid=%7BC3266EAB-C1A9-4FBE-8A1B-
2D6231290490%7D&dist=hppr)
"This bipartisan collection of leaders has put forward a serious vision to end oil as our primary source of
transportation fuel, and to meet our energy needs in the interim," General P.X. Kelley (Ret.), 28th
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and co-chairman of SAFE's Energy Security Leadership Council
(ESLC) said. "We worked closely with members of both parties last year to draft and pass legislation
that included the first improvement in vehicle fuel economy standards in three decades. In recent weeks, we
have worked with the Gang of 10 and their staffs to take the next important steps.
"We share the same goals with this bipartisan group of senators, and though we may not agree on all of
the steps to reach those goals, this proposal includes several key policy elements that SAFE and the ESLC
are advocating," Kelley added. "It leads our nation toward the long-term transformation to an electrified
transportation system that is no longer dependent on oil. It also details the necessary steps -- including
research and development and environmentally responsible domestic supply -- to support that effort and meet
our current critical energy needs. This is a strong proposal, and SAFE is eager to continue working with
members of the Group of 10 and the entire Congress to refine it and pass it into law." The proposal includes
policies that will put the U.S. on a long-term course toward dramatically reducing its dependence on oil,
primarily by electrification of the transportation system. It includes several provisions that SAFE is
advocating, including: increasing research and development funding for alternative fuel vehicles (including
batteries); financial support to help U.S. automakers retool factories to produce these vehicles; consumer tax
credits to encourage the purchase of these vehicles; expanding transmission capacity for power from
renewable sources; and others. To fund these measures and to meet crucial energy needs in the interim, the
proposal includes provisions to lift congressional moratoria to allow environmentally responsible energy
production in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, as well as a carbon sequestration credit for use in enhanced
oil recovery in existing wells. "There are few more important national security priorities for the United
States than energy security," Kelley continued. "Time is short. There are very few legislative days
remaining in this election year. It is time for both the House and the Senate to move forward, and this
proposal provides a solid framework with which to do so."
Its too late- democrats are already switching to support new drilling
Muñoz 05 (Sara Schaefer, The Wall Street Journal’s Sara Schaefer Muñoz is the lead
writer for The Juggle, http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid=94&CID=-
1&ItemID=190709&NID=85&LanguageID=2)
The lower agricultural subsidies President Bush proposed in his budget have divided the farm lobby
and ignited a fight in Congress that has split lawmakers along geographic, rather than party, lines. The
president's budget request, which calls for lower payments to farmers, would hit cotton and rice farms
in the South and California harder than the Midwest's corn, wheat and soybean farms, which
generally receive smaller subsidy checks. Many farmers oppose the cuts, but some small farmers applaud them, saying
subsidies drive up land prices. Intent on paring the federal deficit, Mr. Bush last month sent Congress a budget plan that would cap
subsidies to individual farmers at $250,000 a year, about 30% less than the current $360,000 limit. The blueprint includes a 5% across-
the-board cut for farmers, based on current formulas, said an Agriculture Department spokesman. If enacted, the plan would trim federal
spending on agriculture by $587 million for the 2006 fiscal year and by $5.74 billion over the next decade. A number of agricultural
economists say this is the first time in nearly a decade that the White House has put some real muscle into restructuring the farm
program. The 2002 Farm Bill spared America's growers hefty cuts in payment limits. "Effectively, the 2002 farm bill didn't have much of
a White House stamp on it at all," said Allan W. Gray, an agricultural economist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. "This is a
dramatic turnaround from where they were before." With the White House behind them, Sens. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and Byron
Dorgan (D., N.D.) have rolled out legislation setting a $250,000 cap. "The president's support gives a lot of impetus to this that we
wouldn't have otherwise had," said Mr. Grassley, who sits on both the budget and agriculture committees. But the bill is unlikely to go
far if Senate Agriculture Chairman Saxby Chambliss has a say about it. The Republican from Georgia -- home to a $600 million cotton
industry -- recently said on the nationally syndicated radio program "AgriTalk" that he opposed cutting payments. "[Critics] keep talking
about the fact the largest payments go to the largest farmers," Sen. Chambliss said. "They don't ever talk about the fact that the larger
farmers also take the largest losses." A 2003 Agriculture Department study found that the largest 6% of growers received 30% of federal
payments in 2001. Growers of cotton and rice are more likely to hit current payment limits because costly equipment and complex
cultivation make those crops more expensive to produce. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington nonprofit that has been
critical of farm subsidies, calculated that of the $16.4 billion in subsidies paid in 2003, cotton operations received $2.7 billion and rice
operations received $1.5 billion. Some small farmers say lowering the payments would bring indirect benefits, such as protection against
being gobbled up by large farms. Ferd Hoefner, who represents the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a group of organizations that
includes small and midsize farms and conservation groups that work with them, said farm subsidies have spurred a rise in land prices,
making it harder for small and midsize producers to expand. According to data from the Agriculture Department, subsidies can increase
farm land values by 15% to 25%, depending on the region, Mr. Hoefner said. Iowa cattle farmer Mark Leonard recently spent several
days on Capitol Hill urging lawmakers to vote for the president's lower cap on subsidies. Mr. Leonard, who grows corn and soybeans for
his cattle on 1,100 acres east of Sioux City, says leasing additional land would cost him $30 to $40 an acre more than the land he uses
now. At that price, he says, expansion isn't worth it. Many supporters of sustainable agriculture back lower subsidy
caps. American Farmland Trust, a Washington organization that represents farmers and ranchers interested in environmentally sound
farming practices, says limiting money flowing to big farms may be a step toward a subsidy system that rewards land-conservation
efforts by farmers -- regardless of size, location or crops. By proposing lower payment limits, the administration "took on a tough issue
and opened the door to reassessing how we spend our dollars," says Jimmy Daukas , the organization's director of communications. But
the National Farmers Union, a Denver group that represents 250,000 farmers and ranchers, opposes
Mr. Bush's plan. It is an about-face from the 2002 Farm-Bill debate, in which the group pushed for subsidy caps as a way to free up
funds for other farm spending. This time, however, the National Farmers Union doesn't feel that significant amounts of farm aid should
be diverted to help balance the federal budget. Lower subsidy caps came before Congress during debate on the $118 billion Farm Bill,
when a measure that would have set the limit at $275,000 passed the Senate but was rejected in the House. Opposition to lower subsidies
is again mounting in the House. In a show of bipartisan cooperation, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.)
and the panel's ranking Democrat, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, recently wrote House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R.,
Iowa), urging him to leave programs in the 2002 Farm Bill alone.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 13
Scholars Lab File Title
Washington Times 8 (7-27, Gary Andres, Special to the Washington Times, Lexis)
The House majority leadership has pulled out all the stops to block votes on measures aimed at
increasing domestic supply. The entire appropriations process has virtually ground to a halt because of
Democratic leadership concerns that Republicans might offer amendments aimed at expanding energy
resources. The majority has canceled markups in committee and restricted the types of bills the House
considers, using its considerable procedural power to exclude amendments and other legislative ideas
from consideration. All of these efforts are aimed at blocking one thing: congress working its will.
Lawmakers could come together on legislative proposals aimed at more domestic production,
expanding refining capacity and investing in renewable resources. But these days, the House is more
likely to name a post office than pass energy legislation. It is a pattern that reinforces Americans' worst
stereotypes about the institution. House Republicans feel emboldened by their successes so far. "This is the
most unified and energized I have seen our members all year," a senior Republican leadership aide told me.
The House Democratic leadership is making a common error: failing to produce legislative
achievement by compromising with the minority. In today's polarized environment on Capitol Hill,
party politics is a zero sum game. If Republicans develop a popular new idea, Democrats bury it. The
notion of sharing political accomplishment is not in the congressional leadership's lexicon. A former
Democratic senator once told me, "Party leadership now approaches legislation like the Super Bowl; there's
only winners and losers." Lawmakers found a model for legislative success earlier this year with the bipartisan economic stimulus
legislation. The economy needed a boost; Congress came together to do what it could. If Democrats reached out and repeated this pattern
several more times - on issues such as energy, for example, voters would take notice. That would boost congressional popularity and
probably solidify the Democratic majority. Democrats are starting to talk more about domestic production, but it sounds more like a
buffer against blame than a bipartisan solution. This week, the House may consider Democratic legislation to expedite production in the
National Petroleum Reserve - an area of Alaska where drilling is already approved - as well as a plan to force oil companies to "lose"
leases they don't use and possibly some other minor measures. Yet all these ideas have two things in common: Republicans did not
dream them up, and they would do little if anything to address our nation's energy problems. Congressional rules and
procedures provide many ways for the minority to frustrate the majority's ability to pass these
superficial measures that would not address our nation's energy needs. So the default is a stalemate
until Democrats decide they are willing to confront the energy problems and their environmental-
interest-group supporters. The House majority appears either unwilling or unable to do this - leading to
continuing declines in approval. It also means nervous rank-and-file Democrats have a tough time explaining
how their leadership's obsession with scuttling Republican legislative ideas eases the pain at the pump. Taken
together, these actions send a clear message to voters: Congress is dysfunctional and more interested in
accommodating narrow, private interests or partisan aspirations than coming together to address the
big problems of the day. Circumstances rarely provide lawmakers with a chance to address the desires of a
focused public. Energy policy does just that - giving the majority a chance to rise above expected
patterns of partisanship. Good-faith compromise could help refill the tanks of public confidence. So far,
the House Democratic leadership is running on empty.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 17
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Spills
Despite safety improvements spills still occur
Even risk of a small spill has catastrophic environmental and economic impacts
Independent Florida Alligator editorial, 7-1-8
(Risky Business: Offshore drilling threatens Fla. ecosystem, economy,
http://www.alligator.org/articles/2008/07/01/opinion/editorials/080701_eddy.txt, accessed 7-17-8)
It is nearly impossible to find a silver lining in $4–a–gallon gasoline. But if one is to be found, it is in the fact that skyrocketing prices at the
pump” and the resulting anger and discontent felt by Americans from sea to shining sea ” are forcing our politicians to finally have a much
needed debate on what should be done to solve the nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Regrettably, the contours of this debate have been shaped
by unabashed duplicity and a complete disregard for reality. Instead of being honest with the American people about the need to develop
alternative energy and to curb consumption of fossil fuels, the Bush administration, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Charlie Crist and a legion of right–
wing radio talkers have propagated the myth ” made out of equal parts deception and delusion ” that we can simply drill our way out of
dependence on foreign despots for our energy needs.
In recent weeks, both McCain and Crist have flip–flopped on the issue of repealing Congress’ moratorium on offshore drilling, contending that
advanced technology has made drilling environmentally safe and that the exponentially increasing price of energy has made it economically
essential. In actuality, however, the calls to expose Florida’s coasts to the vagaries of Big Oil, while perhaps politically expedient, are
environmentally and economically suicidal.
Floridians should roundly reject the hollow rationale for drilling off the Sunshine State’s coastline, if not for the prospect of serious
environmental harm, then for the tremendous threat that such action poses to our tourist economy, which brings in some $50 billion to our state
annually. One needs to look no further than historical precedent to determine how detrimental and catastrophic an oil spill could be to Florida’s
tourism industry: In 1979, an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused tar balls to wash up on Texas beaches. The result was a 60 percent decline in
the state’s tourism.
Even a relatively minor spill could cause enormous and irreparable damage to Florida’s overall economic health.
But Florida need not face an environmental disaster on par with the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 to feel the deleterious effects of offshore drilling.
Toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, benzene, barium, chromium and arsenic, just to name a few, are routinely emitted from “technologically
advanced” oil platforms. And while large oil spills may be unlikely, smaller ones are quite frequent and almost as damaging ” the U.S. Coast
Guard estimates that more than 200,000 small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico from 1973 to 2001.
Even if new drilling rigs can drastically reduce the chance of spillage and allay environmental concerns ” the evidence suggests this is dubious ”
the economic benefit of drilling would not be felt for at least seven years, with some estimates placing the economic impact of exploration around
2030. And what’s more, Big Oil has not drilled three–quarters of the territory that Congress has made available for exploration. Why should we
endanger our beautiful, economically lucrative beaches if the oil industry refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling?
Offshore drilling proponents claim that the price of oil has nothing to do with price gouging, speculation or unrest in the Middle East. It is simply
a supply–and–demand problem that is easily curable if we would just invest in domestic exploration. Once again, those little things called the
facts get in the way of a pro–drilling talking point. According to the House Natural Resources Committee, domestic drilling permits have
increased 361 percent since 1999, yet the price of gas continues to climb to record–breaking plateaus.
Florida’s beaches are a national treasure, and their preservation should be a top priority for all Floridians. Our elected state and federal officials
should fight to prevent unnecessary and risky exploration in the name of political gamesmanship.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 18
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Spills
Oil spills cause harm to animals in a multitude of ways.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 4
(“Effects of Oil Spills on Wildlife and Habitat: Alaska Region,” December 2004, P. 1,
alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
Oil causes harm to wildlife through physical contact, ingestion, inhalation and absorption. Floating oil can
contaminate plankton, which includes algae, fish eggs, and the larvae of various invertebrates. Fish that feed on
these organisms can subsequently become contaminated. Larger animals in the food chain, including bigger fish,
birds, terrestrial mammals, and even humans may then consume contaminated organisms. Initially, oil has the
greatest impacts on species that utilize the water surface, such as waterfowl and sea otters, and species that inhabit
the nearshore environment. Although oil causes immediate effects throughout the entire spill site, it is the external
effects of oil on larger wildlife species that are often immediately apparent.
Oil can be directly toxic to marine invertebrates or impact them through physical smothering, altering metabolic and
feeding rates, and altering shell formation. These toxic effects can be both acute (lethal) and chronic (sub-lethal).
Intertidal benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrates may be especially vulnerable when oil becomes highly
concentrated along the shoreline. Additionally, sediments can become reservoirs for the spilled petroleum. Some
benthic invertebrates can survive exposure, but may accumulate high levels of contaminants in their bodies that can
be passed on to predators.
Fish can be impacted directly through uptake by the gills, ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on eggs and larval
survival, or changes in the ecosystem that support the fish. Adult fish may experience reduced growth, enlarged
livers, changes in heart and respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproductive impairment when exposed to oil. Oil has
the potential to impact spawning success, as eggs and larvae of many fish species, including salmon, are highly
sensitive to oil toxins.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 19
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Spills
Years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, environmental damage still lingers.
Wilkinson, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, 2002
(Todd , Christian Science Monitor, "After 13 Years, Valdez's Oil Damage Lingers," October 29, 2002,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1029/p03s01-usgn.html, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
"People who spent a lot of time in Prince William before the spill will tell you it has become the 'Sound of silence,'"
Mr. Steiner says. "There used to be a profusion of seabirds filling the sky with their calls but their absence is, I
believe, symptomatic of something more far- reaching. The oil spill left the system in a condition of chaos." On
March 24, 1989, some 11 million gallons of North Slope crude escaped through a cracked hull into the Gulf of
Alaska, spreading a toxic sheen westward across thousands of square miles of open ocean and soaking 1,500 miles
of largely pristine coastline. Exposure to oil resulted in the deaths of 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 250 bald
eagles, nearly two dozen killer whales, and billions of salmon crucial to the thriving commercial fishing industry.
After the spill, Exxon enlisted a small army of independent scientists to assess the damage. "Exxon was horrified by
this spill, and we are extremely sorry for it," Mr. Cirigliano says. "We stayed on the scene carrying out cleanup until
the Coast Guard and the state of Alaska told us it was time to stop." The Alaska Coalition's request for additional
damages comes in the wake of an ecosystem assessment released in August by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council. The council was created to oversee disbursement of roughly $1 billion paid by Exxon in the settlement
aimed at restoring the sound to its former vitality. That fee is on top of the $2.5 billion charged to the company for
cleanup in the two years after the spill.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 20
Scholars Lab File Title
MPX: Fisheries
Offshore drilling will put fisheries at risk
Mpx: Fisheries
Drilling leads to more tankers and therefore spills destroying fisheries and the environment
FAO 3 (http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12364/en)
Tankers carry about 1 000 million tonnes of oil per year, about 50% of which is extracted on the
continental shelf. On some offshore oil fields shuttle tankers are the main way of delivering
hydrocarbons to the onshore terminals. The principal causes of tanker accidents that lead to large
spills include running aground and into shore reefs, collisions with other vessels, and cargo fires and
explosions. More recently, a number of accidents occurred when vessel structures collapsed during
severe weather conditions. Tanker accidents often result in vast oil spills or massive release of harmful
chemicals transported in bulk. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the amounts of
oil spilled during tanker accidents in 1989 and in 1990 were 114 000 and 45 000 tonnes, respectively. Some
of the most substantial oil spills have been: the Torrey Canyon in 1967 with 95 000 tonnes of oil spilled on
the French and British shores; the Amoco Cadiz in 1978 with 220 000 tonnes of oil spilled, the Exxon Valdez
in 1989 with 40 000 tonnes and the Braer in 1993 with 85 000 tonnes of oil spilled. The spill caused in 2002
by the Prestige transporting 77 000 tonnes of oil resulted in significant impacts on the fisheries and
aquaculture sectors in Galicia, Spain. The most dangerous are accidents involving underwater storage
tanks that contain dangerous substances such as methane. Such incidents are possible and the resulting
spills could have disastrous effects on coastal ecosystems, fisheries, aquaculture installations and, in
some instances, on human life. Major impacts of oil spills on fisheries and aquaculture are the smearing
of nets and fish cages and the tainting of fish and shellfish, rendering them unfit for marketing. Longer-
term impacts on the ecosystem depend on the nature of the pollutant and the ecological characteristics of the
area.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 22
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Ethanol
The energy bill’s passage would give 2.5 billion towards ethanol production
B.
Polar Bear survival is vital to ensure an intact ecosystem
Sexton 7 (3-19, Cheryl, marine biologist for the Centre for Marine Biodiversity,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cheryl+sexton+marine&btnG=Search)
Most people are unaware of the large part marine ecosystems play in our lives. Food, for humans and Arctic
animals, is one of the obvious but significant contributions. Plankton and krill live in Arctic waters and
are a primary food source for fish, clams, seabirds, whales, walruses, seals, and other marine
organisms. They play a part in nourishing animals that we eat such as seals, polar cod, and whales.
Another apparent contribution is that of raw materials. Marine ecosystems provide us with medicine,
polysaccharides, building materials, and feed for livestock. Many types of medicine come from plants
found in the ocean. Several drugs that fight cancer originate from marine plants. A couple examples of these
are Cytosar-U®, which comes from a type of sea sponge in the Caribbean, andthe ecteinascidin in
Yondelis™, which comes from tunicates, or sea squirts, that live in mangrove swamps and coral reefs in the
West Indies. A new pain medicine named Prialt™, has been discovered as well. It comes from the poison of
cone snails and is one thousand times stronger than morphine when used to treat some kinds of chronic pain.
Alginates are polysaccharides that are derived from different types of seaweeds. They are in the substance
used to dress wounds and can possibly help cure tuberculosis, arthritis, colds, the flu, worm infestations, and
tumors. Biodiversity is important in aquatic ecosystems because it makes it possible for us to continue
discovering medicines like these. Building materials are obtained from the rocks and sand of coral.
Shrimp shells, crab shells, and seaweed are used to feed livestock. Seaweed is also used as compost on
farms. A less obvious way our lives are affected by marine biodiversity in Arctic ecosystems is that it
permits adaptation. Our environment is frequently changing, mainly in ways that we ourselves have
induced. Destruction of habitats, water pollution, global warming, and overpopulation are all causes of
changing ecosystems. Natural selection is a process that is required for adaptation to take place. It
occurs with evolution and distinguishes between favourable and unfavourable traits. It causes the
favourable traits to be inherited more often. Without genetic biodiversity, we, and other organisms,
cannot adapt which is necessary for our survival in this world we have created. Another way we are
unknowingly dependant on this type of biodiversity is that it helps regulate climate. Certain organisms in
the ocean take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen creating a fragile balance with the other organisms in
the water. If something was to happen causing a great number of these oxygen-producing organisms to die,
there would be a boost in the carbon dioxide levels in the water. This would result in an increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere which would further the Greenhouse Effect. Therefore, biodiversity in oceanic
ecosystems is vital in controlling the worlds climate. Finally, marine biodiversity is necessary for
human knowledge. Most of the earth’s oceans have yet to be investigated and mapped. They cover
approximately 71% of the surface of our planet. The oceans are a huge part of our world to be so unfamiliar
with, especially because they have a much greater biodiversity than terrestrial ecosystems. Little of the
existing knowledge of biodiversity in oceans is from the Arctic Ocean. It is thought that the Arctic
Ocean has evolved differently; separate from the other three oceans. Predictions have been made that
completely different types of species exist there. Gakkel Ridge is a unique, somewhat isolated part of the
Arctic Ocean. Members of species that are extinct everywhere else could be living there because it is so
different and has not, in the past, shown strong correlation with the occurrences of the other oceans. We need
to preserve biodiversity in the Arctic Ocean so we can explore Gakkel Ridge and other unstudied
regions like it. This is essential for the knowledge of the human race.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 26
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Environment
Even with technological advances OCS drilling will destroy ocean biodiversity
Best scientific studies prove OCS drilling will harm the environment
Mpx: Environment
Drilling in the OCS will lead to pipelines that cause massive water pollution that crushes biodiversity
More Oil rigs will destroy the environment regardless of whether they spill oil
Weiss June 30, 2008 (Daniel, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress
Action Fund, Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11397.html
Offshore oil drilling is dirty business. Despite contrary claims by McCain, the Coast Guard estimated
that oil rigs hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita spilled more than 7 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.
Rigs routinely discharge thousands of pounds of mercury, lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals into
the water.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 29
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Environment
Offshore Drilling harms the environment
Cohn 2 (Fall, Jeffrey P., a Washington-based science writer who specializes in zoo and conservation issues,
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/defenders_magazine/fall_2002/biodiversity_offshore_oil_peril.php)
Environmental advocate Richard Charter is worried. Charter fears that conservationists, the news media
and the public have been so heavily focused on the recent debate over whether to allow oil and gas
drilling on the coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska that
they may have overlooked similar and equally serious threats to wildlife. One such threat comes from
the Bush administration’s plans to expand domestic energy production by selling oil and gas lease sites
in federally controlled waters. And despite the 54 to 46 Senate vote in April to prohibit drilling within
ANWR, these plans could still affect the refuge and other, still largely pristine coastal areas in Alaska and
elsewhere in the United States. “There are significant undiscovered resources" in the Arctic, Vice President
Richard Cheney’s energy task force stated in its report to the president last year. “This is another area where
periodic, well-scheduled lease sales can help contribute to national energy production." The vice president’s
report also noted that new technology, including directional drilling and injection of wastes into the ground,
“is making it possible to explore and develop oil and gas with significantly less impact on the
environment." Not so, warns Charter, who specializes in offshore oil and gas issues for the conservation
group Environmental Defense. “We are sacrificing the natural environment to produce oil and gas," he
says. “[The administration’s plan] is an industry wish list. If we allow oil companies to drill off the northern
Alaska coast, they will eventually create political pressure to drill on land in ANWR too. Oil development is
totally incompatible with wilderness values." To date, most offshore oil and gas drilling has been along the
southern California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. In Alaska, there are two production wells, both in state
waters, 30 exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope and 16 production
wells in state-owned waters in Cook Inlet on the southern coast near Anchorage. Under the Submerged Lands
Act of 1980, states control offshore waters for three miles from the shoreline and the federal government
controls the waters from there to the 200-mile limit of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. But significantly
more drilling may be in the works soon. Interior Secretary Gale Norton approved a new five-year plan in July
that would allow the Minerals Management Service (MMS) — the Interior Department agency responsible
for regulating offshore oil, gas and minerals activities — to sell additional oil and gas leases on the outer
continental shelf, which is the federally controlled part of the relatively shallow waters from the coastline to
the continent’s edge. The proposed sales involve up to 20 leases in eight offshore MMS planning areas of
Alaska and the western Gulf of Mexico. The new leases could produce an estimated 10 to 21 billion barrels
of oil and 40 to 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. “The five-year program will provide access to significant
resources," says Renee Orr, chief of MMS’s leasing division. Although the MMS plan includes new lease
sales in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore drilling remains a hot legal issue in California, Alaska remains the
area of greatest concern for most conservationists. “It’s Alaska, Alaska and Alaska," says Warner Chabot, The
Ocean Conservancy’s vice president for regional operations. The MMS plan calls for eight lease sales in
Alaskan waters alone — three in the Beaufort Sea, one in the Chukchi Sea along Alaska’s North Slope, one
each in Norton Sound and Hope Basin off Alaska’s western coast, and two in Cook Inlet on the southern
coast near Anchorage. MMS requires oil companies to train their employees to protect the environment and
to avoid conflicts with and monitor the status of wildlife, says Orr. “All OCS operations must be conducted
within the rigorous requirements of the law and implementing regulations," she states. “The resulting safety
and environmental record of the OCS program, which has been operating in the Gulf of Mexico for more
than 50 years, is outstanding." Orr also says that some areas around Barrow, Alaska, and elsewhere off the
North Slope were withdrawn from the five-year plan from earlier drafts. Environmentalists are not so sure.
They fear that if a large blowout similar to one in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara
occurred off Alaska’s North Slope, it could trap oil for months under sea ice, where it would be
difficult for cleanup crews to reach. The oil could also collect around the edges of ice sheets and
breathing holes used by seals, bowhead whales and other marine mammals. Further, offshore
operations require onshore facilities to process the oil and gas and to house workers. They also require
networks of roads, pipelines, waste disposal sites and runways, all of which disrupt the environment
and wildlife.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 30
Scholars Lab File Title
Scientists are just beginning to explore deep-water coral reefs, possibly millions of years old, that
stretch from North Carolina to Florida. They form pristine oases, alive with fish, crabs and weird
creatures that one researcher says "look like Dr. Seuss went crazy down there." The discoveries have caught
the attention of the Bush administration, which is reported to be interested in protecting 25,000 square miles
of reefs off the Southeast as a national monument. President Bush also called last month for more offshore
oil and gas exploration. A federal moratorium now prohibits drilling along most of the U.S. coastline until
2012, and political opposition in North Carolina remains strong. But momentum to lift the ban is growing
with the price of gasoline. Scientists say drilling, and to a greater extent deep-sea trawling, threaten deep-
water corals worldwide.
Deep water reefs are extremely fragile – they won’t recover if harmed by drilling
In less than a decade, researchers have documented individual corals 2,500 years old, making them the oldest
animals on Earth. They've found dozens of new species, from eels to sea stars. Cancer-fighting and anti-
inflammatory drugs extracted from deep-sea sponges and other reef animals are under development,
and researchers expect to find more medicinal uses. Scientists preoccupied with mapping the bottom and
recording species are still trying to learn what larger role the coral reefs play in the oceans. Among the reefs'
most promising uses: as a living history of the seas. Some long-lived coral species form growth rings the
way trees do. Their skeletons can reveal centuries of past water temperatures, pollutants and currents. Deep-
ocean currents have a profound effect on the world's climate. Understanding past patterns, researchers say,
could provide insights into the future of a warming world. Experts also know that deep reefs are fragile. The
skeletons of dead corals, which can form mounds up to 1,000 feet tall, are hard but brittle. They grow
slowly and don't recover easily, if at all, from disturbance.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 31
Scholars Lab File Title
Does the federal government have the right to say it is okay to take marine life in order to set up an offshore drilling
rig and drill for oil and gas? The federal government seems to feel that our well being is more important than
marine life, so they allows companies to drill for oil beneath the ocean floor. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) performed a test, which produced results showing how drilling fluids had an effect on coral. It
is ironic that a governmental agency, such as the EPA has done tests showing how disastrous offshore oil rigs
can be, yet the federal government still allows the drilling to take place.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 32
Scholars Lab File Title
Mpx: Warming
OCS drilling will lead to the release of methane hydrates which destroy biodiversity and spur quick warming
Global Warming pollution: Methane hydrates are ice-like structures formed from frozen water and methane.
These structures are found in Arctic permafrost and beneath the seafloor of the Outer Continental Shelf where water
depths are greater than 500 feet. The Congressional Research Service reports that "safety problems related to gas
hydrates may be anticipated. Oil and gas operators have recorded numerous drilling and production problems
attributed to the presence of gas hydrates, including uncontrolled gas releases during drilling, collapse of well
casings, and gas leakage to the surface." The report continues that methane hydrates easily become unstable,
potentially triggering seafloor subsidence and catastrophic landslides. In addition, a single unit of methane
hydrate can release 160 times its own volume in gas. As methane is a greenhouse gas more than twenty times
more potent than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming, this volume of gas release would be
extremely dangerous.
Mpx: Warming
Releasing methane hydrates will spark quick and devastating climate change
Defenders of energy 8
(http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/policy_and_legislation/energy/)
Offshore drilling can have very damaging effects on wildlife. Congressional efforts to undermine the
offshore drilling moratorium and protection for our coasts have led to an ongoing battle. In a back-door move
during the final days of the 109th Congress, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act was ultimately
included in broad tax extender legislation passed by both the House and Senate. While less sweeping in
scope than an earlier House-passed bill, the final language is nonetheless damaging and was opposed by
Defenders and other environmental groups. It undermines the offshore drilling moratorium by
authorizing drilling in 8.3 million acres of currently protected waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
gives away billions of dollars in federal royalties to four Gulf States, offers no protections for any other
coastal state – including Florida’s Atlantic coast, and costs tens of billions of dollars in lost revenues to the
federal treasury over the next several decades.
Ault 8 (1-23, Jerald, Professor for Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Miami FL,
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/gom.pdf)
In assessing the potential to reach the goal of sustaining key regional fisheries in the context of the ‘Islands in
the Stream’ initiative, it is incumbent upon us to evaluate whether there are appropriate data and a conceptual
framework adequate for the mission that we have in mind? The Gulf of Mexico fishery ecosystem spans a
wide range of habitats and biogeographical environments, from tropical to subtropical marine in the
south, to temperate-estuarine in the north. These environments are connected by the very energetic physical
oceanographic current systems that regulate the biological and fisheries productivity of the ecosystem. The
fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico are greatly influenced by exploitation, habitat degradation, hurricanes
and pollution. To sustain these economically- and ecologically-important resources, it is critical that we
develop a system science perspective when tackling such an enormous and complex problem. This would entail linking the
dynamics of the ocean environment with range of uses and drivers of systems productivity. The goal would be to develop an integrated
information management system that successfully links assimilation of key data on population dynamics, habitats and bioeconomics to a
range of model-building activities that link fisheries biology, ocean physics, habitats and humans, which would provide the basis for
fishery resource risk assessments to policy alternatives. This will be a challenge, because for many important resources data have not
been collected until very recently, limiting our understanding of what were the historical limits of ecosystem productivity. A very
important forward-looking component of monitoring, data assimilation and modeling are maps of the resources to ocean environments.
In the Florida Keys we have relatively good maps that define habitats, circulation dynamics, bathymetry and rugosity, for example, but a
major limitation is that not all areas are mapped. For example, the West Florida shelf is not well mapped. This will have to be a priority
mission as the GOM IITS initiative moves forward. The economics and ecology of the Gulf of Mexico have been
historically dominated by large commercial fishery enterprises. This is not surprising since there is
prodigious shrimp and “baitfish” production associated with the Mississippi River plume dynamics and the
substantial reef fisheries on coastal shelf areas around the Gulf. For example, Gulf menhaden currently
produces the second largest annual tonnage of fish catches in the entire United States, while Gulf
shrimp are number one nationally in economic value. While the Gulf is famous for its extensive red
snapper and reef fish fisheries, it is also an important natal ground for sailfish, marlins and tunas. But
that seascape is rapidly changing due to explosive growth of recreational fishing throughout the Gulf of
Mexico and its enormous economic impacts. Currently, recreational tarpon fishing alone is a $5-7
billion annual industry in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the world-famous Florida marine recreational
fishing industry is now 10 times more valuable than commercial fishing, and now more valuable than the
historically dominant Florida citrus industry! So, management for sustainability of the Gulf’s precious fishery resources will take new
perspectives. For example, the concept of “connectivity” needs to be considered from a much broader perspective, not only in terms of
larval transport – but also that of adults that can actively move relatively great distances around the region. Recent satellite-based PAT
(passive archival transmitting) tagging studies have shown that tarpon move widely throughout the Gulf of Mexico and southeast US
region. Fish appear to spawn off of Mexico, feeding off of Louisiana, and tarpon also spawn off of the West Florida shelf. Seasonally
fish move north to US waters from Veracruz, Mexico, and the Gulf of Campeche to off Galveston, Texas, then on to Louisiana and
Mississippi from the west; and up along the Florida Keys and west Florida shelf to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana from the east. So
the real question is “are our tarpon their tarpon?”, and what specific management regimes will sustain this multibillion-dollar industry? A
sad related story about the unquantified killing fields is reflected in the observation that, in May 2007, a Veracruz, Mexico, fishing
tournament killed 73 large tarpon in about 3 fishing days, amounting to 10,243 pounds (or > 5 tons) of large, mature tarpon! These are
fish that to live to very old ages (>80 years) and are highly vulnerable to precipitous stock declines with fishing. The result is a very
substantial impact on the spawning stock of such a old and highly vulnerable fishery resource of substantial economic value to the
region The Gulf of Mexico initiative to sustain the economically- and ecologically-valuable fisheries must
recognize all solutions run through Mexico! Proceedings: Gulf of Mexico Science Forum In summary, the
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is a highly dynamic coupled biophysical environment. Shelf waters <30
fathoms account for >70% of the fishery landings, and these are highly susceptible to human and
natural impacts. The regional ecosystem is under significant anthropogenic & environmental stresses.
Management strategies for sustainability of this valuable ecosystem requires development of a systems
approach that also protects habitats that support a broad range of fisheries productivity. Ensuring
sustainable fisheries and economics will require strategic inter-state and international cooperation and
partnerships in both science and management.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 38
Scholars Lab File Title
Koenig 8 (1-23, Christopher and Felicia Coleman, Florida State University Coastal and Marine
Laboratory http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/gom.pdf)
The most interesting behavior we discovered is red grouper excavating behavior. It is interesting
because it casts them in the role of keystone species (a species whose ecological position is heavily
supportive of other species within that ecosystem). That is, they create reef habitat that is used by many
other species. Our experiments (mostly on juveniles in Florida Bay) and observations on the shelf edge
show that red grouper expose habitat (or substrate) for many other reef species, including other fishes,
motile invertebrates, and sessile invertebrates such as corals and sponges (Coleman et al. in preparation).
We found that red grouper begin to dig soon after metamorphosis (Colin et al. 1996) and continue that
behavior throughout their lives. Historically, before they were overfished, red grouper were likely responsible
for exposing extensive ledge and other rocky habitat after major storms occluded them through siltation. To
evaluate the importance of their role as habitat engineers on shelf habitat it would require additional
experimental reserves in shallower areas where storms have a significant effect on sediment movements to
evaluate their impact on the exposure of reef habitat and the use of that habitat by other species. It is ironic
that we spend considerable funds constructing artificial reefs, yet we decimate the very species that
exposes and maintains reef habitat.
Ault 8 (1-23, Jerald, Professor for Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Miami FL,
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/gom.pdf)
Most reefs and hard-bottom areas in the Gulf of Mexico formed on relic shorelines and barrier islands that
were above sea level at some point during the past 125,000 years. Some deep reefs found in the gulf were
likely formed by other physical processes such as strong currents and by gas seeping through the sediment.
These areas contain a diversity of marine life. Depending on the reef, the bottom is covered by encrusting
algae, sponges, soft corals and hard corals in a few shallow locations such as the Flower Garden Banks.
Recent surveys have identified many unique habitats in the gulf. For example, a survey at McGrail Bank
resulted in the description of a unique Stephanocoenia intersepta (blushing star coral) coral reef. Pulley Ridge
(eastern Gulf of Mexico) is found to the northwest of the Dry Tortugas and contains the deepest known coral
reef on the continental shelf of North America. Some of these sites have already been designated as
national marine sanctuaries or identified as areas of critical habitat. Most are currently afforded some
degree of habitat protection by different management entities from one or more identified threats. A few areas
are currently closed to fishing to protect spawning aggregations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 39
Scholars Lab File Title
Hine 8 (1-23, Albert, Associate Dean of Research Geological Oceanography Professor A.B.
Dartmouth College, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/gom.pdf)
We know more about the ecology and biological diversity of the Gulf of Mexico than any other
comparable body of water on the planet. The scientific forum participants concluded that there was
sufficient science to support the implementation of a marine protected network in the Gulf of Mexico. There
are a number of ecologically vital and enormously productive sites in the Gulf that are interconnected
by currents and are dependent upon one another for there well-being. Some of these sites have already
been designated as marine sanctuaries or identified as areas of critical habitat. Most are currently
afforded some degree of protection by different management entities. However, we currently lack a
comprehensive management approach that recognizes the interdependence of these sites across the entire
Gulf of Mexico and its broader connections with the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. By implementing an
ecosystem-based management approach to the larger area of the Gulf of Mexico, a marine protected area
network will be greater than the sum of its parts for two main reasons. First, the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
is under significant human-caused and environmental stress. We must protect habitats that support the
breadth of marine life found in the Gulf and also serve as refuges that can replenish other areas after
significant natural or human disturbances. These places are our insurance policy to maintain the
important commercial and recreational activities that depend on a healthy Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.
Second, the network will enhance administrative coordination and focus additional resources to support
science and management activities across the entire Gulf of Mexico. It will also facilitate increased
international collaboration with our regional partners whose activities directly impacts the health of the Gulf
of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is a special place. It is unlike any other place on the planet and is one of
the driving forces in the United States economy. It is also one of the most highly shared ocean places in
the world when one considers all of the economic, recreational and scientific activities conducted within its
waters. The Gulf’s oil and natural gas fields support our U.S. economy. The Gulf also supports
important commercial and recreational fisheries. The decline of snapper, grouper, and shark
populations has had a major economic and ecological impact. The states around the Gulf of Mexico,
particularly Florida, are economically dependent upon tourism, clean beaches and unpolluted waters.
Now is the time to start doing things differently in marine resource protection and the Gulf of Mexico is the
place where we need to start. There is an opportunity to lead the nation in terms of how we think about ocean
space and how we sustain ocean ecosystems and our nation’s economic vitality.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 40
Scholars Lab File Title
CNN.com 7-14-8
(CNN.com, “Bush lifts executive ban on offshore oil drilling”,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html, accessed 7-14-8)
Experts say offshore oil drilling would not have an immediate impact on oil prices because oil exploration takes
years.
"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource
for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with
Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.
Offshore drilling will not lower oil prices, especially not in the short term
Murdock 8 (7-24, Deroy, American conservative syndicated columnist for the Scripps
Howard News Service,
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/372085_murdockonline25.html)
Painfully high vehicle- and jet-fuel prices are propelling popular demands for extracting the estimated 18
billion barrels of petroleum that rest beneath America's coastal waters. After rescinding previous executive-
branch objections, President Bush said July 14, "the only thing standing between the American people and
these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress." Capitol Hill Democrats claim offshore drilling
poses unacceptable ecological risks. This is yet another overblown worry. Democrats and other
environmental naysayers cite the 80,000 barrels that spilled six miles off of Santa Barbara, Calif.,
inundating beaches and aquatic life. This hydrocarbon Hindenburg haunts the memories of those who
witnessed it. But this genuine catastrophe occurred in January 1969 -- nearly 40 years ago. That era's
drilling technology has gone the way of Flower Power and black-and-white TV. Innovation has boosted
the safety and environmental reliability of offshore drilling. The Santa Barbara spill accelerated oil
companies' efforts to prevent such disasters. Beyond compliance with 17 major permits and 90 different
federal regulations, offshore operators frequently conduct accident training and safety exercises.
Sensors and other instruments now help platform personnel monitor and handle temperatures and
pressures of subsea oil, even as drill bits whirl. Hurricanes are manageable, since oil lines are capped
not at the surface, but at or beneath the ocean floor. Even if oil platforms snapped loose and blew away,
industrial seals restrain potentially destructive petroleum hundreds or even thousands of feet below the
waves. Thus, 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September
2005 without environmentally damaging petroleum spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were
destroyed or seriously damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed, thanks to heavy underwater
machinery. As the U.S. Minerals Management Service concluded, "due to the prompt evacuation and shut-in
preparations made by operating and service personnel, there was no loss of life and no major oil spills
attributed to either storm." "The technology of the drilling industry may have improved, but offshore drilling
is a dirty business, and it still leads to oil spills due to failed equipment, aberrant weather, or human error on
a frequent basis," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in July 19's Houston Chronicle. Feinstein is correct.
U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It's only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 -- as
MMS figures indicate -- 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil
extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100 percent
spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious. Ironically, in terms of oil
contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze
organically from North America's ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that
oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS. Thanks to Earth's curvature, these
operations can stay out of sight. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., proposes new drilling, but at least 50 miles
offshore, well past the 12-miles beyond which the horizon hides oil equipment from the eyes of surfers and
beachcombers. Critics also dismiss offshore development since its benefits supposedly would take ages. "You
wouldn't see any full production out of any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030," presumptive Democratic
nominee Barack Obama claimed June 20 in Jacksonville, Fla. The Illinois senator added: "It will take a
generation to reach full production." Currently mired in red tape, Chevron's Destin Dome field off Florida
could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to 10 years.
Besides, as Confucius said: "The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now."
America is like a vagrant who shakes a tin cup, pleads for change, and yet refuses to touch his $1 million
trust fund. Before President Bush flies back to Saudi Arabia to beg sheiks to open their spigots, the United
States should rely on our own offshore oil and gas. The fact we can do so more safely than ever leaves
the Democratic Congress no excuse not to stand aside -- now!
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 48
Scholars Lab File Title
Myers and Hulse, July 15, 2008 (Staff writers, The New York Times, Steven & Carl)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/15bush.html
William L. Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the United States
Chamber of Commerce, said the ban on drilling on the outer shelf reflected an environmental concern that
was now outdated. “The drilling, plus the technology, is much safer than it was 15 years ago,” he said.
Cline, July 12, 2008 (Andrew, Editor for the New Hampshire Union Leader, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581714417147413.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
When an environmental group formed for the sole purpose of opposing offshore oil drilling warmly embraces
a plan to drill off its own coast, you know something important has changed in our culture: Americans have
recognized that offshore oil drilling is largely safe. Since 1975, drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone (within
200 miles of the U.S. coast) has had a 99.999% safety record, according to the Energy Information
Administration, which reports that "only .001 percent of the oil produced has been spilled." Thanks to
technological advances, large spills are rare. Most spills are tiny, only a few feet in diameter. Large tanker
spills, such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989, are so infrequent they account for a very small fraction of the oil that
winds up in the sea.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 50
Scholars Lab File Title
Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and government oversight have made
routine drilling safe. State and federal laws regulate how much of each chemical can be discharged into the
water; most are at insignificant levels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The mercury that's
generated cannot be absorbed by fish tissue, officials say, avoiding the food chain. "The best fishing in the Gulf is
where the rigs are," says Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a leading proponent of offshore drilling. Spills from platforms
have become far less frequent over recent decades, federal data show. A report by the National Research Council
found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2% of the petroleum in North America's
oceans, compared with 63% from natural seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard
reports show that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than
500,000 in the 1990s. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only
insignificant amounts of oil spilled, says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator.
There was significant pollution — 8 million to 10 million gallons of oil spilled, mostly from tanks and pipelines on
land and from tankers striking submerged drilling platforms — but less than 10% of that came from federal offshore
operations. Today's technology, such as automatic shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices
that can prevent blowouts caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced the risk of oil
spills. "Offshore drilling is the safest way to go," Guidry says. "Those guys don't spill oil."
No risk of oil leaks from off-shore drilling – oil pollution is inevitable from other sources anyway
Cline, July 12, 2008 (Andrew, Editor for the New Hampshire Union Leader, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581714417147413.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more
oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage
from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other
hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.
The vast majority of the oil that finds its way into the sea comes from dry land, NASA found. Runoff from cities,
roads, industrial sites and garages deposits 363 million gallons into the sea, making runoff by far the single largest
source of oil pollution in the oceans. "Every year oily road runoff from a city of 5 million could contain as much oil
as one large tanker spill," notes the Smithsonian exhibit, "Ocean Planet."
The second-largest source of ocean oil pollution was routine ship maintenance, accountable for 137 million gallons a
year, NASA found -- more than 2.5 times the amount that comes from tanker spills and offshore drilling combined.
But no one is proposing that we ban cargo and cruise ships. The public may be aware that offshore drilling
accidents are infrequent and pose little threat to the environment; this awareness is probably part of the reason
why growing numbers of Americans support drilling in formerly protected portions of our coastal waters. Last
month, a Zogby poll found 74% of Americans support offshore drilling. That's up from 57% in May, according to a
Gallup poll. Even a majority of Democrats support offshore drilling, according to a Rasmussen poll last month.
Cline, July 12, 2008 (Andrew, Editor for the New Hampshire Union Leader, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581714417147413.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Big oil spills can do long-term ecological damage. But the long-term effects seem to be on the micro rather
than the macro scale. In Alaska and Cape Cod, where long-ago oil spills coated the shoreline, the aftereffects
are visible only if one goes digging for them. Small creatures such as crabs and shellfish still suffer negative
ramifications. But the ecological decimation predicted by environmental groups has not materialized.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 51
Scholars Lab File Title
Myers and Hulse, July 14, 2008 (Staff writers, The New York Times, Steven & Carl)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14drillcnd.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
Mr. Bush said some experts believe that drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf could yield a decade’s worth of
oil for the United States, and that exploiting it could be done unobtrusively, without damaging coral reefs or
creating spills. He said Congress was “the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil
resources.”
Most Americans understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and provide the extra supply of oil and
natural gas to lower our energy costs. The Mineral Management Services (MMS), an agency of the Department of
Interior, estimates that the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) contains enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for
60 years or enough oil to replace current Persian Gulf imports for 59 years. Unfortunately the federal government
has held back 80% of the country's OCS from oil and gas exploration and production. But despite these findings,
there are those from radical environmental groups that oppose critical access to domestic oil and natural gas,
claiming they are protecting the environment.
Actually the facts tell us that offshore rigs and platforms can be beneficial to marine wildlife. Once in place, the
platform's substructure acts as an "artificial reef," providing hard surfaces for encrusting organisms such as
spiny oysters, barnacles, sponges, and corals.
These creatures are the basis of the food chain in what becomes a new marine ecosystem for numerous types of fish,
sharks, sea turtles, spiny lobsters, and sea urchins, so basically speaking,the rigs create critical two factors for
marine life: Shelter and food. The food chain begins with the formation of barnacles on these structures below the
waterline. This sets the stage for small fish seeking shelter and food that the steel legs provide. Many local
Gulf coast scuba divers enjoy underwater visits to Gulf platforms to sight-see tropical fish and organisms
normally associated with natural reef systems located in the Caribbean and far away places. Local divers call
these trips "Rig Diving" because the word rig is commonly used in place of platform.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 53
Scholars Lab File Title
Environmental Defense Fund ’01. [Partner with business to find environmental solutions,
http://www.edf.org/documents/37_May01.pdf, July 16, 2008]
Coral reefs contain one-quarter of all marine species, many of which may have medical benefits. Reefs have
been around for 225 million years, but if the present rate of destruction continues, 70 percent of the world’s
reefs could be dead within 40 years. Sedimentation, eutrophication from sewage and bleaching from global
warming are the main culprits. In the Philippines, reefs are dynamited for their fish. Cuba’s reefs, on the other
hand, are relatively untouched. Our scientist Dr. Ken Lindeman has been helping design marine reserves. Our goal is
to improve habitat protection around coral reefs and reduce overfishing before it is too late.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 54
Scholars Lab File Title
Ryden, July 17, 2008 (John, Engineer with a background in Finance and Economics, Seattle
Examiner)
http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2008m7d16-Rankandfile-
lawmakers-plan-to-open-offshore-to-drilling
Many claim the risk of oil spills might pollute their beaches and ruin their tourist business. There was a large
oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969 caused by a blowout of a well. 80,000 barrels of oil were released into the
ocean. This resulted in new regulations requiring safety devices to prevent blowouts and oil spills in
offshore drilling. Since that time, the industry record on oil spills from offshore drilling has been
excellent. California already has naturally occurring oil seepage into the ocean from oil and gas seeps. One
large known seep offshore Coal Oil Point is estimated to release 150 to 170 barrels of oil per day into the
ocean. There are at least 2,000 active oil and gas seeps offshore California. Oil is part of the natural
environmental. Drilling into undersea oil reserves may actually clean up oil seeps in California as
extracting oil from a reservoir will decrease pressure and may stop some of the natural seepage.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 58
Scholars Lab File Title
U.S. companies are seeking permission to drill for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, 100
miles off the U.S. coast. The government of Cuba, meanwhile, has already granted leases to foreign
corporations for oil exploration just 60 miles off Florida. If the United States were to develop these resources,
U.S. technology and U.S. environmental regulations will ensure that the environment is protected.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 59
Scholars Lab File Title
Medlock, July 12, 2008 (Kenneth, fellow in Energy Studies at Rice University's James A Baker III Institute for
Public Policy and an adjunct assistant professor in the Economics Department at Rice, Houston Chronicle)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5884425.html
A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences reports that in the last 15 years there were zero platform spills
greater than 1,000 barrels. Compared to worldwide tanker spill rates, outer continental shelf operations are
more than five times safer. Imports present an environmental risk of spills about 13 times greater than
domestic production. In fact, annual natural seeps account for 150-175 times more oil in the ocean than OCS oil and
gas operations." (http://www.mms.gov/5-year/WhatIs5YearProgram.htm)
Interestingly, given the fact that tanker spill rates are higher than platform spill rates, by not allowing more
domestic production and thus encouraging more imports, we are, in fact, utilizing a more environ-mentally
damaging option.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 60
Scholars Lab File Title
Petrowski, July 10, 2008 (Joseph, President of Gulf Oil, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless
drillers will fear tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on
leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there
are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline – and war induced by basic resource struggles – are
greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 61
Scholars Lab File Title
Other resource rich areas, however, remain under moratoria, preventing exploration and production off most
of the U.S. coastline. These restrictions deny American consumers access to vast domestic energy supplies.
Expanding access to new areas would ensure adequate domestic energy supplies because areas currently
restricted contain large, untapped resources of oil and natural gas, which are critical to sustaining U.S.
economic growth.
The American Trucking Associations today praised the Bush Administration for lifting the executive moratorium on
offshore drilling. ATA also urged Congress to follow suit and lift its ban on offshore drilling as part of a long-
term strategy to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and curb skyrocketing fuel prices.
"We need the ability to explore new, untapped areas for domestic energy supplies," said ATA President and CEO Bill
Graves. "The U.S. has an opportunity to improve our energy situation and continue to support economic
growth, while providing consumers and businesses with the essential energy they need."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 62
Scholars Lab File Title
Petrowski, July 10, 2008 (Joseph, President of Gulf Oil, in the Wall Street Journal)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer – and will thus have no
effect on prices today – is incorrect. Unlike past oil crises, where the spot price of oil (that is, today's price) rose
more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in 2012 is trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a
clear price signal that our problem is in the future – because we do not have the will to curb demand or
increase supply. How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the price would
not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices that fuels the mania. The oil market, however, has more
than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal. This is a key component of the added $25-$40 per
barrel in current oil prices. Congressional hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop that.
Demonstrate the national will to address the supply and demand issues now and it will. As forward prices
decline, watch how quickly the spot price comes down.
Drilling will send a key signal to the market decreasing energy price speculation
Myers and Hulse, July 15, 2008 (Staff writers, The New York Times, Steven & Carl)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/15bush.html
Mr. Bush’s decision was welcomed by industry representatives. Brian J. Kennedy of the Institute for Energy
Research in Washington, which favors opening the shelf, said lifting the presidential ban would focus attention
on the need for Congress to act, easing the speculative pressure driving up the cost of oil. “This would send a
very strong signal to the global market that the United States is finally getting serious about producing its
own energy resources,” he said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 63
Scholars Lab File Title
Medlock, July 12, 2008 (Kenneth, fellow in Energy Studies at Rice University's James A Baker III Institute for
Public Policy and an adjunct assistant professor in the Economics Department at Rice, Houston Chronicle)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5884425.html
Of course, opening the OCS will not bring immediate supplies because it would take time to organize the lease sales
and then develop the supply delivery infrastructure. However, as development progressed, the expected growth in
supply would have an effect on market sentiment and eventually prices. Thus, opening the OCS should be
viewed as a relevant part of a larger strategy to help ease prices over time because an increase in activity in
the OCS would generally improve expectations about future oil supplies.
Leatherdale 8 (Linda, Finances Columnist for the Toronto Sun, “Next Great Depression?”,
TorontoSun.com, http://www.torontosun.com/Money/2008/06/22/5952466-sun.html, June 22, 2008)
But while our competition watchdog, finally, laid charges of price fixing in Quebec, and you and I struggle
with pump prices on their way to $1.50 a litre, NOCs subsidize fuel prices for their civilians. That's why
Venezuela enjoys the cheapest gas in the world at 12 cents US a gallon, followed by Nigeria at 38 cents,
Kuwait 78 cents and Saudi Arabia at 91 cents. Energy-guzzling China, the world's new superpower as the
United States self-destructs, also subsidizes prices. Which is why our big North American automakers,
devastated by slumping sales and high gas prices, are showcasing their luxurious gas guzzlers in China,
where an emerging middle class can afford them, and the gas. But even China realizes the damages of out-
of-control oil prices, and this past week hiked its subsidized fuel prices in hopes of softening demand and
bringing oil back down to earth. Which leads to this: While we debate nationalized energy vs free capital
forces, and whether I'm a Marxist or not -- dire warnings are hinting that if we don't stop this madness,
we're heading to the biggest meltdown since the Great Market Crash of 1929 and the next Great
Depression. "A very nasty period is soon to be upon us -- be prepared," Bob Janjuah, a credit strategist for
the Royal Bank of Scotland, wrote in a report that sent shockwaves through the global financial community.
Janjuah is warning that these skyrocketing energy prices are inflicting big damage by fuelling inflation
and paralysing major central banks, who may be forced to hike interest rates at a time economies are
slowing and the U.S. subprime crisis is sending a tidal wave around the world, sparking a global credit
crunch. Janjuah says the crash will hit within three months, with Wall Street's S&P 500 crashing by more
than 300 points as "all the chickens come home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom. Such a slide,
Janjuah warns, would amount to one of the worst bear markets of the past century. "Cash is the key safe
haven. This is about not losing your money and not losing your job," said Janjuah, who last year correctly
called the credit crisis. He added that "globalization was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a
dangerous corner at some point. We have gotten to that point," thanks to this energy-price shocker. DIRE
WARNING Another dire warning comes from the Bank of International Settlements, which warns
we're headed for the next Great Depression, thanks to a lax monetary policy that gave birth to complex
credit instruments, a strong appetite for risk, record household debt levels and imbalances in the
world's currency system. I'm not alone in warning it may be our own capitalist greed that's killing the
golden goose. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary to the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan
administration and now associate editor at The Wall Street Journal, writes that "something is wrong here"
when GDP grows while household incomes fall, or "Karl Marx was right that capitalism works to concentrate
income in the hands of a few capitalists." Roberts points out that while people lose jobs and homes, life
savings go up in smoke and energy prices nail the coffin shut -- the top 20 earners among private equity and
hedge fund managers earned an average of $657 million US last year, with four earning more than $1 billion,
while the top 20 CEOs of publicly held companies took home an average $36.4 million. Energy brass are
among this high-paid elite, with a blatant example of greed when former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, who
was paid $52 million a year, walked out the door with a retirement package worth $400 million. And if you
check out insider trading info, you'll find energy CEOs and executives are cashing out big time. In my
capitalist world, wealth is not hoarded by a greedy few, while hard-working, middle-class citizens get
slaughtered. End of conversation.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 65
Scholars Lab File Title
Failure to combat high energy prices in the US will collapse the global economy
Irwin and Faiola July 16, 2008 (Neil and Anthony, Staff writers, Washington Post, Lexis)
But others have argued that soaring energy prices, rising inflation and a weakening dollar are already zapping the
strength out of the world economy, with a full blown U.S. recession likely to take the wind out of the sails of global
growth.
"The rest of the world has accumulated U.S. assets, and if these prices go down, the rest of the world suffers," said
Alex Patelis, head of international economics for Merrill Lynch in London.
With no decline in gross domestic product, economists aren't ready to declare a recession, but Mark Vitner, senior
economist at Wachovia, won't rule it out.
"If oil prices don't go below $130 by the end of the summer, it'll be hard for the economy to avoid a recession in the
fourth quarter," he said.
seemed most concerned about inflation, suggesting that rising energy prices soon would be felt throughout the
economy.
But Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at Global Insight, said the economic upheaval should trump all
other financial concerns for policymakers, even inflation.
"There's no question that this is the cusp of a major financial crisis and the Fed needs to get ahead of the curve,"
Bethune said.
The stock market's performance has added to investors' concerns about rising gasoline and food prices, mounting
home foreclosures and upcoming earnings reports from financial institutions. Vitner said nervous investors might be
suffering from information overload.
"There's just so much going on in so many parts of the economy that investors have been torn between whether
things are finding a bottom or whether we've got more pain ahead of us," Vitner said.
An economic crisis is near at hand in America today, the kind of dramatic, earth-shattering crisis that
periodically threatens the very survival of civilization. More specifically, it is an energy crisis brought about
by the conflict between rising global demand for energy and our growing inability to increase energy
production." Such doom and gloom is the tone for 13 of the book's 15 chapters. At times Dr. Leeb, a PhD in
Psychology, assures us that skyrocketing oil prices can be avoided by bold action by our leaders with a momentous
investment in alternative energy. Despite the stirring language of the book title, if you are searching for an
investment book with definitive suggestions on where to put your money, or if you are well versed in oil peak
production, you will be disappointed in the lack of diligence by Dr. Leeb. If on the other hand you are a general
investment reader looking for a light book with ideas about a possible future investment landscape and a few ideas
to maximize returns in an inflationary environment, this is a great book to read.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 66
Scholars Lab File Title
Continued dependence on foreign oil will collapse the US and global economy
The global economy would collapse if oil hit $200 a barrel, said the top energy analyst at Germany's largest bank.
Two-hundred dollar oil would break the back of the global economy,'' Deutsche Bank AG's Chief Energy Economist
Adam Sieminski said in an interview today in Tokyo. ``Next step after $200 would be global recession and bad
news for everybody.'' Sieminski's comments come after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. forecast oil may rise to
between $150 and $200 within two years as supply growth, especially from producers outside the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries, fails to keep pace with demand. Deutsche Bank is due to release its oil-price
forecast on June 27. Oil doubled in the past year, touching a record $139.89 a barrel on June 16. Crude oil for
August delivery was at $136.84 a barrel, down 16 cents, at 7:08 p.m. Tokyo time in after-hours trading on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. Russia, a non-OPEC producer and the world's biggest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia,
faces its first annual decline in production in a decade. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pledged to reduce taxation on
the industry to stimulate investment in aging fields and new regions. Output fell 0.9 percent to 9.76 million barrels a
day in the first five months of the year. Growth last quarter fell on a year-on-year basis, and this has to do with the
policies implemented over the prior year to raise taxes on oil industries,'' Sieminski said. ``This made it difficult for
foreign capital to come in. If Russia could reverse some of these policies and get their own oil industry back on, this
will help very much.''
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 67
Scholars Lab File Title
The U.S. trucking industry depends upon sufficient and affordable diesel fuel supplies to haul 11 billion tons of
freight every year. Given current fuel prices, the industry is on pace to spend an unprecedented $170 billion on
fuel this year. Environmentally sound expansion of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program will help
ensure that the U.S. trucking industry has enough diesel fuel at affordable prices so that it can continue to
deliver the American economy. Restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf contain at least 18 billion barrels
of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that can be recovered using environmentally safe technology. This is
enough oil to power 40 million cars and to heat 2 million households for 15 years and enough natural gas to heat 60
million households for almost 20 years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 69
Scholars Lab File Title
ATA 2006 (American Truck Associations, Reports, “When Trucks Stop, America Stops”,
http://www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/5E2BCA15-7C12-43CA-9F82-
154A5A7A2F3C/0/WhenTrucksStopAmericaStops.pdf) 7/16/08 by Au-Yeung
Commercial truck traffic is vital to our nation’s economic prosperity and plays a significant role in
mitigating adverse economic effects during a national or regional emergency. Our economy depends on
trucks to deliver ten billion tons of virtually every commodity consumed—or nearly 70 percent of all
freight transported annually in the U.S. In the U.S. alone, this accounts for $671 billion worth of goods
transported by truck. Add $295 billion in truck trade with Canada and $195.6 billion in truck trade with
Mexico and it becomes apparent that any disruption in truck traffic will lead to rapid economic
instability. The unimpeded flow of trucks is critical to the safety and well-being of all Americans. However,
it is entirely possible that well-intended public officials may instinctively halt or severely restrict truck traffic
in response to an incident of national or regional significance. Recent history has shown us the consequences
that result from a major disruption in truck travel. Immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
significant truck delays at the Canadian border crossings shut down several auto manufacturing plants in
Michigan because just-in-time parts were not delivered. The economic cost to these companies was
enormous. Following Hurricane Katrina, trucks loaded with emergency goods were rerouted, creating
lengthy delays in delivering urgently needed supplies to the stricken areas. Although in the face of an
elevated threat level, a terrorist attack, or a pandemic, halting truck traffic may appear to be the best defense,
it actually puts citizens at risk. Officials at every level of government must recognize that a decision to halt or
severely curb truck traffic following a national or regional emergency will produce unintended health and
economic consequences not only for the community they seek to protect, but for the entire nation. The
American Trucking Associations researched seven key consumer industries to quantify the potential
consequences of restricting or halting truck traffic in response to a national or regional emergency.
ATA 2006 (American Truck Associations, Reports, “When Trucks Stop, America Stops”,
http://www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/5E2BCA15-7C12-43CA-9F82-
154A5A7A2F3C/0/WhenTrucksStopAmericaStops.pdf) 7/16/08 by Au-Yeung
Banking & Finance
Even with today’s high-tech electronic exchange of currency and information, trucks play a critical role in
transporting hard copies of financial documents and currency. Disruption of truck deliveries to banks and
ATMs will paralyze the banking industry, affecting both consumers and businesses. The bottom-line: cash is
still heavily used as legal tender.
• ATM and branch bank cash resources will be exhausted quicky. In today’s fastpaced, high-technology economy,
consumers access cash 24/7 from 370,000 ATMs nationwide. JP Morgan Chase, the nation’s second largest
consumer bank, replenishes its 6,600 ATMs via armored truck delivery every two to three days. Given the increase
in ATM activity that occurs before and after any type of crisis,ATMs would run out of cash much sooner.
• Small and medium-size businesses will lose access to cash. Banks provide daily cash and coin deliveries to
thousands of small and medium-size businesses via armored trucks. According to JP Morgan Chase, without these
daily deliveries and collections, the ability of businesses to carry out normal commercial transactions will
be disrupted and eventually cease.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 70
Scholars Lab File Title
Smith 08 [Eric, Memphis Daily News staff writer. “Trucking industry in for ‘lackluster ’08.” January 9,
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=35130. Accessed 7/16/08]
The national trucking industry received mixed reviews as 2007 drew to a close. While it posted solid
numbers in November, the business otherwise finished with a lackluster year, according to the most recent
report by the Arlington, Va.-based American Trucking Associations (ATA). How much that paralleled the
local trucking industry remains unclear.The ATA's local affiliate, Nashville-based Tennessee Trucking
Association (TTA), represents more than 500 trucking companies and industry vendors in the state. TTA
president and CEO Dave Huneryager said the organization doesn't break down trucking figures to the state
level. But, he added, the state's truckload (TL) carrier members seem to be doing better than the less-than-
truckload (LTL) members that he speaks with regularly. "Those less-than-truckload carriers are more reliant
on a bunch of small shippers to give them shipments, which they can then consolidate and take across the
country and then distribute them somewhere else," Huneryager said. "(LTL carriers) are, I think, more
impacted by fuel costs and the impact on manufacturing and retailing than the truckload carriers are."Put a
load on Indeed, the rise of fuel prices - Oil reached a record high of $100.09 per barrel last week before
dropping to $95.21 per barrel Monday - has been a major factor for trucking. Since trucks haul almost 70
percent of manufactured and retail goods in the U.S., fuel costs will continue to serve as a bellwether
for trucking - and vice versa. "Our industry is a really good indicator for economic prosperity, decline
or recovery," Huneryager said. "What the LTLs are feeling right now is an indication of what happened over
the last six to eight months - the economy's slowing down. It's been impacted not only by fuel, but primarily
housing." The residential housing slump has affected trucking negatively. TL carriers haven't felt the slump
quite as badly because they haul goods in bulk, but the LTL carriers that carry a variety of appliances,
furniture or other goods needed for new homes have been struggling. "That's where the LTL guys make their
money, and when there are not a lot of houses moving, not a lot of houses being built, it impacts our industry
big-time," Huneryager said. 'Lackluster freight volumes' Total goods shipped by truck in the U.S. rose 3.3
percent in November compared to November 2006. It was only the second year-over-year increase in eight
months but the biggest increase from year-ago levels since January 2005, according to ATA. However,
through the first 11 months of 2007, the seasonally adjusted index was 1.7 percent below the previous year's
levels. The tonnage index measures the weight of freight hauled by U.S. truckers based on membership
surveys. Furthermore, the trucking industry's trade association projected a gloomy 2008 as volumes are
expected to be soft throughout the year. "Based on the latest economic data and the expected slowdown in
the economy over the next few quarters, we anticipate lackluster freight volumes at least through the first
half of 2008," said ATA economist Tavio Headley in a prepared statement.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007 71
Scholars Lab File Title
The areas of the Gulf Coast that have access to the platforms have seen increased business due to the popularity of “rig”
diving, that means the platforms are not only beneficial to the environment but also good for local economies, attracting
new tourist to Gulf Coast towns. Also new technologies make platforms safer from oil leaks, automatic well-head cut-off
valves keep oil under the seabed if the rig or platform breaks away. Investigations showed that there was no significant
environmental damage from the offshore platforms despite two Category 5 hurricanes last year in the Gulf. Actually, the
only oil spills after the hurricanes came from beached oil tankers damaged from the storms and not from the platform
pipes themselves. Also, all proposed drilling areas would have platforms very far from the field of vision from coastal
beaches as not to have any impact people enjoying their “day at the beach.”
Allowing greater access to the outer continental shelf for new oil and natural gas exploration is a win-win for Americans;
less dependence on dangerous foreign dictators holding us hostage with oil prices, and creating beneficial artificial reefs
for marine wildlife.