You are on page 1of 163

International CPs

A general file note: this is not a complete file and it is sad. Many if not most of the advantages and
plans cannot be resolved via an international CP. Additionally because we didnt have access to the
plan texts and advantages of the affs in every instance we havent written CP texts. We plan on
putting out a supplement that mostly focuses on Consult CPs in the next 2 days. It will likely expand
consult Russia and add at least consult Japan and Consult the states. If there is a CP that is
International or Consult in nature that works for your aff and you dont want to put out let us know
and we will do that work for you. We will start with 2 week aff stuff since their tournament is first.

***Russia

**Arctic CP**

**1NC

Russia Can Develop Artic


Climate change has primed artic oceans for Russian extraction.
Tucker 2014
Tucker, Joshua. "How to Understand Russias Arctic Strategy." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 21 June 2014.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/how-to-understand-russias-arctic-strategy/>

most of the late 20th century, the Arctic region was primarily a zone of military
interests, used by both NATO and Soviet strategic forces as bases for their nuclear submarines and as testing grounds for
intercontinental ballistic missiles. With the end of the Cold War, the Arctic initially lost its strategic
significance. In the last decade, however, thanks to a combination of accelerating climate change and a rapid
increase in energy prices, it has become a key zone of strategic competition among a range of
regional actors and outside powers. Russia has become heavily involved in these fledgling
efforts to develop the Arctic. Russian leaders now primarily see the Arctic as a potential source of economic growth for the
During

country, both as a strategic resource base for the future and a potential maritime trade route. Russian actions in the Arctic are governed

highest priority is undoubtedly economic development of Russias


Arctic region. Russias natural resources ministry has stated that the parts of the Arctic
Ocean claimed by Russia may hold more petroleum deposits than those currently held by
Saudi Arabia. Russia has already put in place plans to exploit resources in this region, beginning with deposits on the Yamal
by a combination of factors. The

Peninsula and adjacent offshore areas. The first offshore development is the Prirazlomnoye oil field south of Novaia Zemlia, which
started production in December 2013. Russian companies face several challenges in developing these oil and gas resources. Because
most of these deposits are offshore in the

Arctic Ocean, where extraction platforms will be subject to


severe storms and the danger of sea ice, the exploitation of these resources will require
significant investment and in some cases the development of new technology, and will only be
economically feasible if prices for oil and natural gas remain high. The future economic potential of the region is
not limited to the extraction of natural resources. In recent decades, it has become clear that
climate change is leading to the rapid melting of the polar ice cap, which has already
improved access to the Russian Arctic. Russian planners are banking on the relatively rapid development of the
Northern Sea Route (NSR), which they hope might compete with the Suez Canal route for commercial maritime traffic. This will require
a serious investment in icebreakers, new and expanded port facilities, places of refuge and other services. While much of the recent
increase in attention paid to the region and investment in it is the result of perceptions of the Arctics economic potential, Russian

leaders also see the Arctic as a location where they can assert Russias status as a major
international power. This is done by claiming sovereignty over Arctic territory and through
steps to assure Russian security in the region. Many of the actions designed to promote Russian sovereignty claims
to the Arctic have been highly symbolic in nature. The planting of a titanium flag on the sea floor at the North Pole in 2007 is typical of
these types of actions, as are the highly publicized occasional air patrols along the Norwegian, Canadian and Alaskan coastlines. The
recent action against Greenpeace protesters who sought to scale the Prirazlomnoye offshore oil rig is also highly symbolic in nature.
While an almost identical protest in 2012 resulted in nothing more than the protesters being removed from the platform and their ship
escorted out of Russian territory, the 2013 incident resulted in Russia impounding the Greenpeace ship and highly charged statements by
Russian officials accusing the protesters of engaging in piracy. These actions are indicative of an effort by the countrys leadership to
ensure that the Russian public perceives Russian sovereignty over the Arctic as uncontested.

Russia owns the artic- CP Solves


Golovanova 14
Tatyana Golonova, Writer for Voice of Russia Russia to play leading role in development of Arctic oil and gas deposits 4/20/14 http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_20/Russia-to-play-leading-role-in-development-of-Arctic-oil-and-gas-deposits-7371/
"The most interesting thing here is that countries

with high efficiency extraction in almost inaccessible


areas account for a considerable part of 30 percent of the untapped oil and 13 percent of gas resources the
Arctic Region is rich in. And that in the first place means Russia because 6,200,000 square

kilometres of the potentially oil-bearing Arctic shelf belongs to this country." There are nearly 60
big deposits of hydrocarbons beyond the Arctic Circle today, and 43 of them belong to Russia.

Russia is ready to take control in the Arctic region


Strategic Studies Institute 11
Strategic Studies Institute, strategic-level study agent for issues related to national security and military strategy. Russia in the Arctic.
Online. July 2011. <http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf>.
Any observer who followed the statements of politicians as well as press coverage during the last 2 or 3 years must come to a definite
conclusion: confrontation

is growing in the Arctic region. Russia, which is planning to lodge a bid for the area,
measuring 1.2 million square kilometers (km) with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is ready to play a
key role in the confrontation. Moscow has made several symbolically provocative gestures. In
2007, Artur Chilingarov, a famous Polar explorer and vice-speaker of the State Duma, led two Russian mini-submarines on a
mission to stake Russias claim to the region. The two submarines descended 2.5 miles (4 km) to the Arctic seabed,
where they collected geological and water samples and dropped a titanium canister containing the Russian flag to bolster Russias
argument that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of its territory.

Russia has overpowered the U.S. in Arctic disputes before


Byers 12
Michael Byers, professor of Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. The Russian Bear dominates the
Arctic. Aljazeera Satellite Network. Online. January 3, 2012.
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211103014285585.html>.
There's just one small problem: the

US opposes Russia's claim that portions of the Northern Sea Route


constitute Russian internal waters where foreign ships require permission to enter. Yet the
US has never physically challenged Russia's claim. When the US Coastguard icebreaker
Northwind approached the Vil'Kitskii Straits in 1965, the Soviet government threated to "go all
the way" if the ship continued onward. The US government responded by ordering the
Northwind to turn round - and has kept its ships away ever since.

The US falls behind in the Arctic as Russia speeds ahead


Alice Fordham 08/22/2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/in-race-for-the-arctic-us-islargely-sidelined/2011/08/22/gIQAfe85VJ_blog.html

As the potential of the region grows, there are concerns that other nations are taking
advantage and leaving the United States behind. Russia has increased its shipping and
military presence along its northern border. Russia has 20 icebreakers, the huge ships needed
to forge routes, and so does Canada. American naval presence in the Arctic is not much at any one time said
Titley, and the United States has only one functioning icebreaker. The United States is not a signatory to
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a framework that allows nations to lay legal claim to the territory around their
coastline. The issue is now getting more attention, with a report

sent by the Pentagon to Congress earlier


this year, but Titley says that the Arctic is simply not as crucial for the United States as it is for
Russia or Canada, and that budgetary concerns will affect requests for $1 billion icebreakers,
whose exact role is not yet clear. Beyond the strategic factors at play in the Arctic, of course, are the humans,
bears and walruses who rely on the ice for their livelihoods. According to a paper published in International Affairs in 2009,
herds of walruses have been congregating in northwestern Alaska because of reduced sea ice, and polar bears face
extinction in less than 70 years. Indigenous communities, the paper says, have reported massive drops in the seal

populations, threatening their traditional way of life -- although if they can lay claim to some of the natural resources that
become accessible, they could benefit. As

the planners from Moscow to Alaska pore over strategies,


skepticism still lingers among some at the political level. Last week, Republican presidential candidate
Rick Perry told business leaders in New Hampshire that he believes climate change has been politicized.

Russia: Arctic Transport


US-Russia cooperation will rise- expanding arctic activities on terror and environment
Brigham 11
(Lawson Brigham is a Distinguished professor of geography and Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, senior fellow at the
Institute of the North). [Russia Opens Its Maritime Arctic, US Naval Institute, May 2011.
Online@http://www.institutenorth.org/assets/images/uploads/articles/Brigham_May_11.pdf SM]
For the maritime world, the policy mentions use of the

Northern Sea Route as a national, integrated


"transport-communications system" in the Arctic, specifically an "active coast guard system" in
the Russian Arctic under the direction of the Federal Security Service. Important for the Arctic states, the document notes
Russia's interest in enhancing cooperation with other national coast guards in the areas of
terrorism on the high seas, prevention of illegal immigration and smuggling, and protection of marine
living resources. Russia, Norway, and the United States already cooperate in these pursuits, but more
can be expected as marine activities expand throughout the Arctic Ocean.

Russia: Drilling Best


Russia Drilling qualitatively better
Flanders, et al. 98
(NICHOLAS E. FLANDERS; anthropologist with the Center for. Northern Studies in Wolcott, Vermont, REX V. BROWN; associate professor
and researcher at George Mason University, YELENA ANDREEVA; expert from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for Systems
Analysis, and OLEG LARICHEV;, January 1998, Justifying Public Decisions in Arctic Oil and Gas Development: American and Russian
Approaches, ARCTIC VOL. 51, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1998) P. 262279)

resource decisions in the Arctic typically involve complex issues; multiple criteria are used to
because of concerns about
national energy security, environmental impacts, and economic development. Two decision-aiding
techniques may help decision makers clarify their decisions to themselves, the stakeholders, and the general public. The Russian
qualitative technique seeks to reduce the number of criteria and find alternative options that
may be better than the initial ones. The Western quantitative technique seeks to measure the
decision makers judgement about the utility and certainty of each option. These techniques are
Government

choose among alternatives. This complexity is even greater with petroleum development

applied to two case studies: a decision about gas pipeline routing on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia, and a tool for evaluating applications

The qualitative method is easier to use and may be the


best model for people who use numbers infrequently or want to make a claim based on rights.
The quantitative method did well at preserving detail and incorporating uncertainty. Both
approaches helped to reduce the apparent complexity of the decisions.
for development permits on the North Slope of Alaska.

Russia controls dominate exploration and development of Arctic ocean fossile fules
Krammar & Klause 2011
Krammar, Andrew, and CLifford Klause. "How to Understand Russias Arctic Strategy." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 Feb.
2011. Web. 21 June 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/how-to-understand-russias-arcticstrategy/>.
MOSCOW The

Arctic Ocean is a forbidding place for oil drillers. But that is not stopping
Russia from jumping in or Western oil companies from eagerly following. Russia, where onshore oil
reserves are slowly dwindling, last month signed an Arctic exploration deal with the British
petroleum giant BP, whose offshore drilling prospects in the United States were dimmed by the Gulf of Mexico disaster last
year. Other Western oil companies, recognizing Moscows openness to new ocean drilling, are
now having similar discussions with Russia. New oil from Russia could prove vital to world supplies in
coming decades, now that it has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the worlds biggest oil producer, and as long as
global demand for oil continues to rise. But as the offshore Russian efforts proceed, the oil companies will
be venturing where other big countries ringing the Arctic Ocean most notably the United
States and Canada have been wary of letting oil field development proceed, for both safety and environmental reasons.
After the BP accident in the gulf last year highlighted the consequences of a catastrophic ocean spill, American and
Canadian regulators focused on the special challenges in the Arctic. The ice pack and
icebergs pose various threats to drilling rigs and crews. And if oil were spilled in the winter,
cleanup would take place in the total darkness that engulfs the region during those months .
Earlier this month, Royal Dutch Shell postponed plans for drilling off Alaskas Arctic coast, as the company continued to face hurdles
from wary Washington regulators. The Russians,

who control far more prospective drilling area in the


Arctic Ocean than the United States and Canada combined, take a far different view. As its
Siberian oil fields mature, daily output in Russia, without new development, could be reduced by nearly a million barrels by the year
2035, according to the International Energy Agency. With

its economy dependent on oil and gas, which make


up about 60 percent of all exports, Russia sees little choice but to go offshore using foreign
partners to provide expertise and share the billions of dollars in development costs. And if anything, the gulf disaster encouraged Russia

to push ahead with BP as its first partner. In the view of Russias prime minister, Vladimir

V. Putin, BP is the safest


company to hire for offshore work today, having learned its lesson in the gulf. One beaten man is
worth two unbeaten men, Mr. Putin said, citing a Russian proverb, after BP signed its Arctic deal with Rosneft, the Russian stateowned oil company. The

joint venture calls for the companies to explore three sections in the Kara
Sea, an icebound coastal backwater north of central Russia. The BP agreement touched off
little public reaction in Russia, in part because the environmental movement is weak but also
because opposition politicians have no way to block or hinder the process. The Arctic holds one-fifth
of the worlds undiscovered, recoverable oil and natural gas, the United States Geological Survey estimates. According to a 2009 report
by the Energy Department, 43 of the 61 significant Arctic oil and gas fields are in Russia. The Russian side of the Arctic is particularly
rich in natural gas, while the North American side is richer in oil. While

the United States and Canada balk,


other countries are clearing Arctic space for the industry. Norway, which last year settled a territorial dispute
with Russia, is preparing to open new Arctic areas for drilling. Last year Greenland, which became semi-autonomous from Denmark in
2009, allowed Cairn Energy to do some preliminary drilling. Cairn, a Scottish company, is planning four more wells this year, while
Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell are also expected to drill in the area over the next few years. But

of the five countries


with Arctic Ocean coastline, Russia has the most at stake in exploring and developing the
region. Russia is one of the fundamental building blocks in world oil supply, said Daniel Yergin,
the oil historian and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. It has a critical role in the global energy balance. The
Arctic will be one of the critical factors in determining how much oil Russia is producing in
15 years and exporting to the rest of the world. Following the template of the BP deal, Rosneft is negotiating
joint venture agreements with other major oil companies shut out of North America and intent on exploring the Arctic continental shelf
off Russias northern coast. That includes Shell, its chief executive said last month. Rosnefts chief executive, Eduard Y. Khudainatov,
said other foreign oil company representatives were lining up outside his office these days. Artur N. Chilingarov, a polar explorer, has
embodied Moscows sweeping Arctic ambitions ever since he rode in a minisubmarine and placed a Russian flag on the bottom of the
ocean under the North Pole, claiming it for Russia, in a 2007 expedition. The

future is on the shelf, Mr. Chilingarov, a


member of Russias Parliament, the Duma, said in an interview. We already pumped the land dry.
Russia has been a dominant Arctic oil power since the Soviet Union began making important discoveries in the
land-based Tazovskoye field on the shore of the Ob Bay in Siberia in 1962. The United States was not far behind with the discovery of
the shallow-water Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska five years later. What is new is the move offshore. The

waters of the Arctic


are particularly perilous for drilling because of the extreme cold, long periods of darkness,
dense fogs and hurricane-strength winds. Pervasive ice cover for eight to nine months out of
the year can block relief ships in case of a blowout. And, as environmentalists note, whales, polar bears and other
species depend on the regions fragile habitats. Such concerns have blocked new drilling in Alaskas Arctic waters since 2003, despite a
steep decline in oil production in the state and intensive lobbying by oil companies .

In Canada, Arctic offshore


drilling is delayed as the National Energy Board is reviewing its regulations after the gulf
spill. But Russia is pressing ahead. The central decision opening the Russian Arctic easily passed
Parliament in 2008, as an amendment to a law on subsoil resources. It allowed the ministry of natural
resources to transfer offshore blocks to state-controlled oil companies in a no-bid process that does not involve detailed environmental
reviews. Until recently Russia regarded the Kara Sea, where BP and Rosneft intend to drill, as primarily an icy dump. For years, the
Soviet navy released nuclear waste into the sea, including several spent submarine reactors that were dropped overboard at undisclosed
locations. Rosneft executives say their exploration drilling will not stir up radiation. But in any case, Mr. Chilingarov, the advocate for
Russian polar claims, said a little radiation was nothing to worry about. He said that his son was born on Novaya Zemlya, an Arctic
testing site for nuclear weapons during the cold war, and is now a bit taller than me.

Russia: Oil Development Now


Russia Preparing to extract fossil fuels now
Rosneft 13
Rosneft, Oil company owned by the Russian Government, Russias Arctic Seas, 2013,
http://www.rosneft.com/Upstream/Exploration/arctic_seas/
In the South Russky block of the Barents Sea lies the North Gulyaev deposit, which contains 13 million tons of C1+C2 oil and 52 billion
cubic meters of gas. Rosneft

experts have conducted comprehensive geological and geophysical


surveys on the South Russky block to evaluate hydrocarbon resources and geological risks.
They have graded the most promising sites and identified key exploration areas. The work
carried out by company experts has helped develop an understanding of the field's key
forecast oil-and-gas-bearing zones and formulate an exploration plan for 2012 in order to
gain a deeper understanding and more detailed knowledge of prime sites and prepare them
for test drilling in the coming years. The basic principle of shelf project implementation is
unreserved compliance with the tough requirements of Russia's environmental legislation and
international agreements at all stages from design to the completion of drilling and well abandonment. Rosneft and ExxonMobil
experts intend to

pay special attention to environmental safety and interaction with the region's
indigenous population. Environmental impact assessment will be one of the key functions of the Arctic Research and Design
Center for Offshore Developments. It

Russia Developing oil now


Carroll 14 Joe Carroll, Bloomberg News reporter, Russia seen as key to reviving Exxon's global output, May 1, 2014,
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20140501-russia-seen-as-key-to-reviving-exxon-s-global-output.ece

Tillerson and his management team have staked out their largest non-U.S. exploration claim
in Russia, the worlds biggest source of crude last year, in a partnership with state- controlled
OAO Rosneft. Exxon had exclusive exploration access to 11.4 million acres in Russia at the
end of last year, according to a Feb. 26 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission . Exxon is allocating
$39.8 billion to capital projects this year, including hundreds of millions for an exploratory
well in Russias Kara Sea, above the Arctic circle, as part of a 29-year agreement signed with
Moscow-based Rosneft in 2011.

Russia Developing artic now- Permits prove


Nikolskiy 5/29
(Alexei Nikolskiy is a staff writer for RIANOVOSTI Specializing in Russian Internal Politics). [Gazprom Fulfills License Obligations for
Arctic Drilling Official, RIANOVOSTI , 5/29/2014. Online@http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140528/190192723/Gazprom-Fulfills-LicenseObligations-for-Arctic-Drilling-.html SM]
MOSCOW, May 28 (RIA Novosti) Russia's

Gazprom is fulfilling its license obligations for operations


in the Arctic shelf zone, Russian Natural Resources Minister Sergei Donskoi told lawmakers Wednesday. "We had questions
for Gazprom, complaints, but Gazprom tries not to deviate from license obligations, deadlines, and all in all as a rule fulfills the
responsibilities initially stated in those licenses," Donskoi said. Gazprom,

along with state-owned oil giant


Rosneft, was awarded the right to drill in the Arctic shelf zone. Rosneft is still in the process
of rolling out its operations in the area. Last year, Greenpeace activists protesting at an offshore oil rig in the Arctic
against Gazprom's activity the area, saying the drilling was polluting nearby water and land. The region is believed to hold vast
hydrocarbon deposits, becoming more accessible as rising global temperatures lead to a reduction in sea ice. If Russia proves that the
Lomonosov Ridge and the Mendeleev Ridge in the Arctic are an extension of the Russian continental shelf, the country will receive the
exclusive right to an additional 1.2 million square kilometers in the Arctic and to the development of large oil and gas fields in the

triangle formed by the Chukotka Peninsula, Murmansk and the North Pole. The

United Nations turned down the


claim in 2001 due to a lack of evidence. The territory has been at the center of disputes between the United States,
Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark, as rising temperatures lead to a reduction in sea ice and make energy reserves more accessible.
In April, Donskoi told President Vladimir Putin that Russias new bid will be ready in the fall.

Russia key to develop largest artic reserves


Pouchot 6/22 (Frederic Pouchot is a journalist specializing in Russian foreign affairs) [Russian Arctic: a new promised land for oil
giants, 6/22/2014, MySinchew.com Online@http://www.mysinchew.com/node/99266 SM]

MOSCOW, June 22, 2014 (AFP) -- Tens of degrees below zero during winter and home to endangered species and remote infrastructure
-- welcome to the

Russian Arctic, a new promised land for oil companies despite clear obstacles.
"The Arctic is one of the world's largest remaining regions of undiscovered conventional oil
and natural gas resources," said Rex Tillerson, chief executive for US giant ExxonMobil, during a major industry
conference in Moscow last week. Tim Dodson, a senior executive at Norwegian group Statoil and who was speaking also at the World
Petroleum Congress, said the

Arctic "is one of the very few remaining areas with the potential to
make huge discoveries". More than 20 percent of the world's hydrocarbon reserves yet to be
discovered are situated in the Arctic, according to a 2008 report by government agency the US Geological Survey
(USGS). Such reserves are said to be located largely in Russia, stretching from Western Siberia to the
extreme east of the country. While Tillerson stresses that the Arctic "is not unfamiliar territory" for the oil industry -- large fields have
been explored and exploited for decades in Alaska, the north of Norway and in Russia's Sakhalin region -- Dodson is quick to point out
the challenges. "The climatic conditions are probably the most visible challenge. Ice, snow, cold and darkness all contribute to an
environment that can be both hostile and beautiful." Dodson added: "To unlock the full potential of the Arctic and also to make Arctic
projects commercially viable and globally competitive, we need new technology and innovative business models." Cost constraints
Oleg Mikhaylov, vice-president for oil and gas production at Russian group Bashneft, insisted that exploration

of the
Russian Arctic "will require significant support from the Russian government in addition to
investments by private corporations". He told the gathering in Moscow: "If you envision full-scale development of the Arctic you have
to envision moving millions of tonnes of supplies to one of the most remote regions of the world." Mikhaylov said this would require
expansion of railroad infrastructure and the building of a network of ports, in addition to other major constructions.

Oil K2 Globe
Russia has largest amount oil greater than the US
Gibbs 14
Daniel Gibbs, ExxonMobil Pins Hopes of Production Growth on Russia, June 21, 2014,
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/21/exxonmobil-pins-hopes-of-production-growth-on-russ.aspx
Why Russia? So, why

would ExxonMobil expand into Russia and not some other country? Well,
one reason is that Russia is incredibly blessed when it comes to oil reserves. According to the
Energy Information Administration, Russia had total proven oil reserves of 80 billion barrels
at the beginning of 2013, the largest in the world. In addition, the Arctic waters off of the coast of Siberia are
believed to contain more than 200 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Russia also has enormous amounts of shale oil
and gas that completely dwarf anything in the United States. Some estimates put the total amount of oil
contained in Russia's giant Bazenhov formation at nearly two trillion barrels. This is four to ten times the amount that the highest
estimates put in the Bakken shale, although estimates for both formations vary greatly. Regardless, Russia

is by far the
nation with the largest oil reserves in the world, and so just about any growth plan of any
large oil producer needs to include the giant nation.

Oil K2 Econ
Expanding oil production key to economy
Phillips 4/21/14
Writer for the climate progress an online publication focused on the use of fossile fuels within modern poltics "In Russia, Worlds First
Ice-Resistant Oil Platform Starts Production."ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 June 2014.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3429130/russia-arctic-offshore-oil-platform/>.
With Russian President Vladimir Putin on hand, the

Russian Arctic offshore oil platform Prirazlomnaya, the


first offshore oil rig to begin commercial drilling operations above the Arctic circle, sent off its
first shipment of oil on April 18. The start of loading the oil produced at Prirazlomnaya means that the
entire project will exert a most encouraging influence on Russias presence on the energy markets and
will stimulate the Russian economy in general and its energy sector in particular, Putin said. this is, in fact,
the beginning of our countrys enormous work on oil production in the Arctic. Gazprom is a giant
Russian energy company responsible for about 10 percent of the countrys GDP. Russia has already invested over $4
billion in developing this Arctic oil field, discovered in 1989. The new Arctic crude oil blend, called ARCO, is lower
quality than the main Russian export from the Urals and will cost less. Gazprom said the first shipment will head to a large European
energy company. Last fall 30 Greenpeace activists tried to stop production preparations at the platform before being arrested and
charged with piracy. The charges were later reduced to hooliganism and the activists were eventually released with all charges dropped.
The Prirazlomnaya field contains about 72 million tons of recoverable oil (610 barrels total), with production expected to reach six

The entire Arctic holds up to one-third of the worlds remaining


undiscovered oil and gas resources, with most of that being offshore. With the International Energy
million tons a year sometime after 2020.

Agency recommending that in order to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius more than 60 percent of proven oil reserves
need to be kept in the ground let alone unproven ones in the Arctic Russias boundless enthusiasm for Arctic drilling is
exasperating for the climate community. The economic benefits may not live up to the hype either. Russias Arctic prize wont be as
big as many think, reports Nick Cunningham for oilprice.com. The Prirazlomnaya project is costly and would not have been
economical if the Russian government had not granted it special tax breaks. But, even with heavy backing by the government, Gazprom
estimates that the field will only be producing 120,000 barrels of oil per day, beginning in 2020. That would only add about one percent
to Russias oil production. Russia is looking to expand oil production in the Arctic as many of its current oil fields are waning after
being in production for many years. However oil production in the Arctic offers a number of hurdles, including harsh weather, lack of
infrastructure, and high costs, making it a tough bet for a long-term replacement source of oil. Royal

Dutch Shell serves as an


invested over $5 billion in Arctic drilling projects and
more than five years fighting legal challenges, the company has currently suspended offshore
drilling projects in the Arctic, in part due to concerns that they underestimated potential environmental damages. Last
spring, ConocoPhillips also announced that was also suspending its plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean in 2014. In announcing
Shells decision not to pursue Arctic drilling this year, Shells CEO Ben van Beurden noted a
January ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that agreed with environmental
groups that the federal government had underestimated how much oil drilling would happen,
and what the potential consequences could be. However, this is seen more as a temporary setback than a lasting
example of the toll these challenges can have. Having

decision.

Russian oil key to growth of Russian economy


Leon Aron, 2013, Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute
http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/the-political-economy-of-russian-oil-and-gas/

Vladimir Putins commitment to oil and gas as the mainstay of Russias progress stems from
a deep and abiding conviction about its importance to the nations economy. Long before he
came to power, he had believed that the restructuring of the national [Russian] economy on
the basis of mineral and raw material resources was a strategic factor of economic growth
in the near term.[1] In an article published a year before he became president, he reiterated that Russian mineral resources
would be central to the countrys economic development, security, and modernization through at least the first half of the 21st
century.[2] In

Putins view, the only way for Russia to achieve economic growth of 4 to 6 percent

per yearthe tempo he deemed minimally necessary for Russia to reduce its lag behind the
developed countrieswas via extraction, processing and exploitation of mineral raw
resources. This was the key to Russias becoming a great economic power, Putin
believed. For Putin, oil and gas were also paramount politically as guarantors of the security
and stability of the Russian state. As he put it, The countrys natural resource endowment is
the most important economic and political factor in the development of social production.
Furthermore, the raw material complex was the basis for the countrys military might
and an essential condition for modernization of the military-industrial complex.[4]Finally, he
believed the mineral extraction sector of the economy diminishes social tensions by raising the level of well-being of the Russian
population.[5]

Russia: LNG
Russia has the unique expertise and technology to do LNG in the arctic
Total, 14
(A leading oil and gas industry player and world-class chemical producer, 2014, YAMAL LNG, http://total.com/en/energiesexpertise/oil-gas/exploration-production/projects-achievements/lng/yamal-lng)
Russia. The

Yamal LNG project is based in the estuary of the Ob River which is ice-bound nine months of the year. The
production and marketing of the Russian Arctics vast natural gas reserves and
has involved the construction of a major new maritime route for transporting liquefied
natural gas to Europe and Asia. The Yamal LNG project is one of the largest industrial undertakings in the Arctic. It will
project ensures

eventually involve the drilling of more than 200 wells, the construction of 3 LNG trains, each with a capacity of 5.5 million tons per
year, and a vast gas terminal, and the commissioning (a world first) of 16 icebreaker tankers, each able to transport 170,000 m. This

ground-breaking project in the Yamal peninsula, to develop the huge South Tambey condensate gas field, calls on Yamal
LNGs logistical and industrial expertise in terms of managing LNG production in extremely
cold conditions with the help of high-performance technologies. Total is leading the project as part of a
strategic alliance with Novatek, Russias second-largest independent natural gas producer. Come winter, come summer, an LNG tanker
will come to load its cargo at the Yamal LNG terminal every 38 hours. This steady traffic will make the Sabetta seaport one of the
busiest in the Far North. Year-round

navigation will be possible thanks to an effective icemanagement system. The design of the seaport and its jetties draws on extensive studies of
local sedimentology and ice behavior, conducted with the help of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute
(AARI) of Saint Petersburgthe undisputed scientific expert in this field. The protective systems
deployed are based on existing technologies that have passed muster in similar conditions at the Russian port of Dudinka. Two huge
anti-ice barriers will protect the Sabetta seaport and its tanker traffic from accumulations of ice during ice jams, and from drifting blocks
of fast ice during ice break-up. A fleet of 6 icebreakers will be mobilized to keep the port access channel free and clear and ensure yearround navigable conditions all the way to the LNG terminal. Models of currents and ice conditions in the Gulf of Ob will be used to
optimize these fairways. In addition, Totals extreme

cold experts are currently reviewing technologies


for limiting brash ice that have already been tested in the United States and Finland. Brash ice is an accumulation
of floating ice made up of fragments and debris left in the wake of icebreaking vessels. Deploying this portfolio of
proven solutions beyond the Arctic Circle opens the way to a new and important shipping
route for liquefied natural gas.

Russia has desire and capability to do massive LNG projects in the arctic
Josefson et al 14
(Jennifer Josefson, one of the top energy and natural resource lawyers having held various positions in the Association of International
Petroleum Negotiators, Alexandra Rotar, member of the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN) and currently
participates in the AIPN Model Farm Out Agreement Revision Committee, Russian LNG: Export Liberalization, Febuary 2014, King and
Spalding Energy Newsletter, http://www.kslaw.com/library/newsletters/EnergyNewsletter/2014/February/article3.html)
While Russia is the world's largest producer of conventional natural gas, it currently only has

one operating LNG


facility, being the 10 million ton per year liquefaction plant operated by the consortium of Gazprom, Shell,
Mitsui, and Mitsubishi (Sakhalin II). Russia's interest in LNG, however, appears to be growing, especially
in the view of three deals for the development of the Russian Artic that Rosneft signed in
2012 with ExxonMobil, Eni, and Statoil. Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, has stated that the only way to commercialize Russia's
Arctic gas reserves is to liquefy and export them. According to the forecasts by the Russian Minister of
Energy, Alexander Novak, the production of LNG in Russia will grow to 80 million tons by 2030.
How will Russia increase its LNG production by 70 million tons in the next 15 years? In addition to the Sakhalin II project, there
are a number of LNG projects in various stages of planning which we outline below based on public
information. Yamal LNG: Yamal LNG holds the license to develop the South Tambeyskoe field on the Yamal Peninsula, which
is the largest gas condensate field in Russia; reserves of 1.3 trillion cubic meters; Partners: Novatek (60%), CNPC (20%), and Total
(20%); The project is being developed in three phases; LNG facility's annual capacity is planned to be 16.5 million tons of LNG and 1

million tons of gas condensate; The location of the Yamal Peninsula is expected to open opportunities for a more flexible and
competitive logistical model, allowing year-round LNG supply to Asian, Pacific and Atlantic markets as well as to Europe and South
America. Sabetta Sea Port is expected to become a vital transportation hub, instrumental for development of the Russian Arctic;

Pechora LNG: Cumulative reserves amount to 145 billion cubic meters of gas and 3.9 million tons of condensate; Partners:
ALLTECH Group (controlled by businessman Dmitry Bosov) is the majority shareholder; Maxim Barsky (former deputy chief of TNKBP, now shareholder and head of Matra Petroleum plc) is a minority shareholder; Shtokman Development AG: Reserves of natural
gas in the Shtokman field are among the largest in the world. The geological reserves of the field are 3.8 trillion cubic meters of gas and
around 53.3 million tonnes of gas condensate; Partners: Gazprom (75%) and Total (25%) in Shtokman Development AG (incorporated
in Switzerland) (earlier Statoil also participated); License holder: Gazprom Neft Shelf (100% subsidiary of Gazprom) holds the subsoil
license for the Shtokman field; Vladivostok LNG: Ownership: Gazprom (Japanese companies may reportedly become
Gazprom's partners (up to 50%) in the project); Vladivostok LNG plant will have three process trains with a planned annual capacity of
5 million tons of LNG each; The plant will receive gas from the Sakhalin, Yakutia, and Irkutsk gas production centers; Target sales
markets are the countries of the Asia-Pacific region; Sakhalin I: In 2012 Sakhalin-I gas supplies to Khabarovsk region reached 10
billion cubic meters; Partners: Exxon Neftegas Limited (subsidiary of ExxonMobil) is the operator and holds 30%; Rosneft acting via
its affiliates RN-Astra (8.5%) and Sakhalinmorneftegas-Shelf (11.5%); Japanese consortium SODECO (30%) and Indian state-owned oil
company ONGC Videsh Ltd. (20%); Prompted by the benefits of liberalized LNG exports, Rosneft and ExxonMobil have agreed to
study the possibility of an LNG plant on Sakhalin Island (Sakhalin I project) near the fields or at the mainland export terminal, De
Kastri. Sakhalin I has 485 billion cubic meters of potential recoverable reserves.

Russian government pushing LNG tech and development in the arctic


Mitrova, 13
(Dr. Tatiana Mitrova, Head of Oil and Gas Department in the Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, December
2013, Russian LNG: The Long Road to Export, file:///Users/andiedivelbiss/Downloads/IFRI_ifrimitrovalngengnov2013.pdf)

This iswithout exaggerationa historic decision for the Russian gas industry, the road to which was certainly
not easy. Recent years have seen a radical change in the global economic climate, a situation which has changed
the dynamics of the European gas market (gas demand decline and Russian gas import reduction, changing pricing mechanism for much
higher share of spot indexation, European Commission anti-trust investigations against Gazprom, etc.) and is

increasingly
pushing Russia to diversify its gas exports. However, diversifying exports through the development of LNG has
proven to be not so simple. Over the past 20 years, with the exception of the Sakhalin-2 project, which structured under a project-sharing
agreement (PSA) rather than in the framework of national legislation, all other projects failed to come close to completion. The
Kharasavey and Baltic LNG projects were abandoned in the early stages of project evaluation, while the Shtokman project made it so far
as to have the operating company created, but in the end was postponed indefinitely. The

first stage of LNG


development in Russia ended in failure. However, the Russian government considers the
development of LNG exports to be a priority, which can be evidenced in all official policy papers. It is believed
that LNG will help in achieving a set of objectives, namely: increasing the absolute volume of exports, allowing
the country to enter into previously inaccessible markets, promoting the uptake of new technologies, enabling the
development of related industries, supporting the development of critical regions such as the Arctic and the Far
East, restoring the strategic importance of the Northern Sea Route and strengthening Russia's geopolitical influence in the Asia-Pacific
region. Under intense pressure from the

government, which has called for a swift delivery of its LNG


strategy, Gazprom began to rework its strategy and pursue new options, namely: the expansion of the Sakhalin-2 project, the
Vladivostok LNG project and the new Baltic LNG project. At the same time, independent gas producers started making their move in
the market in anticipation of amendments to the existing institutional framework. Indeed, the desire to get strategic position on the global
LNG market works wonders: the

liberalization of LNG export, which seemed practically unfeasible not


so long ago, became a reality with the adoption of the recent bill. However, this liberalization will affect only companies
that have a special statuse.g. Rosneft with its Sakhalin-1 project and Novatek with the Yamal LNG project. For all the remaining
participants, entry to the export market is still blocked. Moreover, the new law stipulates that in order to avoid competition between
Russian exporters on the external markets, special mechanism of LNG export coordination is envisaged. In particular, gas exporters are
obliged to provide the Energy Ministry with information according to the procedure established by the Russian government.
Nevertheless, even such a limited change in the institutional framework is breeding new competition between market participants. For
Gazprom, LNG

exports offer a chance not only to compensate for the slowdown in Europe, but also to restore its
reputation as an industry leader in the eyes of the country leadership. For Novatek, Yamal LNG is the companys largest project on
which it has placed all its bets and is its only chance to obtain an export margin. For Rosneft, the Sakhalin-1 project is an opportunity to
gain a competitive edge on Gazprom and develop export capacity for future gas projects. In fact, the fierce competition developing
between projects is a struggle to obtain the status of the most efficient and high-tech player of the Russian gas market. Winning is
evidently highly dependent on a number of key decisions made by the countrys leadershipwho serves as a sort of ultimate arbitrator
in this battle. Russian

leadership is actively campaigning for the launch of LNG projects, and


despite all the obstacles and high costs, some will be completed by the end of this decade.

Delivery times and costs, though significant, are not critical: while the return-on-investment for these projects, worth tens of billions of
dollars, may be delayed, there is no doubt that sooner or laterin 15-20 yearsthey will pay off. Moreover, their strategic value in the
eyes of the government is immense.

Russia: LNG Say Yes


Russia has a better success rate and long-term competitiveness than US at LNG
Davis, 14
(Kyle Davis, energy and natural resources counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and, prior to that, worked with other
international firms in Moscow and New York, 5/19/2014, The difference in structuring of LNG projects in Russia and USA,
http://www.blplaw.com/expert-legal-insights/articles/difference-structuring-lng-projects-russia-usa/)
Those following the international business press will know that both Russia
in the world (such as Canada, Australia and Qatar) each have

and the United States, amongst other countries


a number of proposed liquefied natural gas

(LNG) projects in the works. However, even though LNG is by no means a phenomenon limited to the US or Russia, the
Ukrainian crisis and media coverage regarding the possibility of Europes diversification of gas supply towards LNG has put particular
geopolitical focus on a perceived LNG race between the US and Russia. Incidentally,

each of the US and Russia

has a single existing LNG liquefaction plant in Russia it is Sakhalin II (owned by a consortium of Gazprom, Shell,
Mitsui and Mitsubishi) and in the United States it is Kenai in Alaska, owned by ConocoPhillips. The fortunes of each of
these projects have been quite different, however Sakhalin II has been an active LNG
exporter since its launch in 2009, but Kenai, although it was the worlds largest LNG liquefaction facility when it
was completed in 1967, eventually was shut down for being small and uncompetitive. At the moment, there are
at least 13 LNG export facilities proposed in the United States and six (not including expansion trains) proposed in Russia. Since there
are certain differences between Russia and the United States in both the basic legal framework for allowing LNG exports, as well as the
prevailing project concepts, investment case, risk profile and pricing, it seems timely to provide a brief note (necessarily leaving out
some potentially important details) describing these differences. With

some oversimplification, there are three

possible types of LNG projects: Integrated. The project company (PC) owns both the source of the gas (gas reserves
and wells) and the LNG liquefaction facility, and sells LNG to its customers. Merchant. The PC buys gas in the market, liquefies it
in its LNG liquefaction plant, and sells LNG to its customers. Tolling. The PC provides and sells LNG liquefaction services to its
customers, who are responsible for sourcing and supplying their own gas to the LNG liquefaction facility. Given the structure of the
Russian permitting process and certain geographic and infrastructure issues that space does not allow, Russian

projects fall
under the Integrated type. American projects, on the other hand, fall under the Tolling type. We will
leave to one side the rarer Merchant type.As youve probably already gathered, even though LNG buyers are eager to get exposure to US
gas pricing, its quite possible that, over time, oil-linked gas prices will drop significantly lower than Henry Hub-based
prices. Given that the prevailing gas pricing model in North America is unique in the world (for now at least) and is de-linked from oil
production and oil prices, if circumstances conspire to make Henry Hub prices higher than the oil-linked prices found elsewhere in the
world, the

Tolling LNG model that will be used for most US LNG projects could result in US
LNG being uncompetitive in the global market.

AT: Oil Spills


Creation of vessel routing system decreases potential for collisions, oil spills, and
threats to marine environment.
Northern Economics, 2011
Planning for Alaskas Regional Ports and Harbors prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District and Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities Jan. 2011
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desports/assets/pdf/regionalports_finalreport0111.pdf

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is currently conducting a study to assess whether the creation
of a vessel routing system is advisable in the Bering Strait area. Establishing predictable and
charted routing may address some of the issues and impediments listed above by reducing
congestion and making vessel movements more predictable, thereby decreasing potential for
collisions, oil spills, and other threats to the marine environment. The study will take a
minimum of two years to complete and results may validate the status quo (no routing
measures) or may conclude that changes are needed to enhance the navigational safety and
efficiency of vessels.

Russia has legislation in place to prevent and minimize the impact of oil spills.
RIA Novosti 12(RIA Novosti June 21 2011 (RIA Novosti) Russian govt plans to tighten rules on prevention of shelf oil spills
http://en.rian.ru/business/20110621/164749264.html)
The Russian

government plans to entrust oil companies working on the continental shelf with the duty of
preventing spills and eliminating consequences, the government said on Tuesday. Authorities plan to
amend federal laws on the Russian continental shelf and on internal sea waters, inland seas and Russia's contiguous zone. In
particular, under the draft of the law, companies will be obliged to have plans on the prevention
and elimination of oil and oil product spills. Moreover, the companies working on the shelf will
have to verify their financial ability to carry out measures aimed at preventing and
eliminating accidental oil spills, including the possible attraction of additional forces and funds. The companies
will also have to fully compensate for damages, including aquatic bioresources and third
parties. The new rules will be applied to companies using man-made islands, facilities and installations,
offshore pipelines, as well as to those companies carrying out drilling operations, transportation and storage of oil and oil
products on the Russian continental shelf, in internal seas and other inland waters. In April 2010, five million barrels of oil poured into
the Gulf of Mexico, damaging the fragile wetlands of Louisiana, washing oil products ashore in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and
hitting coastal industries including fishing and tourism. The spill was stopped only on August 4

Russia leads the way for oil spill prevention


RIA Novosti 13(RIA Novosti Arctic Council Signs Oil Spill Response Deal,5/12/2013,
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130515/181163818.html )
KIRUNA, May 15 (RIA Novosti) Foreign

ministers from the Arctic Councils member states have


signed a legally binding agreement on preventing and responding to oil spills in the Arctic to
protect the regions waters, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday. The treaty
is an effective tool protecting the Arctic environment at a time of active exploration of the
opening Arctic deposits, and shows the firm responsibility of the Arctic states for the situation in the region, Lavrov said at the
opening of the councils ministerial session in Swedens northernmost city of Kiruna. Lavrov said he welcomed the decision to expand
the council by granting the so-called observer status to new states. China, Italy and four other Asian countries - India, Japan, South Korea

and Singapore - gained observer status on the Council at a meeting on Wednesday. The Council also said it positively viewed the idea of
granting the European Union observer status. However, a decision on the EU status has been deferred because of Canadas concern over
an EU ban on import of seal products, which came into effect in August. Interest in the Arctic is on the rise. In particular, this is
confirmed by the growth of the number of aspirants seeking to obtain an observer status in the Arctic Council, Lavrov said. Gao Feng,
head of China's delegation to the event, told Xinhua after the decision granting China's observer status was announced: "China will first
get to know the Arctic better, and then it will be able to join in international cooperation effectively." The Arctic Council
intergovernmental forum, comprising Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, was established
in 1996 to protect the Arctic region's environment and its indigenous peoples. Russia has stepped up exploration of its Arctic oil and gas
reserves in recent years, and has signed agreements with international partners including Shell, Statoil, Total and ExxonMobil to help
exploit the regions natural resources. RIA Novosti. National claims to the Arctic shelf But

environmental activists
claim accidents in the area could have dire consequences, both because of fragility of the
Arctic ecosystem and the complexity of cleaning up spills in remote areas. The Arctic has
also become an increasingly important region in economic and political terms thanks to
climate change. The Arctic territories, believed to hold vast untapped oil and gas reserves, have been the subject of claims by the
United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark, with rising temperatures leading to a reduction in sea ice making hydrocarbon
deposits under the Arctic Ocean increasingly accessible.

Russia has the tech to clean up oil spills-BP disaster proves


The Voice of Russia 10 (8/20/10, Russian Technology Could Help Clear Up BP Oil
Spill,http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/08/04/14520780/)

Russian technology could help save the Gulf of Mexico. Everything depends on how soon the British oil
company completes its operation of stopping the oil spillage from the emergency well.Cementing the well is the first step of dealing with
the environmental catastrophe. It is planned to last for 60 hours, after which the BP engineers hope to stop the oil spill completely.The
corporation has already made several attempts to stop the oil flow but all of them have failed. Even cementing the well had to be
postponed through mechanical failure. One can only pray for the current attempt to be a success. If everything goes according to plan, oil
will stop spilling by the weekend and the first stage of the plan will be fulfilled. The second problem is the oil that has already spilled
out.The incident in the Gulf of Mexico is a large oil spillage in US history. About 5 million barrels of oil are in the water. This amount
comes second only to Iraqs deliberate spilling 8 million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war. Over the last 35 years,
about 60 serious oil-well incidents have happened in the world. Even the smallest of them required enormous efforts to overcome the
consequences. Each time, experts tried to find the most effective methods to collect the spilled oil. By now, Americans have already
considered about 70,000 suggestions. A project

by Russian scientists has been chosen as the most


profitable one,both economically and environmentally. Yelena Philipchuk from the Research
Centre of Environmental Studies and Rational Use of Natural Resources says: Our company
has been in this market for five years already. We have considerable experience, as we have
accomplished over a hundred projects in the Tyumen Region. In the Gulf of Mexico we are
going to use more than one method. Oil can be collected by sorbents that absorb oil or any
kind of moisture. We fill sorbents with microorganisms that decompose oil into carbonic
acid and water.Eliminating the consequences of the oil spill, processing the oil waste and
cleaning the coast will take at least a year. There are no plans to burn the spilled oil. Moreover, scientists will get 13 kinds of
substances which can be of use for building roads and testing grounds, and for manufacturing insulation materials. One of the aims of the
Tyumen experts is to train Americans how to do it, Yelena Philipchuk says. We are going to supply our own materials and to train
American experts who will be working in the Gulf of Mexico. Our engineers will regularly supervise the use of our techniques. The

Tyumen scientists have accumulated huge experience in working with oil. The Research
Centre of Environmental Studies and Rational Use of Natural Resources has fulfilled
hundreds of projects for large oil and gas extracting companies in the Russian North. What is
interesting, the Research Centre grows flowers in oil waste.

Oil Companies are already taking preventive actions


Broder, John M. 27 June 2012 "Interior Department Will Likely Allow Shell to Drill in Arctic." The New York Times. The New York
Times,. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/interior-department-will-likely-allow-shell-to-drillin-arctic.html?_r=2>.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Tuesday that it was highly likely that the
agency would grant Shell permits to begin drilling exploratory wells off the North Slope of
Alaska as early as next month. Mr. Salazar, while acknowledging that the Arctic presented unique environmental and
safety challenges for oil and gas operations, said he was confident that Shell would meet the Interior
Departments new standards for offshore drilling. He noted that Shell had successfully tested
a new oil spill containment device in Washington States Puget Sound in recent days and said
he believed the companys claims that it could collect at least 90 percent of any oil spilled in
the event of a well blowout. I believe there will not be an oil spill, Mr. Salazar said in a telephone
briefing from Trondheim, Norway, where he is participating in an international conference on Arctic drilling safety. If there is, I
think the response capability is there to arrest the problem very quickly and minimize
damage. If I were not confident that would happen, I would not let the permits go forward.
WASHINGTON

The Status quo solves for oil spill response


Kim Murphy 3/28/12 (reporter at the Los Angeles times) Arctic drilling: Beaufort Sea oil spill response plan approved,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/28/nation/la-na-nn-arctic-drilling-20120328
Reporting from Seattle Federal

authorities have approved an oil spill response plan that could


allow drilling to commence this summer in the Beaufort Sea, the first major offshore drilling in the Arctic
since the early 1990s. Though Shell Alaska still needs several final permits, the oil spill plan has been the most
debated aspect of the upcoming drilling program, with fears that cleaning up an offshore
blowout in the turbulent, often icy seas of the Arctic could be a formidable challenge.

Oil spill impacts are exaggerated


David Crocker April 30 2011 Oil Spills Are Not Environmental Catastrophes ( Attorney , carrying on an international practice in
the areas of Information Technology, Licensing, Intellectual Property and Business law; negotiated licenses and commercial agreements
in all places, including Russia, the UK, Europe, Japan and South Korea) http://www.behindbluelines.com/2011/04/30/oil-spills-are-notenviromental-catastrophes/

Obviously, oil spills are messy and unpleasant and to be avoided. But are they catastrophes in the perfervid
language of contemporary environmentalism events causing irreparable or even persistent damage? Clearly not . First, consider
some facts. During World War II, thousands of ships were sunk and millions of gallons of oil
spilled. In merchant tonnage alone, the US lost over 1,500 ships with hundreds more damaged. The Germans sank 42 oil tankers off
the US east coast and oil fouling the seascape was a fact of life during the war years. Since the war,
weve seen numerous oil spills large and small with what result? In fact, the oceans seep oil.
People growing up on the US Gulf coast live with tar balls washing up on the beach. Each year, the
equivalent of two Exxon Valdezes seep into the Gulf to no effect other than feeding adapted bacteria. So, whats
the big deal with the BP spill last year? Apparently, not much. From the Globe and Mail: Heres some news you may not have heard:

One year after the worst oil spill in history, the Gulf of Mexico is nearly back to normal. Thats
right: Armageddon didnt happen. Instead of terrible harm to the biosphere, the Deepwater Horizon
spill has caused only mild problems. In fact, because of the fishing bans imposed after the
spill, there are more fish than ever. Shark and mackerel populations have exploded. Red snapper
are unbelievable right now, one fisherman said. You could put a rock on the end a string and theyd
bite it. Apparently, the truth is difficult to acknowledge: Yet, despite the good news, the coverage of the blowouts anniversary last
week was almost unrelievedly grim. Not one story I read bothered to chronicle the Gulfs astonishing recovery. The lone exception was
a brave CBC reporter who dared to say that things were looking pretty good. A wire story in the Toronto Star was far more typical. You
cant see or smell the oil, but scientists fear problems are hidden in marshes and the food web, the headline said. In fact, most

scientists believe the Gulf is in surprisingly good shape. When three dozen of them were asked
to rate the current health of the Gulfs ecosystem on a 1-to-100 scale, they gave it an average
grade of 68 not bad, considering that, before the spill, they gave it a 71. People are having a hard
time accepting it. Me, too, says Ed Overton, a chemist at Louisiana State University. There are things that are wrong. There is still oil
out there. But it is not nearly as bad as I expected it would be a year later. But will this change the dominant narrative? Doubtful at best.
After all, if youre invested in flat-earth, no-growth Luddism and believe that humans are a scourge on Mother Gaia, then youll stop

your ears and stamp your feet. But if

youre an adult, youll relax, do your best to avoid oil spills wherever
but not faint with fright if one does occur. After all, nature does it anyway, regardless
of what we do.
possible,

AT: Sanctions
Recent sanctions not stopping oil production.
Wethe 6/17
Wethe, David. "Russian $8.2 Trillion Oil Trove Locked Without U.S. Technology." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 17 June 2014. Web. 26 June
2014. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-16/russia-s-8-2-billion-oil-trove-locked-without-u-s-tech-energy.html>.

Even as the decision to stop gas supplies to Ukraine aggravates tensions with the U.S. and
Europe, Russia faces a dilemma: it still needs Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Halliburton Co. (HAL) and BP Plc (BP/) to maintain
output from Soviet-era oil fields and develop Arctic and shale reserves. Russia will require
Western companies to provide the modern drilling and production gear -- and techniques such
as hydraulic fracturing -- that are essential to unlocking its $8.2 trillion worth of barrels still
underground. The cutoff to Ukraines gas supply adds another layer of complexity for energy companies navigating a shifting
geopolitical landscape in the search for new oil and gas supplies. Decision-makers from some of the Wests
biggest oil explorers are gathering in Moscow this week at the World Petroleum Congress to
pave the way to new deals. Theres certainly a prize there, said Alexander Robart, a principal at PacWest Consulting
Partners LLC, a Houston-based consultant that tracks fracking service providers. For the big guys, its certainly one of the top priority
future growth markets theyre looking towards, without a doubt. Russias

latest aggression toward Ukraine can


only heighten the political tensions companies already feel as they seek to justify broadening
business ties to the country, said Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. It will move the scale a tad against
Russia, Gheit said, raising the chance the U.S. and Europe will push for additional sanctions. No Impact
Sanctions have had no impact on working in Russia yet, BP BP Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley said in
Moscow today. The London-based company, which owns almost 20 percent of Russias largest oil producer OAO Rosneft (ROSN),
signed a preliminary agreement last month to evaluate shale reserves in the Volgo-Urals region. There

is shale
everywhere, Dudley said. There is only some good shale. It will depend on how the shale
actually can be broken to see its productive capacity. Russia already is the second-largest market outside
North America for fracking, measured by about 1.1 million horsepower of pumps used to blast water, sand and chemicals underground
to free trapped hydrocarbons. China ranks first with 3.1 million horsepower. North America is still the worlds fracking king with 19.7
million horsepower. Through its existing oilfields, Russia is the worlds largest producer of crude, with daily output of 10 million
barrels a day last year, according to the EIA. To maintain that, Russia will have to use the latest technology to squeeze oil out of shale
rocks in Western Siberia, said Matthew Bey, an energy analyst at the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor.

Russia wants to work on oil and gas with US despite sanctions


Norlen 14
(Doug Norlen, Policy Director for Pacific Environment, 3/25/14, Will the U.S. Fund Russian Gas Exports?,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-norlen/will-the-us-fund-russian-_b_5002791.html)
As the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine grows, Western governments are talking tough about sanctions against Russia. President

Obama and the European Union have now leveled sanctions against Russian and Crimean
political figures and a bank, but not yet against other companies. As Rachel Maddow points out, with these
sanctions, the United States and European Union fired the first economic shots in a larger escalation of sanctions that could be leveled at
companies like Exxon and Rosneft -- which coincidentally have a massive joint venture underway that includes terribly harmful fossil
fuel projects in Russia's environmentally sensitive Arctic region. Given Russia's use of natural gas exports to bully Ukraine and
Western Europe in the current crisis, sanctions should be expanded to include companies working in Russia's oil and gas export sector.
Yet, so far, Western

governments have not issued sanctions against oil and gas exporting
companies in Russia, likely due to lobbying by politically powerful Western oil and gas
companies that are involved in these projects. What's worse, the U.S. is even considering providing
federal subsidies for a massive expansion of the Russian oil and gas export sector. The U.S.
government's largest export promotion agency, the Export-Import Bank is actively considering financing the enormous Yamal Liquid
Natural Gas (Yamal LNG) export project in Northwest Siberia--an enormously harmful fossil fuel scheme led by Russia's Novatek and
France's Total companies. Gennady Timchenko, one of the people that Obama has sanctioned, is a co-owner in Novatek. The project
threatens Russia's ecologically delicate Arctic region and is drawing vocal opposition from Russian and international environmental

groups. The amount of U.S. government financing sought for Yamal LNG has not been publicly revealed, but it is likely not a trivial
amount: Export-Import Bank financing for three recent LNG projects has totaled nearly $8 billion.

Russia continuing oil partnerships with US despite sanctions


Kramer et al 14
(Andrew Kramer, New York Times Moscow Reporter, and Stanley Reed, New York Times Reporter, 6/9/14, For Western Oil Companies,
Expanding in Russia Is a Dance Around Sanctions, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/business/international/for-western-oilcompanies-expanding-in-russia-is-a-dance-around-sanctions.html?_r=0)
Despite the push by Western governments to isolate Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine, energy

giants are deepening


their relationships with companies here by striking deals and plowing more money into the
country. Along with Exxon, BP of Britain and Total of France also signed contracts at the business forum in St. Petersburg to
explore for shale oil in Russia. Exxon plans to drill its first exploratory well offshore in the Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean this
summer. Statoil of Norway is in talks for another shale joint venture. Royal Dutch Shells

chief executive, Ben van Beurden,


met with Mr. Putin in April and told him, Now is the time to expand, referring to a
liquefied natural gas plant project. The companies are taking a calculated risk, given the threat of further sanctions. But
they also want to protect their long-term interests in Russia, the worlds largest energyexporting nation. They are likely to continue to engage until there is a clear policy signal
that they should stop. It is not rational to think they would act in any other way, said David L.
Goldwyn, who served as the State Departments special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs during President Obamas
first term. If the government wants them to stop, it needs to say louder they should stop. Exxon declined to comment on the deal
signed in St. Petersburg. Total and BP have emphasized that their agreements fully comply with sanctions. So far, the United States and
the European Union have imposed only limited sanctions, aimed largely at individual Russians and a handful of companies. The

existing sanctions dont explicitly bar the energy giants from operating in Russia. Though Mr. Obama
authorized an executive order on March 20 that could outlaw such deals, it has not yet been put into effect by the Treasury Department.
There

has been no impact on any of our business activities in Russia to this point, nor has
there been any discernible impact on the relationship with Rosneft, he added. The energy giants, in
part, are wary of offending their partners in Russia. Several big Western companies have large existing
investments and important joint ventures in Russia that they want to protect from a government that is sometimes seen as fickle on
property rights. Exxon has a wide-ranging relationship with Rosneft, including existing oil production off Sakhalin Island in eastern
Russia. BP has a nearly 20 percent stake in the Russian company. In all, Western energy companies have invested an estimated $35
billion in Russia.

The future opportunities could prove even more valuable.

Sanctions dont prevent Russian oil exports


Baronin 14
(Anatolii Baronin, Director of the Da Vinci AG Analytic Group, 3/20/14, The West is Unlikely to Slap Meaningful Economic Sanctions on
Russia, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/03/30/west-unlikely-slap-meaningful-economic-sanctions-russia/)
Escalation of the Crimean conflict and the risk of an invasion by Russian troops further into Ukraine have raised a concern about
international mechanisms of deterrence, economic sanctions being among them. Although Brussels and Washington

made
rather harsh statements at the outset of the crisis, it is quite improbable that they will impose heavy
sanctions on Moscow. This means that the international community lacks an adequate response to Russia. The Russian
Federation is the third largest trading partner with the European Union (next to the US and China) with $417.4 billion in trade in 2013.
Therefore economic sanctions could have an adverse effect on Europe. Considering the current state of several European economies, the
results would be grave. Russia is one

of the worlds biggest oil producing countries and the worlds

second largest oil exporter. It supplies most of its oil and gas to the European Union. The only way to affect the Russian
economy and deter Putin would be to target Russias energy sector. The European Union would have to refuse to purchase Russian
natural gas, which presently they are not be able to do. In 2013, Russias earnings from oil and natural gas exports amounted to $229
billion. Out of 485 billion cubic meters of gas consumed by the European Union annually, Russia supplies about 160 billion cubic
meters, which is almost one third of the total volume. According to the forecasts by governments and energy companies, in the
immediate future, consumption may increase to 585 billion cubic meters annually, and imports from Russia up to 175 billion.
Therefore, Russias share of the gas supply to the EU will remain about the same. So neither the

US nor the EU will


impose an embargo on oil and gas imports from Russia because the consequences would

have a negative effect on the global market which is expected to see growth of oil
consumption up to 92.5 million barrels daily in 2014. Russias budget for 2014 was calculated based on the average annual oil
price of $93 per barrel. In case sanctions become a reality, the prices will well exceed $130 billion, and will continue to rise. This will
bring Russia at least an additional $37 from each exported barrel of oil. Let us not forget that in 2013 Russia exported about 234 million
tons of oil and liquid gas. Imposing

sanctions against key Russian energy companies also seems


quite doubtful. Several Russian companies signed field development contracts with a
number of American and European oil and gas producing companies. Therefore, the blow to Russian
oil and gas producing companies will affect their western partners whose business interests
are concentrated in Russia. According to Bob Dudley, the Group Chief Executive and a director of BP, which is one of the
largest foreign investors in Russias oil producing industry his company has signalled that it will not halt
investments in Russia. The President of Total Christophe de Margerie promised to continue investing in the Yamal LNG
project. Paolo Scaroni, the Chief Executive of Eni, said that sufficient gas reserves give Russia powerful instruments of influence on
Europe. He believes that the worst possible scenario would be complete termination of gas supplies from Russia through Ukraine.
According to Rainer Steele, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazproms partner, Wintershall, sanctions against Russia will not settle
the issue and will be ineffective. Philipp Mifelder, member of the German Parliament, also said that sanctions against Russia will affect
Germany, and that sanctions are never a good method for export-oriented Germany. All in all, Britain and Germany will attempt to not
affect their own economies, and this is what will determine Londons behaviour. I believe that Britain and Germany will only act as
diplomats in the Crimean conflict. They might try to lobby for some nominal sanctions which were hinted at by US Senator John McCain
who expressed his disappointment with Londons official stand and that Europe is ignoring historys lessons. Essentially he said that the
US wants to impose certain effective sanctions, but Europe is not ready for such serious measures. Therefore, the

West is likely
to resort to financial aid for Ukraine instead of further complicating relations with Russia
and thus prevent the risk of economic loss in the context of the current crisis. Neither
Washington nor Brussels will dare impose serious economic sanctions against Russia. Hence,
these instruments are unlikely to influence the Kremlins policy towards Ukraine in the medium term.

AT: No Ice Breakers


Russia Icebreakers Key to U.S Development
Treadwell 11
[Mead, December 1, PROTECTING U.S. SOVEREIGNTY: COAST GUARD OPERATIONS IN THE ARCTIC
America is Missing the Boat]
Several sources report that international shipping of crude oil, refined products, and other potentially hazardous cargoes through the

Arctic and
even non-Arctic nations have seen the potential, but America is missing the boat. Most
traffic occurs under arrangements for icebreaker escort by vessels working with Russias Northern Sea
Bering Strait is growing rapidly as European and Asian shippers see the advantages of the Arctic route. Other

Route Administration. We understand that last year, for the first time, Norways Tschudi Shipping Company worked a partnership with

Russian ships,
and ships of other nations escorted by Russias Northern Sea Route Administration, are
coming in force. Hazardous cargoes are making the backhaul as well at least one tanker bringing gas condensate to Asia this
Russian maritime authorities to bring 41,000 tons of iron ore from Kirkenes, Norway to China. Again this year,

year is reported to have returned to Europe with aviation fuel. In August of this year, Norways MV Nordic Barents was the first nonRussian bulk cargo ship to transit the Northern Sea Route in Russian waters. Other records are being set along the Northern Sea Route,
from the STI Heritages fastest-ever voyage from Murmansk to Thailand, transiting in just eight days, to the Perseverances latest- ever
northern voyage, which ended just two weeks ago on November 18. Altogether, the Northern Sea Route saw nine tankers carrying
600,000 tons of gas condensate pass by this year. I joined an Arctic conference in Arkhangelsk, Russia in September, where Russias
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told the Russian Geographical Society that his country

sees the opportunities in the


Arctic, and they are ready to pounce. Speaking of the Northern Sea Route at the Russian Geographical Society
conference, Putin told us, We are planning to turn it into a key commercial route of global
importance. ... We see its future as an international transport 2 artery capable of competing with traditional sea routes in cost of
services, safety, and quality. President Medvedev, dedicating a new northern rail project in Yakutsk headed for the Bering Strait
indicated as much last month. Russia

intends to make the Northern Sea Route as important to global


shipping and commerce as the Suez Canal. And Russia is putting its money where its mouth
is, building nine new icebreakers in the next decade, and discounting tariffs on icebreaker escorts to make sure that shippers find the
Northern Sea Route for distance savings of up to 40 percent. Russias claim to new extended continental shelf
resources in the Arctic Ocean under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea could give Russia greater
control of Arctic shipping. Cargo moving through the Bering Strait this year from Russian and American sources is
worth well over $1 billion. Add to that a Bering Sea fishery owned by both nations worth billions each year and the situation is clear: in
monetary terms, theres billions to be made and billions to protect. At the same Arkhangelsk conference, Russias
Academy of Sciences Vice President Nikolai Laverov showed a slide of Alaskas declining throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (or TAPS) and Russias competitive success in attracting Arctic investment. All

Arctic energy production


depends on access, and Russia has it. Russia is now in the lead in Arctic oil production and
theyre keen to stay there. Meanwhile, other Arctic and circumpolar nations are investing in fleets of icebreakers. The report
of exactly how many ships are being operated by other countries varies (some count polar, medium and light icebreakers, as well as ice
strengthened or capable vessels), but all the tallies make one thing clear: other

nations have seen the writing on


the wall and are investing in infrastructure. Sweden has at least four vessels; Finland, at least six; and Russia over
two dozen (and counting). Canada has about eight, and even the European Union is constructing an icebreaker a heavy, polar class
icebreaker.3 Our Arctic

neighbors are leaps and bounds ahead of our position, and non-Arctic
nations are in hot pursuit. A Chinese researcher, Mr. Li Zhenfu of Dalian Maritime University, writes that, Whoever
has control of the Arctic route will control the new passage of world economics and
international strategies.4 The prospect of commercial and strategic opportunities presented by receding sea ice cover and
accessibility of Arctic resources has moved the Chinese government to allocate more resources for Arctic research, and they have asked
to join the Arctic Council as an observer. Chinas Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo has asserted that no nation has sovereignty over the Arctic,
and said that China must plan to have an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as they have one-fifth of the worlds population.5
Japan has stepped up its research in global environment, climate and marine science in the Arctic. And with China and Korea, Japan has
applied for permanent observer status on the Arctic Council. Polar air routes have characterized the jet age since the late 1950s, and

Governments and industries


in Russia, Europe and Asia see the same potential for shipping. Why dont we?
Arctic air transport is now key to air cargo bound between North America or Europe and Asia.

By 2030 Russia will have full access to Arctic shipping lanes and oil drilling
Morozov 12
(Yury Morozov, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences and leading research fellow at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies and
the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, 01/2012, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254080095_Arctic_2030_What_are_the_consequences_of_climate_change_The_Russian_respo
nse)
Some international experts believe the Arctic Ocean could become ice free as early as 2019. Russian

scientists from the Institute


the Russian sector of the Arctic will be
completely open to navigation during the summer season (April to September) by the early 2030s, but the
Canadian and US sectors will not be ice free until the early 2070s. Despite contradictory forecasts, most scientists agree that
it will become easier in the near future to engage in economic activities in the northern
latitudes. That will make shipping via the Northern Sea Route more attractive, and an ace in the hole
for Russia, as merchant and passenger ships will be able to traverse the most difficult section of the Northern
Sea Route only in convoy with Russian nuclear icebreakers. The future is not entirely clear, but preparations
for heavy traffic in the Arctic are already underway. Above the Arctic Circle lie 30 percent of the Earths
undeveloped natural gas reserves and 13 percent of its oil (Stankevich, 2012), and the melting
Arctic ice is opening new vistas for oil and gas companies. Among other things, as the ice melts, those
companies will no longer have to factor the costs of building an icebreaker fleet and expensive
tankers capable of working in icy conditions into their operations.
of the Arctic and Antarctica disagree with those forecasts. They believe

**Consult CP**

**1NC

Consult: Russia Says Yes


Russia wants to consult with U.S over Arctic Development
Knecht 12
Sebastian Knecht, US-Russian Arctic Strategies: Spatializing Governance and Governing Space, The Arctic Institute, 8/2/12,
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/08/us-russian-arctic-strategies.html
Geospatial Patterns of Arctic Cooperation: A Different Conflict Dimension. In comparison, the US

and Russias Arctic


strategy papers read similarly in terms of their respective Arctic spatialization narratives.
This indicates a common ground for joint management efforts and cooperative behaviour in
the High Norths vulnerable environment. Seen through a geospatial lens, Arctic governance is thus
already well-equipped to progress peacefully and in the spirit of a common Arctic space.
National sovereignty and regional stewardship are not in any case contradictory policy patterns, but sometimes two sides of the same
coin.

Russia is cooperating on resource issues


Gorenburg 11 (Senior Analyst at CNA, a non-profit think tank, where he conducts research on Russian security and military
issues) Dmitry, Russian Analytical Digest, No. 96, May p. 12
The Russian government has recently focused

on reaching agreements with neighboring Arctic


states to delimit maritime boundaries. The goal is to ensure control of the maximum amount of seabed
natural resources, while creating conditions that will allow for international cooperation in the
development of these resources. In order to achieve this goal, the government believes it must resolve all
remaining maritime territorial disputes with the four other states that claim sectors in the Arctic: Norway, Denmark, Canada, and
the United States.

Your Russia will fight evidence is old Russia has shifted to a cooperative strategy in
the Arctic
Gorenburg 11 (Senior Analyst at CNA, a non-profit think tank, where he conducts research on Russian security and military
issues) Dmitry, Russian Analytical Digest, No. 96, May p. 12
Though Russia

remains keenly interested in the Arctic, it will pursue its regional ambitions via
negotiations and peaceful dispute resolution. Unilateral posturing and talk of building up a
Russian military presence which featured prominently in Russian Arctic policy just three
or four years ago have nowfallen by the wayside, in part because the authorities regard a cooperative approach
as more conducive to exploration of and investment in Arctic natural resources. While disputes over fishing and navigation rights among
the five Arctic maritime states remain unresolved, in recent years all sides have agreed to resolve competing claims through international
institutions. The

Arctic is thus unexpectedly becoming a venue for strengthening international


cooperation, rather than the potential zone of military confrontation that it had been since the start of the
Cold War.

No impact Russia has abandoned its aggressive approach to the Arctic region
Baev 11 (Norwegian political scientist and security scholar. He is currently a research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo
and a senior nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution) Pavel, Carnegie Council Report, June
3 https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0104.html/_res/id=sa_File1/Russia's%20High%20Ambitions%2
0and%20Ambivalent%20Activities%20in%20the%20Arctic.pdf

It may appear puzzling that the

theme of "conquering the Arctic," which was so prominent in Russian official discourse
practically disappeared from the accelerating political campaigning leading to the
parliamentary elections in December 2011 and the presidential elections in spring 2012. Indeed, Arctic-related issues were
practically absent in the lengthy report presented by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to the State Duma in
April 2011, where a wide range of priorities was outlined, and a great many promises were given. In fact, the last time that this
theme was substantially addressed was Putin's speech at the International Arctic Forum in Moscow in
September 2010, while President Dmitri Medvedev has not dwelt on it for more than a year.
in 2008-2009, has

Consult: Artic Drilling


Russia wants consultation on Arctic development
Konyshev, 12
(Valery Konyshev, Ph.D, Professor of the Department of Theory and History of International Relations at St. Petersburg State University's
School of International Relations, and Aleksandr Sergunin, Professor of International Relations at the Higher School of Economics (St.
Petersburg) and St. Petersburg State University, Russian Politics and Law, vol. 50, no. 2, MarchApril 2012, The Arctic at the Crossroads
of Geopolitical Interests)

Russias interests in the Arctic are determined by several factors. Economic interests are the
most important. This region currently provides about 11 percent of Russias national income, as Arctic mines account for over 90
percent of its nickel and cobalt, 60 percent of its copper, and 96 percent of its platinoids. Hydrocarbon reserves in the zone of Russias
potential economic influence in the Arctic are estimated at 5 billion tons of fuel equivalent.38 Moreover, if the Arctic ice continues to
melt, Russia may extract considerable economic gains from the development and exploitation of the Northern Sea Routethe shortest
connection between European and Far Eastern sea and river ports. A promising field of activity is the creation and servicing of
transpolar air routes. A Russian presence in the Arctic has a direct bearing on national security.
Should the United States permanently deploy a nuclear submarine fleet and sea-based ABM systems (under active development in the
United States) in the region, Russia will create regional capacities for intercepting ballistic missile launches and inflicting a preventive
strike. Nevertheless,

the Russian Federation tries to take a balanced position, seeking


cooperation with other states while bearing in mind their military activity in the Arctic. Anton Vasilev, a
representative of the Russian foreign ministry, has declared that many of the assessments in
the mass media concerning a possible confrontation in the Arctic, up to and includ- ing a
third world war, seem to me alarmist and provocative.39 The Russian leaders plan to focus their main efforts on expanding the
boundaries of Russias continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit in the direction of the pole, if they succeed in demonstrating to the
UN commission that the shelf is an extension of the Lomonosov and Mendeleev ridges. Russia

does not seek sovereignty


over the territory concerned but merely the right to prospect for and use mineral resources
and the seabed.

Russia expects consultation because it is the greatest power in the arctic.


Bluitt 2013
Bluitt, Rebecca. "Cold, Cold War: Putin Talks Tough Over US Arctic Rivalry." ABC News. ABC News Network, 05 Dec. 2013. Web. 25 June
2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cold-cold-war-putin-talks-tough-us-artic/story?id=21110178>.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that U.S. military capabilities in the Arctic
Circle leave his government little choice but to maintain a strong foothold in the frigid north,
where tensions between the former Cold War adversaries in recent years have heated up as the polar ice thawed. During a meeting with
students in Moscow on Tuesday, Putin

was asked whether Russia and other countries might loosen


their grip on Arctic territory for military exercises and exploitation of natural resources in
favor of environmental preservation. The Russian leader replied that the United States
hasn't slipped off the ice shelf and implied that his country's national defense priorities will
continue to outweigh conservation efforts. "Experts know quite well that it takes U.S. missiles 15 to 16 minutes to
reach Moscow from the Barents Sea," Putin said, according to the Associated Press. His comments came on the heels of a recent
renewal of U.S. attention to the Arctic. Defense Secretary Chuck

Hagel laid out the Pentagon's revised Arctic


Strategy at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia last month. The U.S.
policy blueprint calls for "building trust through transparency about the intent of our
military activities and participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises and other
engagements that facilitate information-sharing." But the Russian president's statement suggested suspicion of
American intentions in the region, and possible wariness that the U.S. is not being as forthcoming as it has pledged to be. A Hagel aide
said that Russia should adopt a cooperative policy. "The

Department of Defense Arctic Strategy recognizes


that changes in the Arctic landscape create an opportunity for nations to work together
through coalitions of common interest," said Pentagon spokesman Carl Woog. "We will work together with Arctic

nations to ensure that the region remains peaceful and free of conflict." Over

the last several years both nations


have increased their respective military presence in the Arctic, including U.S. naval and
Russian air force operations. Putin's recent comments indicate uneasiness with U.S. military activity so close to Russian
borders. Putin's mistrust of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines' proximity to Russian borders is fueling Russia's professed need for a
strong military presence in the Arctic, Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American
Scientists, told ABC News. But Kristensen discounted the likelihood that Navy subs operating outside of the Barents Sea would have
any real impact on any hypothetical use of U.S. nuclear power. "Such a launch is technically possible but U.S. missile subs are thought
to operate further back in the Atlantic," Kristensen said. "Putin's use of such a scenario to keep Arctic territories is flawed because they
would not prevent such a launch, which would most likely take place in international waters." With many experts saying that global
warming is expediting the melting of the Arctic icecaps, newly created water routes have opened up a possible treasure trove of
commercial wealth to northern nations in the form of oil, mineral, and natural gases. There has been competition among countries for
Arctic usage rights since the 1950s, but the accelerated melting of Arctic glaciers in recent years has resulted in the resurgence of a Cold
War-like scramble reminiscent of the United States-Russia moon landing rivalry. Both the United States and Russia have insisted that
there will be no direct conflict between the two nations regarding the Arctic region. But Putin's worst-case missile scenario suggests
indirect conflict over Arctic occupation reminiscent of a bygone competition. Kristensen called it "an unfortunate example of [Putin]
thinking about geopolitical affairs in outdated Cold War terms."

Consultation key to determine the future of the arctic


Mith 2011
MITH, REGINALD R. "The Arctic: A New Partnership Paradigm Or The Next "Cold War"?." JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly 62 (2011): 117-124.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 June 2014.
Global climate

change is bringing about epochal transformation in the Arctic region, most notably
impact of these changes, and how the global community
reacts, may very well be the most important and far-reaching body of issues humanity has
yet faced in this new century. A number of nations bordering the Arctic have made broad strides toward exercising
through the melting of the polar ice cap. The

their perceived sovereign rights in the region, and all except the United States have acceded to the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides an international legal basis for these rights and claims.1 Similarly, while

most
Arctic nations have been planning, preparing, and programming resources for many years
in anticipation of the Arctic thaw, the United States has been slow to act on any of the
substantive steps necessary for the exercise of sovereign rights or the preservation of vital
national interests in the region.2 The United States must move outside the construct of
unilateral action in order to preserve its sovereign rights in the Arctic, capitalize on the opportunities
available, and safeguard vital national interests in the region. In todays budget-constrained environment and as a Nation at war with
higher resource priorities in Iraq and Afghanistan than in the Arctic, it is unrealistic to believe that any significant allocation will be
programmed for addressing this issue.3 Since the

United States is too far behind in actions necessary to


preserve its critical interests as compared to the other Arctic countries, the Nation must
take the lead to cultivate a new multilateral partnership paradigm in the region. A new
partnership framework is vital to pooling the many capabilities of the Arctic nations and
ultimately leveraging them for the preservation of U.S. interests. Analysis shows a dearth of unifying
military partnership constructs on anything other than a bilateral or trilateral basis and reveals that search and rescue (SAR)
operations may be the glue that ultimately binds the Arctic nations military forces together. While the opportunity for and types of
partnerships are expansive, the scope of the recommendations is limited to accession to UNCLOS, sponsorship of a unifying
multinational Arctic exercise, and establishment of a comprehensive military partnership framework. To this end, background
information illustrating the magnitude of the problem is offered, followed by a brief review of differing opinions on U.S. partnership,
analysis of the actions and preparedness of other Arctic nations, examination of some existing partnership frameworks and
opportunities, and concluding recommendations for the U.S. theater-strategic leader in the Arctic.

Consultation key to arctic stability


Morozov 12
(Yury Morozov, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences and leading research fellow at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies and
the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, 01/2012, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254080095_Arctic_2030_What_are_the_consequences_of_climate_change_The_Russian_respo
nse)

Russias newest national security strategy also makes it clear that the Kremlin is looking upon the Arctic as an area where military
conflicts could occur. That document said, in part: In a competition for resources, it cannot be ruled out that military force could be
used to resolve emerging problems that would destroy the balance of forces near the borders of Russia and her allies (Russian
Federation, 2009). At the same time, Russia

is aware that it will need foreign investment and expertise to


develop deposits lying under the seabed. The environmental conditions themselves are harsh; the
Russian government sees no need to make the energy exploration situation even more
difficult by transforming the Arctic into a zone of confrontation. In the interest of international
cooperation, Moscow will maintain mutually advantageous bilateral and multilateral relations
with the other Arctic states, based on international agreements to which the Russian Federation is a party (Russian
Federation, 2009). The relations of the countries in the polar region should be based on their common interests, and those relations

there are three


major tasks to be accomplished by international cooperation in the Arctic: The boundaries of
possessions in the region should be formalized in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. To maintain peace and stability in the region, environmental and other
challenges there should be dealt with jointly by the Arctic countries. Air traffic across the
Arctic and shipping via the Russian Northern Sea Route should be managed under the
auspices of international law and by agreement among the Arctic states. Russia is keenly
interested in developing the Arctic economically, in reviving the Northern Sea Route and
rebuilding Arctic ports, in investing in the development of Arctic resources, and in continuing
research to support sustainable development and preservation of the environment in the
north. It is aware of and preparing for the possibility that commercial competition could lead to military conflict in the Arctic, but
Russia is doing all that it can to ensure that the Arctics future is peaceful, prosperous, and
managed cooperatively by the countries with legitimate claims to the region.
should include an increased ability to counter threats by responding jointly when they arise. In the Russian view,

Consultation necessary for oil and gas development in arctic.


ORourke 6/5
(Ronald ORourke is a coordinator for the Congressional Research Service specializing in Naval Affairs.) [Changes in the Arctic:
Background and Issues for Congress, The Congressional Research Service, 6/5/2014. Online@http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf
SM]
b. Work

with other Arctic nations to ensure that hydrocarbon and other development in the
Arctic region is carried out in accordance with accepted best practices and internationally
recognized standards and the 2006 Group of Eight (G-8) Global Energy Security Principles; c. Consult
with other Arctic nations to discuss issues related to exploration , production, environmental and
socioeconomic impacts, including drilling conduct, facility sharing, the sharing of environmental data, impact assessments,
compatible monitoring programs, and reservoir management in areas with potentially shared resources; d. Protect United States
interests with respect to hydrocarbon reservoirs that may overlap boundaries to mitigate adverse environmental and economic
consequences related to their development; e. Identify opportunities for international cooperation on methane hydrate issues, North
Slope hydrology, and other matters; f. Explore whether there is a need for additional fora for informing decisions on hydrocarbon
leasing, exploration, development, production, and transportation, as well as shared support activities, including infrastructure projects;
and g. Continue

to emphasize cooperative mechanisms with nations operating in the region to address shared
concerns, recognizing that most known Arctic oil and gas resources are located outside of United
States jurisdiction

Consultation Key to Successful artic development and avoiding escalation.


Smith 2011
MITH, REGINALD R. "The Arctic: A New Partnership Paradigm Or The Next "Cold War"?." JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly 62 (2011): 117-124.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 June 2014.

Using SARa nonthreatening and apolitical issue of interest to all Arctic and other user nationsas the means to open the
partnership door, the United States, in coordination with Russia, should develop the Multinational Arctic Task Force (MNATF).
Foundational support for development of the organization will be facilitated through a joint U.S.- and Russia-sponsored multinational
SAR exercise involving all the Arctic nations, notionally entitled Operation Arctic Light (OAL). Through the planning and execution
of OAL, Arctic nations will build trust, exchange ideas, build relationships, and see and experience the benefits of collaboration. The
natural progression over time can be shaped toward formalizing the exercise into an overarching coordination organization that
perpetuates OAL, along the lines of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Coast Guard Forums, which evolves into the desired
MNATF construct. MNATF would initially be comprised of the military representatives of the Arctic Five plus the additionally
recognized Arctic nations of Iceland, Sweden, and Finland. The mandate of the organization would be the regional coordination,
synchronization, and combination of member countries SAR activities, resources, and capabilities to meet the needs of the region.
The initial operational capability concept is a regional SAR organization that leverages the contributions of each member country into
a synergistic operational command capable of responding rapidly to SAR crises in the Arctic region. Building on a model similar to
the Shiprider program, MNATF may expand mission sets commensurate with perceived regional needs and the desires of member
nations to include rule of law enforcement on the high seas, resource protection, and antipiracy/ antiterrorism. The outgrowth of this
construct will be the improved safety, security, and stability of the region to the benefit of not only member nations, but also the
world at large. Corollary benefits of this new Arctic paradigm will include the partnerships formed and cooperation of nations
through information sharing and capability integration. Finally, for the United States, MNATF effectively fills a critical capability
gap, adds credible action to the NSPD 66 Arctic Region Policy directives, and supports the preservation of U.S. vital interests in the
Arctic region

Consult K2 Relations
Relations repairing now- plan avoids diplomacy and crushes relations.
Tschudi 14
Edle Astrup Tschudi- junior concentrating in Slavic Studies, As Ice Melts, the Arctic Warms Up to a Global Presence, Brown Political
Review, 3/25/14, http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/03/as-ice-melts-the-artic-warms-up-to-a-global-presence/

Though diplomatic relations with Russia are cooling globally, one region stands out: the
Arctic. The members of the Arctic Council Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and
the United States (Alaska) are making impressive diplomatic progress in the North. Here, the Russians and their
neighbors are marking the end of an often icy relationship that has persisted even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meetings
of the Arctic Council and other summits take a friendly and businesslike form, with politicians and businessmen
intermingling. The Arctic thaw is translating into a diplomatic thaw a thaw that is benefiting all
parties involved. Perhaps the time is ripe not only for a Nordic model, but also for an Arctic model for
diplomacy. Over the last few years, enormous Russia has amped up relations with comparatively minuscule neighbors such as
Norway, seemingly benefiting the smaller party; Russias usual power politics are clearly not as prominent in the area. Most
surprisingly, Russias relationship with the NATO countries Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Norway is blossoming. These relationships
stand in stark contrast to Russias problematic relationship to post-Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia or the Baltic NATO members,
to mention a few. The reason for this, ironically, may be that the Arctic NATO member nations used to be Russias enemies during the
Cold War. As a result, dependency upon Mother Russia was never established, which enables the

Arctic countries to
negotiate with Russia on a relatively even footing. The threat of inclusion or exclusion from a Russian trade union is
not a major concern for Russias resource-rich Arctic neighbors. In other words, Russias bargaining power is completely different in the
Arctic than near its southern or western borders. In dealing with smaller neighbors, Russias attitude has often been one of domination,
and airspace and maritime borders have often been a source of conflict. In the North, on the other hand, a historic border agreement in
the Barents Sea was signed in 2010, effectively ending a diplomatically complex process that began in 1970. The historic agreement will
allow potentially vast oil and gas fields in the Barents Sea to be exploited, which has previously been impossible because of the

region was commended as a


powerful example of international collaboration, with the Arctic countries largely conforming to
standard international treaties (e.g. UNCLOS), regional forums (e.g. the Arctic Council) and regular diplomatic channels
to resolve their differences. As a result, the growing alliances of Arctic nations are resolving key points of contestation long
unresolved border issue. In the World Economic Forum report on the Arctic, the

before they are aggravated, creating strong precedents for peaceful dialogue and trade. Increasingly large global players have stepped in
to take advantage of the Norths untapped potential. Most notably, Russian Novatek, French Total and China National Petroleum
Corporation made a final investment decision in December 2013 for the liquid natural gas project Yamal LNG. Their collective
investment $28 billion is, according to some, the biggest proof of the viability of extracting Arctic resources on a large scale. It is
also an example of Chinas increasing interest in the Arctic. China became a permanent observer to the Arctic Council in 2013. Another
sign of Russias willingness to cooperate was when French oil and gas company Total was tapped by Gazprom, the insular statecontrolled gas giant, as a co-developer of the now-stalled major Shtokman gas field in the Barents Sea. Shtokman is the largest offshore
natural gas field in the world and is assumed to hold over 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The developments in the North are not
solely related to oil and gas; trade routes are also opening up as a result of the melting of the polar ice cap. The Northeast Passage, also
known as the Northern Sea Route (NSR), a long-time dream of Nordic, Dutch and British polar explorers, has finally opened for
business. In 2013, more than 71 ships traversed the Northern Sea Route. The attraction of the route is mainly that it cuts travel time to
Asia by at least a quarter if traveling from Northern Europe. With todays high oil prices, this generates significant savings. Although
only open four to five months a year, the NSR would still be particularly important for resources being extracted in the North for
consumption in Asia. The summer availability of the NSR turns a freight disadvantage into an advantage during the ice-free season.
Even before transportation in the Arctic has taken on real economic importance, special regulations for shipping in Arctic waters are in
the works. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations agency responsible for shipping, is developing a
mandatory Polar Code. The code would serve as an Arctic supplement to the already existing international maritime laws. This piece of
legislation is intended to set the scene for sustainable development in the North and will make the possibility of a Wild North more
implausible. What all these Arctic deals have in common is that everyone stands to gain from effective communication and
cooperation, and that gridlock is everyones loss. The Northern Sea Route, for example, would be valuable to cut travel time for Western
European shipping, but it is also a great way for Russia to bring business and life to a desolate and largely poor, but also resource-rich,
northern area. Interestingly, much of the progress is rooted in concrete and economically motivated deals. The Arctic thaw not only is
making new trading routes open, but also is creating a precedent of peaceful diplomatic agreements between the Northern states.
Although the Arctic regions are sparsely populated and could be expected to be less influential than countries like Russia and China,
organizations like the

Arctic Council have demonstrated an unusual commitment to and capacity


for non-aggressive conflict resolution. The Arctic Council has proven itself an effective tool for creating the framework
for an ecologically and economically sustainable development of the future Arctic. Its members have worked together
towards the same goals ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and the official establishment of the

council in the 1996 Ottawa Declaration. The indigenous people represented on the councils have proven that governments can
work together internationally with indigenous people, instead of against them. Several indigenous organizations have representatives in
the council: the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwichin Council International, the Inuit Circumpolar
Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, and the Saami Council. The

kind of diplomacy seen


in the Arctic is probably possible because of the more pragmatic nature of the negotiations.
Until recently, the short-term stakes have been relatively low, and the rewards have been in a distant future. With long-term business
decisions forming the bulk of the special interests in the North, diplomatic relations take on a similar focus. By leaving many decisions
to individual economic actors, you ensure a pragmatic and less adversarial approach in the Arctic. Regardless, a solid foundation of
mutual trust in the North will definitely be valuable in a future where the Arctic may play a major role in global trade routes and
resource extraction.

Consultation strategy key to produce dialogue to solve future conflicts


tland 14
Dr. Kristian tland- Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), Russian-Western Relations in the Arctic:
Perceptions, Policies, and Prospects, European Leadership Network, 3/25/14, http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/russianwestern-relations-in-the-arctic-perceptions-policies-and-prospects_1280.html
As of today, Russia

and the other Arctic coastal states do not seem to have a proper forum
where they can discuss military security issues and concerns related to the Arctic. Russia is neither a NATO
member nor part of the Western security community. The NATO-Russia Council has so far not been able to serve as an arena for
NATO-Russia dialogue on Arctic security. The same goes for the Arctic Council, which is not seen by either party as a forum in which
hard (military) security issues can or should be discussed. Russian-Western

relations in the Arctic are still


marked by a largely lacking sense of trust and confidence. On top of that, recent developments in Ukraines
Crimea region are likely to have a negative impact on Russias relations with the EU and NATO, at least for some time. Russian
policymakers and media have in recent years had a tendency to portray any foreign military
activity in the Arctic as hostile and provocative, even when such activity takes place well
outside the countrys territorial waters or airspace and does not infringe on recognized
Russian rights. The Russians are concerned that foreign state or non-state actors may try to take
control of natural resources and/or shipping lanes rightfully belonging to the Russian
Federation. According to a recent statement by Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council, the United States,
Norway, Denmark, and Canada are pursuing a common and coordinated policy aimed at denying Russia access to the riches of the
Arctic continental shelf. In a somewhat similar manner, Canadas Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has stated on several occasions that
his country faces increasingly aggressive Russian actions, necessitating adequate defensive measures.

Consultation over Artic drilling key to repair U.S Russian Relations


Antrim 12
(Caitlyn Antrim, Relocating the Reset: U.S.-Russian Partnership in the Arctic, Feb 29, 2012, World Politics Review,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11627/relocating-the-reset-u-s-russian-partnership-in-the-arctic)
In January, when a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker escorted a Russian tanker carrying essential fuel to Nome,

Alaska, it served
as a reminder that the U.S. and Russia have many reasons to continue pursuing a thaw in
relations. Unfortunately, beyond the New START agreement and a few other deals, the U.S.-Russia reset, which was announced
with fanfare in 2009, seems to have descended into bureaucratic obscurity. While it is essential that the United States
maintains a constructive relationship with the Russian federal government, there is much
more to be gained in developing working relationships that extend to regional governments,
nongovernmental organizations and indigenous people as well, in order to address cooperation
not just in security affairs but also in economics, trade, science and environmental
conservation. Two expert assessments of the limitations of the reset are particularly insightful. In December 2010, Deana
Arsenian and Andrey Kortunov noted here in World Politics Review that while New START represented a major accomplishment, the
reset had so far failed to lay the foundation of a durable relationship that reached deeply into the two societies. A year later, former
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov blamed the entrenched geopolitical mindset of the political intelligentsia in both capitals for
protecting status quo views left over from the Cold War and creating a barrier to greater implementation of the reset. Building

a
better, more effective relationship with Russia is too important to allow ties to be derailed by

changes of leadership in both capitals. Unfortunately, a new approach at the highest levels of government may not be
possible given election year politics in Washington and Moscow, and certainly not when the reset is focused principally on presidents,
prime ministers and Cabinet members. Instead, the U.S.-Russia

relationship can be strengthened by opening


a new front that engages governments, businesses and civil society at regional and local levels
to address issues of economics, environment and quality of life. Just such an opportunity can
be found in the Arctic, where both countries share a frontier as well as the challenge of managing the Arctic environment as
climate change makes the region more accessible. Cooperation is already occurring in the Arctic, specifically the area between the

Beyond the
high-level forum of the Arctic Council, where national governments and indigenous people
are represented, there is a history over the past two decades of relationship-building at the
state and local levels, spearheaded by Alaskan and Russian governors. Issues of fisheries, Bering Strait
North Pole and the Bering Strait along the antimeridian and the coasts of the Russian Far East, Alaska and Canada.

shipping, regional development and environmental protection have led to increased regional cooperation. But differences in language
and culture, business practices and law, and, most of all, legacies of nearly a century of national

distrust have left these

local ties in dire need of their own reset. Given the regions distance from the two countries national capitals,
ownership of this kind of initiative should be devolved to state and provincial leaders, indigenous people, civil society organizations and
businesses, with encouragement and support from national governments and intergovernmental organizations. The countries of the
antimeridianal Arctic, which is effectively separated from the more economically developed regions of the Barents and Kara seas, stand
to gain from a regional partnership that addresses their common interests and concerns. Russia sees the opportunity to develop its vast
Arctic watershed, which is becoming accessible with the rejuvenation of the Northern Sea Route across its Arctic coast. Alaska wants to
capture benefits in energy development and trans-Arctic trade. The Canadian territories stand to gain from increased mineral
development. All three countries have common interests in sustainable fisheries, a clean environment and protection of native cultures.

These interests can open opportunities for regional cooperation toward a new and
productive future for the people of eastern Russia and North America. But cooperation without
structure runs the risk of being ad hoc and ineffective. Thats why such an initiative should take the form of a regional council
representing the states, territories and populations of the antimeridianal Arctic to identify problems and implement solutions that benefit
the people of the region and the nations themselves. In addition to developing a durable partnership across Russia, Alaska and northern
Canada, a regional council should be a partner to the high-level Arctic Council, providing it with local insight and advice as well as
assistance in implementing its recommendations in ways most compatible with local and regional concerns. The

antimeridianal Arctic provides a promising new front on which to reinvigorate the U.S.Russia reset. Far from the centers of national government and politics, local governments and populations may provide more stable
and continuous leadership. Issues of economic development and environmental protection can provide common focus, in contrast to the
competitive aspects of national security and great power politics. The participation of Canada's northern territories can moderate the
inevitable spillover of Washington-Moscow politics into the development of a regional partnership for the antimeridianal Arctic. So, too,
would the overarching interests of the Arctic Council and other international organizations -- as well as multinational businesses,
environmental organizations and indigenous peoples organizations that transcend national borders -- help develop a new partnership in
the Arctic. For the sake of the Arctic as well as for East-West relations, the three federal governments should encourage and support the
creation of such a council and recognize that regional leadership will be the key to its success.

Cooperation now is the only way to prevent conflict


Backus 12
(George Backus, principal member of technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories and uses behavioral and physical simulation
methods to address national and international security risks associated with climate change. Arctic 2030: What are the consequences of
climate change? The US response, July/August 2012, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Because no

entity, other than perhaps the Russian government, has the military bases and
means to accommodate area-wide protection and enforcement needs, the United States will
necessarily have to maintain strong cooperative arrangements with nations and corporations
for the coordinated, safe, and secure use of Arctic resources. Right now, the US military position in the
Arctic is problematic. Both the Northern Command and the European Command have responsibility for what, in a cooperative
multinational environment, is a single area (Carafano et al., 2011; Carmen et al., 2010). Some analysts argue that NATO should play the
coordinating role in the Arctic (Conley, 2012), but such a path would create new ten- sions among the national players, and it does not
resolve the specific position of the United States in the Arctic (Wezeman, 2012). Although the Arctic nations themselves may strive for
cooperation, entanglement with corporations and other foreign entities will assuredly produce tensions that are outside the domain of the
US Coast Guard. Abrupt changes in expectations and in a nations ability to cope with changing circumstances appear to be factors that
can trigger conflict (Agency for International Development, 2009 ).

If the early international relations dynamics in


the Arctic move fairly slowly, all parties could co-evolve toward balanced positions with
relatively little conflict. Rapid dynamics could raise tensions. If all nations sustain approximately equal

positive or negative repercussions from changes in Arctic regulations or climatic conditions, or


they all believe they could limit the pace and extent of negative impacts through negotiation, routine diplomatic processes
could mollify tensions. Climate change will, however, produce an ever-shifting playing field that heightens tensions among
countries more concerned with relative rather than absolute advantage in the area.

Trying to block Russian expansion hurts relations and risks war


Eland 08
Ivan Eland, Sr. Fellow @ Independent Inst., former Defense Analyst for Congressional Budget Office. The Independent Institute.
<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2363>.

But the bear is now coming out of a long hibernation a bit rejuvenated. Using increased petroleum
revenues from the oil price spike, the Russians will hike defense spending 26 percent next year to about
$50 billion the highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet as the oil price declines from this
historic high, Russia will have fewer revenues to increase defense spending and rebuild its military. Even the $50 billion a year has to be
put in perspective. The United States is spending about $700 billion per year on defense and starting from a much higher plain of
capability. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian military fell apart and was equivalent to that of a developing country.
Even the traditionally hawkish U.S. military and defense leaders and analysts are not worried about Russias plans to buy modern arms,
improve military living standards to attract better senior enlisted personnel, enhance training, and cut back the size of the bloated forces
and officer corps. For example, Eugene B. Rumer of the U.S. National Defense University was quoted in the Washington Post as saying
that Russian actions are not a sign, really, of the Russian military being reborn, but more of a Russia being able to flex what relatively
little muscle it has on the global scale, and to show that it actually matters.[1]In addition, the Russian military is very corruptwith an
estimated 40 percent of the money for some weapons and pay for personnel being stolen or wasted. This makes the amount of real
defense spending far below the nominal $50 billion per year. U.S.

analysts say, however, that increased military


spending would allow Russia to have more influence over nations in its near abroad and Eastern
Europe. Of course, throughout history, small countries living in the shadow of larger powers have had to make political, diplomatic, and
economic adjustments to suit the larger power. Increased

Russian influence in this sphere, however, should


not necessarily threaten the security of the faraway United States. It does only because the
United States has defined its security as requiring intrusions into Russias traditional sphere
of influence. By expanding NATO into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the United States has guaranteed the security
of these allied countries against a nuclear-armed power, in the worst case, by sacrificing its cities in a nuclear war. Providing this kind of

Denying Russia the sphere of influence in


nearby areas traditionally enjoyed by great powers (for example, the U.S. uses the Monroe Doctrine to police the
Western Hemisphere) will only lead to unnecessary U.S.-Russian tension and possibly even
cataclysmic war.
guarantee for these non-strategic countries is not in the U.S. vital interest.

US unilateral action in the arctic is perceived as a move to control resourcesConsultation key to reset.
Stevens et al 10 (Andrew Hart, Bruce Jones and David Steven, Managing Global Order May 2012,
http://www.cic.nyu.edu/mgo/docs/jones_arctic.pdf, Andrew Hart is a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado. Bruce Jones is Senior
Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative (MGO) at Brookings and New York Universitys Center on International
Cooperation (NYU/CIC). David Steven is a Senior Fellow at NYU/CIC and leads MGOs Geopolitics of Scarcity Project.)
These objectives were in turn the backdrop to a challenge posed to us in 2010 by then Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg .

Where bilateral relations on security and economic issues had long been the bread and butter of
American diplomacy, the new international realities increasingly require the United States to
better understand how to foster and mange what Steinberg called the infrastructure for collective action.
His charge to the MGO program was to chart those issues where collective action was most needed and where the frameworks to
generate it most absent. Among his top priorities was the Arctic. This paper is our response. It is also a down
payment on a broader analysis of the changing challenge of maritime security and the naval order, part of an ongoing MGO
workstream.

For sixty years, naval dominance has been the bedrock of American power
projection and the place where U.S. hard power most directly protects a common economic good,
freedom of trade and the free flow of energy. Will the high seas remain a domain of U.S.
dominance? Become a terrain of acute competition for energy resources and regional

security, between the U.S. and the rising powers? Or is there a prospect that regional and
global multilateral architecture, formal and informal, can help to manage those tensions? The
answer will be crucial to the overall balance between order and disorder in the international system. The evolution of
arrangements to manage rising competition in the Arctic gives us some grounds for
cautious optimism about that broader challenge ahead.

Consult K2 Stability
Cooperation key to make the Arctic a Major Region, Rid Securitization in Arctic policy,
and solve for conflicts in the Arctic
Keskitalo 12
(Carina Keskitalo is a professor of political science at Umea University in Sweden. Research specializes in how climate change strategies
are developed for the Arctic Region). [Setting the Agenda on the Arctic: Whose Policy Frames the Region? Brown Journal of World
Affairs, Fall/Winter 2012. Online@file:///C:/Users/Spee%20Mitch/Downloads/SettingArticAgenda%20(1).pdf SM]
The Arctic is thus far from a single homogenous region. Conceptualizing

the Arctic, which covers up to a tenth of the

worlds surface area, as a region can be seen as an instance of region building. This is a process akin to,
but larger in scale than, nation building. In region building, a region is first constructed through a label defined by the areas scope,
boundaries, symbolic shape, institutions, and image; the last is seen not only in the mass media but also in the scientific literature.7

This is a political development, and such developments inherently complicate matters of different identities,
allegiances, and traditions. This effect is writ large when the members of the new region are eight nationstates with very different traditions of development, spanning the Old and New Worlds and exhibiting vastly
different development trajectories. Regional Arctic cooperation does not merely consolidate an Arctic
region: it creates one. The DevelopmenT oF The ArCTiC: whose inTernATionAl region? If one were to single out the
policy problem that the creation of the Arctic Council was attempting to solve, it would certainly be
securitization. Establishing a forum for nonbinding cooperation and discussion was preferable to the
major security policy vacuum left in the wake of the Cold War. Beyond the problems of securitization, however, the large
range of issues requiring cooperation was for the most part open to interpretation by policy entrepreneurs, including policy makers,
government officials, interest groups and scholars working on the Arctic. Due to the policy window open after the Cold War and the
favorable political and policy contexts the end of that era created, these entrepreneurs finally found themselves with an opportunity to
promote the policy solutions they had identified. In many cases, these were solutions to particularly long-standing domestic issues.
Canadas strong focus on its internally defined Arctic area (the area above 60 degrees north) had made it dominant in literature that uses
the term Arctic. Canada had also been by far the most active state in Arctic cooperation. Problems

in its northern areas


include not only conflicts with the United States over rights to the ice-covered waters of north
Canada, but also social change in its relatively recently settled Arctic regions and indigenous
demands for self-rule. Internationalizing the discussion on these problems and areas not only
potentially hedged against the diplomatic weight of the United States, but also could limit domestic conflict by providing
an international arena to address indigenous issues

Russia Arctic Cooperation Leverages Russia Power and Key to Global Security
Kraska 09
Dr. James Kraska- principal drafter of the national security provisions of the U.S. Arctic Region Policy, From Pariah to Partner: RussianAmerican Security Cooperation in the Arctic Ocean, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Sept 2009
IMPLEMENTING THE COOPERATIVE STRATEGY IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN The Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea
Power, which was signed by the service chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard in 2007, suggests climate change may
become a potential source of competition and conflict.68 Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only
to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global transport system,69 the strategy states.
While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources of competition and conflict for access and natural
resources.70 But the

Russian Navy is not going to go away and it is far more favorable to co-opt
the force than resist it. Doing so leverages the military and political power of Russia to achieve the goals of the
Cooperative Strategyincreasing the rule of law in the oceans. If the Russian Navy can successfully be
incorporated into the global security paradigm, then an entirely new and powerful capability is
brought on line to contribute to maritime security constabulary operations, humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief and the assertion of freedom of navigation challenges. Such close coordination
for maritime security cooperation also presents the navies of the United States and other countries with the
opportunity to share best practices, present our perspective on how to best strengthen conflict avoidance at sea and broaden
maritime regional stability. No nation can do it alone, and Russia could be a great force

multiplier. Building on Russias renewed interest in the oceans and yearning for
recognition, the United States and the other major maritime powers should seriously
operationalize the Cooperative Strategy in its Arctic relationship with Russia. Going beyond
diplomatic engagement with Moscow, the United States should seek to conduct exercises and mission planning for responsible
multinational patrols in critical areas such as the Arctic Ocean.

Consult Solves Arctic war


Consultation key to prevent arctic war
Konyshev, 12
(Valery Konyshev, Ph.D, Professor of the Department of Theory and History of International Relations at St. Petersburg State University's
School of International Relations, and Aleksandr Sergunin, Professor of International Relations at the Higher School of Economics (St.
Petersburg) and St. Petersburg State University, Russian Politics and Law, vol. 50, no. 2, MarchApril 2012, The Arctic at the Crossroads
of Geopolitical Interests)

The Arctic powers have accelerated the modernization of their armed forces. The Norwegian navy
has ordered five of the newest frigates, which it plans to equip with high-technology strike missiles (three frigates have been supplied to
the navy so far). By the end of 2007 five patrol ships of the Nomen design, developed especially for work in Norwegian coastal waters,
had been commissioned.47 In 2009 the budget of the Norwegian navy was 3 billion krone240 million krone more than in the previous
year. In 2008 the Norwegian government decided to purchase forty-eight American Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft to replace
Norways obso- lescent F-16 fighters. It plans to spend 150 billion Norwegian krone for these purposes.48 In 2008 the Finnish air force
was allocated 200 million euros for the creation of a new radar system to monitor its airspace in the direction of Russia.49 The

Russian Federation plans to modernize its fleet of long-range bombers (TU-95MS, TU-160, and TU22MZ), and to add three atomic-powered submarines of the Borei class to the Northern Fleet. As already noted, the United
States plans to modernize its heavy icebreaker fleet, which belongs to the Coast Guard and is regarded as a vital
instrument for controlling northern straits and for ensuring access to the natural resources of the Arctic. We have already mentioned that
some states (Norway and Russia)

are making more active use of naval forces to defend their economic
interests in the region. The Arctic is drawing increasing attention both from the main regional players and from the world as a
whole. Here are concentrated enormous natural riches, on whose rational exploitation the future of all humankind depends. The region
could also turn into a transport corridor of global importance. At the same time, the Arctic has more than a few problems connected,
above all, with ecology, unresolved territorial disputes, and in some cases the calamitous situation of indigenous peoples. Unfortunately,
various international actors still choose to compete rather than to cooperate in this region. Parties often try to solve problems not by

A dangerous tendency toward militarization of the Arctic is clearly


in evidence. It is essential that Russia and the whole international community consider
finding mutually acceptable solutions to prevent the escalation of negative trends. In our
view, a paradigm based on cooperation and mutual accommodation of interests is preferable
to the further intensification of confrontation in this region, which will become increasingly
important over the foreseeable future.
political and legal means but by force.

Consultation key to prevent arctic conflict


Koshkin 13
Pavel Koshkin- Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Russia Direct, The Arctic: Confrontation or collaboration?, Russia Direct, 12/2/13,
http://www.russia-direct.org/content/arctic-confrontation-or-collaboration
The Arctic conference in Moscow, The Arctic: Region of Development and Cooperation, which is organized by the Russian
International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of World Economy and International Relations
(IMEMO) on Dec. 2-3, brings together politicians, diplomats, academics, businessmen and environmentalists from the U.S., Russia,
Canada and Europe. Since the

conference presents a unique opportunity to address common challenges in the Arctic


cooperation between countries, the organizers of the conference as well as most of the participants are
optimistic about the future of the Arctic. The Arctic region is a laboratory of new models for
international collaboration that can be applied in other [less stable] regions, said Andrey V.
and foster

Kortunov, President of the New Eurasia Foundation and the General Director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Russian Presidents Special Envoy for International Cooperation in the


Arctic and Antarctic, doesnt see any reason for future confrontation in the Arctic . A large number of
conferences dedicated to the Arctic indicate that there is growing interest in bringing stability
to the region and more cooperation, according to him. The Arctic conference in Moscow indicates that there are a lot
of unresolved issues that we need to negotiate, Chilingarov told Russia Direct. Under the Russian strategic
Artur Chilingarov, the

framework for the Arctic, the regions development is related to international collaboration,
We will

Cooperation now is the only way to prevent conflict


Backus 12
(George Backus, principal member of technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories and uses behavioral and physical simulation
methods to address national and international security risks associated with climate change. Arctic 2030: What are the consequences of
climate change? The US response, July/August 2012, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Because no

entity, other than perhaps the Russian government, has the military bases and
means to accommodate area-wide protection and enforcement needs, the United States will
necessarily have to maintain strong cooperative arrangements with nations and corporations
for the coordinated, safe, and secure use of Arctic resources. Right now, the US military position in the
Arctic is problematic. Both the Northern Command and the European Command have responsibility for what, in a cooperative
multinational environment, is a single area (Carafano et al., 2011; Carmen et al., 2010). Some analysts argue that NATO should play the
coordinating role in the Arctic (Conley, 2012), but such a path would create new ten- sions among the national players, and it does not
resolve the specific position of the United States in the Arctic (Wezeman, 2012). Although the Arctic nations themselves may strive for
cooperation, entanglement with corporations and other foreign entities will assuredly produce tensions that are outside the domain of the
US Coast Guard. Abrupt changes in expectations and in a nations ability to cope with changing circumstances appear to be factors that
can trigger conflict (Agency for International Development, 2009 ).

If the early international relations dynamics in


the Arctic move fairly slowly, all parties could co-evolve toward balanced positions with
relatively little conflict. Rapid dynamics could raise tensions. If all nations sustain approximately equal
positive or negative repercussions from changes in Arctic regulations or climatic conditions, or
they all believe they could limit the pace and extent of negative impacts through negotiation, routine diplomatic processes
could mollify tensions. Climate change will, however, produce an ever-shifting playing field that heightens tensions among
countries more concerned with relative rather than absolute advantage in the area.

Russia will cooperate and not fight over the Arctic it is in their Geopolitical interests
Baev 11 (Norwegian political scientist and security scholar. He is currently a research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and
a senior nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution) Pavel, Carnegie Council Report, June
3 https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0104.html/_res/id=sa_File1/Russia's%20High%20Ambitions%2
0and%20Ambivalent%20Activities%20in%20the%20Arctic.pdf

The tentative shift to cooperation from geopolitical competition (which appeared real in the late-2000s, but was
actually rather experimental) has been drivennot by Moscow's principled pro-Western choice, but rather by
opportunism. It is not so much the immediate benefits from cooperation that prompted this
shift,but rather the concern that a defiant stance could convince neighbors to overcome their differences
and gang up against Russia. So Moscow demonstrates commitment to strengthening the Arctic
Council, while at the same time indicating a preference for networking with the narrower format of the Arctic Five.

Russia wont fight too many structural barriers to aggression in the Arctic
Baev 11 (Norwegian political scientist and security scholar. He is currently a research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and
a senior nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution) Pavel, Carnegie Council Report, June
3 https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0104.html/_res/id=sa_File1/Russia's%20High%20Ambitions%2
0and%20Ambivalent%20Activities%20in%20the%20Arctic.pdf

The inescapable problem with the desire to assert sovereignty over the largest part of the Arctic
is the weakness of the Russian state, with its economic vulnerability and political
backwardness. The needs of economic modernization, increasingly internalized by elites, prescribe
massive investments in high-tech industries and techno-parks; these preclude a mobilization
of resources and attention to developing the Arctic. A key precondition of an economic revival is
modernization of the "enlightened authoritarian" political system, which has a particular

interest in channeling budget funding towards Arctic programs, due to plentiful


opportunities for misappropriation and graft. Russia's current trajectory of economic and political stagnation is
unsustainable, and a modernization breakthrough is both necessary and feasible. But such a breakthrough wouldsomewhat
paradoxicallycut down on ambitions for an Arctic "re-conquest."

Artic War Coming Now


Arctic changes set off a scramble for resources that sparks conflict
Goldenberg 5/14
(Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent) [Climate change poses growing threat of conflict in the Arctic, report finds, The
Guardian, 5/14/2014. Online@http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/14/climate-change-arctic-security-threat-report
SM]
Climate change poses a growing security threat and could cause conflict in the Arctic, a group of retired American generals and admirals
said on Tuesday. In a new report, the former military officers said the Pentagon had been caught out by the rapid changes under way in
the Arctic because of the melting of the sea ice. Things

are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had


looked at," said General Paul Kern, the chairman of the Centre for Naval Analysis Corporation's military advisory board, which
produced the report. The changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged. The prospect of
an ice-free Arctic by mid-century had set off a scramble for shipping lanes by Russia and China especially, and for
access to oil and other resources. As the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it represents a lot of
opportunites for Russia, he said. Oil companies were also moving into the Arctic. "We think things are
accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at seven years ago," he said, saying the
situation had the potential to "spark conflict there

Russia is prepared to use military force and will lock competitors out of the region if
not challenged
Strategic Studies Institute 2011
Strategic Studies Institute Monograph RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC Stephen J. Blank Editor July 2011
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf
All this creates the impression that Russia is seriously preparing to fight (including the use of military force) for possession of a
huge Arctic space. Moscow filed a claim with the United Nations (UN) Commis- sion on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in
December 2001 with the hope of getting the rights to areas lying beyond its 200-mile zone. The matter at stake involves a territory
exceeding 1.2 million square kilometers (km) in the Barents Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Strait, and the ice-free waters of the
Arc- tic Ocean, which Russia views as its sovereign pos- sessions. This claim rests on Russian research of the earths crust structure
at the Mendeleyev Elevation in the Arctic Ocean that has proven the continental na- ture of many sections of the oceanic floor, which
were previously attributed to the sub-oceanic type.10 Formally, Russias claim does not contradict the norms of international maritime
law. The Conven- tion on the Law of the Sea passed by the UN in 1982 does envision an opportunity for littoral countries to expand
their sovereign rights beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zonenot infinitely, though, but only over those sections of the seabed
of which the continental origins have been proved conclusively. Russia was the first country ever to lodge a claim with the CLCS; there
is no mechanism for passing decisions of this kind. The UN regulations suggest that if a coun- try lodging a claim agrees with the
commissions rec- ommendations, the latter are made public, after which the revised borders become final and mandatory. The first
attempt did not bring the desired result, as the CLCS asked for more convincing geological and geophysical evidence that the
Mendeleyev and Lo- monosov submerged ridges are extensions of Russias continental shelf. Russias intensive Arctic research 47
carried out in 2005-07 and the symbolic culmination of this activitythe installation of the Russian tricolor on the sea floorwere
called upon to add more weight to the official claim. The second claim will be filed not earlier then 2013.11 If successful, this
theoretically would provide Moscow unbelievable wealth. It would have at its dis- posal the Northern Sea Route, which, together
with the Northwest Passage, would give Russia the op- portunity to control the shortest route between North America, Europe,
and Asia. Moreover, if Moscow can prove its right to own a significant part of the Arc- tic Ocean, it will be allowed to develop oil
and gas deposits. Experts estimate oil and gas deposits in the Russian part of the Arctic at 25 percent of the worlds hydrocarbon
reserves (approximately 15.5 billion tons of oil and 84.5 trillion cubic meters of gas). At pres- ent, Russia is already extracting up to 90
percent of the nickel and cobalt in the Arctic, 60 percent of the copper, 96 percent of platinoids, and 100 percent of apatite
concentrate.12

Russia is militarizing the region now. Lack of US Arctic capability allows for unchecked
global expansionism
Strategic Studies Institute 2011

Strategic Studies Institute Monograph RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC Stephen J. Blank Editor July 2011
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf
The Arctic has reemerged as a strategic area where vital U.S. interests are at stake. The

geopolitical and geo-economic


importance of the Arctic region is immense, as its mineral wealth is likely to turn the region into a booming
economic frontier in the 21st century. The Arctic coasts and continental shelf are estimated to hold large deposits of oil, natural gas,
methane hydrate (natural gas) clusters, and large quantities of valuable minerals. With the shrinking of the polar ice cap, navigation
through the Northwest Passage along the northern coast of North America may become increasingly pos- sible with the help of
icebreakers. Similarly, Russia is seeking to make the Northern Sea Route along the northern coast of Eurasia navigable for considerably
longer periods during the year and is listing it as part of its national boundaries in the Kremlins new Arc- tic strategy. Passage through
these shorter routes will significantly cut the time and costs of shipping. (See Map 1-1.) In recent years, Russia has been particularly
active in the Arctic, aggressively advancing its inter- ests and claims by using international law and also establishing a comprehensive
presence in the Arctic, including the projection of military might into the re- gion. Despite the Arctics strategic location and vast resources, the United States has largely ignored this vi- tal region. In the 11th hour of the Bush administration, however, the White House
issued a new Arctic policy, but follow-through was left to the Obama administra- tion, which has been slow to move on the issue. The
United States needs to implement a comprehensive policy for the Arctic, including diplomatic, naval, military, and economic policy
components. The United States needs to swiftly map U.S. territorial claims to determine their extent and to defend against claims by
other countries. Thus exploiting the rich hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic will continue to remain relevant as China and India
continue on courses of growth and global economies rebound. These resources have the potential to significantly enhance the economy
and the energy security of North America and the world, and reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. THE ARCTICS VAST
UNTAPPED RESOURCES The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arc- tic might hold as much as 90 billion barrels of oil13
percent of the worlds undiscovered oil reservesand 47.3 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of natural gas30 per- cent of the world's
undiscovered natural gas. At cur- rent consumption rates, assuming a 50 percent utiliza- tion rate of reserves, this is enough oil to meet
global demand for 1.4 years and U.S. demand for 6 years. Arctic natural gas reserves may equal Russias proven reserves, the worlds
largest.1 (See Table 1-1.)

Artic War: Nuclear


Escalating tensions in the Arctic go nuclear
Cohen 10, Ariel. "From Russian Competition to Natural Resources Access: Recasting U.S. Arctic Policy." Heritage Foundation, 15 June
2010. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2421.pdf>.

The military is an important dimension of Moscows Arctic push. The policy calls for
creating general purpose military formations drawn from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation as well
as other troops and military formations in the Arctic zone. Russia views the High North as a
major staging area for a potential nuclear confrontation with the United States and has
steadily expanded its military presence in the Arctic since 2007. This has included resuming
air patrols over the Arctic, including strategic bomber flights. During 2007 alone, Russian
bombers penetrated Alaskas 12-mile air defense zone 18 times. The Russian Navy is
expanding its presence in the Arctic for the first time since the end of the Cold War,
increasing the operational radius of the Northern Fleets submarines. Russia is also reorienting
its military strategy to meet threats to the countrys interests in the Arctic.

Impact- Russian Nationalism


A loss of power emboldens Russian nationalists
Nodia 9 Georgian political analyst who served as the Minister of Education and Science in the Cabinet of Georgia (April 2009, Ghia, THE WOUNDS OF
LOST EMPIRE, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 20, Iss. 2; pg. 34, Proquest)
I believe that the crucial factor in explaining the peculiarity of the Russian case (or, to use the Churchillian words, the

"key" to the Russian


"enigma") has to do with developments in Russian nationalism, or the Russian perception of
the world and Russia's place in it. The concept of nationalism mostly brings to mind small nations striving for independence from
larger ones. But big-nation nationalism is no less important, even if many contemporary analysts of international relations fail to gauge its significance.

But great-power
nationalism is about participation in determining the world order, about having a voice in
setting international norms. It is about the recognition not merely of sovereignty, but of greatness.
Failure to attain such recognition leads to deep feelings of resentment: It is the note of
resentment that makes this variety of nationalism the most powerful factor in international
politics, especially post-Cold War politics. The syndrome is mostly characteristic of nations that once had,
but have now lost, great-power status. Russia is one of the most conspicuous cases of great-power resentment, though certainly
Small-nation nationalism is typically about sovereignty, about being recognized as a player that can make its own choices.

not the only one. Such resentment expresses itself in various ways in the behavior of nations as different as France, Turkey, Iran, and China. The Mainspring
of Policy The

most popular target of such resentment is the United States-not necessarily


because it has done something wrong (it may have done so, of course, but that is not at issue here) but because it is
the great power of the day. The resentment may also take as its target a vaguer entity called "the West," because in the modern world, "the
West" has acquired the collective moral power to set norms in politics and much more besides.

Resurgence of Russian nationalism triggers World War III


Israelyan 98 Victor Israelyan was a Soviet ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political scientist. The Washington Quarterly
1998 Winter"

The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this
option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and
foreign policies. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to
mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's
denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the
Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force, including the
acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well
as medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the
denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario,

Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic
partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will
revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds
against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear
weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS
countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal,
including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even

the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object
that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could
carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert
Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO"
deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result

Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the
former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost
humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then
again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power
scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any
political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by
the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear
weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the
risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States
and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context,
of World War I and the Versailles Treaty,

one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot
but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until
we all fall down together." n12

Ext. Nationalism
Power is zero-sum a weakened Russia emboldens nationalism
Barry 9 Moscow correspondent for The New York Times (1/12/2009, Ellen, U.S.-Russia relations at a crossroads; Moscow can elect path of cooperation or one of retrenchment, The
International Herald Tribune, Lexis)

The second scenario is one of retrenchment and nationalism. ''Less resources


means more selfish behavior,'' Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow, said. In this scenario,
Russia finds itself facing internal dissent and the threat of regional separatism, while also short of the oil
money that it used to disburse to maintain control. When forced to fight for their own survival, political leaders
tailor their policies to public opinion. They tend to focus on an external enemy, for instance the United States, which
Russian leaders already blame for the financial crisis and for provoking Russia by trying to exert military
influence over Ukraine. By this logic, it would be absurd for Moscow to cede ground to the West now, after
the long-awaited taste of satisfaction that Russia experienced with the recent war with Georgia. Indeed, many
Russians see the war last August as having restored Russia's rightful place in the world. ''Russia has returned, period,'' Vyacheslav
Nikonov, president of the Kremlin-aligned Polity Foundation, said. ''That will not change. It will not get back under the table.'' So which scenario is more likely? First, it is clear that the
Russian authorities are preparing to defend their political power. After presenting himself as a liberal modernizer, Medvedev has made it a priority
But others see the crisis pushing Russia in the opposite direction.

to extend the presidential term to six years from four. Meanwhile, the president also signed a law last week that eliminates jury trials for ''crimes against the state'' and that, pending legislation,
would expand the definition of treason.

Russias decline sparks nationalism


Kitfield 8 national security and foreign affairs correspondent for National Journal magazine, an independent and non-partisan newsweekly on politics and government published by
Atlantic Media Company (12/20/2008, James, Russia's New Red Lines, The National Journal, Lexis)

Russia's most important national goal is to make the country count again in international affairs, or as President
'Russia exists as a great power, or it doesn't exist at all

"

Medvedev put it,


,' " said Thomas Graham, who served as the director for Russia on the National
Security Council from 2002 to 2007. The region that historically gave Russia geopolitical weight in the world, he noted, is the former Soviet satellites on its periphery. "Expanding NATO [to
Russia's borders] would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era."--George Kennan in 1997 "Great powers are supposed to radiate influence, so where else
can Russia do so but in its own neighborhood, which is critically important to Russia's economic prosperity, to its sense of security, and to its self-identity?" said Graham, speaking at the AEI.
"The biggest issue that continues to poison U.S.-Russian relations -- and we saw it in spades during the Georgian conflict last summer -- is whether the U.S. and Russia can manage relations in
that part of the world in a way that recognizes Russian interests but at the same time respects the sovereignty and independence of countries in the region." Although Clinton and Bush
administration officials rightfully point to the gains in freedom and stability that came with NATO's expansion, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and other experts warned all
along that the policy was flawed. Expansion lacked a logical end point, he said, and failed to take into account Russia's perception of being surrounded by a military alliance that it could never
join. Another prominent critic was George Kennan, a noted Russia expert and the architect of the strategy of "containment" of the Soviet Union that triumphed in the Cold War. "Expanding
NATO [to Russia's borders] would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era," Kennan wrote in a 1997New York Timesop-ed. "Such a decision may be
expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere
of the Cold War to East-West relations; and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking." Strategic Miscalculation Kennan's dire warnings look increasingly
prescient. Western leaders assumed that in the long term Russia would remain on the road toward democratic reform and thus generally compliant with the democratic development of its
neighbors. In the short term, the West also considered Russia too weak and dependent on Western aid and trade to thwart allied designs. In recent years, both of those assumptions appeared

ever since former KGB apparatchik Vladimir Putin became president in


Russia has marched steadily in a more authoritarian and anti-democratic direction. The Kremlin has taken
control of virtually all broadcast media. The government routinely buys stakes in independent businesses through strong-arm tactics, and political opponents and
critics of Putin, both at home and abroad, have a disturbing habit of winding up in prison or in the morgue. Putin has stoked Russians' nationalism and sense
of grievance to a fever pitch with anti-American diatribes comparing the Bush administration to the Nazi Third
Reich and lamenting the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the "greatest catastrophe of the 20th century." Putin has even implied that the United States was indirectly responsible for the
increasingly dubious yet Washington and other alliance capitals hardly seemed to notice. In fact,
2000,

horrific Beslan school massacre in 2004, during which Chechen rebels took 1,100 hostages, 334 of whom were killed in the rescue operation. "What I hear from many friends who've been to
Russia recently is their surprise and dismay at the hostility and intensity of the official rhetoric directed at the United States and reflected in the state-controlled media, and increasingly we're
seeing the authoritarianism at home in Russia reflected in its policies abroad," said Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, speaking at the German Marshall Fund.

Russia today is increasingly a "revisionist" power, looking to turn back the clock, Fried contends. "Russia's demand for a 'sphere of
influence' and privileged relations with countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union is really a 19th-century view that recalls Czar Nicholas. And Russia has tried [in Georgia] to enforce it
through 19th-century means." As one of the world's largest energy exporters, Russia has regained economic strength in recent years through the flow of petrodollars. At the same time, the
Russian military has resumed some of its most provocative Cold War practices. Russian bombers have again taken to buzzing U.S. aircraft carriers and entering the NATO allies' air space.
Moscow has also sought partnerships with such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Venezuela. NATO leaders could plausibly argue a decade ago that a relatively weak Russia determined to integrate
with the West would come around to view the alliance as benign; they cannot plausibly make that argument of the stronger, increasingly anti-democratic, and bellicose Russia of 2008. Western
nations knew that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had severely stretched the capacities of the U.S. military and its NATO counterparts, but they didn't think that Moscow would notice. As it
turns out, Russia not only perceived that weakness but exploited it in its war on Georgia. And Georgia came after a series of NATO moves angered the Kremlin. In the year preceding the
outbreak of hostilities in Georgia, the Bush administration and many Western allies officially recognized Kosovo's independence despite Russia's strong objections and Putin's threats to recognize
the independence of South Ossetia in return. At the Bucharest summit last spring, the allies announced plans to offer a path toward NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, former states of
the Soviet Union whose borders Russia had long insisted were red lines that NATO crossed at its peril. The United States also unilaterally announced plans to build a missile defense system in
Poland and the Czech Republic over stringent objections from Moscow. "Put yourself in Putin's shoes for just a moment," George Friedman, president of the private intelligence and analytic firm
Stratfor, advised in an interview. "You've stated publicly that the breakup of the Soviet empire was a geopolitical catastrophe for Russia, and then you look around and all your neighbors are
being admitted to a military alliance that you fought for 40 years. You look at democratic revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and you see a systematic conspiracy by U.S. intelligence to strangle
the motherland by surrounding Russia with pro-Western satellites. You also see the United States tied down in the Middle East and NATO in Afghanistan, and you realize that your adversaries
have miscalculated the relative power balance of the moment. What do you do? You take advantage of that weakness by choosing a country closely aligned with the United States, like Georgia,
and you humiliate it. Then you turn to other countries in the region like Ukraine and the Baltic nations, and you say, 'Look, that's what U.S. security guarantees are worth.' " Alexander (Sandy)
Vershbow was the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2001 to 2005, and ambassador to NATO before that. "The Russians have come to believe with great conviction that the United States is out to
weaken them and deprive Russia of its rightful place in the world. That view is fundamentally wrong, but it reflects the views of KGB and security-force people who have come to dominate
Russia's leadership under Putin, and who never accepted the paradigm of the West trying to integrate Russia into a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace," he said recently at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies. Perceiving that the United States is weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by the financial crisis, "the Russians are now in payback mode and
intent on settling scores," Vershbow said. "That could make life very difficult for the next administration." Challenging Obama The confluence of the Georgia conflict, the global financial crisis,
and the change of administration in Washington is producing a moment in U.S.-Russian relations fraught with risk -- and opportunity. As a result of the war, the economic meltdown, and the

Russian government's outsized role in business, foreign capital has fled Russia, forcing Moscow to suspend trading and close its stock exchange on multiple occasions. The precipitous drop in oil
prices has further rocked the Russian economy. Some experts believe that the aftershocks have shaken Moscow's triumphalism of August, underscoring that Russia isolates itself from the West
and the global economy at its own risk. The Russian economy remains one-dimensionally centered on energy and badly needs modernization and Western technology. Some experts also advise
that talking with the Russians when oil is selling at less than $50 a barrel would be more fruitful than when it was nearly $150 a barrel. "Many Western countries were stunned in 2006 when
Russia shut off its oil shipments to Ukraine in a showdown over pricing, and many attributed it to the Russian leadership's heady exuberance and intoxication over their oil wealth and economic
revival," said Zeyno Baran, an energy expert and the director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute. "Now with oil prices going way down, a new realism may creep into the

if Putin continues to blame the United States for all of his country's ills and to stoke
xenophobic nationalism to maintain domestic political support in tough times, the Russian mood could turn
even nastier. At some point, that narrative begins to read like Germany's Weimar Republic in the interwar
years, a destitute society nursing its grievances and plotting revenge, largely in isolation.
calculations of Russia." On the other hand,

Russia Relations Good War


US-Russian Relations are essential to prevent nuclear war
Elliot 1995 (Michael Elliott, News Week, Why Russia still matters to America, May 15)

Russia

--

"
," says Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "is a big country." That it is; lop off the newly independent states born within the old Soviet husk and you've still got a lot left
a
highly educated work force sitting on top of some of the globe's most valuable resources. True, much of that vast territory has an awful climate (climate matters-for different reasons than Russia's,
it explains why Australia will never be a great power). But unlike India and China, two other "giant" states, Russia will be able to husband its vast resources without the additional strain of

-- and employing-more than a billion souls. It also, of course, is the only country that can launch a devastating nuclear attack on the
United States. That kind of power demands respect. And sensitive handling. Stephen Sestanovich, head Russia watcher at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington, argues that present U.S. policy is geared too much to "dismantling Russian military might" -- a policy
that, since it breeds Russian resentment of Western meddling, is self-defeating. "We have to reorient Russian power," says Sestanovich, "not eliminate it. Because we can't
eliminate it." Indeed, Washington should prefer a strong Russia. A Russia so weak, for example, that it could not resist a Chinese land grab of its Far East without
resorting to nuclear weapons is a 2lst-century nightmare. All this implies a close U.S. -- Russian relationship stretching into the future. American
feeding

officials say it will be a "pragmatic" one, recognizing that Russian and U.S. national interests will sometimes collide. The danger, for the United States, is that a pragmatic relationship could be
dominated by security issues. In Western Europe, some futurists say that in the coming decades Russia will talk to the United States about nuclear weapons but to the European Union about
everything else-trade, economic development and the rest.

A US-Russian war is the only scenario for extinction. Such existential risks outweigh diseases,
world wars, and smaller nuclear wars.
Bostrom 02
(Dr. Nick, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at YALE, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," 3-8-02,
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)

We have not evolved mechanisms,


either biologically or culturally, for managing such risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been
shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl,
Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black
plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But
tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things from the perspective of humankind
as a whole even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They
havent significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or happiness or determined the long-term
fate of our species.
With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no
significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do
Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is useful to distinguish them from other risks.

something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction

there to be a
risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of
an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening.
If we dont know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The
subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what
the objective risk factors are.[3]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US
and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry
among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would
occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the
US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately.
There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India
and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid
by igniting the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For

strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century. The special nature of the challenges posed by existential risks is illustrated by the following points:

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors.
The reactive approach see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types
of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions.
We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social
attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as
seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat.
Reductions in existential

Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may


require acting on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing
to take countermeasures against a major existential risk. If we take into account the welfare of future
generations, the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor, the size of which depends on whether and how
risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14].

much we discount future benefits [15,16].

Russia Relations Good- Economy


Cooperation is key to global economic recovery
Hamilton 2003 (Lee, Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Former Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, The
International Economy, June 22)

the breadth of our common interests


suggests that partnership is preferable to confrontation. The United States and Russia each
have an interest in strengthening Russia's economy. The United States should forgive some Soviet-era Russian debt, repeal the
outdated Jackson-Vanik amendment, and support Russian accession into the World Trade Organization, in return for greater transparency and market reform within Russia. A
Russian economy tied more to the West would strengthen the global economic recovery,
reduce Russia's interest in dealing in nuclear technology with countries like Iran, and enable
the full development of Russia's oil and gas reserves. The United States and Russia also have
overlapping security concerns. While we should speak out vigorously against Russian human rights violations in Chechnya, the United
States must continue working with Russia in the war on terror and the stabilization of
Central Asia. We should also bring Russia closer to NATO, as cooperation reduces the
likelihood of a return to Russian expansionism.
While it has proven premature to speak of a positive transformation in U.S.-Russian relations,

Extinction
Kemp 10 [Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and
senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves
West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4]

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The
world economic

situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major
reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil
fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion

unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but


stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed states.
Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then
take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and
Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear
program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel
and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear
terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating
collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected,
with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planets population .
programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political
not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal

Russia Will Fight


Russia is expanding military and naval force in the Arctic region, which will make
conflict much more likely
Strategic Studies Institute 11
Strategic Studies Institute, strategic-level study agent for issues related to national security and military strategy. Russia in the Arctic.
Online. July 2011. <http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf>.
Perhaps more telling is paragraph 11, which lays out the future battlegrounds where conflicts over energy will occur: The attention of
international politics in the long term will be concentrated on controlling the sources of energy resources in the Middle East, on the shelf

document posits that


future competition for energy near Russian borders or its allies may be resolved with
military force: In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount
that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces
on the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be changed. In order to realize these goals,
the Russian Federation must provide for security. The main objectives of the Russian Federations official
state policy in the Arctic will be achieved by performing the following basic tasks: in the sphere of national security,
of the Barents Sea and other parts of the Arctic, in the Caspian Basin and in Central Asia. Ominously, the

the protection of the national border of the Russian Federation . . . it is necessary: to create general purpose military formations drawn
from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, [as well as] other troops and military formations (most importantly, border units) in
the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, capable of ensuring

security under various military and political


circumstances. The creation of this Arctic military group will be drawn from the armed forces of the Russian Federation as well as
the power ministries (e.g., Federal Security Service [FSB] troops, border troops, and internal troops ). Above all, the document
calls for a coast guard that will patrol Russias Arctic waters and estuaries. On the strategic level, the
Russian Navy is expanding its presence in the Arctic for the first time since the end of the
Cold War. Lieutenant General Vladimir Shamanov, head of the Defense Ministrys combat
training department, said that the Russian Navy is increasing the operational radius of the Northern Fleets submarines
and that Russias military strategy might be reoriented to meet threats to the countrys
interests in the Arctic, particularly with regard to its continental shelf. Shamanov said that we have a
number of highly professional military units in the Leningrad, Siberian and Far Eastern
military districts, which are specifically trained for combat in Arctic regions.

AT: Perm- Lie


Lying kills relations the reason a reset is failing is because Obama is demanding unreciprocal concessions genuinely abiding by Russian interests is critical
Cohen, 11
[June 10, 2011, Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies, History Ph.D. 1969 (Government and Russian Studies),
Columbia; M.A. 1962 (Government and Russian Studies), B.S. (Economics and Public Policy), 1960, Indiana University, Obama's Russia
'Reset': Another Lost Opportunity? http://www.america-russia.net/eng/face/278185917, SM]
In pursuing the one-way concessions implicit in 'selective cooperation,' Obama, like Clinton and Bush before him, seems unable
or unwilling to connect the strategic dots of mutual security the way Reagan and Gorbachev did in the late 1980s. In effect, Obama
is asking Moscow to substantially reduce its long-range nuclear weapons while Russia is being surrounded by NATO bases with their
superior conventional forces and with an antimissile system potentially capable of neutralizing Russia's reduced retaliatory capability.
In that crucial respect, the new arms-reduction treaty is inherently unstable. If nothing else, Obama is undermining his own hope of also
negotiating a major reduction of Russia's enormous advantage in short-range tactical nuclear weapons, which Moscow increasingly
considers vital for its national defense. Instead, as Medvedev also warned, unless the missile defense conflict is resolved, there will be
'another escalation of the arms race' that would, he added on May 18, 'throw us back into the cold war era.' The twenty-year-long notion
that Moscow will make unreciprocated concessions for the sake of partnership with the United States derives from the same illusion: that
post-Soviet Russia, diminished and enfeebled by having 'lost the cold war,' can play the role of a great power only on American terms.
In the real world, when Obama took office, everything Russia supposedly needed from the United States, including in order to
modernize, it could obtain from other partners. Today, two of its bilateral relationships-with Beijing and Berlin, and increasingly with
Paris-are already much more important to Moscow, politically, economically and even militarily, than its barren relations with a
Washington that for two decades has seemed chronically unreliable, even duplicitous. Behind that perception lies a more fundamental
weakness of the reset: conflicting American and Russian understandings of why it was needed. Each side continues to blame the other
for the deterioration of relations after 1991. Neither Obama nor the Clinton-era officials advising him have conceded there were any
mistakes in US policy toward post-Soviet Russia. Instead, virtually the entire US political class persists in blaming Russia and in
particular Putin, even though he came to power only in 2000. In effect, this exculpatory history deletes the historic opportunities lost in
Washington in the 1990s and later. It also means that the success or failure of the reset is 'up to the Russians' and that 'Moscow's thinking
must change,' not Washington's. American

policy-makers and pundits may care little about history, but it is


no arcane matter for their Russian counterparts. For them, the reset was necessary because Washington rejected
Gorbachev's proposal for a 'new model of guaranteeing security' in favor of a 'Pax Americana' and because there was a 'new US semicold war against Russia in 1991-2008.' Putin and Medvedev are personally no less adamant about the prehistory of the reset and who
was to blame. Before Obama became president, both Russian

leaders repeatedly accused Washington


of having constantly deceived Moscow. That acute sense of betrayal remains on their minds.
Less than a year ago, Putin admitted having been slow to understand the pattern of US duplicity: 'I was simply unable to comprehend its
depth.... But in reality it is all very simple.... They

told us one thing, and they did something completely


different. They duped us, in the full sense of this word.'

**Desal CP**

Solvency: Desal
Russia has new nuclear desalination technology
Kuznetsova 14
(Science and technology writer for The Positive, Russia develops a groundbreaking nuclear technology, 2014,
http://thepositive.com/russia-develops-a-groundbreaking-nuclear-technology/)

Russia will complete construction of the first floating nuclear power plant, The Academic
Lomonosov, by the end of 2019. Shipping corporation LLC Baltiysky Zavod Shipbuilding and Rosenergoatom, the state
nuclear power company, are challenged to develop this unique idea promising that the project will be safer to run than any other nuclear
plant. The power plant located on a ship will generate up to 70 MW of electricity, which will be enough to supply a town with a
population of around 200,000 people. The floating nuclear plant will act as a power ambulance. In the regions, where weather conditions
often cause electricity breakdowns, the ship will be called to provide an emergency power supply. In Russia it may save the lives of
thousands, as the Arctic area and the Far East coast of the country are currently very vulnerable to power instability during the severe
winter season. Another intention of the Russian government is to provide power for oil and gas exploration units in the Arctic. The
Russian Arctic has 60 per cent of the regions fuel and is unlikely to give up the exploration, despite the Greenpeace protests. Also, the
manufacturer company OKBM claims that they are planning to produce one more version of a device for export. It

will provide
desalinated water to the coastal areas of Africa, Asia and Europe that currently need drinking water. In
this case, the floating reactor will power desalination unit. The estimated cost of The Academic Lomonosov is
$232 million. When it is set afloat in 2019, the floating nuclear plant will be crewed by about 70 people. The crew will manage the ship

The mobile
nuclear plant seems to be much safer than current icebreakers reactors, as it will use lightly
enriched uranium. This has been agreed by Russians with International Atomic Energy Commission, which are aiming at
and on-board reactors. The vessel is planned to be towed to the remote areas, rather than floating under its own power.

preventing nuclear accidents especially in such an unpredictable sea area. Also, the creators of the floating nuclear device claim that the
reactors on the ship will be resilient in a possible emergency situation. The inventors assure that the nuclear units will stay safe even if
the ship is exposed to tsunamis, earthquakes or typhoons. Russia will use a similar method of installation they used on the Kursk
submarine, which even after it sank in 2000 didnt release any nuclear waste in the sea. The

clean-up and maintenance of


the ship will be held by an existing Russian nuclear technology service that has sufficient
equipment and qualified personnel. Moreover, the creators remind alarmists that there are hundreds of ships and
submarines with nuclear reactors on board that are currently floating around the world and are assumed to be safe. Russia, USA,
CHINA, UK and France own these ships. The idea of a self-contained floating nuclear plant sounds like something Greenpeace activists
would definitely want to protest against. However, the project is based on the principle that the worlds leading countries have been
using since the Cold War and seems to be relatively safe.

Russia has lots of experience in desalination technology


Kuznetsov 10
(Kuznetsov, Y. N., Researcher at Dollezhal Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering, Moscow, Nuclear Co-Generation
Desalination Complex with VK-300Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, Proceedings and Book of Abstracts of 8th International
Conference: Nuclear Option in Countries with Small and Medium Electricity Grids, 2010,
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/41/086/41086761.pdf)

With regard for the global-scale development of desalination technologies and the stable
growth demand for them, Russia also takes an active part in the development of these
technologies. Two major aspects play a role here: they are providing the desalination process with power
and, introducing new materials capable to make the production of fresh water cheaper and
raise the technical reliability of desalination units. In achieving these tasks, the focus is on the most knowledgeintensive issues, to which Russia is capable to make its contribution based both on the experience of
developing national nuclear power and the experience of developing, manufacturing and
operating desalination units, including the use of nuclear power (the experience of BN-350 in
Aktau(formerly Shevchenko), Kazakhstan.In terms of design, Nuclear Desalination Complex (NDC) with VK-300 reactor facility is a
modification of a nuclear power unit with VK-300 reactor developed for application at Russian nuclear cogeneration plants. A power
unit with VK-300 reactor has a design power of 250 MW(e) with the turbine unit opera-tion in the condensation mode. In modes with
the heat supply for desalination needs, up to 400 Gcal/h of thermal energy can be used as a steam from turbine extractions with the

simultaneous electricity genera-tion by the turbine generator of about 150 MW.The report considers a VK-300 reactor based NDC with
MED based distillation desalination units with horizontal-tube film evaporators. Russia

has an extensive experience of


commissioning and long-term commercial operation of domestically built desalination units
with horizontal-tube evaporators of differ-ent power (from 0.1 to 700 m3/h). Seawater desalination units built on
their basis are more economic than evaporators of other types - by the factor of 1.5-2.0 in terms of the
energy consumption and by the factor of 1.5-1.8 in terms of the specific quantity of metal and the development area. With regard for the
power unit capabilities of supplying heat for desalination (200-400 Gcal/h) as part of an NDC with a VK-300, itis expedient to use
distillation units with a higher unit capacity. The most attractive option is coupling of the VK-300 energy source with distillation
desalination units operating based on the multi-stage evaporation principle (MED). This is the effective NDC structure al-lowing the use
of turbine steam extractions for heat supply (via the intermediate circuit) to the desalination system producing high-quality distillate. As
it provides with thermal energy a desalination complex with the capacity of 300.000 m3/day, a nuclear plant consisting of two VK-300
power units allows production of distillate with the cost of 0.58 dollars/m3. In this case, the electricity supply to the power system is357
MW(e). The electricity cost is 0.029 dollars/kWh.

**CCS CP

Solvency: CCS
Russia has CCS development strategies and high potential for its success
IEA 9
(International Energy Agency, Technology Roadmap; Carbon capture and storage, 2009, http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/6110191e.pdf?expires=1403746105&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A002928119C918D3BB78E
6F34384A1C1)
The development

of advanced clean energy technologies must be accelerated to address the


global challenges of energy security, climate change and sustainable development. This
pressing need was acknowledged by the Ministers from G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) at their meeting in June 2008 in Aomori, Japan, where they asked the
IEA to prepare roadmaps to advance innovative energy technology: We will establish an international
initiative with the support of the IEA to develop roadmaps for innovative technologies and cooperate upon
existing and new partnerships, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and advanced energy technologies.
Reaffirming our Heiligendamm commitment to urgently develop, deploy and foster clean energy technologies, we recognise and
encourage a wide range of policy instruments such as transparent regulatory frameworks, economic and fiscal incentives, and
public/private partnerships to foster private sector investments in new technologies... Capture from industrial and upstream sources
will account for around 45% (4.6 GtCO2/year) of worldwide CCS deployment in 2050. In

the near- term, deployment in


the upstream sector is likely to be dominated by low-cost opportunities in natural gas
processing, notably from high-CO2 gas fields in regions such as the South China Sea, Russia, North
Africa and South America. The growing number of large gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants is also expected to represent a significant
application where emissions can be captured from around 2020 to 2025. Post- combustion and oxy-fuel capture from cement plants and
oxy-fuel capture from large iron and steel works is forecast to account for the majority of emissions captured within industry over the
next 40 years. However, projects capturing CO2 from sources such as ammonia and fertiliser production offer near-term, low-cost
opportunities within the chemicals sector. The BLUE Map scenario depicts capture from upstream sources as accounting for around
59% (39 GtCO2) of the combined cumulative capture emissions from 2010 to 2050, with industry representing the remaining 41% (27
GtCO2) (see Figure 10).

Incentives could access huge CCS potential in Russia


Vallentin, 7
(Daniel Vallentin, Dr. Daniel Vallentin. Deputy Head Berlin Office and Project Co-ordinator Research at Wuppertal Institute, April 2007,
Inducing the International Diffusion of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies in the Power Sector,
file:///Users/andiedivelbiss/Downloads/WP162.pdf)
Assuming an average lifespan of 3540 years, more than half of the Russian coal-fired power plant stock needs to be replaced or
refurbished at a time carbon capture technol- ogy will not yet be available. Existing

capacities which are expected to


run for another 10-30 years could be theoretically substituted by capture plants. However, both the
design of capture-ready plants and the construction of new capture plants would require strong financial incentives. At the time being,
such a development seems to be unlikely (Interview T. Schneider, 3.1.2006: 62). Furthermore, it is doubtful if the power sector is
capable of raising the necessary financial resources to invest in modern power technolo- gies. Hence, international

incentives and

technology transfer projects are needed to spread CCS in Russia. Country-specific data on Russias geological CO2
storage capacities are not yet avail- able which is why the following discussion is based on the Former Soviet Unions port- folio of

Russian power sector emissions, the latter offers an immense theoretical


potential for CO2 storage which would last for more than 2000 years a time period that can
be hardly conceived. Deep saline aquifers rep- resent the lions share of potential CO2
reservoirs but as Russia has the worlds largest natural gas reserves, depleted gas fields also
constitute an attractive option. Thus, the further development of EGR procedures might
constitute an important opportunity. Empty oil fields and deep coal seams indicate a smaller but in comparison to the
possible storage formations. In relation to

other case studies considerable storage potential. However, many oil, gas and coal reservoirs are located far distant from large fossilfired power stations. CO2 injection would, thus, require the construction of a gigantic pipeline system. With regard to current financial
constraints and logistic problems, such a development seems to be unlikely.

**Aff Answers

Solvency: Says No
Russia wont cooperate
Efferink 10 [Leo Van, Polar Partner or Poles Apart?
http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/51/2010/Ppr/PGC2_Van%20EfferinkLeonhardt_Polar_Partners_or_Poles_Apart_PSA_2010.pdf

Russia has left the U.S., Canada, and the Nordic countries little choice but to forge a cooperative High North
strategy and invite other friendly countries, such as Great Britain, to help build a Western
presence in the Arctic. This line constitutes the identity of Russia implicitly as an unfriendly and
uncooperative country. Regarding the flag planting ceremony in August contends that with this
statement and its territorial claims in the Arctic, Russia has created a new source of international tension,
seemingly out of the blue. This claim also contains representational practices : However, Moscows current
rush to dominate the Arctic Ocean and everything under it indicates that greed and
aggression motivate the new Russian polar bear.

Perm- Consult= NM
The Permutation is normal means- U.S Russian arctic council exists now.
Kozlova 13
Elizaveta Kozlova, Conference Report: The Arctic: Region of Cooperation and Development, The Arctic Institute, 12/19/13
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2013/12/conference-report-arctic-region-of.html
A separate panel

was devoted to U.S.-Russian cooperation in the Arctic. The panel


participants seemed to have a shared vision of the two states relations in the polar dimension as that
of a committed and effective working relationship. The two states cooperate within the
framework of the Arctic Council, where the United States and Russia co-chaired the negotiations of the Search-andRescue agreement, which was the first legally binding document negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council in 2011; together
with Norway, Russia and the United States also co-chaired the Arctic Council negotiations of the second legally binding agreement Oil
Spill Preparedness and Response which was finalized in 2013. Head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission David Benton suggested
that together the

United States and Russia could lead the way to improve the Arctic Council.

US can cooperate with Canada and Russia over the Arctic


Mathewson et al 10
Christopher Mathewson, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Governing the Far
North: Assessing Cooperation Between Arctic and Non-Arctic Nations, September 22, 2010,
http://www.fesdc.org/pdf/arcticeventottawareport%20copy.pdf
Moderated by former CBC Anchor Don Newman, the

first panel brought together three experts on


American, Canadian and Russian involvement in the Arctic to discuss the degree of
cooperation between Arctic nations. The United States, once a reluctant partner in Arctic
affairs, has picked up the pace thanks to policies geared towards new arrangements for
international cooperation possibly even the ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty in
order to reduce pollutants and to address crucial issues such as shipping and oil exploration.
According to Brooks Yeager, Executive Vice President for Policy, at Clean Air-Cool Planet, the US has rarely pursued so many
lines of cooperation, and is working with other Arctic nations on search and rescue plans as well as
on the impact of black carbon on the environment. Yeager even sees a reorientation on policy versus practice in
the United States involvement in the Arctic Council and Arctic affairs in general.

Expansionism DA
Artic Drilling is key to Russian Expansionism
Francis 2014
(David Francis, editor-at-large for The Fiscal Times, The Race for Arctic Oil: Advantage Russia vs. U.S., Feb 25, 2014, The Fiscal Times,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/25/Race-Arctic-Oil-Advantage-Russia-vs-US)

The United States and Russia are at odds over a host of issues, from Ukraine to Syria to Edward Snowden,
prompting talks of a new Cold War. Their next confrontation could take place on the coldest place on earth. Last week, a Russian
military official told Russian media that the

Kremlin was forming a new strategic military command to


protect its interests in the Arctic. Its part of a broader push from Moscow to establish military superiority at the top of
the world. Related: Russian Ties to Ukraine Go Much Deeper than Gas The new command will comprise the Northern Fleet, Arctic
warfare brigades, air force and air defense units as well as additional administrative structures, a source in Russias General Staff told
RIA Novosti last Monday, The

formation of the new command follows a December 2013 order from


Russian President Vladimir Putin to ramp up Russias military presence in the Arctic. Putin said
Russia was returning to the Arctic and intensifying the development of this promising region and that Russia needs to have
all the levers for the protection of its security and national interests. These interests are
primarily energy related. As Arctic ice has melted, companies from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United
States - the five countries that have a border with the Arctic - have been rushing to secure rights to drill for oil and natural gas in places
that are now accessible. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. Experts estimate that the Arctic holds some 30 percent of the
worlds natural gas supply, and 13 percent of the worlds oil. Thats why companies like Royal Dutch Shell, the U.S.-based Arctic Oil &
Gas Corp. and Russias Gazprom have all been making exploration claims on land in the Arctic. Countries are making new claims in
the Arctic as well. Each of the five nations with Arctic borders is allotted 200 nautical miles of land from their most northern coast.
Putins military expansion was in direct response to a claim of additional land by Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, who last year
asked scientists to craft a submission to the United Nations arguing that the North Pole belongs to Canada. The Canadian claim also
asserts that it owns the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain range located between Ellesmere Island, Canada's most northern
border, and Russias east Siberian coast. In

2007, Russian scientists planted a flag on the ridge to claim it


as Russian territory. Russia created the Northern Fleet-Unified Strategic Command to protect oil and gas fields on the Arctic
shelf. Unfortunately for American companies, the Pentagon has fallen behind, having only two of the
icebreakers necessary to navigate Arctic waters. According to the Congressional Research Service, Russia
has 25, with six powered by nuclear energy. Part of the problem is costs; a new icebreaker costs $800 million, and
the Coast Guard says it doesnt need new ones. But Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich said that the Obama administration should
make the Arctic more of a priority. Its like theyve never heard of it, Begich said in a recent interview with Fox News. With the
Obama administration weve had to push back pretty hard to convince them and show them why they need to invest in not only
icebreakers, but forward operating bases for the Arctic. New strategy The Arctic hasnt been strategically important to the Pentagon
since the Cold War, when missile were tested there and U.S. and Soviet submarines patrolled its waters. But DOD stopped paying
attention to the region when the Iron Curtain fell. As Arctic ice receded and the region became strategically important, DOD shifted its
attention back north. Las November, it released a new Arctic strategy outlining American interests in the region. The new strategy calls
for the Pentagon to take actions to ensure that American troops could repel an attack against the homeland from a foe based in the
Arctic. Its short on specifics, but calls for increased training to prepare soldiers for fights in Arctic conditions and for collaboration with
other federal agencies to determine what ice patterns would look like in the future. The document is careful to point out that the United
States was willing to work with allies. However, it makes clear that the Pentagon believes the Arctic is becoming contested territory, and
the DOD would act to protect American interests. Throughout

human history, mankind has raced to


discover the next frontier. And time after time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict,
the document reads. We cannot erase this history. But we can assure that history does not
repeat itself in the Arctic."

Russian Arctic dominance leads to massive Naval expansion


Black 11, Stephen J. "Russia in the Arctic." Strategic Studies Institute. Strategic Studies Institute, July 2011. Web. 26 June 2012.
<http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1073.pdf>.

The strengthening of Russian military presence in the High North is closely linked to the new
naval ambitions of Russia. The Russian Navy hopes to become the second most powerful in
the world in 20 to 30 years. In 2008 and 2009, Moscow displayed its former Soviet traditions by

organizing several long-range cruises, the most numerous since the fall of the Soviet Union, in
different parts of the world, for example, sending the nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser Peter the Great to the Mediterranean
and Caribbean seas, South Atlantic, and the Indian oceans. The modernization of the Russian Navy is based on the
construction of a new fleet of nuclear submarines, the abandonment of single-function vessels in favor of multipurpose and more mobile
ones, and the production of six squadrons of aircraft carriers, which would

propel the Russian Navy to second in


the world in terms of combat capability. However, this phase of construction will not begin
until 2015.

Russian expansionism causes nuclear war


Blank 2009
Stephen J. Blank, strategic Studies Institute's expert on the Soviet bloc and the post-Soviet world since 1989; former Associate Professor
of Soviet Studies at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base; B.A. in History from the
University of Pennsylvania, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago, March 2009. RUSSIA AND ARMS CONTROL:
ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of
retaliation.168 Given a multipolar world structure with little ideological rivalry among major powers, it is unlikely that they will go to
war with each other. Rather, like Russia, they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their own sphere of influence and use nuclear
instruments towards that end. However, wars may well break out between major powers and weaker peripheral states or between
peripheral and semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence of the means of crisis prevention, the visible
absence of crisis management mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that asymmetric wars might give them the victory or respite
they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of periphery and semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political maneuvering. Since
war remains a political option, these states may find it convenient to exercise their military power as a means for achieving
political objectives. Thus international crises may increase in number. This has two important implications for the use of WMD.
First, they may be used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in Russias case, to achieve intra-war escalation control
author170) to the striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances 67 in military capabilities are significant; and second, crises
increase the possibilities of inadvertent or accidental wars involving WMD.171 Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that are
expanding their nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing
consensus and use their weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought, but as offensive weapons to threaten
other states and deter nuclear powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative security and strengthened international militarypolitical norms of action, or for individual national egotism will critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if they
drift away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security], the consequences could be profound. At the very least, the
effective functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order, such as the special responsibility of the great powers in the management
of the interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under the aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired.
Armed with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial costs in blood or money on an intervening force or the populaces
of the nations marshaling that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to collective security operations, undermine the
credibility of alliance commitments by the great powers, [undermine guarantees of extended deterrence by them to threatened
nations and states] extend alliances of their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on their neighbors or their own
people.172

Russia Kill Enviroment


Artic extraction destroys environment
Flanders, et al. 98
(NICHOLAS E. FLANDERS; anthropologist with the Center for. Northern Studies in Wolcott, Vermont, REX V. BROWN; associate professor
and researcher at George Mason University, YELENA ANDREEVA; expert from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for Systems
Analysis, and OLEG LARICHEV;, January 1998, Justifying Public Decisions in Arctic Oil and Gas Development: American and Russian
Approaches, ARCTIC VOL. 51, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1998) P. 262279)

The worlds desire for oil and gas has led to the exploration and development of fields in the
remote corners of the earth. The importance to developed economies of petroleum for transportation, electrical generation,
and temperature control has made supervision of these resources matters of national and international security. However,
development has proved controversial in areas where the natural environment is considered
particularly valuable or vulnerable. The development of petroleum fields in the Arctic is a case in point. The worldclass discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska should have been followed by immediate development and operation.
Instead, a nascent environmental movement held up exploitation for several years . Only the Arab oil
boycott in 1974 convinced the United States Congress to remove all environmental roadblocks and allow the construction of the TransAlaska Pipeline System. In

Russia, the central government has decided to develop gas fields on the
Yamal Peninsula because of a national need for foreign exchange. This decision was made despite an expert
commission report that raised serious environmental and indigenous rights concerns.

Russia Causes Oil Spills


Russia unequipped for dealing with oil spills-home to over half and has failing
infrastructure
RIA 12
RIA is an award winning Russian newspaper that is one of the largest in Russia with over 80 bureaus 11/12/2012, Half the Worlds oil
Spills Take Place in Russia, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121211/178065224.html

More than 20,000 oil spills, or half the world's annual total, take place in Russia, a senior
official of the country's branch of Greenpeace said. Nigeria is the runner-up with 3,000 to 4,000 spills a year, but
there vandalism is to blame, while in Russia obsolete infrastructure is the main reason for the spills, Ivan
Blokov said at a meeting at the Natural Resources and Ecology Ministry in Moscow on Monday. An average age of Russian
oil pipes is currently 31 to 34 years, or above the maximum allowed life expectancy of 30
years, Blokov said.Russia averaged 26,000 spills a year in 1994, but managed to improve
over the 2000s, Blokov said.However, the situation started deteriorating again due to aging
pipelines, he said, speaking at a meeting of governmental officials, green activists and oil industry representatives. The
government should criminalize cover-ups of oil spills, a widespread problem in Russia, Blokov
said.But Natural Resources and Ecology Minister Sergei Donskoi said at the meeting that his ministry would prefer monetary sanctions,
introducing turnover-based fines for companies causing oil spills.The new system of fines would not be introduced before 2013, Donskoi
added.Spill fines in Russia are currently based on damage estimates determined through investigations carried out by law enforcement
agencies. A typical recent example saw prosecutors in the republic of Bashkiria sue Bashneft company for 3.4 million rubles ($110,000)
in August over a spill caused by a corroded pipeline.

Russias record on oil spills is horrible-proves it wont be able to solve-at least 5


million tons a year
Vasilyeva 11
12/17/11, Natalia Vasilyeva staff writer for AP business bureau, Boston.com, AP Enterprise-Russian Oil Spills Wreak Devastation
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/12/17/ap_enterprise_russia_oil_spills_wreak_devastation/?page=full
On the bright yellow tundra outside this oil town near the Arctic Circle, a pitch-black pool of crude stretches toward the horizon. The
source: a decommissioned well whose rusty screws ooze with oil, viscous like jam. This is the face of Russia's oil country, a sprawling,
inhospitable zone that experts say represents the world's worst ecological oil catastrophe . Environmentalists estimate

at
least 1 percent of Russia's annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year. That
is equivalent to one Deepwater Horizon-scale leak about every two months. Crumbling infrastructure
and a harsh climate combine to spell disaster in the world's largest oil producer, responsible for 13 percent of global output. Oil,
stubbornly seeping through rusty pipelines and old wells, contaminates soil, kills all plants that grow on it and destroys habitats for
mammals and birds. Half a million tons every year get into rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the government says, upsetting the
delicate environmental balance in those waters. It's part

of a legacy of environmental tragedy that has


plagued Russia and the countries of its former Soviet empire for decades, from the nuclear horrors of Chernobyl in Ukraine to
lethal chemical waste in the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk and paper mill pollution seeping into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds one-fifth
of the world's supply of fresh water. Oil spills in Russia are less dramatic than disasters in the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, more the
result of a drip-drip of leaked crude than a sudden explosion. But they're

more numerous than in any other oilproducing nation including insurgency-hit Nigeria, and combined they spill far more than
anywhere else in the world, scientists say. "Oil and oil products get spilled literally every
day," said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Water Problems. No hard figures
on the scope of oil spills in Russia are available, but Greenpeace estimates that at least 5 million tons leak

every year in a country producing about 500 million tons a year.Dr. Irina Ivshina, of the
government-financed Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms,
supports the 5 million ton estimate, as does the World Wildlife Fund.The figure is derived from two
sources: Russian state-funded research that shows 10-15 percent of Russian oil leakage enters
rivers; and a 2010 report commissioned by the Natural Resources Ministry that shows
nearly 500,000 tons slips into northern Russian rivers every year and flow into the Arctic. The
estimate is considered conservative: The Russian Economic Development Ministry in a
report last year estimated spills at up to 20 million tons per year. That astonishing number, for which the
ministry offered no elaboration, appears to be based partly on the fact most small leaks in Russia go unreported. Under Russian law,
leaks of less than 8 tons are classified only as "incidents" and carry no penalties.Russian oil spills also elude detection because most
happen in the vast swaths of unpopulated tundra and conifer forestin the north, caused either by ruptured pipes or leakage from
decommissioned wells. Weather conditions in most oil provinces are brutal, with temperatures routinely dropping below minus 40
degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit) in winter. That makes pipelines brittle and prone to rupture unless they are regularly replaced
and their condition monitored. Asked by The Associated Press to comment, the Natural Resources Ministry and the Energy Ministry said
they have no data on oil spills and referred to the other ministry for further inquiries. Even

counting only the 500,000


tons officially reported to be leaking into northern rivers every year, Russia is by far the
worst oil polluter in the world.--Nigeria, which produces one-fifth as much oil as Russia, logged 110,000 tons spilled in
2009, much of that due to rebel attacks on pipelines.--The U.S., the world's third-largest oil producer, logged 341 pipeline ruptures in
2010 -- compared to Russia's 18,000 -- with 17,600 tons of oil leaking as a result, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Spills have averaged 14,900 tons a year between 2001 and 2010.--Canada, which produces oil in weather conditions as harsh as Russia's,
does not see anything near Russia's scale of disaster. Eleven pipeline accidents were reported to Canada's Transport Safety Board last
year, while media reports of leaks, ranging from sizable spills to a tiny leak in a farmer's backyard, come to a total of 7,700 tons a year.-In Norway, Russia's northwestern oil neighbor, spills amounted to some 3,000 tons a year in the past few years, said Hanne Marie Oeren,
head of the oil and gas section at Norway's Climate and Pollution Agency. Now that

Russian companies are moving to


the Arctic to tap vast but hard-to-get oil and gas riches, scientists voice concerns that
Russia's outdated technologies and shoddy safety record make for a potential
environmental calamity there. Gazpromneft, an oil subsidiary of the gas giant Gazprom, is preparing to drill for oil in the
Arctic's Pechora Sea, even as environmentalists complain that the drilling platform is outdated and the company is not ready to deal with
potential accidents. Government scientists acknowledge that Russia does not currently have the required technology to develop Arctic
fields but say it will be years before the country actually starts drilling. "We must start the work now, do the exploration and develop the
technology so that we would be able to ... start pumping oil from the Arctic in the middle of this century," Alexei Kontorovich, chairman of
the council on geology, oil and gas fields at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told a recent news conference.The same academy's
Barenboim said, however, that Russian technology is developing too slowly to make it a safe bet for Arctic exploration."Over the past
years, environmental risks have increased more sharply compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with
them have advanced," he said.In 1994, the republic of Komi, where Usinsk lies 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of the Arctic Circle, became
the scene of Russia's largest oil spill when an estimated 100,000 tons splashed from an aging pipeline.It killed plants and animals, and
polluted up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) of two local rivers, killing thousands of fish. In villages most affected, respiratory diseases rose by
some 28 percent in the year following the leak.Seen from a helicopter, the oil production area is dotted with pitch-black ponds. Fresh
leaks are easy to find once you step into the tundra north of Usinsk. To spot a leak, find a dying tree. Fir trees with drooping gray, dry
branches look as though scorched by a wildfire. They are growing insoil polluted by oil.Usinsk spokeswoman Tatyana Khimichuk said the
city administration had no powers to influence oil company operations."Everything that happens at the oil fields is Lukoil's
responsibility," she said, referring to Russia's second largest oil company, which owns a network of pipelines in the region. Komi's
environmental protection officials also blamed oil companies. The local prosecutor's office said in a report this year that the main
problem is "that companies that extract hydrocarbons focus on making profits rather than how to use the resources rationally."Valery
Bratenkov works as a foreman at oil fields outside Usinsk. After hours, he is with a local environmental group. Bratenkov used to point
out to his Lukoil bosses that oil spills routinely happen under their noses and asked them to repair the pipelines. "They were offended
and said that costs too much money," he said. Activists like Bratenkov find it hard if not impossible to hold authorities to account in the
area since some 90 percent of the local population comprises oil workers and their families who have moved from other regions of
Russia, and depend on the industry for their livelihood. Representatives of Lukoil denied claims that they try to conceal spills and leaks,
and said that no more than 2.7 tons leaked last year from its production areas in Komi. Ivan Blokov, campaign director at Greenpeace
Russia, who studies oil spills, said the situation in Komi is replicated across Russia's oil-producing regions, which stretch from the Black
Sea in the southwest to the Chinese border in Russia's Far East. "It is happening everywhere," Blokov said. "It's typical of any oil field in
Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country."What

also worries
scientists and environmentalists is that oil spills are not confined to abandoned or aging
fields. Alarmingly, accidents happen at brand new pipelines, said Barenboim.At least 400 tons
leaked from a new pipeline in two separate accidents in Russia's Far East last year, according to media reports

and oil companies. Transneft's pipeline that brings Russian oil from Eastern Siberia to China was put into operation just months before
the two spills happened.The oil industry in Komi has been sapping nature for decades, killing or forcing out reindeer and fish. Locals like
the 63-year-old Bratenkov are afraid that when big oil leaves, there will be only poisoned terrain left in its wake."Fishing, hunting -- it's
all gone," Bratenkov said.

Russias track record is a failure when it comes to oil spill cleanup-destroys the
environment and kills off wildlife
Vasilyeva 11
12/17/11, Natalia Vasilyeva staff writer for AP business bureau, Boston.com, AP Enterprise-Russian Oil Spills Wreak Devastation
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/12/17/ap_enterprise_russia_oil_spills_wreak_devastation/?page=full

On the bright yellow tundra outside this oil town near the Arctic Circle, a pitch-black pool of
crude stretches toward the horizon. The source: a decommissioned well whose rusty screws
ooze with oil, viscous like jam.This is the face of Russia's oil country, a sprawling,
inhospitable zone that experts say represents the world's worst ecological oil
catastrophe.Environmentalists estimate at least 1 percent of Russia's annual oil production,
or 5 million tons, is spilled every year. That is equivalent to one Deepwater Horizon-scale
leak about every two months. Crumbling infrastructure and a harsh climate combine to spell disaster in the world's largest
oil producer, responsible for 13 percent of global output. Oil, stubbornly seeping through rusty pipelines and
old wells, contaminates soil, kills all plants that grow on it and destroys habitats for
mammals and birds. Half a million tons every year get into rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the
government says, upsetting the delicate environmental balance in those waters.It's part of a
legacy of environmental tragedy that has plagued Russia and the countries of its former Soviet empire for
decades, from the nuclear horrors of Chernobyl in Ukraine to lethal chemical waste in the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk and paper mill
pollution seeping into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds one-fifth of the world's supply of fresh water.Oil spills in Russia are less
dramatic than disasters in the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, more the result of a drip-drip of leaked crude than a sudden explosion. But
they're more numerous than in any other oil-producing nation including insurgency-hit Nigeria, and combined they spill far more than
anywhere else in the world, scientists say."Oil and oilproducts get spilled literally every day," said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior
researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Water Problems.No hard figures on the scope of oil spills in Russia are
available, but Greenpeace estimates that at least 5 million tons leak every year in a country producing about 500 million tons a year.Dr.
Irina Ivshina, of the government-financed Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms, supports the 5 million ton
estimate, as does the World Wildlife Fund.The figure is derived from two sources: Russian state-funded research that shows 10-15
percent of Russian oil leakage enters rivers; and a 2010 report commissioned by the Natural Resources Ministry that shows nearly
500,000 tons slips into northern Russian rivers every year and flow into the Arctic.The estimate is considered conservative: The Russian
Economic Development Ministry in a report last year estimated spills at up to 20 million tons per year. That astonishing number, for
which the ministry offered no elaboration, appears to be based partly on the fact most small leaks in Russia go unreported. Under
Russian law, leaks of less than 8 tons are classified only as "incidents" and carry no penalties. Russian oil spills also elude detection
because most happen in the vast swaths of unpopulated tundra and conifer forestin the north, caused either by ruptured pipes or leakage
from decommissioned wells.Weather conditions in most oil provinces are brutal, with temperatures routinely dropping below minus 40
degrees Celsius (minus 40 Fahrenheit) in winter. That makes pipelines brittle and prone to rupture unless they are regularly replaced
and their condition monitored.Asked by The Associated Press to comment, the Natural Resources Ministry and the Energy Ministry said
they have no data on oil spills and referred to the other ministry for further inquiries. Even counting only the 500,000 tons officially
reported to be leaking into northern rivers every year, Russia is by far the worst oil polluter in the world.--Nigeria, which produces onefifth as much oil as Russia, logged 110,000 tons spilled in 2009, much of that due to rebel attacks on pipelines.--The U.S., the world's
third-largest oil producer, logged 341 pipeline ruptures in 2010 -- compared to Russia's 18,000 -- with 17,600 tons of oil leaking as a
result, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Spills have averaged 14,900 tons a year between 2001 and 2010.--Canada,
which produces oil in weather conditions as harsh as Russia's, does not see anything near Russia's scale of disaster. Eleven pipeline
accidents were reported to Canada's Transport Safety Board last year, while media reports of leaks, ranging from sizable spills to a tiny
leak in a farmer's backyard, come to a total of 7,700 tons a year.--In Norway, Russia's northwestern oil neighbor, spills amounted to some
3,000 tons a year in the past few years, said Hanne Marie Oeren, head of the oil and gas section at Norway's Climate and Pollution
Agency.Now that Russian companies are moving to the Arctic to tap vast but hard-to-get oil and gas riches, scientists voice concerns that
Russia's outdated technologies and shoddy safety record make for a potential environmental calamity there.Gazpromneft, an oil
subsidiary of the gas giant Gazprom, is preparing to drill for oil in the Arctic's Pechora Sea, even as environmentalists complain that the
drilling platform is outdated and the company is not ready to deal with potential accidents.Government scientists acknowledge that

Russia does not currently have the required technology to develop Arctic fields but say it will be years before the country actually starts
drilling."We must start the work now, do the exploration and develop the technology so that we would be able to ... start pumping oil
from the Arctic in the middle of this century," Alexei Kontorovich, chairman of the council on geology, oil and gas fields at the Russian
Academy of Sciences, told a recent news conference.The same academy's Barenboim said, however, that Russian technology is
developing too slowly to make it a safe bet for Arctic exploration."Over the past years, environmental risks have increased more sharply
compared to how far our technologies, funds, equipment and skills to deal with them have advanced," he said. In

1994, the
republic of Komi, where Usinsk lies 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of the Arctic Circle,
became the scene of Russia's largest oil spill when an estimated 100,000 tons splashed from
an aging pipeline.It killed plants and animals, and polluted up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) of
two local rivers, killing thousands of fish. In villages most affected, respiratory diseases rose
by some 28 percent in the year following the leak.Seen from a helicopter, the oil production
area is dotted with pitch-black ponds. Fresh leaks are easy to find once you step into the
tundra north of Usinsk. To spot a leak, find a dying tree. Fir trees with drooping gray, dry
branches look as though scorched by a wildfire. They are growing insoil polluted by oil. Usinsk
spokeswoman Tatyana Khimichuk said the city administration had no powers to influence oil company operations."Everything that
happens at the oil fields is Lukoil's responsibility," she said, referring to Russia's second largest oil company, which owns a network of
pipelines in the region. Komi's environmental protection officials also blamed oil companies. The local prosecutor's office said in a report
this year that the main problem is "that companies that extract hydrocarbons focus on making profits rather than how to use the
resources rationally." Valery Bratenkov works as a foreman at oil fields outside Usinsk. After hours, he is with a local environmental
group. Bratenkov used to point out to his Lukoil bosses that oil spills routinely happen under their noses and asked them to repair the
pipelines. "They were offended and said that costs too much money," he said.Activists like Bratenkov find it hard if not impossible to hold
authorities to account in the area since some 90 percent of the local population comprises oil workers and their families who have moved
from other regions of Russia, and depend on the industry for their livelihood.Representatives of Lukoil denied claims that they try to
conceal spills and leaks, and said that no more than 2.7 tons leaked last year from its production areas in Komi.Ivan Blokov, campaign
director at Greenpeace Russia, who studies oil spills, said the situation in Komi is replicated across Russia's oil-producing regions, which
stretch from the Black Sea in the southwest to the Chinese border in Russia's Far East."It is happening everywhere," Blokov said. "It's
typical of any oil field in Russia. The system is old and it is not being replaced in time by any oil company in the country." What also
worries scientists and environmentalists is that oil spills are not confined to abandoned or aging fields. Alarmingly, accidents happen at
brand new pipelines, said Barenboim.At least 400 tons leaked from a new pipeline in two separate accidents in Russia's Far East last
year, according to media reports and oil companies. Transneft's pipeline that brings Russian oil from Eastern Siberia to China was put
into operation just months before the two spills happened.The

oil industry in Komi has been sapping nature for


decades, killing or forcing out reindeer and fish. Locals like the 63-year-old Bratenkov are
afraid that when big oil leaves, there will be only poisoned terrain left in its wake."Fishing,
hunting -- it's all gone," Bratenkov said.

Russia cant contain oil spills-poor personnel, infrastructure and empirics prove
Huffington Post 12
4/23/12, Trebs Oil Field: Thousands of Tons of Oil Spill from Russian Fields Developed by Lukoil and Bashneft
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/trebs-oil-field-spill_n_1445285.html

Up to 2,000 tons of oil have spilled from a major field in northern Russia after workers
struggled to contain the leak for two days, officials said. The accident happened at the Trebs oil field in the Nenets Autonomous District on
Friday following work on an exploratory well. The oil had been gushing for nearly two days before the workers
finally capped the well Sunday morning, Emergency Ministry officials said. Vladimir Bezumov, chief of the Russian Environmental Agency in the area, said the
weekend spill could have produced between 800 and 2,000 tons and contaminated at least
8,000 square meters (86,100 square. feet) of land. Another 6,000 square meters (64,600
square. feet) of land are believed to have been slightly damaged. Bezumov said it was too early to speak of the
causes of the accident, but he said it was likely a combination of technical issues and human error. The
oil field is developed by a joint venture between Russia's largest private company Lukoil and another Russian oil major Bashneft. It holds some 153 million tons of oil. Russian
environmental officials will be preparing a lawsuit against the oil companies after the clean-up is over, Bezumov said. The area around the oil field is largely unpopulated but the oil

But maintenance of pipelines in old fields


is poor, and oil leaks from rusty pipes and poorly sealed wells daily, experts say. An AP
spill has damaged pastures used by local reindeer herdsmen. Russia has not seen major oil spills for years.

investigation last year showed that at least 1 percent of Russia's annual oil production, or 5 million
tons, is spilled into the environment every year.

Artic Spill: BioD


An oil spill in the Arctic would wipe out many the populations of many species and
destroy the habitat
Goldenberg 2010
Arctic oil spill clean-up plans are 'thoroughly inadequate', industry warned Report from US environment group warns that ice, freezing
temperatures and high seas would overwhelm any clean-up attempts http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/11/arcticoil-spill-plans Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 November 2010 05.31 EST

Trying to clean up a spill in the extreme conditions of the Arctic would be on an entirely
different order of magnitude. "The risks, difficulties, and unknowns of oil exploration in the
Arcticare far greater than in any other area," the report said. The consequences for the
Arctic's environment would be dire, it said, wiping out populations of walrus, seal and polar
bear and destroying the isolated indigenous communities that depend on hunting to survive.
Getting to the scene of a spill would be a challenge. The nearest major port, Dutch Harbor, is
1,300 nautical miles away from the drilling areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and what few
air landing strips exist are not connected to any road system. There are no coast guard vessels in
either sea, and the nearest coast guard station is 950 miles by air away in Kodiak, Alaska. Response
teams would confront gale-force winds, massive blocks of ice and turbulent seas, total
darkness for six weeks of the year, and extreme cold. Cranes would freeze and chemical
dispersants, such as those used to break up the BP spill, might not work. Then there is the
ice. Left undetected, a pipeline leak could spread oil beneath the surface of sea ice. Ice floes
could carry oil hundreds of miles away from the source. At freeze-up, oil can become trapped
within ice within the space of four hours, remaining there until spring. If it becomes trapped
within multi-year ice, oil could stay in the environment for years, or even a decade, the
report said.

Any impacts of an oil spill will be drastically worse in the Arctic


WWF 2010
December 1, 2010 Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky World Wildlife Fund
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/WWFBinaryitem18711.pdf
Just as the risks of a spill could be greater in the Arctic, so could the impacts. Oil persists
longer in Arctic conditions, both because it evaporates more slowly and because it can get
trapped in or under ice, which makes it less accessible to bacterial degradation. Population
recovery after exposure to an oil spill also may be slow because many Arctic species have
relatively long life spans and slower generational turnover.10 Recently published research
suggests that the long-term consequences of oil spills to temperate and subarctic coastal
environments may persist well beyond initial projections.11 Similar impacts also could
prevail along Arctic shorelines. Arctic wildlife particularly sensitive to oil drilling and/or
pollution include seabirds, polar bears, bearded and ribbon seals, walruses, and beluga and
bowhead whales. Polar bears rely on both their body fat and dense fur for insulation and will
vigorously groom themselves in an attempt to clean their fur if it becomes contaminated by oil,

studies have shown. Aspiration or ingestion of the oil can cause renal failure and dysfunction of red
blood cell production and lead to death. The bears are also highly sensitive to disturbances
during denning, with most of their dens located on sea ice plates.12

Oil spills collapse the ecosystem


Nuka Research and Planning Group 7
October, World Wildlife Foundation, Oil Spill Response Challenges in Arctic Waters,
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/WWFBinaryitem24363.pdf

Lingering oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) in Prince William Sound, Alaska has
persisted far beyond initial forecasts (Peterson et al., 2003). In 2005, EVOS oil was found only slightly weathered
under beaches across the spill impact area. The lingering oil remains toxic and biologically available, and
scientists predict that this subsurface oil may persist for decades to come (Short et al., 2003). The
lingering effects of oil spills have also been documented in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where recent studies published by the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution found that oil remains in the sediment layer of some coastal marshes from a 1969 oil spill .

The
lingering oil continues to impact on the behaviour of burrowing fiddler crabs, which have
been observed to actively avoid digging burrows into this oiled sediment layer. The crabs
have also been observed to show signs of toxic impacts from the 38-year-old oil (Culbertson, et al.,
2007).

Oil Spill: Whales


Oil Spills have a major effect on whales, most of which end up in death.
Greenpeace July 2011
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/322340/IWC%20Arctic%20Oil%20Briefing.pdf

Oil spills are perhaps the most obvious potential threat posed to cetaceans (whales, dolphins and
porpoises) and the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem by the oil industry and as the industry
expands in the Arctic so the probability of spills occurring increases. While the size of a spill
is important, the amount of damage done also depends on other factors, including the
location of the spill and weather conditions The impacts of oil spills on marine mammals
arent well known and will be determined by the type of oil spilled, the dispersants used and
the length of exposure, as well as other factors. The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has
identified the following as some of the potential physical/physiological effects as being of
concern irritation, inflammation, or necrosis of skin chemical burns of skin, eyes, nares
(nostrils), mucous membranes inhalation of toxic fumes with potential short- and long-term
respiratory effects (e.g., inflammation, pulmonary emphysema, infection) ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly
or via contaminated, leading to inflammation, ulcers, bleeding, possible damage to liver,
kidney, and brain tissues stress from presence of vessels and aircraft, noise and handling
complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems,
physiological stress, declining physical condition, and ultimately death Those species of
baleen whale, including blue, right and bowhead whales, which skim feed i.e. filter prey
from near the surface by swimming with their mouths agape may suffer fouling of the
baleen, affecting their ability to feed.

Drilling Bad: Natives


Arctic Drilling is specifically disadvantages and ignores indigenous people. Oil
companies enforce a cultural genocide in order to maintain control of the arctic. Oil
companies must be banned from development.
Schertow 12
(Award winning author and editor specializing in struggles of indigenous peoples, correspondent for the Public Good Project; and the
Coordinator of the IC Translation) [JOINT STATEMENT OF INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY FOR ARCTIC PROTECTION, IC Magazine,
9/13/2012. Online@http://intercontinentalcry.org/joint-statement-of-indigenous-solidarity-for-arctic-protection/ SM]

Joint statement OF INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY FOR ARCTIC PROTECTION We the Peoples of the
North have for too long experienced the oppression of our Peoples and the barbaric
destruction of our land. It is time that we join forces and demands that the oil companies and
the Arctic States change their path and start to listen to the voices of the Indigenous Peoples
residing in these lands. The Peoples of the North will no longer be bought with dimes and cents
to stand silently by while the oil companies destroy our native land. Our culture and history
cannot be bought off and replaced with pipelines and drill rigs. Our way of living defines who
we are and we will stand up and fight for our nature and environment. Too many have been
reduced to depend on the generosity of the oil companies. Our rights and ability to sustain
ourselves must not be trampled by others endless hunger for profits. Our lands and culture
must be preserved for the generations to come. If divided, we will not be able to withstand the
pressure from oil producing companies to open up our homes for destruction. Today we gather our
forces and refuse to continue to stand silently by, witnessing the destruction of our land. We stand
together in our call for: A ban on all offshore oil drilling in the Arctic shelf. We cannot accept
the ecological risks and destructive impacts of a spill on our lands and in our seas. The
irresponsible practices of oil companies everywhere have provided us with more than
enough evidence that oil spills in the Arctic seas will be inevitable . At the same time there are
no effective and tested methods to prevent or clean up oil spills in the freezing Arctic seas.
A moratorium on onshore oil drilling in the Arctic. Oil companies have repeatedly shown that
they have no respect for anything other than their profits. Until the oil companies and the
national governments of the Arctic take the responsibility for the destructive impacts on the
environment, the Indigenous lands must be closed for them. All extraction and
industrialization on Indigenous land should only be carried out with the explicit consent of
the Peoples of the land. Furthermore, Indigenous communities must benefit socially and
economically from any industrial extraction. We will not let the Arctic become another
industrial area, destroyed to produce profit for the industry.

AT: Artic Conflict- Exploration


Russia not concerned by US Non-military Activities in Arctic
Zysk 2009
Katarzyna Zysk- Senior fellow at the IFS, Russian national security strategy to 2020, Geopolitics in the High North, 6/15/09,
http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&limitstart=2
The broad and detailed document depicts a complex and integrated picture of Russias security situation. It describes current world
trends and defines Russias national interests and strategic priorities. Unlike the previous documents, it goes far beyond the classical
definition of national security with a predominantly military approach. The new strategy identifies threats and challenges within a
broadly defined concept of security under chapters defined as National defence, State security and civil protection, Improvement of
living standards, Economic growth, Research, technologies and education, Healthcare, Culture, Ecology, and Strategic
stability and partnership on equal terms. Much less attention is devoted to hard security threats. National defence tasks are described
relatively vaguely. The

document avoids as well any broader discussion of Russias nuclear policy, confirming only its
further reliance on nuclear deterrence and nuclear parity with the United States. The new strategy points at
failure of the current global and regional security architecture, as it is disproportionately weighted in favour of NATO. It voices Russias
long-standing opposition to any future eastward enlargement of the Alliance and plans to move its military infrastructure to Russian
borders, as well as attempts to give the organisation global functions. At the same time, it expresses Russias readiness to negotiate and
develop relations with NATO on the condition of equality and respect for Russias interests. Contrary

to expectations based
United States is not mentioned
in the document as a security concern. It refers though to attempts of a range of leading states to
achieve military supremacy as a threat to states security.
on the anti-Western rhetoric frequently used by the Russian leadership in recent years, the

Solvency: Tech
Lack Knowledge that the Arctic drilling will work
Joling 2012
Dan Joling, writer for the associated press, June 26, 2012 Salazar announces 'targeted leasing' in Arctic,
http://www.live5news.com/story/18885309/salazar-announces-targeted-leasing-in-arctic
"We

lack the basic science to make good decisions in the Arctic," he said. "There is no reason to schedule

lease sales in the Beaufort and the Chukchi and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management should not have done that." Likewise,

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement should not have approved Shell's
response plan, he said. "There has been no demonstration that the response technologies that
Shell proposes might work in Arctic conditions, especially in the presence of ice," he said.

Relations Resilient
Relations Resilient
Voice of Russia 12 (Russia willing to work together with US to narrow disagreements Lavrov
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_02/Russia-willing-to-work-together-with-US-to-narrow-disagreements-Lavrov/ Accessed on 6/30/12)
<Russia sees

nothing extraordinary in the fact that it has disagreements with the US, and it is willing
to narrow them through equitable and respectful dialogue with Washington, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. "Our agenda is quite substantive and positive, but disagreements and differences still remain
in relations between such major powers," Lavrov said at the 49th Munich Security Conference on Saturday. "We will take a principled
approach to any issue in Russian-US relations that is supposed to be agreed upon, and we
will be guided by principles of mutual respect, equitability, and mutual consideration of each
other's interests," Lavrov said. "We will certainly work together on issues on which we can
work to benefit our countries and international security. We are already working," he said.
The US' willingness to settle disagreements with its partners in a peaceful way demonstrates this country's responsible approach toward its foreign policy,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. "President Barack Obama said in his inaugural speech that the US would seek to resolve disagreements with
other countries in a peaceful way, and not because of naivety but because joint work is the most reliable way to eliminate suspicions and fear," Lavrov said at
the 49th Munich Security Conference on Saturday. "This

very responsible approach based on strict respect for


international law is what Russia invariably adheres to in its foreign policy," Lavrov said. "We
expect reciprocity," Lavrov said. The stereotype of a Russian threat hampers the establishment of real partnership between Russia
and NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.>

No Impact
No Russian War
Weitz 11 (Richard, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review senior editor, Global Insights: Putin not a Game-Changer for
U.S.-Russia Ties, http://www.scribd.com/doc/66579517/Global-Insights-Putin-not-a-Game-Changer-for-U-S-Russia-Ties, September 27, 2011)
Fifth, there will inevitably be areas of conflict between Russia and the United States regardless of who is in the
Kremlin. Putin and his entourage can never be happy with having NATO be Europe's most powerful security institution, since Moscow is not a member and
cannot become one. Similarly, the Russians will always object to NATO's missile defense efforts since they can
neither match them nor join them in any meaningful way. In the case of Iran, Russian officials genuinely perceive less of a threat from Tehran than do most
Americans, and Russia has more to lose from a cessation of economic ties with Iran -- as well as from an Iranian-Western reconciliation. On the other hand,

these conflicts can be managed, since they will likely remain limited and
compartmentalized . Russia and the West do not have fundamentally conflicting vital
interests of the kind countries would go to war over . And as the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons
are a great pacifier under such conditions. Another novel development is that Russia is much more
integrated into the international economy and global society than the Soviet Union was, and
Putin's popularity depends heavily on his economic track record. Beyond that, there are objective criteria, such
as the smaller size of the Russian population and economy as well as the difficulty of
controlling modern means of social communication, that will constrain whoever is in charge
of Russia.

Wont go to war over perceived sphere of influence


Ottens 11 (Nick Ottens, editor of the transatlantic news and commentary site the Atlantic Sentinel and contributing analyst for the geostrategic
consultancy Wikistrat, The Myth of Russias Resurgence, August 20 2011, http://atlanticsentinel.com/2011/08/the-myth-of-russias-resurgence/)
Wikistrats Thomas Barnett reminds readers of Russian fears of encirclement in his latest World Politics Review column. After shrugging off its empire

in 1991, Russia was denied a sense of belonging, Barnett notes, when Europe and the United States
refused to consider Russias entry to NATO. Instead, America moved in militarily from the south
as part of its global War on Terror while China progressively encroached, in an economic sense, on Russias near abroad in Central Asia and the Far
East. Russia

has been remarkably reluctant to counter these infringements. Although nearly all former Warsaw
Pact members belong to the European Union now, it has made only halfhearted attempts to regain a semblance of
hegemony on its western border. Old Eastern Bloc nations may still worry about Russian antagonism, especially if Germany, which is
so dependent on Russian gas imports, wont truly protect them in the EU (which is why they expect security from the United States in NATO)the
likelihood of Moscow deploying force against Poland, Lithuania or even the Ukraine is close to
zero. In other parts of its former empire, too, Russia is far from belligerent. Although vying for
influence there with nearby greater powers, Russia has refrained from policing Central Asia in Soviet style
despite the alluring natural resources that the region possesses. When Kyrgyzstan asked for a Russian troop presence last year to
quell political unrest, the Kremlin balked at the request. It had no desire to become entangled in the internal
power struggles of its former client state. Russian cultural and political influence pervades especially in the northernmost of
former socialist republics in Central Asia but Chinese, Iranian and Turkish attempts at fostering stable relations in the area could set the stage for a
greater power confrontation, one from which Moscow stands nothing to gain. Russian governors in the Far East occasionally raise the specter of the
yellow menace and talk of the danger posed to their underpopulated provinces by unregulated Chinese labor migrants but as Dmitry Gorenburg
pointed out here last year, this kind of talk rarely emanates from Moscow and certainly does not affect troop positioning. Indeed, it

is stunning
how little trouble Moscow has fomented since the demise of the Soviet Union, writes Barnett, all while
engineering arguably the greatest military demobilization in human history, going from more than two
hundred army divisions to less than one hundred brigades.

Even a rapid US-Russia war would end in peace negotiations before nukes were launched Russian
generals concede.
Ivashov 7 (Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems. July 2007 WILL AMERICA FIGHT RUSSIA. Defense and Security, No 78. LN
Ivashov: Numerous scenarios and options are possible. Everything may begin as a local conflict that will rapidly deteriorate into a total
confrontation. An ultimatum will be sent to Russia: say, change the domestic policy because human rights are allegedly encroached on, or give Western
businesses access to oil and gas fields. Russia will refuse and its objects (radars, air defense components, command posts, infrastructure) will be wiped out
by guided missiles with conventional warheads and by aviation. Once this phase is over, an even stiffer ultimatum will be presented demanding something up to the deployment of NATO "peacekeepers" on the territory of Russia. Refusal to bow to the demands will be met with a mass
aviation and missile strike at Army and Navy assets, infrastructure, and objects of defense industry. NATO armies will invade Belarus and western Russia.
Two turns of events may follow that. Moscow may accept the ultimatum through the use of some device that will help it save face. The
acceptance will be followed by talks over the estrangement of the Kaliningrad enclave, parts of the Caucasus and Caspian region, international control over the
Russian gas and oil complex, and NATO control over Russian nuclear forces. The second scenario involves a warning from
the Kremlin to the United States that continuation of the aggression will trigger retaliation with the use of all weapons in
nuclear arsenals. It will stop the war and put negotiations into motion

Cooperation is impossible
Bovt 12 (9/12 (Columnist-Moscow Times, Whether Obama or Romney, the Reset Is Dead, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/whether-obama-or-romneythe-reset-is-dead/467947.html#ixzz274U7VOyl

During every U.S. presidential election campaign, there is a debate in Russia over whether the
Republican or Democratic candidate would be more beneficial for the Kremlin. Russian analysts and
politicians always fail to understand that Americans have shown little interest in foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War. Even when foreign policy is mentioned in the campaign, Russia is far
down the list as a priority item. The volume of U.S-Russian trade remains small. The recent Exxon-Rosneft deal notwithstanding, U.S.
interest in Russia's energy projects has fallen, particularly as the Kremlin has increased its role in this sector. To make matters worse, the United States is
determined to establish clean energy and energy independence, while Russia's gas exports are feeling the pinch from stiff competition with the U.S.
development of shale gas production. Of course, traditional areas of cooperation remain: the transit of shipments to and from Afghanistan through Russia,
Iran's nuclear program and the struggle against international terrorism. But the transit route into Afghanistan cannot, by itself, greatly influence bilateral

progress on the other two points seems to have reached a plateau beyond which little potential
remains for bringing the two countries into closer cooperation. On the positive side, a new visa
agreement came into force this week that will facilitate greater contact between both countries'
citizens. But it will be years before that significantly influences overall U.S.-Russian relations. A new
relations as a whole, and

agreement regarding child adoptions has also been implemented after a few disturbing adoption stories prompted Russia's media, with the help of
government propaganda, to spoil the U.S. image in Russia. Meanwhile, both U.S. President Barack Obama

and Republican candidate Mitt


Romney support the U.S. missile defense program in principle, although the exact form and scope of its deployment differ
among the candidates. Even though President Vladimir Putin, during his interview with RT state television last week, expressed guarded optimism over the
prospect of reaching an agreement on missile defense with Obama, Russia

seems to underestimate the degree to which


Americans are fixated on missile defense as a central component of their national security. It is
highly unlikely that any U.S. administration Democratic or Republican will ever agree to
major concessions on missile defense. It even seemed that Kremlin propagandists were happy
when in March Romney called Russia the United States' No. 1 foe. They were given another present when Obama, addressing
the Democratic National Convention last week, said Romney's comment only proved that he lacked foreign policy experience and was locked in Cold War
thinking.

For the next two months, however, the two candidates are unlikely to devote muc h attention
to Russia. Russia's internal politics will also be one of the key factors shaping future U.S.-Russian
relations. The two-year jail sentence slapped on three members of Pussy Riot for their anti-Putin prayer in Moscow's main cathedral has already
become a subject of discussion between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even the most pragmatic
"pro-reset" U.S. administration would criticize to one degree or another Russia's poor record on
human rights. It appears that Russia is moving increasingly toward confrontation rather than

rapprochement with the West. The Kremlin now seems fully committed to spreading the myth
that the U.S. State Department is the cause behind most of Russia's domestic problems and is bent on
undermining its national security by deploying missile defense installations in Europe and by supporting the opposition. There are other disturbing signals
as well. Take, for example, the

United Russia bill that would prohibit Russian officials from owning bank
accounts and property overseas, with particular attention paid to their holdings in the West. The
ideological underpinning of this bill is that assets located in the West are tantamount to betrayal of
the motherland. Then there is Russia's opposition to the U.S. Magnitsky Act. The Kremlin interprets this initiative
as yet another confirmation of its suspicions that Washington is conspiring against it and that the bill's real U.S. motive is to blackmail Russian officials by
threatening to freeze their overseas bank accounts and property. An

increase in these anti-Western attitudes does not


bode well for U.S.-Russian relations, even if Obama is re-elected in November. Regardless of which candidate wins, the reset is bound
to either slowly die a natural death under Obama or be extinguished outright under Romney. As a
result, the most we can likely expect from U.S.-Russian relations in the next four years is
cooperation on a limited range of mundane issues. Under these conditions, avoiding excessive anti-Russian or anti-U.S. rhetoric
from both sides would itself be considered a major achievement in bilateral relations.

***Canada

**Solvency Gen**

Gen- Development
Canada is the International Leader in ocean development
CBFOC 5
(Communications Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada). [Canadas Oceans Action Plan, 2005,
Online@http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/pdf/oap-eng.pdf SM]
The Government of Canada

recognizes the importance of action to address these challenges. The Prime


lead the development of an Oceans

Minister has personally tasked the. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to

Action Plan, and has appointed a Parliamentary Secretary to assist the Minister in this task. The Prime Minister has also indicated
that Canada will play a significant leadership role internationally in promoting modern oceans governance and improved

committed in the Octover 2004 Speech from the Throne, to: move
forward on its Oceans Action Plan maximizing the use and development of oceans
technology, establishing a network of marine protected areas, implementing integrated
management plans, and enhancing the enforcement of rules governing oceans and fisheries,
management. In addition, the Government of Canada

including rules governing straddling stocks. The Oceans Action Plan responds to that commitment and advances the legislation and
policy in place as well as the Government of Canadas commitment to smart regulation. The Oceans Action Plan articulates a
government-wide approach to seize opportunities for sustainable development. The
for coordinating and implementing the oceans activities, and as the framework

our oceans.

Plan serves as the overarching umbrella


to sustainably develop and manage

Gen- Aqua Culture


Canada solves aquaculture and is key to new international regulations
FOC 3/14
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada). [DFO International Science Strategy, FOC, 3/14/2014.
Online@http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/intss-ssint/index-eng.html SM]
Canada is blessed with abundant aquatic resources, including the world's longest coast line and largest reserves of fresh water. Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (DFO) is

responsible for the sustainable management of these resources to


ensure long-term economic prosperity for those depending on the wealth of our oceans, lakes and rivers for their
livelihoods, and the health of the ecosystems supporting those resources. The global context for fisheries and
oceans management is increasing in complexity as concepts formulated in the international
arena, such as the precautionary approach (PA) and the ecosystem approach to management (EAM), are incorporated into
domestic policy and management programs. Moreover, the traditional approaches to fisheries
and oceans management are facing fundamental challenges. Traditionally, international regulation and
management in the marine realm has been sector based. For example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) focused on the
safety regulation of shipping while Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) focused on fisheries
management, usually based on the single-species model. More recently, and especially since the signing of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in 1992, there

has been an increasing number of broad-based conservation initiatives


that have resulted in pressures to change the models upon which DFO manages Canada's fisheries and oceans.
These international developments in fisheries and oceans policy and management have led, in
part, to increased demands for scientific information and advice . As a result of the increasing complexity in fulfilling DFO's
mandate, and the concurrent expanded role for scientific advice, products and services, the Science
Framework for the Future was developed to ensure that DFO's Science program is capable of responding to increased demands for
applied and time sensitive advice. It also provides for a balance among long-term issues and the flexibility to address emerging
pressures, evolving priorities and maintaining sufficient capacity for forward looking science. An essential element of the Science
Framework for the Future is collaboration. This will involve key partners across all levels of government, academia and the private
sector, both domestically and internationally. The purpose of the International Science Strategy is to guide the international elements of
DFO's Science Program aimed at fulfilling Departmental priorities and international obligations. As well, it seeks to develop
international partnerships to increase scientific knowledge and capacity and to influence the direction of research and development of
standards. The

Strategy also details how the Science program will support DFO Sectors engaged
in international policy development and fisheries and oceans management.

Gen- Desalinization
Canada funds desalination- Can solve aff
SDTC 10
(Sustainable Development Technology Canada- is a government run organization that provides funding and innovation for
environmental technologies and environmental projects). [Innovative Desalination Technology to Receive Government of Canada
Funding, SDTC, 4/9/2014.
Online@http://www.sdtc.ca/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=174&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=
news-details&cntnt01returnid=143&hl=en_CA SM]

Innovative Desalination Technology to Receive Government of Canada Funding SDTC will provide up to
$580,000 to project led by Saltworks Technologies Inc. Vancouver, B.C., April 9, 2010 A project led by
Saltworks Technologies Inc. to develop a low-energy water desalination system that has the
potential to greatly improve the affordability and accessibility of clean water will receive up to
$580,000 in funding from Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). The funding was approved
by the Board of Directors of SDTC in June 2009 as part of the foundations fourteenth funding round. By supporting
innovative, clean energy technologies like those developed by Saltworks Technologies, the Government of Canada is helping to create a
stronger and greener economy, and position Canada as a world leader in this field, said Andrew Saxton, MP for North Vancouver and
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. And were also helping to position Canada as a go-to source for
environmental and energy solutions that can be used here and around the world. Access

to clean water is a growing


issue and its imperative that we find innovative ways to effectively clean the water resources
that are available, said SDTC President and CEO Vicky Sharpe. The technology developed by Saltworks provides
a sustainable and inexpensive solution to this issue that could be used in Canada as well as around the world. The Low-Energy
Desalination Demonstration project involves building and testing a commercial-scale 1,000 litre/day pilot plant for seawater and
brackish industrial water treatment. This novel desalination system, powered by an inexpensive low temperature thermal energy
conversion system that can use solar energy or process heat to reduce electricity consumption, is expected to operate without chemicals
while avoiding the harmful salt loading that is often associated with other desalination approaches. The process also has the capability to
input waste saltwater brine and treat it to produce freshwater and solid salt with low energy consumption. Support

from
SDTC has enabled Saltworks to pilot its technology on real seawater at a small commercial
scale. This sets the building blocks in place for the future and has generated valuable IP, know how, and high
skill jobs, said Saltworks CEO Ben Sparrow. Other project partners include BC Hydros Powertech Labs Inc. and the BC
Innovative Clean Energy Fund. About SDTC - Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) is an
arms-length foundation created by the Government of Canada which has received $1.05 billion as part of
the Governments commitment to create a healthy environment and a high quality of life for all Canadians. SDTC operates two funds
aimed at the development and demonstration of innovative technological solutions. The $550 million SD Tech Fund supports projects
that address climate change, air quality, clean water, and clean soil. The $500 million NextGen Biofuels Fund supports the
establishment of first-of-kind large demonstration-scale facilities for the production of next-generation renewable fuels. SDTC operates
as a not-for-profit corporation and has been working with the public and private sector including industry, academia, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), the financial community and all levels of government to achieve this mandate. For more information, please visit
www.sdtc.ca.

**WindFarm CP**

**1NC

Canada SoftPower
Canada can play a world leadership role
Hariri 10
Mehrdad Hariri Chair, Canadian Science Policy Conference. http://www.themarknews.com/articles/2947-bringing-canadian-science-tothe-world
Canada is in fact an ideal candidate to collaborate on science and technology with countries and organizations around the world.

Canada has a proud history of involving itself in global affairs as a peace-keeper, a trusted middle power,
and a NATO and UN ally. We also have a very strong science infrastructure, and institutions such as IDRC, CIDA, and the newly
founded Grand Challenges Canada which is committed to improving global health conditions through integrated innovation are
already part of a legacy of contributing to science and technology advancement in the developing world and the world in general.
Furthermore, Canada

opens its doors to the world, promoting a unique model of multiculturalism


and tolerance, and as such has become home to thousands of the worlds best talents. In establishing collaboration with their home
countries, diaspora scientists have the potential to be the new generation of science diplomats. What does it take to put all of this to work
for the benefit of Canadians? We need to develop a new vision of our foreign diplomacy one that upholds the importance of science in
facing the challenges of todays world and incorporates a culture of scientists as diplomats. We

need to organize our vast


pool of talent and expertise and activate it as the engine of science diplomacy. Our embassies need to
be fed by the advice and knowledge of these scientists, rather than that of embassy science officers who, under the current system, have
little or no science background. We could benefit from looking at the existing models of other countries for example, the U.K.
government has set up a Science and Innovation Network to strengthen the link between foreign policy and science in more than 25
countries. Theres no reason we shouldnt adopt such a model in Canada. Canadas leadership in Arctic issues is a great example of the
positive role Canada can play on the international stage. We could do something similar in Afghanistan, where, for example, we could
introduce a new approach to the advancement of science and education. Our prime minister should appoint a science envoy to initiate
high-level negotiations in S&T cooperation and should actively engage our scientific community in playing a role in scientific
development in Afghanistan. The same model could also be adopted in many other countries, especially Pacific and Latin American
countries. The 21st century is the century to implement a global science agenda, and Canada

has all the right


ingredients to play a leading role. Capitalizing on its vast scientific potential, Canada could
boost its international recognition and earn prestige and power in the foreign-diplomacy
arena. We just need to set the agenda and start the march. Next time a UNSC membership is up for grabs, our science diplomacy can
play an effective role but only if we start now.

Canada needs to be assertive to exercise its soft power


Vrsnik 1-31-12
Victor Vrsnik is the principal of Spire Public Relations of Vancouver Enbridge should turn on soft power
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Enbridge
Uprisings against tyrants in Africa and the Middle East. Economic immolation in Europe. Nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North
Korea. Canada has never looked so good. Canadas

soft power values of peace, order and good


government, not to mention personal freedoms, conservation, universal health care and free enterprise, are the envy of the
planet. But if we fail to push our national interests, well be in no position to assert these soft
power values.

Canadian Soft Power Impacts


Soft power prevents Sino-Japan war---it goes nuclear.
FATDC 12 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Stopping the Free-Fall Implications of SinoJapanese Rivalry for Regional Stability and
Canadian Interests, 2012-09-14 http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/intl_securitysecurite_int/yuan2007/section1a.aspx?lang=eng)
This report discusses developments in Sino-Japanese
mistrust, misunderstanding,

relations since the end of the Cold War and analyses some of the underlining causes of
hostility, and emerging rivalry between these two major Asia

powers. It presents a preliminary assessment of the key issues and controversies ranging from Chinese views on the evolving U.S.-Japan military
alliance, Japan's aspiration to become a normal state and its pursuit of greater international role and enhancement of military capabilities, to historical
legacies and rising nationalism in both countries, unresolved territorial disputes and competition for resources, and growing Japan-Taiwan ties. The report
argues that the end of the Cold War, the changing international security environment in East Asia, domestic politics and leadership transition in both China
and Japan, especially China's rise as a major power, present serious challenges for the regional balance of power and the need for adaptation and
adjustments to the power shift and transformation. This dramatic shift in the power balance also leads to worst-case interpretations by both Beijing and
Tokyo of the other's intentions and behavior. Under such circumstances, the old wounds of history are further aggravated by new nationalism, personality,
and changing domestic foreign policy making processes where societal pressures impose significant constraints on conciliatory gestures and "new thinking"
on managing bilateral relations. The report also reviews and evaluates the validity of limited confidence building measures and security dialogue between
Beijing and Tokyo and concludes that their utility is constrained by the overall political relationship between the two countries. At the same time, the report
also notes that growing economic interdependence, the recognition that continued deterioration of relations serves neither side's interests; consequently,
the resolve of Chinese and Japanese leaders in the post-Koizumi era to mend fences and promote common interests at least for now have prevented the free
fall in Asia's most important bilateral relationship. Sino-Japanese

relations have important implications for


Canada's interests. Canada has long maintained good relationships with both China and
Japan for economic and politico-security reasons. Japan has been a traditional trading partner of Canada while China's
phenomenal growth over the last quarter century has drawn significant interest from Canadian businesses. Ottawa made significant efforts in promoting its
ties with Asian Pacific countries in the 1990s, as well as participated in and introduced multilateral security institution-building. In this context, the

continuing free fall of the Sino-Japanese relationship could seriously affect Canadian
interests in the region. Canada remains a "stakeholder" in the future developments in Sino-Japanese relations for at least three reasons:
China's rise and its future direction affect both regional peace and stability and the geostrategic landscape at the global level. China has become an important trading partner for
Canada and Canadian "soft power" in engaging and encouraging China to adopt a
multilateral approach to regional security and good governance has achieved important
results. Ottawa should continue to play an active role in engaging Beijing to promote a
disarmament agenda and encourage military transparency so that China's emergence
could be better integrated into the existing international norms and frameworks, values a middle
power such as Canada holds dear. Japan and Canada share many common values and interests. Both are members of the G-8 and OECD, and are concerned
with emerging non-traditional security challenges, human security, and international peacekeeping. However, Ottawa and Tokyo have placed different
emphasis and have different priorities due to their respective threat perceptions, geography and alliance commitments. Continued Sino-Japanese rivalry has
serious implications for Canadian interests. Prolonged instability and deteriorating security in that region would negatively affect Canada's interests.

Intensified disputes leading to militarized conflicts between China and Japan could result in
a number of negative developments. There is the potential for an arms race. Japan strives
for greater military capabilities, including nuclear and missile capabilitie s as Tokyo's
confidence in U.S. nuclear umbrella and the alliance protection wanes.

Regional instability leads to extinction


Toon et. Al. 7 Department of Atmosphere and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmosphere and Space Physics, University of
Colorado, Boulder (Owen B. Toon, 2 March 2007, Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts, Science Magazine, Vol 315,
*Secondary authors include: Alan Robock (Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University), Richard P. Turco (Department of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California Los Angeles), Charles Bardeen (Department of Atmosphere and Oceanic
Sciences, Laboratory for Atmosphere and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder), Luke Oman (Department of Environmental

Sciences, Rutgers University; and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University), and Georgiy L. Stenchikov
(Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University).
The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear warfare, but regional

conflicts continue. Within this milieu,


acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political, military, and social tool (1
3). National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost. Against this
backdrop, we

provide a quantitative assessment of the potential for casualties in a regional-scale


nuclear conflict, or a terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4, 5). Eight nations are known to
have nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea may have a small, but growing, arsenal. Iran appears to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it
probably needs several years to obtain enough fissionable material .

Of great concern, 32 other nationsincluding Brazil,


Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanhave sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1, 6). A de
facto nuclear arms race has emerged in Asia between China, India, and Pakistan, which could expand to
include North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (1). In the Middle East, a nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and Israel. Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and
Argentina, were ended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for other regions, despite
Brazils new, large uranium enrichment facilities. Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more weapons of low yield [15 kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima
bomb] are relatively easy to build (1, 6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers, probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever
disclosed its inventory of warheads (7). Modern

weapons are compact and lightweight and are readily


transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic concepts of weapons design can be found on
of the Internet. The only serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability of
purified fissionable fuels. There are many political, economic, and social factors that could
trigger a regionalscale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for the conduct of the ensuing
war. We assumed (4) that the densest population centers in each countryusually in megacitiesare attacked. We did not evaluate specific military
targets and related casualties. We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield each, that is, ~0.3% of the total number of existing
weapons (4). India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear weapons and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of
unknown yield (9). Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional
conflict (see figure, above). For instance, such an exchange between India and Pakistan (10) could produce about 21 million fatalitiesabout half as many as
occurred globally during World War II. The

direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as


gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, would cause most
casualties. Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived radionuclides,
and psychological trauma would likely result in the indefinite abandonment of large areas
leading to severe economic and social repercussions. Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would
release copious amounts of light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear
weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles (4), darkening the sky and
affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1815) (5).
Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating. Simulations
(5) predict that such radiativedynamical interactions would loft and stabilize the smoke aerosol, which would allow it to persist in the middle and upper
atmosphere for a decade. Smoke

emissions of 100 lowyield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would


generate substantial globalscale climate anomalies, although not as large as in previous nuclear winter scenarios for a
full-scale war (11, 12). However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation rates, and
growing season lengths (see figure, page 1225) would be likely to degrade agricultural productivity to
an extent that historically has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 17831784 Laki eruption
(13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5). Climatic
anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of smoke stabilization, far longer than
in previous nuclear winter calculations or after volcanic eruptions. Studies of the consequences of full-scale
nuclear war show that indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the worlds population
(11, 12). Indirect

effects such as damage to transportation, energy, medical, political, and social


infrastructure could be limited to the combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate
anomalies would threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted smoke
emissions and fatalities per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly 100 times those expected
from estimates for full-scale nuclear attacks with high-yield weapons (4). Unfortunately, the Treaty on
NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons has failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group including two former U.S. secretaries of state,
a former secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer

effective and may become dangerous (3). Terrorists, for instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence strategies. Mutually assured destruction may not
function in a world with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have welldeveloped safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or unauthorized launches. This bipartisan group detailed numerous steps to inhibit or
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur, includes removing nuclear weapons from alert status to reduce the danger of an
accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon; reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weaponsusable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the
world; controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled international
reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of
highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that
give rise to new nuclear powers. The analysis summarized here shows that the

world has reached a crossroads. Having survived the


world is increasingly threatened by the prospects of
regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly
large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear
proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the
greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans.
threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the

Canada soft power is k/t UN cred and conflict prevention


Carment* and Marriott** 2003, *is the Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, where he is
Associate Professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, **is a graduate of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton
University, (David B. and Koren Conflict Prevention in Canada A Survey of Canadian Conflict Prevention Professionals, September 2003, http://httpserver.carleton.ca/~dcarment/papers/conflictpreventionsurvey1.pdf)
According to IMPACS, Canada

has the resources and capability to play a lead role in conflict


prevention internationally. It could provide support by delivering training or by building local capacities and developing local assets.
Canada should support initiatives related to media and peacebuilding, dialogues and roundtable
sessions, mediation efforts, etc. In general, many of the respondents had basically positive things to say about Canadas role in
conflict prevention. Often this also included ways to increase effectiveness, or to capitalize on what one respondent described as the deferring to Canada on
certain issues in multilateral fora. Basically, the responses leave the impression that respondents believe that Canada and Canadians have made a good start
and are generally motivated by the right intentions but that more could be done. Particular suggestions included pushing for inclusion of womens rights in

international treaties, strengthening of the UN and its procedures, the championing of


international law and the encouragement of other states to adopt international treaties
relating to the safety and security of people around the globe. The overriding theme that appeared in several of the
responses was that Canada should support the work of international and regional organizations. UNICEF stated that by using soft power,
Canada is in a strong position to champion international laws and treaties through the UN
and other regional and international bodies. CUSOs response reflected similar views, stating; Canada is
respected internationally for being a promoter of peace and human security, and should
continue this role. It should continue to work within multi-lateral frameworks, including the
UN, ensuring rule of law is adhered to in all its conflict prevention and interventions. Canada
should support the reform of the UN in order to make it a more effective international body
capable of effecting positive change in today's world. Canada should be more active in ensuring that people around the
world share equitably in its resources. Canada should promote human rights and democratic development in all its international dealings including in trade
and development. Theresa Dunn expressed a related opinion, saying she believes Canada

is strategically placed to become a


leader in conflict prevention through its role as peacebuilder and often impartial agent. She
went on to say that because of Canadas size and commitment to conflict resolution through
collaboration we are able to move internationally with knowledge and expertise. These views are
fairly representative of a major portion of the responses received.

Southeast Asia is on the track to collapse---multiple regional and interstate hotspots


are on the brink---effective UN conflict prevention is key
Wainwright 10 - Elsina, Deputy Director for Personnel and a Senior Fellow in the Statebuilding Program at New York Universitys Center on
International Cooperation, Adjunct Associate Professor at the Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) at the University of Sydney, Australia. PhD at
Oxford University in International Relations, Conflict Prevention in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific April 2010,
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/E9F30DCAFE830FC9492577140018C276-Full_Report.pdf)
The Asia Pacific region is in the most broadly peaceful era in its history it has experienced thirty years without interstate conflict. Extraordinary economic
growth has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Notwithstanding this striking record, however, a

host of long-running, low-level


internal conflicts continue in Southeast Asia, and several South Pacific states have recent experience of instability.
Significant tensions also exist at the inter-state level, which could be amplified by a raft of growing
transnational threats such as climate change and resource scarcity. Dramatic shifts in regional power dynamics
are also creating new uncertainty. While for several decades, U.S military strength and its network of alliances have underpinned
stability in the region, the rise of China and India may signal the end of this period of American
predominance. By 2025 China and India will probably both have overtaken the GDP of all states except the US and Japan;1 by 2030, Chinas
economy could overtake that of the US.2 The global financial crisis appears to have accelerated China and Indias rise, and China is on track this year to
overtake Japan to become the second largest economy globally.3 The Asia Pacifics growing economic dominance is accompanied by increasing diplomatic
and strategic clout, and the 2009 US National Intelligence Community Estimate describes the

region as poised to become the


long-term power center of the world.4 China and Indias emergence is also recasting
Southeast Asias geopolitical landscape, as both compete for energy, markets, diplomatic
influence, and naval access. States in the region apprehend this strategic flux and the uncertainty surrounding
continued US strategic primacy. A number, including Australia, Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, have
increased their defense spending, amplifying the very strategic uncertainty for which they are preparing.5 Who will take
responsibility for conflict prevention and conflict management in this transitional period? During any power shift, major power competition
can complicate or obstruct efforts to tackle conflicts, even where robust international or regional mechanisms have been
established for prevention, peacemaking and peacekeeping. In the Asia Pacific, the existing conflict management
mechanisms are under-developed.6 A review of operational conflict prevention efforts in the region shows that while international
organizations, particularly the UN, and regional organizations perform some conflict prevention roles in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, these roles are
circumscribed.7 The constraints upon them flow from the high degree of respect for sovereignty prevalent in the Asia Pacific, but they also have historical,
institutional, and political underpinnings. The UN itself faces particular skepticism, including the charge that it and the other Bretton Woods institutions
have a relative disinterest in the region, as well as having governance structures that have yet to accommodate the Asia Pacifics accelerating economic and
geostrategic importance.8 Structural prevention initiatives have been less constrained, with a plethora of actors, including the UN, using statebuilding and
development tools to build state resilience, manage transnational threats, and avert violence.9 A number of multilateral track two networks and
confidence-building processes also contribute to conflict prevention in the region. But the

sum of all these efforts is still limited.


Given the long-running conflicts and sources of tension in the Asia Pacific, the limited
conflict prevention role played by international and regional institutions in Southeast Asia
and the South Pacific is at first glance surprising. Yet, as this paper argues, a fair amount of conflict prevention activity has taken place
in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, though less by grand design than in an ad hoc fashion, as opportunities have arisen. In the absence of a major,
formalized role for international and regional organizations, regional crisis management has drawn in a variety of other actors, including states and NGOs,
and seen ad hoc, multi-actor mechanisms assume a particular prominence. A series of case-specific, multi-actor mechanisms have worked well in the region;
their good track record and the ongoing features of the Asia Pacific suggest that they are likely to remain the regions primary conflict management vehicles.
What role can the

UN and regional organizations play in this context? This paper argues that in spite of their limitations, they can
still make a significant contribution to conflict prevention and management in the Asia
Pacific. Their priorities should be to strengthen existing prevention mechanisms; support other actors on a caseby-case basis; and flexibly add in
capabilities to facilitate prevention efforts led by others. This report concludes with recommendations on how the UN and other actors can develop new
tools and networks to underpin a flexible strategy for prevention in the Asia Pacific. The first recommendation stresses the importance in the Asia Pacific of a
focus on cooperation in functional areas, such as civil-military cooperation in a disaster response context. Such functional cooperation is less constrained by
regional sensitivities than full-scale political or security cooperation, and offers the prospect of enabling future political/security cooperation in the region,
by allaying concerns about outside involvement. The analysis within this paper falls into two parts. First, it reviews the nature of crises in the region
highlighting the complexity and diversity of current and potential conflicts, and noting how growing transnational threats may exacerbate these. Second, it
analyzes existing conflict prevention mechanisms, beginning with the UN and regional organizations, but also considering states, NGOs and financial
institutions as preventive actors. This

paper shows that there are significant resources for conflict


prevention in the Asia Pacific. The challenge is to harness these in a period of growing strategic uncertainty. 1. Regional
Crises Since the end of the Cold War, low-level internal violence has been the prevailing type of conflict

in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. This has arguably contributed to the fragmented nature
of conflict prevention in the region: case-specific coalitions of actors have emerged to help deal with specific low-level conflicts. In
some cases, conflict management processes have been complicated by tensions arising from poor socioeconomic conditions. There is also a risk of inter-state conflict in the region, while transnational issues such as
resource scarcity and climate change may foster instability and even conflict. a. Internal conflicts, current and potential
Internal conflicts persist in the southern part of Thailand, Mindanao in the Philippines, Papua in Indonesia, and
in Myanmar. All involve separatist insurgencies fuelled by enduring grievances about representation, access to resource-derived
revenues, or employment opportunities, and all have ethnic and/or religious dimensions. In Southern Thailand, violence between the
militants and the Thai central government continues, with over 3,400 deaths since the conflict rekindled five years ago.10 The
crisis within the Thai political system has reduced attention to the conflict and slowed peace negotiations. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajivas government
declared itself open to dialogue with the militants, and formulated fresh guidelines towards the conflict, which focus more on education, justice and
development. However, the central political turmoil has made the government loath to move too far on this issue, lest it be used against them in a domestic
political dispute. This has left the Thai military in charge of the response in the south. On the Philippine island of Mindanao, fighting reignited between the
Philippine army and a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rogue command in 2008 after the Philippine Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the
Philippine government-MILF draft peace agreement. The court decision damaged the credibility of moderate MILF members who support negotiation, and
burnished the credibility of those that want to fight. Contact between the government and the MILF has resumed talks were held in December 2009,
notwithstanding the pall cast by the massacre by the private militia of a local warlord in Maguindanao a few weeks prior. An International Contact Group
comprised of Japan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the NGOs the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HDC), the Asia Foundation, Conciliation Resources,
and Muhammadiyah has been established to assist with the negotiations process.11 The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), from which the MILF
splintered, is also still an actor in Mindanaos four-decade, stop-start separatist insurgency. The 1976 Philippine government-MNLF agreement has not been
fully implemented and has yet to resolve that dimension of the conflict. In addition, the Philippines continues to experience a Communist insurgency,
particularly in its south: the New Peoples Army (NPA) has been battling government forces for 40 years, and anticipated formal talks, the first in five years,
have yet to take place.

Myanmar remains embroiled in the worlds longestrunning contemporary

conflict over 60 years with numerous ethnic groups against the military regime. Myanmars junta has concluded ceasefires with over a dozen of
these ethnic groups, but these ceasefires are fragile. Political and development promises made to various
groups by the junta have not materialized, and over the last year the military has launched fresh offensives against some of the groups.
With elections scheduled for this year and ethnic groups supposed to play an opposition role, Myanmar is heading into a period of
considerable uncertainty. In the Indonesian province of Papua,12 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has repaired some of the damage
wrought by previous efforts to undermine the 2001 special autonomy initiative.13 A number of Free Papua Movements (Organisasi Papua Merdekas or
OPMs) political demands have been met, and the President has stated that the over 40-year separatist struggle requires a political rather than military
solution. The focus in the province is also shifting from political issues to development, and there has been an increase in development spending. However,
violence (by the fragmented OPM or its affiliates against the security sector; as well as ethnic Papuans against immigrants; intra-Papuan tensions; and the
targeting of the resources sector, especially Freeport mine) increased in 2009, particularly in the lead up to the legislative elections last April. The military
reaction was robust, with accusations of Indonesian security sector intimidation.14 So while the last few years have seen a more positive political and
development trajectory in Papua, the situation remains volatile. Timor-Leste and the provinces of Aceh in Indonesia and Bougainville in Papua New Guinea
are all in the consolidating phase after their respective conflicts. Timor-Leste in particular has a tumultuous recent history, and around 550 Australian and
New Zealand military personnel remain on the ground, at the Timorese governments request, to help maintain security. TimorLeste has stabilized politically
since the 2006 security crisis and the 2008 assassination attempt on President Jose Ramos Horta, and the Timorese government has taken more of a leading
role over the UN mission for example, the government has assumed responsibility for policing. Many serious problems remain, however. These include a
young and largely unemployed population (nearly half of whom are under 15); significant land and food pressures; quasi-militias in the form of martial arts
groups; and a highly problematic security sector, which is politicized and rife with internal tensions, and in which the roles of the police and military are still
blurred. Aceh, meanwhile, is enjoying the results of a reasonably successful peace process, with the incorporation of Free Aceh Movement (GAM) militants
into democratic political structures. The disarmament of GAM and decommissioning of its weapons, and relocation of nonorganic military and police
contributed to an upswing in security.15 Occasional violence in Aceh tends now to stem more from elite competition for Acehs revenues than from actions
against the state. Acehs growing prosperity has helped to reinforce the peace, as has public distaste for the involvement of former GAM militants in illegal
activities and intimidation. The winding up of the post-tsunami funding apparatus has created some uncertainty in Aceh, and a few aspects of the peace
agreement, such as a truth and reconciliation commission, have not been implemented. And while dramatic post-tsunami reconstruction has helped to
reinforce the peace in tsunami-affected communities, a number of conflict- but not tsunami-affected communities have not received a similar level of donor
support, and there is a risk that growing disparity in support and poverty levels might undermine the peace process. Furthermore, the recent discovery of a
terrorist training camp in Aceh indicates that such a

fragile post-conflict setting can be attractive to terrorists and


transnational criminal elements.16 Notwithstanding these risks, however, the autonomy framework is by and large working, and in
the July 2009 presidential election, the reelected Indonesian President received a greater percentage of the votes in Aceh 90% than in any other part of
Indonesia.17 While the 2001 peace agreement in Bougainville also involved the granting of autonomy, the situation on the ground is not as positive as in
Aceh.18 Nor has Bougainville received a similar amount of attention from the international donor community or its national government, and its interim
decentralization framework and the PNG government-Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) relationship are dysfunctional. Bougainville has not
seen a significant improvement in development since the 2005 withdrawal of the UN observer mission,19 and the south of the province has been restive,
with little economic activity or government service provision. The ongoing presence of weapons with new ones coming in from neighboring Solomon
Islands continues to destabilize the province, particularly its south. The election of President James Tanis in December 2008 resolved an ABG leadership
vacuum, and there are signs that some of these problems might be addressed. But Bougainville remains fragile as it moves towards its 2012 referendum on
possible independence, and ongoing challenges include youth unemployment, and weapons collection and disposal. Internal

conflicts will

likely remain the most common type of conflict in the Asia Pacific region in the medium term. Domestic political
imperatives have inhibited resolution of the conflicts in Mindanao and Southern Thailand, for example, and Papua (where political concessions have been

made and the state-periphery relationship is sounder) and Myanmar both experienced an upsurge in violence last year. In addition to post-conflict TimorLeste and Solomon Islands, Southeast

Asia and the South Pacific contain a number of other fragile


states, including Cambodia, Laos and Papua New Guinea, which have weak institutions of governance and jobless
young populations. With limited state resilience, there is a risk such states might experience
heightened social and political instability, even conflict, if faced with a significant shock. b. Inter-state
tensions in the Asia Pacific While internal conflict is the predominant type of conflict in the region, multiple inter-state territorial disputes
persist and occasionally escalate. The starkest recent example is the 2008 Thai-Cambodia border crisis, in which the UNESCO World
Heritage listing of the Preah Vihear Temple in Cambodia rekindled Thai contestation of the temple and its nearby border, and the situation escalated into a
military standoff. Cambodia brought the issue to ASEAN and the UN Security Council, whereas Thailand sought to handle the issue bilaterally. While the two
states eventually held bilateral negotiations and tensions lessened, Cambodia has not formally withdrawn its request for the matter to be on the Security
Council agenda, so the issue continues to simmer. Thai-Cambodian relations have been further exacerbated by the Cambodian Prime Ministers appointment
of ousted former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as economic advisor, and Cambodias subsequent rejection of Thailands request for Thaksins
extradition. Other territorial

disputes in the region include the islands and waters of the South
China Sea, which are contested by the Southeast Asian states of Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines,
and Vietnam, as well as by China and Taiwan; the energy-rich Gulf of Thailand, contested by
Thailand and Vietnam; and the Ambalat maritime area, over which ongoing Indonesian-Malaysian tensions heightened
last year, with Indonesia accusing Malaysia of a naval incursion into its waters.20 In North Asia, territorial disputes persist (such as those
between China-Japan and Japan-South Korea), and traditional regional flashpoints include
Taiwan and North Korea. With enduring territorial disputes and a shifting geostrategic
landscape dominated by China and to a lesser extent Indias rise, Asias continuing peaceful
trajectory is by no means guaranteed.21 Discontinuities are always possible, and potential threats to
stability are many. At the great power level, China-Japan relations are still fraught, though they have improved from their low point of several years ago; and
the US-China relationship, as US President Obama recently declared, will shape the 21st Century.22 For several decades Asia-Pacific stability has been
premised on US strategic primacy, and the US has managed the region with a traditional hub-andspokes alliance model. But China, if its rise continues, will at
some point challenge this US primacy, while Indias rise is complicating the regional picture further. c. Transnational security challenges Southeast

Asia and the South Pacific also face a host of pressing transnational challenges including
food, water and energy scarcity; climate change; lingering effects of the global financial
crisis; terrorism; transnational crime; and pandemics. A number of these challenges are
interconnected and can exacerbate each other.23 The 2008 food crisis hit Southeast Asia hard, with
protests over soybean scarcity in Indonesia and government crackdowns on those hoarding rice in the Philippines.24 Potable water availability and
transboundary water management are growing problems throughout the region. Along the Mekong river basin, for example, Thailand,

Laos,
Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar are downstream of Chinese dam projects which will control the
rivers flow and have a potentially dramatic effect on those countries fresh water and food supplies.
Southeast Asia and the South Pacific will be among the regions most affected by climate change and the attendant increase in the number and strength of

natural disasters. The Asia Pacific broadly defined is the most natural disaster-prone region in the last ten years, the region has experienced
more than half of the worlds disasters.25 Urbanization and high-density living in Southeast Asia make its population highly vulnerable to such events.
Flooding is expected to increase in coastal areas, particularly affecting the low-lying megadelta regions in Southeast Asia and coastal Pacific island villages.26
Rising temperatures and rising sea levels will increase the risk of illnesses such as malaria, and likely force

mass people movements

throughout the region.27 Some of Indonesias smaller islands and whole Pacific Island states will probably be subsumed. Climate change is
therefore regarded in the South Pacific as an existential threat.28 The effects of climate change are already being felt by the
archipelagic states of Southeast Asia and the low-lying atolls of the South Pacific. Storms are intensifying in the South China
Sea, and their patterns are altering: cyclones which once passed over the Philippines on their way to Vietnam are now bouncing back to batter the
Philippines a second time, in effect doubling its number of storm events. Rising sea levels are starting to submerge Pacific Island atolls such as Tuvalu and
the Carteret Islands within PNG, coastal villages in the South Pacific are emptying as waters rise (the evacuation of Carteret Islanders has already begun),
and states such as Kiribati are making plans to relocate its population. Food,

water and energy scarcity are all linked


challenges, and climate change will serve as a major threat multiplier.29 Climate change is already
exacerbating existing water problems such as the salination of the Mekong Delta; salt water is contaminating acquifers across the
region, compromising drinking water.30 Experts predict that climate change will also cause food shortages in the region due to lower crop yields and
declining fish populations. The risk of significant political and social instability in the region from the global financial crisis has diminished as the recovery
has proceeded. In fact Asia, in particular China, India and Indonesia, has experienced the worlds most pronounced economic recovery, and has driven a
significant amount of broader global growth.31 However, the financial crisis amplified the stresses on a number of other
regional states including Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia and Timor-Leste, which all experienced a rise in the numbers of people in poverty32 and

increased the possibility of instability within those states. Southeast Asia also faces an ongoing threat

from Islamic terrorist groups with links to Al-Qaeda. The threat from Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) has diminished, due in large measure to regional
law enforcement cooperation and Indonesias policing and deradicalization efforts. JI retains some capability, however, as the hotel bombings in Jakarta last
July demonstrated, and the recent discovery of an Acehbased terrorist training camp seemingly a new grouping which includes disaffected former
members of JI and other groups indicates the durability of the terrorist threat.33 The militant group Abu Sayaff also remains active in southern Philippines,
and the Philippine military has launched further operations against it. Transnational

crime, including drug production


and trafficking, sex trafficking, money laundering and identity fraud, is also a serious
problem in the region, particularly emanating from states with weak security infrastructure and control over their territory. Laos, for
example, has porous borders with its five neighbors, and over recent years, there has been a significant increase in opium poppy cultivation and opium
production and trafficking. Cambodia is susceptible to money laundering as well as drug trafficking. Large-scale quantities of heroin and metamphetamines
are produced in territory controlled by the Wa ethnic group within Myanmar, and then trafficked throughout the region and beyond. Piracy

had

long plagued the Malacca Straits, one of the worlds most heavily used and strategic
waterways, through which the vast majority of sea-borne energy passes from the Middle East
to the Asia Pacific. The number of attacks has decreased markedly over the last few years, however, as a result of a concerted regional effort that
will be discussed later in this paper. Finally, human proximity to birds and livestock in Asia make it the worlds greatest reservoir of viruses transmissible to
humans. As SARS and the Avian flu virus showed, Asia

is a likely source of future pandemics which have the


potential to overwhelm the health systems of fragile states. All of these transnational threats
have significant implications for regional security and could exacerbate the regions ongoing
conflicts. Natural disasters occurring in Mindanao, Southern Thailand, and Bougainville, for instance, can contribute to
instability and worsen the plight of those affected by conflict. Recent flooding in Mindanao has displaced thousands of people already displaced by the
conflict there, increasing upheaval and the risk of disease.34 Climate change is now expected to have major geostrategic implications, such as the
destabilization of state governments, the fuelling of terrorism, and the mass movement of refugees and internally displaced persons.35 The US Department
of Defense is factoring climate change into US national security strategy.36 US defense planners are concerned that the humanitarian and relief operations
required after climate change-associated events will pose a significant burden on the US military, including its transportation and support assets, and
consequently affect its combat readiness posture.37 Transnational threats are also likely to be among the drivers of future instability and possibly internal
conflict. A

major shock to a fragile states system, for example from a severe pandemic or water shortage, could
significantly weaken governments and their institutions, and overwhelm a fragile states
already-reduced capacity to function. Growing food, water and energy scarcity could likewise cause an
internal crisis if sub-state groups come into competition over access. And threats such as water and energy scarcity
have the potential to inflame interstate tensions. The continuing drive for energy security, for instance, is intensifying
competition between India and China within Myanmar, and could cause conflict between states contesting energy-rich territory such as the South China Sea.
The above analysis suggests that, while the main challenge in the Asia Pacific in the near to medium term is likely to remain low-level internal conflicts,

there is also a risk of rising inter-state tensions and even inter-state conflicts. The regions many transnational challenges could
also generate or exacerbate instability. But these transnational challenges for example, piracy, resource scarcity and climate change are also opening up
new opportunities for functional cooperation between both Asia Pacific and outside actors.

South Asia tension causes nuclear war - low-intensity conflict, terrorism, cross-border
spillover
Khan 09 Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs (ACDA), Strategic Plans Division, Joint Services Headquarters, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, fellow
at Wilson Center (Feroz Hassan, Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War in South Asia, December 2009, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/DigitalLibrary/Publications/Detail/?ots591=cab359a3-9328-19cc-a1d2-8023e646b22c&lng=en&id=112786)
The new international environment has altered the concept of national security. Threats

to international peace and security


now emanate not from strategic confrontation between the major powers, but from regional conflicts and tensions and
the spread of violent extremism by nonstate actors, threatening nation-states from within
and transcending state boundaries and international security. In recent years, the levels of security enjoyed by
various states have become increasingly asymmetricsome enjoy absolute security, others none at all. This environment of security
imbalance has forced weaker states to adopt a repertoire of strategies for survival and
national security that includes alliances and strategic partnerships, supporting low-intensity
conflicts, and engaging in limited wars and nuclear deterrence . South Asia has witnessed
increased regional tensions , a rise in r eligious extremism , a growing arms race, crisis stand-

offs, and even armed conflict in recent years. Nuclear tests did not bring an era of genuine
stability between India and Pakistan, though military crises in the region did not escalate into full-fledged wars, underscoring the need for greater
imagination to rein in the risks due to the fragility of relations between two nuclear neighbors in an increasingly complex set of
circumstances. Pakistans primary and immediate threat now is from within. Its western borderlands are rapidly converting into a
battleground where ungoverned tribal space in proximity to the porous and disputed border is degenerating into
insurgency both to its east into Pakistan as well as to its west into Afghanistan. The al Qaeda threat has
now metastasized into a spreading insurgency in the tribal borderlands, which is taking a heavy toll on both Pakistan and Western forces in Afghanistan. The
newly elected government in Pakistan has hit the ground running; but still mired in domestic politics, it has been unable to focus on the al Qaeda and Taliban
threat that is rapidly expanding its influence and targeting strategy. The

most tragic aspect of this conundrum is the


success of al Qaeda in creating cracks of misunderstanding between Pakistan and the
Western allies, while exacerbating tensions and mistrust between Pakistans traditional
adversaries, India and Afghanistan.1 For example, Pakistans security nightmare which perceives India-Afghanistan collusion in
squeezing Pakistan is exacerbated, while the Indian and Afghan security establishments perceive Pakistani Intelligence malfeasance as perpetuating the
Afghan imbroglio. Worse, the outcome of this confusion and blame generates real advantage for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Any terrorist act that pits Kabul,
New Delhi, and Islamabad against each other and intensifies existing tensions and crises also throws Washington off balance, allowing al Qaeda and its
sympathizers the time and space to recoup, reorganize, and reequip, and continue to survive. The only silver lining in this unhealthy regional security picture
is the slowly improving relationship between India and Pakistan, which has developed over the past 4 years. Though

relations are tense and

still fragile , there is a glimmer of hope in this overall crisis-ridden region. The dialogue process between India and Pakistan has been somewhat
resilient in the face of significant setbacks and changing domestic, political, and international landscapes within each. It is very improbable that a nuclear
war between Pakistan and India would spontaneously occur. The history of the region and strategic nuclear weapons theories suggest that a

nuclear

exchange between India and Pakistan would result from an uninhibited escalation of a
conventional war vice a spontaneous unleashing of nuclear arsenals. However, this region seems to be the one place
in the world most likely to suffer nuclear warfare due to the seemingly undiminished national,
religious, and ethnic animosities

between these two countries. Furthermore,

lack of transparency in nuclear

programs leaves room to doubt the security surrounding each countrys nuclear arsenal and
the safeguards preventing accidental launches. Therefore, discussions aimed at mitigating a catastrophic
nuclear war in South Asia

should focus mostly on the unilateral and bilateral anti-escalation measures Pakistan and India can take regarding

existing issues. Additionally, each countrys perception of its security is

interwoven with the political, diplomatic, and


strategic movements of the external powers that wield significant influence in the region.
Coherent and consistent behavior that discourages conventional and nuclear escalation, although sometimes imperceptibly, is needed from the
United States, China, and Russia. Without this, both Pakistan and India are unlikely to feel confident enough to
reduce the aggressive posturing of their conventional forces over existing cross-border
issues, leaving the escalation from conventional warfare to nuclear warfare a very real
possibility.

Say Yes: Offshore Wind


History Proves: Current Canadian Offshore wind guarantees they will say yes.
Johnston 2013
Johnston, Adam. "Canada's First Off-Shore Wind Farm Set for B.C." CleanTechnica. N.p., 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 June 2014.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/28/canadas-first-off-shore-wind-farm-set-for-b-c/>.

The multiphase project, owned by the NaiKun Wind Energy Group, will consist of 550 square feet
kilometres, with a total of 396 megawatts (MW) of energy is set for phase one. A total of 110 wind
turbines are planned, providing British Columbian residents a cleaner alternative, according
to the website. This will cut 450,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year rather than using
natural gas, and power 200,000 homes. Located in Hecate Strait, between Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii, the NaiKun
wind project is giving a much-needed boost to the provinces energy plan of having no carbon emissions come from new energy
projects. Meanwhile

clean energy, according to the province, accounts for 90% of all energy
produced in B.C., which will certainly be given a boost by this new offshore wind farm. If
wind projects continue to sprout up across Canada like this one, wind energy will no doubt
continue its upward trend as a real choice to power Canadas energy needs. In 2012 new
Canadian wind projects were expected to increase by 20%, or 1,200 MW and a total of C$2.5
billion in new investments. However, British Columbia was not one of the three top provinces
in new wind capacity in 2012. Ontario (2,000MW), Quebec (1,600MW) and Nova Scotia (1,000MW) led the way. Will
B.C.s new offshore wind farm help catapult a province that is known more for hydro energy than wind? NaiKun Wind Energy Group
certainly thinks it cant hurt.

Solvency: Offshore Wind


Canada Solves: Synergetic development of ocean based energy resolves all of
Canadian energy needs.
Canadian Department of Offshore Renewable Energy 2014
Canada, Goverment. "Offshore Renewable Energy." Offshore Renewable Office. Http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/oceanographyoceanographie/adaptation/offshore-eng.html, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 21 June 2014. <http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/oceanographyoceanographie/adaptation/offshore-eng.html>.

Offshore renewable energy (ORE) is undergoing rapid development globally. Canada has the
potential to become a leader in this field due to its massive resource potential on all three
coasts. Currently, Canada is ranked 3rd in the world in the development of ORE technology.
Three main ORE resources are being developed/researched in Canada at this time:
Offshore Wind: Since the technology is virtually the same for onshore and offshore
applications, offshore wind turbines are the most developed of the marine-based renewable
energy resources. Several potential offshore wind sites on the North Coast of British Columbia have been identified as potential
sites for development. Tidal Current: Canada has sizeable tidal current energy resources, a
renewable energy that has the distinct advantage of being reliable and highly predictable.
Nunavut has by far the largest potential resource. Over 70% of Canada's tidal current energy resource lies within Hudson Strait, however
there are significant logistical obstacles for extracting renewable energy in the north. While British Columbia has many potential sites, it
is the East Coast, notably in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that is aggressively pursuing tidal power initiatives in the Bay of Fundy.
Wave: The

annual mean wave power offshore of Canada's Pacific coast totals roughly 37,000
MW, equivalent to over 55% of Canadian electricity consumption, while the annual mean wave
power on the Atlantic coast sums to roughly 146,500 MW or more than double the current electricity demand. The wave energy
available in winter is generally four to seven times greater than in summer. However, due to
a variety of factors only a fraction of the available wave energy resource can be extracted and
converted into useful power. While the adoption of ORE sources may help offset climate change impacts, several
environment issues still need to be explored and resolved: Only a fraction of the available tidal current resource can be converted into
useable energy without noticeable impact on tides and tidal flows; The effect of underwater turbines on marine species, from shellfish to
whales, is unknown; The potential consequences on the fishing industry and other users are unclear; Aesthetic concerns of the public
(both visual and noise impacts) exist; and The extraction of energy from tides and tidal flows can impact multiple aspects of an
ecosystem's structure and function. DFO has a significant role in not only addressing environmental issues, but also in providing
oceanographic data from its monitoring programs to engineers whom are examining sites for their energy potential.

Solvency: Ocean Development


Canada Solves: Already existing frame work for managing ocean development makes
counterplan a success
Suzuki Foundation No Date
Staff. "Canada, Ocean Management and the Law." David Suzuki Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2014.
<http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/government-regulations/canada-ocean-management-and-the-law/>. We
collaborate with Canadians from all walks of life, including government and business, to conserve our environment and find solutions
that will create a sustainable Canada through science-based research, education and policy work.

Canada is not without laws to protect its marine environments. In 1997, Canada passed the
Oceans Act. In 2002, under the direction of the Oceans Act, the federal government
developed the Oceans Strategy, which outlines a strategic path for realizing international
commitments and domestic mandates for marine conservation through an ecosystem-based
management approach. Under section 35(2), the Act directs the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to "lead and coordinate the
establishment of a national system of marine protected areas on behalf of the government of Canada". Sadly, Canada is failing to meet
its commitments. Other

nations, including the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, which
made commitments to ocean strategies about the same time Canada did in 1997, have moved
far ahead of us in planning, protecting, and managing marine biological resources within
their economic zones. Although the federal government did contribute to the Oceans Strategy in 2005 when it allocated $28
million to the first phase of the Oceans Action Plan, it has not established any new marine protected areas nor has it ratified any
comprehensive marine-use plans. For the 2007 federal budget, environmental organizations and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
were looking for several hundred million dollars to proceed with Phase II of the Oceans Action Plan. This would have enabled a
comprehensive planning process, essential scientific research, and the designation of many new marine protected areas, as well as
management reforms necessary for a conservation-based approach. Unfortunately,

the government has directed


less than $19 million toward ocean-conservation efforts under the Oceans Action Plan. This
seriously hampers Canada's ability to realize its Oceans Act mandate. Sensitive and
important marine areas will remain unprotected and poorly managed until the government
allocates more resources to this important issue. Canada also has commitments under the Migratory Birds
Convention Act and the National Marine Conservation Areas Act. National marine conservation areas are marine areas managed for
sustainable use and containing smaller zones of high protection. They include the seabed, the water above it, and any species that occur
there. They may also take in wetlands, estuaries, islands, and other coastal lands.

**Artic Drilling**

**1NC

Oil: Solves U.S


Canada should drill instead of US, safety
Oilweek 10 (Should the U.S. Give Canada the Oil-Drilling Business, 6/28/10. http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/should-the-usgive-canada-the-oildrilling-business/)
Today, BP spending on the Gulf oil spill has hit $100 million per day (source: James Heron, Wall Street Journal). AP reports the total oil spill price-tag so far:
$2.65 billion. See overview article on the Gulf Oil Spill. An article in the July Oilweek Magazine simultaneously suggests that Canada

might be
best suited to take over oil and gas exploration. The article says that Worker Safety is the thing that
Canadian oil exploration has that other countries have not yet mastered. And that the
investment pays off when you start looking at the price-tag that less-than-spectacular Safety
Procedures can bring. "The EH&S stool has three legs," McKenzie-Brown writes: "customs and social attitudes; regulatory and industrial
codes; technical skills and operating environments. If the legs arent the same length, the stool wobbles. Since the three legs of the Canadian
stool are level and strong, there are good reasons to encourage the industry to reach out to
new operating environments." "People [doing safety turnarounds at gas plants] now have fall-arrest equipment. They dont do
anything without fire protection and breathing air equipment. A friend of mine tells me that at the plant he works
at, the safety bill used to be $20,000. Now its like $300,000 to $400,000 . Every time someone goes into a vessel, someone has to be there to watch. They
may need to have specialized safety equipment or even specially trained personnel to watch that person in the vessel ." His point is that this
investment pays off in a relatively safe and accident-less history of oil and gas incidents. With
oil leaking in the Gulf of Mexico, Canada is well-positioned to deal with the heightened risksand reap
the bountiful rewardsof frontier exploration, says Peter McKenzie-Brown. He argues that
Canada has Environmental, Health & Safety -- or EH&S -- so embedded in its policies and the
fabric of its business culture that Canada is in prime position to pick up the slack in oil
drilling that the U.S. may be unable to handle.

Canada is the USs largest supplier of energy


Ek et al 14
(Carl Ek, Coordinator at Congressional Research Service, Specialist in International Relations. Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator at
Congressional Research Service, Specialist in International Trade and Finance) [Canada-U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service,
1/2/2014. Online@http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf SM]

Canada is the United States largest supplier of energyincluding oil, uranium, natural gas, and
electricityand, until recently, the energy relationship has been growing.56 Canada is the worlds fifth-largest
petroleum producer, and its reserves are believed to be the third largest in the world only after those of Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela; Canadas sources of oil include traditional and offshore wells and, increasingly, Albertas oil sands.57 In 2012,
the value of U.S. petroleum and natural gas imports from Canada reached $103.4 billion, up from $65.2 billion in 2009. This figure
largely represents increases in the value and quantity of crude oil exports from Canada. However, due to the domestic shale gas boom,
Canadas exports of natural gas have been dropping since 2010. Canada

provides 22% of U.S. crude oil imports


and supplies 82.6% of U.S. natural gas imports.58 Canada also is a net exporter of electricity to the United States,
and the North American electricity grid is closely interconnected. Canada is particularly valued because it is considered a
reliable source of energy, as it is not a member of OPEC. However, the main new pipeline project to bring
Canadian oil to the United Statesthe Keystone XLremains stymied, with the State Department yet to make a determination as to
whether it may proceed. China has shown interest in Canadas oil sector, and has recently bought stakes in the Albertas oil sands
projects. Partly as a result of the Keystone XL impasse, the Canadian federal government has been advocating the construction of a
pipeline through British Columbia to export oil to Asia. Like the Keystone XL, this route has drawn opposition from environmentalists,
but also from First Nations tribes, over whose land much of the pipeline would be constructed.
Canada is the USs largest source of crude oil and will increase its oil exports

US imports mostly Canadian oil in the status quo


Ek et al 14
(Carl Ek, Coordinator at Congressional Research Service, Specialist in International Relations. Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator at
Congressional Research Service, Specialist in International Trade and Finance) [Canada-U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service,
1/2/2014. Online@http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf SM]

Canada ranks as the United States number one source of imported crude oil and thus plays an
important role in U.S. energy security. Canadas oil sands make up an increasing proportion of its petroleum resources,
and Canadas oil sands producers continue to look primarily to the United States as the major
market for their oil exports. Of the approximately 3.1 million barrels per day (mbd) of crude oil Canada has exported to the
United States during the first half of 2013, almost 60% is delivered to the Midwest. This regions capacity to process increasing volumes
of Canadian crude oil is limited in the near term. However, planned refinery

expansion coupled with new refinery


and infrastructure construction may place the region in a position to receive increased oil exports
from Canada in the longer term . Another possibility for processing additional Canadian oil is expanded access to refineries along the
U.S. Gulf coast, which is likely to require

Canada is the top oil supplier of the US


Rapier 12
Robert Rapier, chemical engineer in energy business, Top 15 sources of US crude oil imports, April 12, 2012,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Consumer-Energy-Report/2012/0412/Top-15-sources-of-US-crude-oil-imports

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently published an article on 2011 U.S.
crude oil imports. I thought it might be interesting to take a look at where the U.S. currently obtains its oil, and how that has
changed over the past decade. The EIA story is: Nearly 69% of U.S. crude oil imports originated from
five countries in 2011. I downloaded their data sources for 2011 import data, and then also went into the archives and pulled up
2001 import data to create the above table. Over the past decade, Canada became our top supplier of oil, largely
due to increases in oil sands production. The EIA report noted that U.S. imports from
Canada topped 2 million barrels per day for the first time ever in 2011, because more oil is now being
transported by rail. This is one of the reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline protests may have the opposite effect of what the protesters
intend. Lack of pipeline access isnt going to slow the growth of the oil sands much ( Canadian

crude oil imports were


up 12% in 2011), it just forces more oil onto more carbon intensive transport options (and
perhaps to more distant destinations). Note that there is also greater risk from transporting oil via rail versus pipeline.

Canada Will Export Oil to U.S


DOE 13
US Department of Energy, U.S. Relations With Canada, August 23, 2013, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm

The United States and Canada share the world's largest and most comprehensive trading
relationship, which supports millions of jobs in each country. Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of
energy to the United States. Recognition of the commercial viability of Canada's oil sands has made it the
world's third largest holder of oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and is the only
non-OPEC member in the top five. Canada and the United States operate an integrated
electricity grid that meets jointly developed reliability standards, and they provide all of each
other's electricity imports. Canadian uranium helps fuel U.S. nuclear power plants.

Oil: Developing Now


Canada is investing in arctic oil now
Bailey 6/10
(Sue Bailey, The Canadian Press, 6/10/14, The Chronical Herald, http://thechronicleherald.ca/author/sue-bailey-canadian-press)
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Statoil Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will spend $3.9

million to help
advance contentious oil and gas development in harsh environments, including the Arctic.
Statoil said Tuesday it will spend $2.4 million on three new research projects while Crown corporation Research and Development
Corp. will spend $1.5 million. One

initiative led by Kvaerner Canada Ltd., specializing in offshore


engineering and construction, involves Arctic subsea oil and gas separation technology. St.
John's-based Rutter Inc., developers of advanced radar systems, will research ways to automatically detect and predict ice movement.
And AMEC Americas Ltd., engineering and project management consultants, will help Statoil develop an ice surveillance system
including remote sensing capability. "There is high potential for us to deliver results that support offshore developments both (for)
offshore Newfoundland, in other sub-Arctic regions and into the Arctic one day," said Atle Aadland, Statoil Canada's vice-president for
offshore Newfoundland. "As for all our operations, safety comes first," he said in an interview. "What we want to do with this project is
to really understand the challenges before we make the next steps." The announcement is another step as the province tries to position
itself as a centre for Arctic and harsh environment expertise. Newfoundland and Labrador relies on its offshore oil sector for about onethird of provincial revenues. It

has also invested heavily in seismic surveys to spur more exploration


and international investment. Crown corporation Nalcor Energy, which has spent $12 million
of its oil earnings on geoscience programs since 2009, announced last month it will expand that work along the island's south
coast. Nalcor has also said it will spend another $11.8 million on similar projects this fiscal year.
Statoil is considered an Arctic exploration pioneer although actual drilling is likely still years
off. The Norwegian energy firm announced in February that it will begin exploration drilling off Newfoundland this summer in the
Flemish Pass Basin. It will involve the Bay du Nord prospect, a reservoir of light crude believed to hold between 300 and 600 million
barrels of recoverable oil. Located about 500 kilometres northeast of St. John's, the subsea oilfield is farther offshore and in 1,100 metres
of water compared to other sites like Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose that are about 100 metres down.

AT- Envn Destruction


Canada has best framework to preserve the environment
Canadian Press 3/23
(The Canadian Press, CBC News, Arctic offshore drilling closer to reality as projects enter regulatory review, 3/23/14,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/arctic-offshore-drilling-closer-to-reality-as-projects-enter-regulatory-review-1.2583487)
Growing industry interest in the offshore oil resources of Canada's Arctic is forcing northerners from east to west to confront hard

No actual drilling is likely to happen for years. But major decisions are
being taken now as projects enter the regulatory system. Governments, aboriginal groups and Arctic
questions about development.

communities are considering issues such as how to plug possible blowouts, who benefits from development and whether some waters
should remain closed. The Current: Drilling for arctic oil Paul Ruzycki: Arctic oil drilling never worth it "The

first time this

process goes forward, it's going to set a template for others to follow," said Louie Porta, science and
policy adviser with Oceans North, part of the Pew Environmental Trust. In the western Arctic, an aboriginal
regulator is setting up hearings into a plan led by Imperial Oil to drill exploratory wells in the
Beaufort Sea in 2020. The wells would be about 175 kilometres offshore from Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., in water up to 850 metres
deep, and are so complex and difficult to drill that the company estimates it would take at least two seasons to complete one. In the
eastern Arctic, the National Energy Board is considering a proposal for seismic tests off Baffin Island that has sparked fierce community
opposition. In

response to that proposal, the federal government has begun a strategic


environmental assessment to consider which parts of a huge swath of ocean all the way down
the island's eastern coast could be opened up for exploration and which might stay closed.
The Beaufort project is being carefully examined by the Inuvialuit, the aboriginal group that
has a land claim and self-government agreement in Canada's northwest corner. 'When it's onshore
the benefits are much easier to grab ahold of, and the risks are less.' - Nellie Cournoyea, head of the Inuvialuit Regional Corp. The group
has long experience with the oilpatch on land. But this project is different, said Nellie Cournoyea, head of the Inuvialuit Regional Corp.
"When it's onshore the benefits are much easier to grab ahold of, and the risks are less," she said. "When you go offshore you have
higher risks and less benefits because of the high infrastructure investment you have to get involved. "Plus, people are still concerned
about the risks of oilspills or having a blowout." The

National Energy Board has said companies working


offshore in the Arctic must have the capability to drill a relief well in the same season to release
pressure and stop oil flow in case of a blowout such as the one that happened with BP in the Gulf of Mexico. But the board said
other equally effective methods would be considered. Imperial has said it's simply not possible to drill a sameseason relief well in that region. Cournoyea said the Inuvialuit are waiting for more information on how the company would respond to a
blowout. "We're dealing with that right now, to see if we can get more information on what that option might be," said Cournoyea, who
added that Inuvialuit representatives have travelled to the Gulf of Mexico. Regulatory decisions on Imperial's plans to stop a blowout
and limit the release of oil will be crucial for subsequent proposals, said Porta.

No Risk of Environmental Destruction.


Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2/21
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Government of Canada, 2/21/14, Canada's Oceans Action Plan, http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/page05-eng.asp)
THE GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE The Gulf of St. Lawrence oceans management initiative, including the marine estuary of the St.
Lawrence River, is approximately 200,000 sq. km and is surrounded by five provincial land masses. The Gulf of St. Lawrence and its
marine ecosystem has several distinct features: its isolation from the offshore North Atlantic in connection with the extensive
Laurentian Channel through which Atlantic water penetrates; its linkage to freshwater drainage from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Basin; its seasonal ice cover; and its shallow, highly productive waters, that make the Gulf of St Lawrence one of the most diverse and
productive North American marine environments. Because of its configuration, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its ecosystem support a
wide range of human activities within and adjacent to it, including exploitation of living and non-living resources, industrial
development, transportation, and recreational activities. Additionally, climate change, warmer waters and sea-level rise in low-lying
areas are known to impact on this ecosystem and its inhabitants. THE BEAUFORT SEA The

Beaufort Sea covers about


175,000 sq. km. It is located in the Canadian Western Arctic and falls within the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region, a settled land claim. The area has the third largest reserve of conventional oil and gas in

Canada, and the development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is a key issue. Oil and gas
development has the potential to provide unprecedented opportunities for Northern
Canadians. Development of these resources must be realized both in partnership with
Northern communities, and in a manner that ensures effective environmental stewardship.
An important component of this involves scientific research to help ensure that appropriate
measures are taken to minimize environmental impacts, protect the public interest, and
assess the cumulative effects of individual projects on the broader northern landscape and
people. THE PACIFIC NORTH COAST Based primarily on ecological characteristics, the Pacific North Coast area extends from the
Canada Alaska border in the north to Brooks peninsula on Northwest Vancouver Island and Quadra Island and Bute Inlet in the south,
encompassing an area of approximately 88,000 sq. km. The planning area extends seaward to the foot of the continental slope and on the
landward boundary, which takes into consideration the importance of coastal watersheds. The area is important for food, social and
ceremonial fisheries for First Nations, as well as commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries. Aquaculture development is also a key
issue in the area, as are tourism, transportation, and potential offshore energy development. A particular feature of the initiative will be
the development of proactive means for First Nations involvement in marine and coastal resource management at the broader oceans
management scale, as well as within the smaller coastal community scale.

**AquaCulture

**1NC

Fisheries: Canada Solves


Canada has hundreds of fisheries representing a wide variety of species
David Suzuki Foundation 14
David Suzuki Foundation, Canada's wild fisheries, 2014,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/sustainable-fisheries-andaquaculture/canadas-wild-fisheries/
With the longest coastline in the world and 7.1 million square kilometres of ocean area, it is
not surprising that Canada has hundreds of different fisheries located within our national
boundaries. There is a mind-boggling diversity of species and a wide range of techniques used to capture them. The David
Suzuki Foundation is actively involved in the management of these fisheries through our
participation on government established advisory boards that oversee these fisheries. Most of
Canada's largest fisheries have established advisory boards that are comprised of individuals
representing a wide range interests pertaining to the fishery. DSF represents environmental
interests on several fishery boards on the Pacific coast including those for salmon,
groundfish, herring, sardines, and tuna. On the Atlantic coast, we participate as observers in the Atlantic Large
Pelagics Advisory Committee which oversees the management of the pelagic longline fishery for swordfish and tuna.

New aquaculture regulations in Canada encourage the development of the


aquaculture industry
Global Post 14
Global Post, New aquaculture regulations simplifies process: federal fisheries minister, June 26,
2014, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/the-canadian-press/140626/new-aquacultureregulations-simplifies-process-federal-fishe
CALGARY - New

federal aquaculture regulations announced Thursday would cut red tape and
simplify the process for the industry, Fisheries Minister Gail Shea says. Shea said the regulations would harmonize 10
federal acts that operators are currently required to consult in order to comply with safety and environmental standards. The
changes are designed to encourage the development of the industry while ensuring the
protection of fish habitats, she said. "With our changes, the Fisheries Act conditions would
clearly be spelled out and coherent with all other federal acts," said Shea during a media teleconference
before a Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers meeting in Calgary. The department said the
regulations would be brought forward under the Fisheries Act and would set safety and
environmental rules for operators, such as the use of products to treat their fish for disease.
It would also require the industry to report directly to Fisheries for things like the amount of
pesticides used or unusual fish mortality. These reports would be posted on the Fisheries website annually. The
federal government says Canada's share of worldwide aquaculture production in 2011
accounted to less than one per cent of the global total. The industry was worth more than
$800 million to Canada in 2011, with British Columbia accounting for more than half of its
value at more than $460 million.

Fisheries: K2 Econ
Aquaculture is key to the Canadian economy Canada can develop fisheries
DFO 14
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministers Continue Collaboration to Protect Fisheries and
Support Canadian Fishing and Aquaculture Industries, June 26, 2014,
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2019518
CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - June 26, 2014) - On June 26, Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers

met at the
Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM) annual meeting, where
they reinforced their commitment to job creation, economic growth and long-term
prosperity, while discussing sustainability and a broad range of fisheries and aquaculture
issues. Ministers also reviewed a presentation on the continued implementation of the Fisheries Protection Program, and received an
update on the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program (RFCPP), which has been given a total investment of $25
million through the Economic Action Plan. Recreational

fishing is a significant industry in Canada and


contributes greatly to the Canadian economy, especially in rural areas. In 2010, anglers
generated $8.3 billion for local economies. Commercial fisheries play a vital role in
Canada's economy, particularly for coastal regions. In 2013, Canada exported $4.4 billion of
fish and seafood products, an increase of $268 million from 2012. The aquaculture industry
in Canada now creates over 14,000 full-time equivalent, year-round, stable jobs in rural,
coastal, and Aboriginal communities. Aquaculture accounts for nearly 50 per cent of
seafood consumed worldwide. By 2030, it is estimated that demand will exceed supply by 40
million tonnes.

**LNG CP**

**1NC

Canada: Says Yes


All LNG programs apply to Canadas NEB before drilling- They say yes
Jang 4/30
(Brent Jang is a reporter for Canadas The Globe and Mail that specializes in Canadas oil industry,
Canadas Import/Export Markets, and Oil Politics). [Shell boosts LNG Canada stake while Asian
partners lower theirs, The Globe and Mail, 4/30/2014.
Online@http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-andresources/shell-ups-stake-in-lng-canada-while-asian-partners-lower-theirs/article18351272/ SM]
The National Energy Board has approved two more l iquefied n atural g as export licence
applications in an increasingly crowded field. The NEB gave the licence approvals for 25 years
each to Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. (backed by Beijing-based CNOOC Ltd.s Nexen unit and Inpex Corp. and
JGC Corp., both of Japan) and Oregon LNG Marketing Co. LLC (backed by New York-based Leucadia National Corp.).
Recent developments in gas production technology have resulted in a significant increase in
the Canadian gas resource base and North American gas supply. One of the major impacts of this increase is lower
demand for Canadian gas in traditional gas markets in the United States and Eastern Canada. As a result, the Canadian gas
industry is seeking to access overseas gas markets, the NEB said Thursday. With the approvals for Aurora LNG
and Oregon LNG, there are now 11 LNG export applications that have been given the green light by the NEB. Nine of the
projects are proposed for British Columbia while two have Oregon terminals envisaged. None of those 11 projects, however, have made
final investment decisions. Aurora LNG is seeking to build an export terminal at Grassy Point, near Prince Rupert in northwestern
British Columbia. Oregon LNG plans to move natural gas, most of it from Western Canada, to an Oregon plant that would super-cool
the gas into liquid form so that it is suitable for shipping by tanker to Asian customers. Issuance

of both licences is

subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the NEB noted.

US Companies have to consult Canada for LNG- They say Yes


World Oil 5/6
(World Oil is a publication specializing in new developments in oil production, extraction, and
transportation.) [Canada approves Aurora, Oregon LNG export licenses, World Oil News,
5/6/2014. Online@http://www.worldoil.com/Canada-approves-Aurora-Oregon-LNG-exportlicenses.html SM]
CALGARY, Alberta Canadas

National Energy Board has approved two applications for 25-year


natural gas export licenses. A license was approved for Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. to export
LNG for a maximus term amount of 849.82 109m3. The export point would be in the vicinity of Prince Rupert,
British Columbia, at the outlet of the loading arm of a proposed liquefaction terminal. A license was also approved
for Oregon LNG Marketing Company, LLC to export natural gas for a maximum term amount of 375.17 109m3.
The export point would be in the vicinity of Kingsgate and Huntingdon, British Columbia, via existing natural gas
pipelines. Issuance of both licenses is subject the approval of the Governor in Council.

LNG: Solves
All LNG programs apply to Canadas NEB before drilling- They say yes
Jang 4/30
(Brent Jang is a reporter for Canadas The Globe and Mail that specializes in Canadas oil industry,
Canadas Import/Export Markets, and Oil Politics). [Shell boosts LNG Canada stake while Asian
partners lower theirs, The Globe and Mail, 4/30/2014.
Online@http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shellups-stake-in-lng-canada-while-asian-partners-lower-theirs/article18351272/ SM]

The National Energy Board has approved two more l iquefied n atural g as export licence
applications in an increasingly crowded field. The NEB gave the licence approvals for 25 years
each to Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. (backed by Beijing-based CNOOC Ltd.s Nexen unit and Inpex Corp. and
JGC Corp., both of Japan) and Oregon LNG Marketing Co. LLC (backed by New York-based Leucadia National Corp.).
Recent developments in gas production technology have resulted in a significant increase in
the Canadian gas resource base and North American gas supply. One of the major impacts of this increase is lower
demand for Canadian gas in traditional gas markets in the United States and Eastern Canada. As a result, the Canadian gas
industry is seeking to access overseas gas markets, the NEB said Thursday. With the approvals for Aurora LNG
and Oregon LNG, there are now 11 LNG export applications that have been given the green light by the NEB. Nine of the
projects are proposed for British Columbia while two have Oregon terminals envisaged. None of those 11 projects, however, have made
final investment decisions. Aurora LNG is seeking to build an export terminal at Grassy Point, near Prince Rupert in northwestern
British Columbia. Oregon LNG plans to move natural gas, most of it from Western Canada, to an Oregon plant that would super-cool
the gas into liquid form so that it is suitable for shipping by tanker to Asian customers. Issuance

subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the NEB noted.

of both licences is

LNG: Export to US
Canada Says yes to U.S companies LNG
World Oil 5/6
(World Oil is a publication specializing in new developments in oil production, extraction, and transportation.) [Canada approves
Aurora, Oregon LNG export licenses, World Oil News, 5/6/2014. Online@http://www.worldoil.com/Canada-approves-Aurora-OregonLNG-export-licenses.html SM]
CALGARY, Alberta Canadas

National Energy Board has approved two applications for 25-year


natural gas export licenses. A license was approved for Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. to export
LNG for a maximus term amount of 849.82 109m3. The export point would be in the vicinity of Prince Rupert,
British Columbia, at the outlet of the loading arm of a proposed liquefaction terminal. A license was also approved
for Oregon LNG Marketing Company, LLC to export natural gas for a maximum term amount of 375.17 109m3.
The export point would be in the vicinity of Kingsgate and Huntingdon, British Columbia, via existing natural gas
pipelines. Issuance of both licenses is subject the approval of the Governor in Council.

**Consult CP**

**1NC

Relations: High Now


Relations are unshakably high- Consult is Key
Wells 6/9
Wells, Paul. "The Sorry State of Canada-U.S. Relations." Macleansca. Macleans, 9 June 2014. Web. 21
June 2014. http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/obama-harper-and-the-end-of-the-affair/

My unshakeable belief is that the U.S.-Canada relationship is strong and thriving, Bruce
Heyman said the other night at the National Gallery of Canada on Sussex Drive. It was a big night, for Bruce Heyman is the
new American ambassador to Canada, and he had not yet shared his thoughts on relations
between our two countries. Turns out he likes to look on the bright side. Hell need to. Heyman is a cheerful Chicago
investment banker who raised campaign funds for Barack Obama. He replaces David Jacobson, a cheerful Chicago lawyer who raised
campaign funds for Barack Obama. As with much else in the Obama presidency, one senses a trend. He

was not offering his


first diagnosis of the bilateral relationship a moment too soon, because he was speaking 18
months before the 2016 Iowa presidential caucuses. Any later and he would have run into the next presidents
ambassador. (These things take time. Obama had so many fundraisers to choose from. The Senate was in no rush to confirm the
appointment.) Now here Heyman is and, after a three-week tour of Canada, he was pleased to share his impressions. Basically, he said,

everythings great, as long as you dont notice the two guys in charge. He praised the
border5,000 miles!and the integration of the two countries economies. Its not just that
we make things together, he said. Now, were making more things together. He was bullish on
investment. If you live in one country and want to do business in the other, he suggested, call the American embassy here in Ottawa,
something most businesses never do. Interspersed with his odes to the eternal, Heyman mentioned problems that are merely starting to
seem eternal. We need an effective border that makes it easy for legal commerce and travellers to flow through efficiently, and makes it
hard for those things that threaten us to pass through, he said. That has been every prime ministers priority since 2001. Progress has
been modest. Most of the crowd wanted to hear what Heyman had to say on energy and the environment, which is everyones polite
term for the interminable wait for Obama to accept, or reject, the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta into Nebraska. The dispute has
poisoned the relationship between Obama and Stephen Harperexcept Heyman hates when I talk that way. Do

not mistake
headlines for trendlines, he said. Turn that frown upside down! Do not take a few issues and
draw any conclusions on the overall relationship. Especially because any conclusion you
drew would be the obvious one. Reconciling carbon emissions and the energy markets of Canada and the U.S. is not a
task that we can take on individually, Heyman said. It can only be successfully challenged together. This reminded me of something
Leona Aglukkaq had said earlier that day. Aglukkaq is Canadas environment minister, I suppose, to the extent we have one, and she
said, The

integration of our economies suggests our countries should be taking action


together, not alone. The humour was subtle, but it worked: The U.S. ambassador and the Canadian minister were calling for
cross-border co-operation on the day Obamas administration announced tough new emissions standards for the U.S. coal industry, that
countrys biggest polluter. There had, of course, been none of the cross-border co-operation both sides claim to want. In the early years
of Obamas presidency, members of the Harper government used to describe their continental approach to energy and the
environment, until it became clear the rest of the continent wasnt playing. The

history of executive-level
partnership across that 5,000-mile border has been spotty, but there have been bright
moments. Mulroney and Reagan. Clinton and Chrtien. Well, two bright moments. The collapse of the Harper-Obama relationship
is so complete that at least one of them will have to go before co-operative leadership at the top returns. Theres no point blaming the
two leaders. They are alike in important ways, and unlike in others. Neither much feels like socializing by telephone. Both have long
been preoccupied with domestic politics and, to the extent thats begun to change for Harper, he finds comfort in places that make
Obama uncomfortable: Israel and central and eastern Europe. Their similarities make them repel, as like poles of two magnets do. Their
differences are worse. Both leaders delivered major foreign-policy speeches last week. Obamas, at West Point, N.Y., was billed in
advance as a big deal. Harpers, in Toronto, lauded the efforts of a private organization raising money for a Canadian monument to the
victims of Communism. It would be hard to square the two visions on offer. Obama made a case for moderation and, above all, for
calculation. The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it: when our people are
threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger. Harper was far more sweeping. Canada
defends and promotes the basic freedoms that are crucial to maintaining human society, and we oppose those everywhere who threaten
those values. Obama: Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. Harper: There have been times when
weve fallen short, heeded the calls of those who preferred to see Canada sidelined, to see Canada serve as a neutral bystander instead of

a principled actor. No wonder they dont talk. The Heymans, meanwhile, are enjoying their stay in Canada. Dont take a few issues
and draw any conclusions.

American and Canadian relations extremely close-knit.


Heyman 14,
What U.S. ambassador Bruce Heyman had to say to Canadians, Bruce, American Ambassador,
20http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/speech-by-bruce-heyman-united-states-ambassador-to-canada/

The prepared speech by Bruce Heyman, United States ambassador to Canada on June 2,
2014. Friends, colleagues good evening. I just came back from a 21-day trek across your beautiful country. Its been an
amazingeducation for me and my wife, Vicki, and Ive seen so many things and met so many incredible people that Ill never forget.
What a beautiful venue. I want to thank Canada 2020, Don Newman and the National Gallery for hosting us tonight. Vicki and I are so
grateful to be here. President

Obama said it best: No two nations match up more closely, or are


woven together more deeply, economically, culturally, than the United States and Canada. I
understand this now having travelled coast to coast. This unparalleled relationship provides us with
unprecedented opportunity. I am the kind of person who does not view the workings of the world as a zero-sum game, nor
do I accept the idea that every decision is a matter of either/or. In discussing our choices among various interests,
I much prefer using the word AND rather than OR. Economic growth AND
environmental protection. Free trade AND jobs. Co-operation AND leadership. My
unshakeable belief is that the U.S.-Canada relationship is strong and thriving.

U.S. and Canada have been developing their relations and are at a high now.
Embassy of the United States, 14,
http://canada.usembassy.gov/canada-us-relations/canada-united-states-relations-overview.html
The United States and Canada share two borders and their bilateral relationship is among
the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the high volume of bilateral trade
-- the equivalent of $1.6 billion a day in goods -- as well as in people-to-people contact. About
300,000 people cross between the countries every day by all modes of transport. In fields ranging from security
and law enforcement to environmental protection to free trade, the two countries work
closely on multiple levels from federal to local. In addition to their close bilateral ties, Canada and the
United States cooperate in multilateral fora, including international efforts to combat terrorist financing and money
laundering. The two countries belong to a number of the same international organizations,

including the United Nations, NATO, WTO, G8, G20, Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Organization of American States, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Canada
accepted an invitation to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership regional trade agreement being
negotiated among the United States and other countries. U.S. defense arrangements with
Canada are more extensive than with any other country.

Relations: Brink
Disputes over Arctic territory between US and Canada causes inability to cooperate
Morrison 6/25
W.R. Morrison, Arctic Sovereignty, June 25, 2014,
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/arctic-sovereignty/
Though Canada's claim to its Arctic land area is now secure, the fact that large sections are
uninhabited and virtually undefended raises the possibility that it may not be secure forever.
More important is the fact that there is international consensus only about the land area; the channels and straits particularly the
Northwest Passage are not universally recognized as Canadian. Canada regards the channels and straits as internal waters through
which foreign vessels must request permission to pass. With the prospect of bringing home oil from Arctic discoveries off Alaska, the

United States has increasingly seen the Northwest Passage as international waters, open to
all, and has demonstrated this belief by sending the oil tankers Manhattan (1969) and the
Polar Sea (1985) into Canada's Arctic without permission. As a result of the 1985 voyage of the Polar Sea,
External Affairs Minister Joe Clark put forward plans for a new $500 million icebreaker. It fell victim to cost-cutting and was never
built. In 1987, the

government also announced that it would build and station nuclear-powered


submarines in Arctic waters, but this has as much to do with Canada's role in continental
defence as with sovereignty. After much fanfare and political wrangling, the plan to build or buy submarines was quietly
abandoned. In early 1996, another plan to patrol the Arctic waters by submarine was abandoned as too expensive.

Consult K2 Preserve Relations


US and Canada will not be able to cooperate over energy policies as tensions rise
Nicholson 14
Diana Thbaud Nicholson, Member of the Board at Canadian International Council, June 24, 2014, Canada U.S. 2013 2014,
http://www.dianaswednesday.com/2014/06/canada-u-s-relations-2013/

The new phase of contentiousness was brought about by differences over foreign affairs, the war in
Iraq, and, more recently, pipelines and procurement policies. Tensions have been exacerbated by
a run of circumstances that have seen the two countries simultaneously led by governments
with clashing philosophies. Mr. Bush and Mr. Chrtien moved in different ideological orbits, as
have Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama. But while the new bilateral divide is not to be underestimated (as
the Keystone XL pipeline debate illustrates), its also no cause for alarm. Indeed, it may be a cloud
with a silver lining. So much has changed since the days of the free-trade agreement, when it
was assumed that Canada was on a course of more and more integration with the United
States. In fact, its not more and more its less and less. With the rise of China and other Asian
markets, U.S. omnipotence has been reduced. With the end of the Cold War, Canada is no longer
as dependent on Washingtons military protection. And with its new-found energy reserves, the
United States is no longer as reliant on Canadian resources. The upshot is that although the
U.S. will always have a preponderant share of our trade market, we dont need the Americans like
we did in the last century. There wont be the same kind of decoupling there was with our first
great overseer, Great Britain. But the trend is toward a gentler parting of the ways.

Cooperation K2 Solve Warming


US and Canada have had bilateral cooperation over energy
DOE, 14
Department of Energy, U.S.-CANADA CLEAN ENERGY DIALOGUE (CED), 2014, http://energy.gov/ia/initiatives/us-canada-cleanenergy-dialogue-ced

President Obama and Prime Minister Harper launched the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy
Dialogue (CED) in February 2009 to encourage the development of clean energy technologies
to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change in both countries. The CED is charged
with: expanding clean energy research and development; developing and deploying clean energy
technologies; and building a more efficient electric grid based on clean and renewable generation.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) leads the CED for the United States, and Canadas effort is led
by Environment Canada, with participation by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). DOE and
NRCan co-chair three bilateral Working Groups which carry out this mandate in specific
areas identified for enhanced bilateral cooperation: carbon capture and storage (CCS), clean
energy R&D (in advanced biofuels, clean engines, energy efficiency, advanced
transportation, marine energy, and other areas), and making the electricity grid a smart
grid. Environment Canada co-chairs the Clean Energy R&D Working Group with NRCan.

Cooperation K2 Solve Artic War


Cooperation key to make the Arctic a Major Region, Rid Securitization in Arctic policy,
and solve for conflicts in the Arctic
Keskitalo 12
(Carina Keskitalo is a professor of political science at Umea University in Sweden. Research specializes in how climate change strategies
are developed for the Arctic Region). [Setting the Agenda on the Arctic: Whose Policy Frames the Region? Brown Journal of World
Affairs, Fall/Winter 2012. Online@file:///C:/Users/Spee%20Mitch/Downloads/SettingArticAgenda%20(1).pdf SM]
The Arctic is thus far from a single homogenous region. Conceptualizing

the Arctic, which covers up to a tenth of the worlds surface area,


as a region can be seen as an instance of region building. This is a process akin to, but larger in scale than, nation
building. In region building, a region is first constructed through a label defined by the areas scope, boundaries, symbolic shape, institutions, and image;
the last is seen not only in the mass media but also in the scientific literature.7 This

is a political development, and such


developments inherently complicate matters of different identities, allegiances, and traditions. This effect is writ large when the members of
the new region are eight nation-states with very different traditions of development, spanning
the Old and New Worlds and exhibiting vastly different development trajectories. Regional Arctic cooperation does not
merely consolidate an Arctic region: it creates one. The DevelopmenT oF The ArCTiC: whose inTernATionAl region?
If one were to single out the policy problem that the creation of the Arctic Council was attempting to solve, it
would certainly be securitization. Establishing a forum for nonbinding cooperation and discussion was
preferable to the major security policy vacuum left in the wake of the Cold War. Beyond the problems of securitization,
however, the large range of issues requiring cooperation was for the most part open to interpretation by policy entrepreneurs, including policy makers,
government officials, interest groups and scholars working on the Arctic. Due to the policy window open after the Cold War and the favorable political and
policy contexts the end of that era created, these entrepreneurs finally found themselves with an opportunity to promote the policy solutions they had
identified. In many cases, these were solutions to particularly long-standing domestic issues. Canadas strong focus on its internally defined Arctic area (the
area above 60 degrees north) had made it dominant in literature that uses the term Arctic. Canada had also been by far the most active state in Arctic
cooperation. Problems

in its northern areas include not only conflicts with the United States over
rights to the ice-covered waters of north Canada, but also social change in its relatively
recently settled Arctic regions and indigenous demands for self-rule. Internationalizing the
discussion on these problems and areas not only potentially hedged against the diplomatic weight of the United States, but also
could limit domestic conflict by providing an international arena to address indigenous issues .

**Aff Answers

Perm- Normal Means


Cooperation high between United States and Canada.
EK 2014
Carl Ek and Ian Fergusson, Specialists in International Relations and Trade and Finance, 2014,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf
Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone
changes in tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries enjoyed good relations. The
early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canadas Liberal Party emphasized its determination
to act independently of the United States when it thought necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In

early 2006, a
minority Conservative government led by Stephen Harper assumed power in Ottawa. It
was regarded as being more ideologically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration
than the Liberals had been; some observers believe that this compatibility helped facilitate
bilateral cooperation. This cooperation has continued with the election of President Obama
in November 2008, despite the differences in the two leaders governing philosophies. The
two North American countries continue to cooperate widely in international security and
political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canadas
foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas
of contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since
September 11, 2001, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to
strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. Both countries were also
active participants in the U.N.-sanctioned NATO mission in Libya. The United States and Canada maintain the
worlds largest bilateral trading relationship, one that has been strengthened over the past
three decades by the approval of two major free trade agreements.

US working with Canada/Russia in the Arctic is a normal mean


Kryshkin 10
Yevgeny Kryshkin, Arctic "five" discuss regional cooperation, March 30, 2010,
http://voiceofrussia.com/2010/03/30/5813814/
The foreign ministers of five Arctic nations - Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark
and Norway - meeting in Chelsea, a suburb of Montreal, on Monday agreed to bolster regional cooperation.
"We confirmed the declaration signed in Greenland about two years ago. The declaration clearly states that that any problems
concerning the region can and must be solved peacefully. Any disputes over some or other areas outside the
continental shelf must be handled in strict compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This, in my opinion, is the
essence of today's meeting. The

five coastal nations have demonstrated their effort capability to keep


the region peaceful, calm and clean". The five-nation format of the Chelsea talks by no means belittles the role of the
Arctic Council that also includes Sweden, Finland and Iceland. It remains a key regional cooperation body with a
package of important functions such as drafting international documents on how to support
the ecosystem, ensure safe navigation and many other issues.

US can cooperate with Canada and Russia over the Arctic


Mathewson et al 10

Christopher Mathewson, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, Governing the Far North: Assessing Cooperation Between Arctic and Non-Arctic
Nations, September 22, 2010, http://www.fesdc.org/pdf/arcticeventottawareport%20copy.pdf
Moderated by former CBC Anchor Don Newman, the

first panel brought together three experts on


American, Canadian and Russian involvement in the Arctic to discuss the degree of
cooperation between Arctic nations. The United States, once a reluctant partner in Arctic
affairs, has picked up the pace thanks to policies geared towards new arrangements for
international cooperation possibly even the ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty in
order to reduce pollutants and to address crucial issues such as shipping and oil exploration.
According to Brooks Yeager, Executive Vice President for Policy, at Clean Air-Cool Planet, the US has rarely pursued so many lines
of cooperation, and is working with other Arctic nations on search and rescue plans as well as on
the impact of black carbon on the environment. Yeager even sees a reorientation on policy versus practice in the
United States involvement in the Arctic Council and Arctic affairs in general.

***Japan

**OTEC**

1nc
Text: The Government of Japan should <<<insert plan>>>>.
Japan has experience with OTEC they would solve the aff and lead to
commercialization
OTEC News 12
Report, OTEC pilot plant to be built in Okinawa Prefecture,
http://www.otecnews.org/2012/07/otec-pilot-plant-to-be-built-in-okinawa-prefecture/
This month, Japanese engineering companies IHI Plant Construction Corporation, Xenesys
Incorporated and Yokogawa Electric Corporation announced their collaboration in building a
50kW OTEC demonstration plant in the waters of Kumejima Island, located in the very south of
Japan and part of the Okinawa Islands. The OTEC plant will be integrated in the Okinawa
Prefecture Deep Seawater Research Center, which is the largest of four deep seawater pumping
systems in Japan. The companies aim to have the OTEC plant up and running in March 2013.
Regarding the roles in this project: Xenesys will design and manufacture the power generation unit
and the heat exchangers; Yokogawa will design, manufacture and do the engineering of the
monitoring and control system for the generation unit and the electronics for the interconnected
power schemes; and IHI will develop and construct the entire facility. Okinawa Research Center
is active in deep seawater utilization for over 10 years. The center established several deep
seawater projects, including local area cooling services, water desalination, aquaculture and
agriculture. Next year the OTEC demonstration plant will be added and connected to the deep
seawater infrastructure. The OTEC plant will be used for practical testing and optimization of the
output. It is an important step in the commercialization following the 30kW demonstration
unit at Saga University in Saga, Japan.

2nc/1nr Solvency
Japan solves better than the aff they operate the worlds only OTEC plant
Wageningen 14
Report, June 5th, Delegation in Japan: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) on the island
Kumejima, https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/newsarticle/Delegation-in-Japan-Ocean-ThermalEnergy-Conversion-OTEC-on-the-island-Kumejima.htm
Water generates electricity In addition to direct cooling, the deep water is also used to generate
electricity through the process of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Kumejima
currently has the worlds only operating OTEC installation , a 50 KW demonstration plant.
OTEC takes advantage of the difference in temperature between surface water and deep sea
water. Warm surface water is used to evaporate a low-boiling point liquid such as ammonia to
create steam. The steam drives a turbine that generates electricity. The steam is condensated
back to liquid using cold deep seawater.

OTEC cant be deployed in the U.S.


Texas CPA 8 (Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ocean Power, The Energy Report Chapter 20,
May, http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20-OceanPower.pdf)
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Finally, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is the least
accessible form of ocean power, and perhaps the least useful for the U.S. To work, OTEC needs
an optimal temperature difference between warm water on the surface and colder water
below of about 36Fa range found only in tropical coastal areas near the equator. In the U.S.,
OTEC research and testing is taking place in Hawaii. The cold water is brought to the surface by a
deeply submerged intake pipe.

Japan has a demonstration model and specific expertise


Eurocean 01 (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC),
http://www.eurocean.org/np4/124.html)
After G.Claude several other projects have been studied mainly in France (OTEC electricity plants in
Guadalupe and Ivory Coast-1956) and the USA (J.H-Anderson, 1963). But it is the 1973 oil crisis that triggered, first in the USA and then
Japan, the funding of new ambitious projects as the building and test of experimental micro-power plants (Hawaii-1978, Japan -1979 &
Nauru-1982), and

the studies of OTEC commercial plants of hundreds of MW for electricity or


synthetic fuels production. At the end of the 1970s France launched the project of a 5 MW OTEC electricity pilot plant to be
installed in French Polynesia under the contracting authority of CNEXO - le Centre National pour l'Exploitation des Ocans, which
become IFREMER in 1984 - in partnership with French industry (Alsthom, SPIE-Batignoles, CG-DORIS, FRAMATOME, JEUMONTSCHNEIDER? SGE-BTP and SGSTE merged in the ERGOCEAN consortium). In 1986 the severe drop in the price of oil led to a worldwide
reduction and funding for OTEC development and France decided to abandon the Tahiti project. In

2000 Saga University of


Japan and NIOT of India, announced they agreed to a joint development of OTEC in India, a
country with a large access to an abundant OTEC resource that faces a dramatic increase in
population and in (clean) energy demand for the future. A one MW OTEC floating plant has

been built . The success of this co-operation will certainly be an important milestone in the
development of OTEC industry .

Funding key to development Japan solves


Sherer 8 (Kyle, Energy Island: unlocking the potential of the ocean as a renewable power source,
http://www.gizmag.com/energy-island-otec/8714/)

But while OTEC

has captured the imagination of scientists, it has not had nearly so much success
with governments. The United States established the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority in 1974, viewing the high
electricity costs of the state, and the dynamics of the surrounding water, as the ideal testing ground for OTEC technology. The NEL
successfully demonstrated a 250 kW closed-cycle plant in 1999, but ultimately the money evaporated
faster than the water, and Congress shifted attention to more economical areas of research.
OTEC could be commercially viable, said test director Luis Vega, but it needed patient funding to
reach that stage. Only now, with rising oil prices and the increasingly cataclysmic
predictions of global warming, could OTEC receive the patient funding necessary for
progress. Plans for OTEC plants are being entertained by the governments of Japan, Taiwan,
India, South Africa, the Philippines and the US, which recently passed a bill that gives OTEC, and tidal, wave, and ocean current research,
$50 million per year for five years.

Japan can solve OTEC


Friedman 6 Becca, The Harvard Political Review is a student-run organization at Harvard College
but also an aff author, Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: An Alternative
Source Heats Up Febuary 26th http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up/
In fact, as the

U.S. government is dragging its feet, other countries are moving forward with
their own designs and may well beat American industry to a fully-functioning plant. In India ,
there has been significant academic interest in OTEC, although the National Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to a
lack of funding. Japan

, too, has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University s Institute of
Ocean Energy has recently won prizes for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and
various European nations have also explored OTEC as part of their long-term energy strategy. Perhaps the most interest is in the

the Philippine Department of Energy has worked with Japanese experts to


select 16 potential OTEC sites.
Philippines , where

Japan says yes they want to transition from nuclear power towards ocean energy
Japan Times 12
Reporter, Tapping into oceanic energy,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/03/26/commentary/world-commentary/tappinginto-oceanic-energy/#.U6iCy41dWrw
The serious physical damage caused by the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant disaster,
following the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami, has reminded Japan all the more of its acute
shortage of natural energy sources and the need for developing alternative sources. This has

led scientists and private corporations as well as the public sector to look for alternative
means of generating electricity. The key word for such efforts is ocean. Completely
surrounded by the sea, Japan has huge potentials for utilizing oceanic power and resources.
For starters, Japan is surrounded by an exclusive economic zone of about 4.47 million square km.
This is the sixth-largest EEZ in the world.

Japan can Export OTEC


Japan develops OTEC to export US failing in SQ
Energy Place 10
EnergyPlace.com is a service to educate facility owners and managers on Alternative Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Programs.
2010 http://energyplace.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=11

Japan has been a major contributor to the development of OTEC technology, primarily for export
to other countries. In the 1970s, the Tokyo Electric Power Company built a 100 kW closed-cycle OTEC plant on the island of
Nauru. The plant became operational in 1981 and produced about 120 kW of electricity (90 kW was used to power the plant, and the
remaining electricity was used to power a school and several other facilities in Nauru). This set a world record for power output from an
OTEC system where the power was sent to a real power grid. What Share of the Worlds Energy Needs Could OTEC Supply? Some

experts believe that if OTEC became cost-competitive, it could provide gigawatts of electrical power, and
in conjunction with electrolysis, could produce enough hydrogen to completely replace all projected
global fossil fuel consumption. What Barriers Stand in the Way OTEC Power Production? Managing costs remains a huge
challenge. OTEC plants require expensive, large-diameter intake pipes, submerged at least a kilometer deep in the ocean to bring very
cold water to the surface. Cold seawater is a requirement for all three types of OTEC systems. The cold seawater can be brought to the
surface by direct pumping, or by desalinating the seawater near the sea floor, lowering its density and causing it to float through a pipe
to the surface. Has a Closed-cycle OTEC Plant Ever Been Built? In 1979, the Natural Energy Laboratory and several private-sector
partners developed a mini OTEC experiment that achieved the first successful at-sea production of net electrical power from closed-cycle
OTEC. (Net power is that which remains after subtracting the power required to run the plant.) The mini OTEC vessel was moored 1.5
miles off the Hawaiian coast and produced enough net electricity to illuminate the ship's light bulbs and run its computers and
televisions. In

1999, the Natural Energy Laboratory tested a 250 kW pilot closed-cycle plant, the
OTEC technology have been conducted in the U.S., largely
because the costs of energy production today have delayed financing of a permanent,
continuously operating plant.
largest of its kind. Since then, no further tests of

Japan Wants to Export their OTEC


Bruch 94
Vicki L. Bruch, An assessment of research and development leadership in ocean energy
technologies, SciTech Connect, 4/1/94, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/10154003
Like the United Kingdom, Japan has performed many studies on ocean energy technologies. Unlike the
UK, Japan has progressed to demonstrating several devices, particularly for wave Energy. The Japanese have concentrated on wave
energy and OTEC. Japan has good resources in the Sea of Japan for wave energy. Ocean conditions around Japan have high amounts of
potential energy created by winds blowing across the ocean. The

Japanese are primarily interested in the


export potential of OTEC as the country has no suitable resources of its own for OTEC. Japan has
had an active wave energy R&D program for 30 years. The Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, began investigating offshore
devices for wave energy in 1974. Its work has focused on the Kaimei, a floating ship that tested different pneumatic devices. The
Kaimei is considered one of the more advanced large (approximately 125 kW) wave energy devices. Development of the Kaimei was an
International Energy Agency project funded by the US, Canada, the UK and Ireland.

US Refusal is only barrier to Japanese Export of OTEC


Bruch 94
V.L. Bruch, An assessment of research and development leadership in ocean energy technologies,
SciTech Connect, 4/1/94, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/10154003

Ocean energy R&D funding has undergone severe cutbacks, primarily due to the change in energy R&D philosophy from the Carter
Administration to the Reagan and Bush Administrations. However, the situation is not expected to improve under the Clinton
Administration because of the belief that other renewable sources of energy will have a greater impact on the energy market than
ocean energy technologies. Another reason federally-supported

ocean energy R&D has stopped in the


US is the belief that there is no domestic market for these technologies. In spite of the fact
that an export market does appear to exist, albeit of unknown size, there appears to be little US
government interest in exploring its possibilities. This point of view is the opposite of the
Japanese government. The Japanese government is quite interested in export markets for
their technologies and will often undertake R&D of a particular technology strictly for its
export potential. The US government stance could well prove to be short sighted in the long term.
Although the market potential for ocean energy technologies appears to be small, that could change in the future, particularly if the
world converts to hydrogen-based fuels. Ocean energy technologies ' could be quite important in the future in terms of exploiting
hydrogen from the ocean. This hydrogen could then be used in other energy technologies such as fuel cells Foreign competitors could
potentially leap ahead of US industry in developing and marketing ocean energy technologies due to US government policy.

Japan Wants to Export OTEC


Dean and Ross 90
S.R. Dean, J.M. Ross, Definitional mission: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Republic of the
Marshall Islands. Export trade information, ResearchGate, 9/1/1990
Abstract: The objective of the study was to determine the commercial viability of an Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) electric
power plant at the Majuro Atoll in the Marshall Islands. It was concluded that various technology

improvements and

economic factors have converged to present a feasible opportunity. United States industrial and research
organizations are technically capable of developing a commercial OTEC industry for domestic and export markets. It is estimated that
100% of OTEC equipment and services could be supplied by United States firms. However, Japan

has aggressively pursued


OTEC development with an apparent goal of dominating the export market.

**Aff Answers**
The Tech is ready, but plan needs endorsement
Binger 3
Al Binger, director of the West Indies Centre for Environment and Development, last date given 2003,
http://library.greenocean.org/oteclibrary/otecpapers/20040428105917_OTEC_UN.pdf

While there is great interest at the policy level and among the sustainable development
community in SIDS regarding OTEC, there is not the same degree of interest by the leadership
of electric utilities. The leadership of the electric utilities are highly sceptical about
endorsing new technologies, and unlikely to endorse any technology until it has been proven
and they can get hard performance reliability and cost data. If the new energy technology is to be
considered as the base load capacity, then the leadership become even more demanding about the
data. The best way to convince this critical segment of the SIDS professionals is by having an
OTEC plant on commercial scale, operating under conditions similar those in their country.

Federal Action key to stable legal framework which is key to OTEC efficiency
CINMS 6
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 5/06, Existing Applicable Federal and State Regulations,
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:XtMl7TIc9k0J:channelislands.noaa.gov/manplan/pdf/deis/section_5.pdf+EXISTING+APPLICABL
E+FEDERAL+AND+STATE+REGULATIONS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

With regard to alternative energy sources from the ocean, the OTEC Act established a licensing
program for facilities and plants that would convert thermal gradients in the ocean into electricity.
The OTEC Act directed the Administrator of NOAA to establish a stable legal regime to foster
commercial development of OTEC. In addition, the OTEC Act directed the Secretary of the
department in which the USCG is operating to promote safety of life and property at sea for
OTEC operations, prevent pollution of the marine environment, clean up any discharged
pollutants, prevent or minimize any adverse impacts from construction and operation of
OTEC plants, and ensure that the thermal plume of an OTEC plant does not unreasonably
impinge on and thus degrade the thermal gradient used by any other OTEC plant or facility,
or the territorial sea or area of national resource jurisdiction of any other nation unless the
Secretary of State has approved such impingement after consultation with such nation. The OTEC
Act also assigned responsibilities to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Energy
regarding OTEC plants.

Japan cant do the plan federal licenses are required.


Elefant ND
Carolyn Elefant, CEO and legislative director of the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, no date, Regulation of Offshore Renewables
Development -Existing Regulatory Regime and Proposals for Improvement, http://www.his.com/~israel/loce/naspresent.pdf

OTEC Act, 42 U.S.C. 9111 - gives NOAA jurisdiction to license OTEC projects: No person shall
engage in the ownership, construction or operation of an OTEC facility...[located in waters of
the United States] except with a license issued by NOAA. A) OTEC Act was intended to create one
stop shopping for licensing of OTEC plants. NOAA promulgated regulations governing applications

for OTEC licenses (15 C.F.R. Part 981) but withdrew them in 1996 due to lack of OTEC applicants. B)
To obtain an OTEC license, applicants must comply with applicable federal and state laws
(See Summary Chart for more details). For example, OTEC applicant will need to get a Section 10
permit from Corps of Engineers because plant may pose an obstruction to navigation. But NOAA
regulations provide for Consolidated Application Review (CAR) to coordinate timing and
processing of multiple permit applications. C) OTEC regulations allow exemption for demo projects
qualified by Department of Energy and non-permanent test platforms D) Standard for issuance of
license: project is in national interest and complies with applicable laws.

**MHK Renewables**

Japan Solves MHK


Japan is Developing MHK
SEE 9
(SEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMEN,T COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS). [MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, 12/3/2009. Online@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53690/html/CHRG111hhrg53690.htm SM]
Many countries are

developing MHK energy technologies. Brazil, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, China, Sweden,
Mexico, Germany, Australia, Portugal, India, Ireland, Japan , Denmark, Greece, New Zealand and many others are all operating
MHK energy devices at the various scales of testing and commercialization. For example, South Korea
deployed their first commercial tidal power plant in May of this year. It is estimated that this device will power approximately 430
households annually, and by 2013 it will have up to 90,000 kW of capacity and supply electricity to 46,000 houses. South Korea is also
developing an additional 254 kW tidal power plant in Sihwa, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of next year.

Japan is a Major International Developer of MHK


SEE 9
(SEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMEN,T COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS). [MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, 12/3/2009. Online@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53690/html/CHRG111hhrg53690.htm SM]
In order to monitor this developing industry, the

Department recently created an online database for


devices under development. This database provides detailed information about the testing
and deployment of these technologies around the world, even though the majority of
development is occurring in Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea. The database currently
tracks 149 companies working on 123 devices, which demonstrates that no firm industry consensus exists as to which technology will
perform most efficiently. In fact, technology selection is highly dependent upon regional factors.

Most Research and Development is from Japan


SEE 9
(SEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMEN,T COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS). [MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, 12/3/2009. Online@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53690/html/CHRG111hhrg53690.htm SM]
The technology's lack of

widespread development is due in part to high upfront capital costs, which

has delayed the financing of a permanent, continuously operating OTEC plant. However, OTEC technologies could

potentially produce significant amounts of alternative energy for tropical island communities that
rely heavily on imported fuels. Most research and development to date has taken place in the U.S.,
Japan , Taiwan, and India.

Japanese MHK Projects Key to Success of MHKs


SEE 9
(SEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMEN,T COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS). [MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: FINDING THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, 12/3/2009. Online@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53690/html/CHRG111hhrg53690.htm SM]
Today's wave

energy conversion technologies are the result of many years of testing, modeling
and development by many developer organizations. Total capacity deployed to date is about 4 MW worldwide, and most of the
devices are engineering prototypes. The first shore- based grid-connected wave power unit was a system built into the coastline of the
Island of Islay in Scotland in 2000. In 2003, WaveDragon of Denmark was the first offshore grid-connected wave power unit and was
deployed in a protected bay due to its subscale design. The following year (2004), Pelamis of the U.K. was the first full- scale, offshore,
grid-connected wave power unit deployed in open seas at the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in the U.K. Based on successful
testing at EMEC, the first commercial sale of an offshore wave power plant was announced by Pelamis Wavepower in May 2005 and the
first 2.25 MW of that plant was deployed off the coast of Portugal in 2008. Unfortunately, the primary project investor, Brown and
Babcock, recently declared bankruptcy and the project is now on hold pending further investment capital. A

number of
demonstration projects are ongoing and planned in the U.K, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, China, Japan , Australia,
Canada, and the United States. If these early demonstration projects prove successful, medium-size wave
farms up to 30-50 MW in capacity could be deployed within the next five to eight years.

Japan Developing MHK Technologies Now


Elliot 12
Dave Elliott, Greening Japans energy, Environmental Research Web, 7/14/12,
http://blog.environmentalresearchweb.org/2012/07/14/greening-japans-energy/
Understandably, given that Japan is a series of relatively crowded Island with constraints on land use, the renewables

programme is focused heavily on offshore resources. The government is supporting the


development of a range of marine power technologies with plans for a series of trials next year. The Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Environment and others have earmarked a total of 10 billion yen for promoting marine
renewable energies in the fiscal 2012 budget. Most of the funds are for projects related to floating wind turbines. Four different designs
for offshore wind floating platforms will be installed off the coast of Fukushima in 2013 and 2014, as part of a demonstration project
funded by $300m the Japanese government Ministry of Trade, Economic and Industry. Eleven companies and organisations will
collaborate on FORWARD, the Fukushima floating Offshore Wind farm Demonstration project, with Japanese conglomerate Marubeni
leading. Companies contributing innovative floating platform designs include IHI Marine United, Mitsubishi and Mitsui. The port of
Onahama, near the city of Iwaki, will serve the Forward project. The government hopes that the Forward project will result in the
emergence of one or more commercially-viable designs for offshore wind floating platforms. A second demonstration project, funded by
Japans environment ministry, in the Goto islands, off the coast west of Nagasaki, is already underway, with a small 110kW turbine on a
floating platform. Its planned to replace it with a 2MW turbine next year. In parallel theres a long planned 2.4MW fixed offshore wind
project off the coast from Choshi, east of Tokyo, backed by NEDO, which should start up in January. Windpower Monthly reported that
the first stage of the more ambitious FORWARD project, in 2013, will involve installation of a floating 2MW downwind turbine, on a
compact semi-submersible base. In 2014, two further turbines, 7MW designs by Mitsubishi, will be installed, one to be carried by a vshape semi-sub and the other by an advanced spar-float, possibly like the Norwegian Sway /Hywind designs. Given that the area, about
20km off the Fukushima coast, has suffered radioactive contamination, the future of fishing there is uncertain so there may be no conflict;
indeed offshore wind could provide alternative employment for former fishermen, if this proves necessary. Certainly this industry could
expand. According to early reports, Japan could have up to 1GW of offshore wind capacity in place by 2020, In addition, Japan

is
following up other offshore options. The marine energy programme will be expanded in
2013 to include tidal and wave energy, along with OTEC ocean thermal gradient
technologies. Tests are likely to be carried out off the Tohoku & Kyushu regions, in co-operation with the private sector and
universities. In parallel, the Ocean Energy Association of Japan (OEAJ), is to set up a Japanese Marine Energy Centre (JMEC), with help
from EMEC in Scotland. Its a two-way exercise: Kawasaki Heavy Industries is to test a newly developed tidal energy system at EMEC on
the Orkneys. Some

of the more developed renewables are also being pushed hard. PV solar is already in

quite widespread use, and being mostly on rooftops, is not land-using. To accelerate consumer uptake, in June the government approved
Feed-In Tariff (FiT) subsidies under which utilities will pay 42yen (53 U.S. cents) per kWh for solar-generated electricity, double the
tariff offered in Germany and more than three times that paid in China. Despite the land use constraints, there is also some potential for
on-land wind and wind power will get at least 23.1 yen/ kWh in the new FiT system, compared with as low as 4.87 euro cents (6 U.S.
cents) in Germany. The new wind tariff converts to about 18p/kWh, which compares to 5p/kWh (10p/kWh offshore) available for wind
projects under the Renewables Obligation in the UK. So they are really pushing it. Geothermal energy is also being backed. It is already
widely used for heating. So is solar thermal- there is over 3.7GW(th) installed on rooftops. We can expect to see much more

Japan MHK Better than US


Japan has better MHK tech that use cylinders rather than rotors- Regular MHKs are
damaging to marine life
Maritime Executive 6/26
(Qualified Reporting News Source Reporting on Shipping News, Shipping Politics, and Oceanic Technology). [Japanese Tidal Innovation
Ready for Commercialization, Maritime Executive, 6/26/2014. Online@http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Japanese-TidalInnovation-Ready-for-Commercialization-2014-06-26 SM]

Japanese Tidal Innovation Ready for Commercialization BY MAREX Okayama University's Shinji Hiejima is
looking for industrial partners to commercialize his experimentally proven and patented concept of the
Hydro-Venus system for converting tidal energy into electrical power. In Japan the search for
energy resources is a high priority with research on exploiting the power of the seas
surrounding the Japanese archipelago being actively pursued. Notably, a report published by New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO) in 2010 states that the potential of tidal energy in Japan is equivalent to 20 nuclear power plants.
Furthermore, the Seto Inland Seawhere Okayama University is locatedhas been assessed as being a site with especially high
potential. "I want to exploit the mechanical motion of a pendulum to generate electricity from tidal currents," says Shinji Hiejima, an
associate professor at the Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science of Okayama University. "My fascination with the structure
of bridges triggered my research on the interaction of strong winds with massive bridges such as the Seto Bridge that connects Okayama
with Kagawa in Shikoku," says Hiejima. "In my early research I analyzed why large bridges oscillate when hit by strong winds such as
typhoons. Now, I am focusing on harnessing tidal energy as a stable source of electricity. I am looking for
partners to develop my ideas on the Hydrokinetic Vortex Energy Utilization System or Hydro-Venus, a large underwater pendulum based
system." Hiejima points out that

propeller type turbine systems being tested

in Europe

have three major

drawbacks: high strength required for the materials used for making the rotor blades leads
to increases in cost; waste in the ocean clogs up and damages rotors; and, fisherman
consider the sharp edges of rotor blades to be harmful to marine life. To resolve these
limitations of propeller based tidal energy conversion, Hiejima began by analyzing the potential of power generated by
flow induced vibrations of cylinders placed horizontally in water. "I have patented and demonstrated the potential for
my version of a pendulum-dynamo," says Hiejima. "I am looking for industrial partners to commercialize it."

Normal MHK projects hurt biodiversity- Competition and sensitive environments


UCS 13
(Union of Concerned Scientists- Referencing the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and
Climate Change Mitigation). [Environmental Impacts of Hydrokinetic Energy, UCS, 3/5/2013.
Online@http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmentalimpacts-hydrokinetic-energy.html SM]
While actual impacts of large-scale operations have not been observed, a range

of potential impacts can be


projected. For example, wave energy installations can require large expanses of ocean space, which could
compete with other usessuch as fishing and shippingand cause damage to marine life
and habitats. Some tidal energy technologies are located at the mouths of ecologically-sensitive
estuary systems, which could cause changes in hydrology and salinity that negatively impact
animal and plant life.

***Israel

**Desal CP**

Solvency: Desal
Israel is capable of solving desalination in U.S.
Odenhimer Et Al 2014
Israel Desalination Shows California Not to Fear Drought, Alisa Odenheimer and James Nash,
Bloomberg News Reporter, Feb 2014 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-13/israeldesalination-shows-california-not-to-fear-drought.html
Six decades of providing water in a country thats 60 percent desert have made Israel a
technological leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California.
Desalination of sea water, reuse of treated sewage for agriculture, software creating an earlywarning system for leaks, computerized drip irrigation and careful accounting of every drop
have become the norm in Israel, the worlds 40th biggest economy. Officials in California, which would
be the 10th largest if it were a nation, are paying attention. North of San Diego, Israels IDE Technologies Ltd.
is helping to build what it says will be the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western
Hemisphere. The facility, when finished in 2016, will be able to provide 50 million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller
plants already operate in California, and 15 more have been proposed. This is the one supply that San Diego County is investing in that
is truly drought-proof, said Peter MacLaggan, senior vice president of privately held Poseidon Resources Corp., which is developing
the $922 million plant with IDE. It

does cost more, but it has some reliability benefits that are very
important to the regional economy.

Solvency: Say Yes


Israel says yes to desalinization for u.s water
Elizabeth Daigneau, Managing Editor of GOVERNING Magazine, May 2014,
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-israel-drought-solution.html
California, I hear, has a big water problem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
recently said on Bloomberg Television. How come we dont have a water problem? Because
we use technology to solve it. The technology is Israelis four seawater desalination plants.
The Middle Eastern nation, which sits on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea, is 60
percent desert and has been struggling with drought for most of its existence. But with a fifth
desalination plant set to open this year, Israel doesnt have a water problem anymore. Thats because once the new plant comes online,
more than 80 percent of Israels water will come from desalination. Indeed,

the largest users of desalinated water


are in the Middle East, which uses about 70 percent of worldwide capacity, according to the
U.S. Geological Survey. The desalination process essentially makes seawater drinkable by
forcing it through reverse osmosis membranes that filter out salt and other impurities. There are
about 300 desalination plants in the U.S. Most of them, however, are used for industrial purposes. Only about 13 percent of Americas
domestic water supply -- that is, water for drinking, cooking and bathing -- comes from desalination. So

why arent there


more desalination plants in the U.S.? Thats essentially what Netanyahu was wondering
during his visit to drought-stricken California in March. Currently, the state has 17 proposals for plants but
only half a dozen small ones currently operating along the 840-mile coastline. A desalination plant is being built in Carlsbad, Calif., that
will wring 50 million gallons of freshwater a day from the sea and serve about 3.1 million people. The $1 billion project is set to open in
2016. Part

of the reason seawater desalination plants are rare in the U.S. is that the process is
energy intensive and, as a result, expensive. Desalinated water can cost two times as much as
water currently imported from other sources. The process is more common where energy is
cheap, such as the oil-rich Middle East. But perhaps a bigger reason there arent many
seawater desalination plants in the U.S. is that there is a risk in building facilities before we
need them, says Heather Cooley, water program director for the nonprofit Pacific Institute.
She points to the Charles Meyer Desalination Facility in Santa Barbara as a cautionary tale. During the 1987-1992
drought, the coastal Southern California city built a plant as a hedge against an ongoing
drought. But as soon as it was completed, the drought ended. Since there were cheaper
options available, the city shut the facility down and it remains closed to this day. Australia had a
similar experience. During its Millennium Drought, which lasted more than 10 years starting in 1995, the country built six major
seawater desalination plants. Today two of them are still in operation and four of them have been put in standby mode. This is because,
again, there are cheaper options available, says Cooley. Yes, we can build them from a technological standpoint, but they are energy
intensive and expensive. We need to look at what all of the options are. Long

before Israel built its first


desalination plant, it was already a world leader in water conservation. In addition to
desalination, Israel reuses treated sewage water for agriculture, runs a public education
campaign to conserve water, monitors for leaks in its infrastructure using advanced software
and runs computerized deep drip irrigation systems. These areas, Cooley says, are ones that California and the
U.S. need to work on. Water conservation and efficiency is typically the cheapest, fastest way to
reduce demand and essentially develop a new supply, she says. Weve made significant
improvements in California, but we still have a long way to go.

***Aff Answers
Israeli Desal doesnt solve draught- mineral shortages gut solvency.
Askenazi 2007
Ashkenazi, Eli. Desalinated water may harm crops, researchers warn. Haaretz (Israel), "Desalinated Water Can Harm Crops,
Researchers Warn." Haaretz.com. N.p., Nov. 2007. Web. 28 June 2014. <http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/desalinated-watercan-harm-crops-researchers-warn-1.232848>.

Israeli researchers are calling for a reassessment of the use of desalinated water for
irrigation, warning in an article published in today's issue of Science Magazine that desalinated
water adversely affects some crops, such as tomatoes, basil and certain varieties of flowers.
Israel's use of desalinated water for agriculture is the highest in the world, so the new
research is arousing considerable interest among scientists. Much of the water produced in
Ashkelon's desalination plant is used for irrigation. This is the world's largest seawater reverse
osmosis (SWRO) plant, producing some 100 million cubic meters of desalinated water a year. Dr.
Jorge Tarchitzky, head of the Agriculture Ministry's department of soil and fertilizer usage and one
of the article's authors, says the plant produces more water than required for urban use, and half of
it is funneled to agriculture. The article says that the water's the low mineral content, once
believed to be an advantage, is bad for the crops. Calcium shortage, for example, causes
physiological defects, while magnesium shortage damages the plant's development. If the
crops are grown in sand or off the ground, the damage is even worse, because the soil cannot
provide the missing elements. Frequent changes in the water's composition hurt the crops still
further. "One morning we woke up and found that only desalinated water was flowing through the
pipes," said another co-author, Dr. Uri Yirmiyahu of the Gilat Research Center. "We gradually began
to see the problems. For example, a shortage of magnesium damaged the development of tomatoes
and caused defects in basil." Added co-author Dr. Asher Bar-Tal of the Agricultural Research
Organization - Volcani Center: "The problem is the irregular water composition. Sometimes the
desalinated water is adulterated and sometimes it isn't. The damage is reflected in the crops'
quality." "The Agriculture Ministry gave farmers a solution - a system that reports changes in the
water's composition," Yirmiyahu said. "But the farmer must be prepared for such changes at
any given moment. The changes used to be seasonal, which they could handle. Now, the
change could take place within a few hours and the water's quality must be checked all the
time."

Israeli desalination is uniquely bad lacks important minerals pollutes the ocean
Rinat 2012
Zafrir Rinat. "Is Desalination the Solution for Israel's Water Problems? Depends Who You Ask - News." Haaretz.com. N.p., 21 Mar. 2012.
Web. 28 June 2014. <http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/is-desalination-the-solution-for-israel-s-water-problems-dependswho-you-ask-1.420278

On the downside, desalinated water does not include magnesium, which has many health
benefits and exists in water from other sources. The government recently decided not to add
magnesium to the water system due to prohibitive costs. The results of the study are expected
to strengthen the existing trend in the Water Authority, which tends to support further
desalination. However, a steering committee dealing with climate change in the Environmental
Protection Ministry recently presented a different and critical view. The ministry has, so far,
refused to publish the complete report by the committee, which consisted of water and
environmental experts, but several of its conclusions were presented last month in a University of
Haifa convention dealing with climate change. Prof. Nurit Kliot, one of the members of the
ministry's climate change steering committee, said that the committee did not specify desalination
systems as a preferred policy move. "These systems produce large amounts of water, but their
benefits do not justify their high costs - including the environmental costs, which nowadays
aren't taken into consideration," Kliot said. While she failed to specify the costs, it is assumed that
Kliot was referring to the fact the systems occupy much coastal space, use a lot of energy and
emit to the sea huge concentrates of salt and chemicals used during the desalination
process. Kliot recommended that the amounts produced by desalination should be determined
every so often according to the varying conditions and needs. The committee is set to recommend
steps encouraging water preservation, prevention of leaks, purification of polluted wells and use of
gray water (which is already done in some 30 countries ). Kliot also mentioned purification of
sewage and planning of building sites in a way that would allow rainwater to seep in. The
committee estimates that these steps could save some 100 million cubic meters a year, and
probably even more.

***Theory

**Notes
Dont read every argument in the block- pick and choose which arguments will best fit the
round

International Fiat: Good


Key to test the words United States Federal Government in the resolution: The CP
checks the desirability of the whole plan by testing and actor. This is a basic negative ground that improves
affirmative specific knowledge by questioning if the aff actor is appropriate for policy.

International education: come out from under that rock, the US isnt the only country that does things
international fiat is key to real-world education
a.

Real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debaters beyond the
context of debate
b. Education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we
find a way that increases education, the rules can be changed
c. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism the US isnt the only actor in the world,
its not our job to fix everything.

Reciprocal ground: The aff gets to defend one actor, the negative should get reciprocal ground in
defending an actor to solve. This is key to provide equitable debate that is an even playing field for both sides.

Best policy option: The judge acts as an international citizen who finds the most desirable policy actor.

Best for critical thinking: The aff should be able to think quickly about the justifications for the USFG
acting. International fiat forces the aff to think critically in the context of world affairs to determine how
desirable the plan is.

Check aff biases: The aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep time, and choice over the topic for the
round. International fiat is key to putting forward strong arguments for the neg.

Increases education: international action allows us to learn more about different political systems and
forces better solvency comparisons.

More real-world: Congress doesnt debate an action if Britain will do it for them

Its our ground: the aff gets the entire topic, and we get everything outside it for the counterplans and
other arguments. Thats fair.

Not infinitely regressive: only a very small number of potential countries and international agencies
are defensible against the plan they should be prepared for which ones.

Perms check abuse: If the CP is truly uncompetitive with the aff plan, the perm would check any loss in
education.

Its predictable: we have a foreign policy topic.

It makes sense that the neg should be able to debate the


viability of foreign actors. Furthermore, the topic essay the framers put out specifically mentions
consultation CPs.

Not outside judges jurisdiction: The theory of opportunity cost, the US cant do it if another country
already did or will

Not the same as object fiat: we dont fiat the country causing your harms

Reciprocity: The aff defends one actor, so do we

Lit checks abuse: no one writes that Gary Coleman should do your plan

When in doubt, err neg: the aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last,
protect negative ground

Not a voter: rejection is the wrong remedy - drop the counterplan, not the team.

Potential abuse isnt a voter: theres no abuse in-round, meaning their theory argument is like
a disad with no impact.

International Fiat: Bad


Infinitely regressive: theres an infinite number of foreign actors no way could we ever be ready for
every country in the world.

Underlimits: international fiat massively expands the literature base to foreign actors there is a
distinguishable literature base that isolates USFG proposals as they relate to international relations and
alternative actor proposals as they relate to international relations, which explodes the literature base.

Object fiat: the neg justify object fiat they could just fiat our harms scenarios away.

Judge space interpretation: the judges role is as a policymaker of the USFG who is deciding whether or
not our plan should be passed. That means their CP is not action that can be taken. Our interpretation is best
for the following reasons:

a. Key to aff ground: the only way for the aff to respond to the resolution is if we assume the
judge is a member of the USFG. If the judge was an international actor, we wouldnt be US
action, and we would have no solvency.
b. Predictable limits: there is no counter-resolution so both teams should be restricted to
the resolutional actor. That prevents an explosion of counterplans through any hundreds of
nations, which the aff cant be ready to debate.
c. Relations DAs solve education: they allow us to explore the international implications
of our plan. The CP isnt necessary.
d. Mutually exclusive: the judge cannot simultaneously be a US and an international
policymaker. A choice must be made.

Reciprocity: we have to defend USFG action, so should you. Your interpretation justifies a slew of CPs, like
world government.

Utopian fiat: as a US policymaker, you dont have control of foreign actors.

Kills real world education: policymakers never suggest having another country do the plan. Debate
should be modeled after real-world policymaking, its the only type of education we can make use of outside
of debate.

Ethnocentrism: they want other nations to do the plan because of US politics. This treats other nations as
tools to do our work when we dont want to.

Doesnt negate the affirmative: just because country X could do the plan doesnt mean the US shouldnt.
Crushes all 2AC strategy and makes it impossible to be affirmative.

International fiat is a voter for fairness and education.

Consult CP: Legit


Education: we increase the breadth of education we shouldnt be ignorant of international politics and
interactions between nations.

Real world key to education: its the only thing that gets taken beyond each round
b. Education outweighs fairness: the rules were made to maximize education. If we find a
a.

way to increase education, we should restructure the rules.

Key to test the word resolved: this proves that consult CPs are both predictable and a critical
component of negative ground.

Counter-interpretation: Consult CPs are uniquely justified by the literature of the topic if we win that
our solvency advocate mandates the necessity for consultation, the CP is legit. This solves back any infinite
regression and education standards while capturing our grand and education standards.

No aff ground lost: Consultation gives them ground for solvency deficits, DAs, and impact turns to
relations they just have to research the consulted actor.

Research inevitable: We couldve just run a relations disad with the same actor.

Literature checks abuse: No authors advocate we consult Gary Coleman on public health assistance to
sub-Saharan Africa

No lost offense: the aff can always just use their case as offense against the CP.

Inherent time frame

solvency deficits as well as evidence that X will say no both function.

No moving target: we will always defend that X says yes and the CP solves all of the case.

Net benefit checks abuse: affs always have the option of impact turning the terminal impact (IE USJapan relations bad, etc.)

Literature limits: consult CPs are limited to countries that there is both evidence saying US consultation is
key and that outline that the country would care about the plan.

Not conditional fiat: We will always defend that we consult X over the affirmative plan, which gives the
aff stable ground to turn the CP.

When in doubt, err neg: the aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last,
protect negative ground

Not a voter: rejection is the wrong remedy - drop the counterplan, not the team.

Potential abuse isnt a voter: theres no abuse in-round, meaning their theory argument is like
a disad with no impact.

Consult CP: Bad


No predictability: negative teams could consult every country in the world. Theres no way the
affirmative could predict every possible actor.

Justify abuse:

Consultation CPs justify artifical net benefits that are not predictable. For example, they
could consult Japan and argue that consultation increases relations. This has nothing to do with the plan,
which means it is not in the scope of predictable affirmative research.

Justifies abusive plan spikes: if they can say do plan if consultation works then we should be able to
say do our plan pending whether the next budget has enough funding

Creates multiple worlds which is de facto conditionality: They can argue that actor saying yes
or no makes any number of amendments to the plan. This means that the affirmative has to debate in
infinite number of worlds which skews 1AR/2AC strategy. This also makes the CP a floating PIC which is bad,
because the affirmative can never know which parts of the plan the CP will exclude. They will argue this is
inevitable because it is a question of solvency but this doesnt answer our argument that the actual fiating of
the implementation of the plan is in jeopardy which eliminates our ability to read disads to the counterplan.

Time and strategy skew: They moot every second of the 1AC, we only get one constructive to generate
offense.

Future fiat illegit: This proves the CP is a delay and magnifies why consult CPs are bad the neg can nonunique DAs to the CP because its passed after consultation, later than the aff.

Modifications bad: Unpredictable standards for competition and no one has literature for solvency,
killing clash and educational debate.

Education: Consult CPs void the round of topic-specific education to debate non-germane net benefits from
thousands of potential actors.

Artificially competitive: the net benefit exists only because the CP was read, proving the CP itself
doesnt test op-cost of consultation.

Consult CPs are a voter for fairness and education.