1NC Its excludes Private Sector Interpretation: Its means all exploration and development must be done by the

federal government. Its is possessive English Grammar 5 (Glossary of English Grammar Terms, http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html) Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.) Violation: The Affirmative uses private companies to implement the plannot topical Private contractors are distinct from the federal government Barbier 7 (Carl, US District Judge, TIEN VAN COA, ET AL VERSUS GREGORY WILSON, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-7464 SECTION: J(1) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87653) However, in their motion to remand, Plaintiffs argue that as an independent contractor, P&J is not an employee of the federal government, and consequently does not enjoy derivative immunity and cannot invoke the FTCA. Plaintiffs cite United States v. New Mexico in support of the notion that private contractors, whether prime or subcontractors, are not government employees nor are they agents of the federal government. 455 U.S. 720, 102 S. Ct. 1373, 71 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1982). According to the Court, "[t]he congruence of professional interests between the contractors and the Federal Government is not complete" because "the contractors remained distinct entities pursuing private ends, and their actions remained [*4] commercial activities carried on for profit." Id. at 740; see alsoPowell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S. Ct. 755, 94 L. Ed. 1017 (1950). Standards: a. Limitsa strict interpretation of its prevents explosion of the topic. They would allow anyone working with the government, like China or Google, to be topical, which is unpredictable.

b. GroundPrivate actors and international organizations are CP ground. The aff doesnt test whether the USFG should implement or not. c. Extra-teven if they include things that the govt owns, they have other actors to put things in space. Voters for education and fairness. Multi-Actor Fiat Bad Strat Skew steals neg ground Education Multi Actor plans kill in depth education on the topic and force the debate to shift away from the resolution Unpredictable there are millions of actors that the negative could fiat in the round Fairness There are too many other actors that are out there to research that the negative could propose which is key to education

****Cadmium DA****

Cadmium 1NC (1/2) Government slashing solar energy now aff keeps robust solar production alive Samuelsohn and Goode 11 (Darren and Darren, POLITICO Writers, 6-19, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57322.html, accessed 6-26, JG) The budget-slashing mentality permeating the halls of Congress is forcing lawmakers and lobbyists to get creative when it comes to financing energy projects. The political viability of any one particular idea notwithstanding, the wheels are desperately turning, and members are throwing out a myriad of ideas new and old to see what might stick. If were not creative now, were headed towards a very rough patch, said Richard Kauffman, chairman of Levi Strauss & Co. and a participant in the nonprofit Coalition for Green Capital, a group of businesses, investors and attorneys that advocates investments in renewable energy and efficiency projects. Popular programs offering cash grants and loan guarantees to renewable and other advanced energy projects are set to expire this year, and other production and investment tax incentives for wind and solar may run out as well in the near term. These industries are going to need some type of continued assistance to help President Barack Obama keep his pledge to create and sustain hundreds of thousands of green jobs. Solar energy production uses toxic cadmium Flux Energy 11 (Flux Energy, Solar Industry, 06-08, http://sundial365.com/pdfs/EnvironmentalMyths_final.pdf, accessed 6-26-11, JG) Operators of solar installations are currently under fire to find ways to reverse the negative environmental impact their systems deliver. One issue of great concern is the production of PV panels utilizing the newer thin-film technology. Thinfilm technology reduces the amount of material required in creating a solar cell. Thus, it is quickly becoming a preferred manufacturing process due to cost, flexibility, lighter weight and ease of integration compared to wafer silicon cells. The thin-layer production of panels, however, involves the mining of rare earth minerals such as cadmium and selenium. These minerals are so rare that the yield per truckload of ore is very small, implying that many truckloads are required to feed the global need for these elements. As more and more solar installation operators elect to center their production on thinlayer PV elements, the industry will respond. As with many rare elements, when demand goes up, price goes up. These minerals also possess a level of toxicity that can be dangerous to the environment as well as to humans. They are considered hazardous materials. Assuming a 30- to 40-year life for most PV panels, there are grave concerns over the proper disposal of thin-film panels to keep these minerals from leaking into waste and water streams. Additionally, the mining processes for these elements are very invasive and pollutive. China is the primary global producer due to the lower standards for invasive mining. The mining of cadmium and other toxic elements is allowed in the U.S. as a by-product of other mining efforts such as the extraction of zinc. However, following in the standards set by the European Union to ban the use of some

of these elements from all products, regulations and cleanup mandates continue to limit the production of cadmium and other minerals in the U.S. The manufacturers of solar panels and other energy industry lobbyists continue to push for more relaxed regulations. While the production and disposal of thin-film PV panels is certainly one issue attracting a lot of environmentalist opposition in the industry, there are many others.

Cadmium 1NC (2/2) Cadmium can spread its toxics through global air currents UN 8 (United Nations Environment Program, http://www.chem.unep.ch/pb_and_cd/SR/Files/2008/UNEP_Cadmium_review_Inte rim-APPENDIX-MAR2008.pdf, accessed 6-26, JG) Some small portion of anthropogenic cadmium from North America has been noted in the Russian Arctic. Further, aerosol measurements in Taiwan show that a portion of airborne cadmium can be transported over a thousand kilometres from developing areas of China. Besides, some indication of cadmium potential to intercontinental transport can be obtained from measurements of stable isotope signatures of the airborne dust in combination with air-mass back trajectories. These measurements indicate the origin of dust particles transported by air masses, and provide evidence that aerosols are transported intercontinentally, as well as from industrialized regions to remote regions with few local emission sources such as the Arctic. As cadmium is transported in the atmosphere adhered to aerosol particles, these studies indicate that cadmium has a potential to be transported intercontinentally. Cadmium has a direct link to global warming Pinkham 93 (Sandra, Doctor @ Columbus, http://www.bodycenteredtherapies.com/pinkhammedical/documents/Scan_2a.pdf, accessed 626, JG) According to ''the precautionary principle,'' it is better to accept as true what cannot be perfectly proved, even though it might be wrong, if doing so can lead to actions which will protect our ecosystem. This paper uses this guideline to assess the effects of cadmium exposure and its toxicity. This highly toxic metal is apparently used by the cell in the stress response to get rid of damaged, virus-infected, and cancerous cells. Indiscriminant

exposure to global cadmium air pollution alters the cellular content of free cadmium ions and the minerals that antagonize its effects, affecting the response of cells, organs, and individuals to all other stimuli. Cadmium's effects at low dose are thus influenced by many factors, not just dose. These factors include age, gender, species, genetic factors, prior nutritional history and exposure to cadmium and other stressors, and current nutritional history and exposure to other stressors. Other toxic metals, organic compounds, biological pathogens and emotional stresses interact with cadmium to produce effects. Stress effects at a cellular level appear linked with current global problems affecting the environment, such as global warming, and human health effects, like the increase in disabling fatigue and infectious disease. Warming causes extinction Henderson 6 (Bill, Environmental Scientist, 8-19-06, http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm, accessed 6-25-11, JG) The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

****CO2 Famine DA****

Famine Shell (1/2) Plan decreases fossil fuel consumption, leads to global famine. Only continued carbon dioxide emissions solve. Idso et al 3 (Craig, PhD in geography @Arizona State, M.S. in Agronomy from U Nebraska, Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, CO2Science, April, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.php, 6-29-11, SRF) Over the last four decades of the 20th century, per capita world food production rose by approximately 25% (FAO, 2000). Nevertheless, as noted by Pretty et al. (2003), "food poverty persists." In fact, out of the six billion people currently inhabiting the planet, they say some 800 million lack adequate access to food. Writing as advocates for these undernourished individuals -- for whom more food would be a godsend -- Pretty et al. suggest there are "three strategic options for agricultural development if food supply is to be increased." The first of these options, in their words, is to "expand the area of agriculture, by converting new lands to agriculture." However, as they rightly note, this option results in "losses of ecosystem services from forests, grasslands and other areas of important biodiversity," as they are transferred from the realm of nature to the domain of man. Hence, this solution to the problem of world food security is untenable, unless, of course, we care nothing about maintaining what little of the natural world yet remains. The second of Pretty et al.'s strategic options is to "increase per hectare production in agricultural exporting countries," so as to not take additional land from nature to feed mankind. However, as they again rightly note, this option means that food "must be transferred or sold to those who need it." And those who need it, in the words of Pretty et al., are those "whose very poverty excludes these possibilities," in that they can't afford to pay for the food they need. We come, then, to the last of Pretty et al.'s three options, which is to "increase total farm productivity in developing countries which most need the food." This option is essentially the same as option two, only applied to parts of the world where farmers are constrained by their poverty to use "low cost and locally available technologies and inputs." The rest of Pretty et al.'s paper describes a number of well-conceived programs designed to achieve this goal and lists their successes to date. We describe another such program (perhaps we should call it a phenomenon) that was neither conceived nor planned by anyone, but which has also had many successes and is destined to have many more in the years and decades to come. The phenomenon to which we refer is the enriching of the air with carbon dioxide that has come about as a consequence of the development and progression of the Industrial Revolution. Because of the prodigious and ever-increasing quantities of CO2 that have been released to the atmosphere by the burning of the coal, gas and oil that has fueled this incredible human enterprise, the air's CO2 concentration has risen -- without any overt planning on the part of man -- from a pre-industrial value of approximately 275 ppm to a current concentration on the order of 375 ppm. What has this extra 100 ppm of CO2 done for us to date in the way of increasing farm productivity? In our Editorial of 11 July 2001, we describe experimental work based on the studies of Mayeux et al. (1997) and Idso and Idso (2000) that suggest its aerial fertilization effect has led to mean yield increases of

approximately 70% for C3 cereals, 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables. Although less than the 93% increase in per-hectare food production brought about by the many low-cost, low-tech projects assessed by Pretty et al., these historical CO2-induced yield increases have nevertheless been both substantial and important. What is more, they were totally unplanned by man, coming about solely as a result of humanity's flooding of the air with CO2. In addition, this unanticipated but welcome godsend is not just a relic of the past; for, if we will let it, it will grow even stronger in the years and decades ahead, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise.

Famine Shell (2/2) Security and environmental benefits of carbon dioxide outweigh warming. Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review) For the present, the direct effects of an increasing atmospheric CO2 on food production and the outputs of rangelands and forests are much more important than any effects thus far manifest for climate. A recent review of over 1,000 individual experiments with 475 plant crop varieties, published in 342 peer-reviewed scientific journals and authored by 454 scientists in 29 countries, has shown an average growth enhancement of 52% with a doubling of the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Yet some scientists, especially those with ecological orientations, take delight in glamorizing, along with a sympathetic press, the few exceptions which, in turn, become widely quoted in the scientific literature. These include tussock arctic tundra; some grasslands where undesirable species may, under restricted conditions, outgrow the more desirable; and in some ecosystems where competition among species may create a lack of balance. (See "Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants," CR, December 1992.) Globally, it is estimated the overall crop productivity has been already increased by 10% because of CO2 and may account for much of what has been attributed to the Green Revolution. Meanwhile, changes in climate in specific fields where crops actually grow and are culti-vated remain defiantly uncertain. Conversely, the effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity in large measure are positive and leave little doubt as to the benefits for global food security. With this note, it is a sad commentary that most of the current and modern textbooks on plant nutrition omit, inadvertently or otherwise, any mention of the role of carbon dioxide as a fertilizer or essential nutrient. This was true 35 years ago and remains so to this day. Textbooks still ignore the fact that different levels of CO2 may have pronounced effects on plant growth and may interrelate and complement various levels of other nutrients applied to crops in the rooting media. The complementary effects are also manifest with respect to water requirements and positive interrelations with temperature, light, and other atmospheric constraints. (See "Environmental 'Science' In The Classroom," CR, April 1997.) Today, in the greenhouses of the Westlands of Holland, where the first use of elevated levels of greenhouse carbon dioxide for enrichment of food crops occurred 40 years ago, there are glass green houses covering over 10,000 hectares. These are all enriched with atmospheric levels of 1,000 ppm of CO2 during daylight hours. This practice is followed during the entire year when crops are produced. Increases of marketable yields of tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers, eggplant, and ornamentals range between 20% to 40% with an annual return of $3 billion. There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The satellite data on global temperature changes are now in. There has been no appreciable warming. Accordingly, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 does not make the United States the world's worst polluter. It is the world's greatest benefactor. Unlike other natural resources (land,

water, energy) essential for food production, which are costly and progressively in shorter supply, the rising level of atmospheric CO2, is a universally free premium gaining in magnitude with time on which we can all reckon for the future. The effects of the increasing atmospheric level of CO2 on photosynthetic capacity for the enhancement of food production and the output of rangelands and forests, appear far more important than any detectable change in climate. Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also provide a cost-free environment for the conservation of water which is rapidly becoming another of the world's most limiting natural resources, the majority of which is now used for crop irrigation. ****Russian Oil DA****

Russian Oil 1NC (1/2) Oil prices rebounding driven by dollar and OPEC Amadeo 11 (Kimberly, M.S. @ Sloan School of Business, M.I.T., M.S. Planning @ Boston College, What Makes Oil Prices So High? 4-15-11, http://useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/p/high_oil_prices.htm, CT) Crude oil prices have been increasing steadily since February 2009, when prices dropped to $39 a barrel. Prices hovered at a comfortable $70-$80 a barrel until late 2010. In February 2011, oil prices broke $100 a barrel, creating fears of inflation. High oil prices translate to high gas prices. Petroleum is an ingredient in fertilizer. This, combined with higher transportation costs, increases food prices. The forces driving high oil prices are similar to what happened when oil hit an all-time high in 2008. Oil Prices Skyrocketed to $145 a Barrel: Oil prices hit an all-time high of $145 a barrel in July 2008. This drove gas prices to $4.00 a gallon. Most news sources blamed this on surging demand from China and India, combined with decreasing supply from Nigeria and Iraq oil fields. (Source: BBC, Oil Price May Hit $200 a Barrel, May 7, 2008) Supply and Demand Were Not Alone in Driving Up Oil Prices: Although these points were true, the price of oil was driven by much, much more than supply and demand. In fact, global demand was actually down and global supply up during that time. Oil consumption decreased from 86.66 million barrels per day (bpd) in the fourth quarter 2007 to 85.73 million bpd in the first quarter of 2008. At the same time, supply increased from 85.49 to 86.17 million bpd. According to the laws of supply and demand, prices should have decreased.Instead, they increased almost 25% - from $87.79 to $110.21 a barrel. (Source: EIA. See Google Spreadsheet) Why? Although the EIA pinned part of the blame on volatility in Venezuela and Nigeria, it warned of an influx of investment money into commodities markets. As investors retreated from the falling real estate and global stock markets, they diverting their funds to oil futures. This sudden surge drove up oil prices, creating a speculative bubble. (Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook) This bubble soon spread to other commodities. Investor funds swamped wheat, gold and other related futures markets. This speculation drove up food prices dramatically around the world. The result? Food riots in less-developed countries by people facing starvation. (Source: BBC News,Commodity Boom Continues to Roll, January 16, 2008; CNN, Riots, Instability Spread as Food Prices Skyrocket, February 18, 2008) High oil prices are also driven by a decline in the dollar. Most oil contracts around the world are traded in dollars. As a result, oil-exporting countries usually peg their currency to the dollar. When the dollar declines, so do their oil revenues, but their costs go up. Therefore, OPEC must raise the price of oil to maintain its profit margins and keep costs of imported goods constant. (Source: USA Today,Oil Briefly Spurts Near $104 per Barrel, March 3, 2008) Perception of large alternative energy projects cause reactionary drop in oil prices that damage profit

Baker 8 (David, Staff SF Chronicle, Feb.09 http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-1027/news/17137888_1_oil-prices-plunge-power-and-alternative-fuels-oil-costs AQB) This decade's historic high prices for oil and natural gas have stoked the rise of renewable power and alternative fuels. As fossil fuel prices smashed record after record, options like ethanol, hybrid electric cars, solar power and wind looked better and better. Now oil costs less than half what it did this summer. Ditto natural gas. If prices keep dropping and stay down, future fuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel will have a harder time competing. So will solar and wind power projects, which compete against power plants that burn natural gas. Public interest in alternative energy may dwindle as well. "The excitement has subsided in the last few months," said Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst with the Edward Jones investment company. "When oil comes down, there's still interest, but it's not as passionate. That's a potential risk." like a rerun of a movie they've already seen, one with an ugly ending. American interest in renewable power and alternative fuels swelled during the oil shocks of the 1970s, which exposed the country's deep dependence on imported petroleum. But after the price of oil hit a record high in 1981, it crashed and took the country's interest in alternatives with it. Alternative-energy entrepreneurs hope this time will be different. No matter how far oil drops, the fear of global warming won't go away, they say. That should keep both the public and the government interested in tapping energy sources that don't add to climate change.

Russian Oil 1NC (2/2) Oil price collapse causes collapse of the Russian economy Harding 8 (Luke, lead correspondent @ Guardian, Russia close to economic collapse as oil price falls, experts predict 20-11-08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/oil-russia-economy-putinmedvedev, CT) The collapse in the value of oil was likely to have several catastrophic consequences for Russia including a possible devaluation of the rouble and a severe drop in living standards next year, they warned. With oil prices tumbling, and his own credibility at stake, Russia's prime minister Vladimir Putin today insisted that the country's economy was still robust. Speaking at a meeting of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, Putin told delegates in Moscow the country would survive the current global financial turmoil which he blamed on the US. But the Kremlin is acutely aware that any loss of confidence in the Russian economy could lead to a loss of confidence in Putin and his ally Dmitry Medvedev, who took over from Putin as Russia's president in May. Medvedev's biggest initiative so far has been to float an extension in the presidential term from four to six years - a proposal that entrenches the current Kremlin's grip on power, and which Russia's loyal Duma is likely to approve on Saturday. Putin today said his administration would do everything it could to prevent a recurrence of Russia's last oil-related financial crash in 1998 - which saw the savings of many ordinary Russians wiped out. But the plummeting oil price leaves him little room for manoeuvre. Experts suggest that Russia's economy is now facing profound difficulties, despite two massive stabilisation funds accumulated during the booming oil years. The fall in oil prices from $147 this July to below $50 today has blown a gaping hole in the government's budget calculations. It is now facing a $150bn shortfall in its spending plans - and will have to slash expenditure in 2009. Today Putin sought to assure hard-up Russians that their social benefits would not be affected, promising a $20bn assistance package. "We will do everything, everything in our power ... so that the collapses of the past years should never be repeated," he said. The oil slump, however, exacerbates Russia's already severe economic problems. Since May Russian markets have lost 70% of their value. Russia's central bank, meanwhile, has been spent $57.5bn in two months trying to prop up the country's ailing currency. "If the current trend continues with the government supporting the rouble, oil prices falling and a slowing economy we are going to have a major crisis," said Chris Weafer, an analyst with the Moscow brokerage Uralsib. Russian economic decline causes nuclear war Filger 9 (Sheldon, Staff Huffington http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356 AQB) In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nations history,

are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russias economic crisis will endanger the nations political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obamas national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nations nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.

****Saudi Arabia DA****

Saudi Arabia Oil 1NC (1/2) A shift to renewable energies would devastate Saudi Arabia's economy - it's vulnerable and not diverse. Singh 11 (Timon, MENA Magazine Issue 4, " The Middle East: Renewable energy friendly?" http://www.menainfra.com/article/middle-east-renewable-energy/, AD 7/7/11) AV It is hardly surprising, after all apart from Russia, the Kingdom is the world's leading oil producer, so embracing renewable energy would almost be detrimental to Saudi Arabia's economy. However while Russia has said that dependency on its energy exports is 'humiliating' and have striven to diversify, Saudi Arabia have stood firm. Riyadh have recently stated plans to spend US$170 billion over the next five years on energy and oil refining efforts confirming thoughts that they aren't treating renewable energy as a serious investment, despite green technologies doing well in terms of market shares. Saudi Aramco, the country's state-owned oil company, has even been quoted as saying it is "unrealistic" for Saudi Arabia to invest heavily into alternative energy sources when its 'cash cow' is essentially its oil wealth. While the Kingdom may have made halfhearted efforts to embrace renewable technology such as cursory investment in bio fuels and electric vehicles, it is still very much placing all its eggs in one basket. Speaking to Oilprice.com, Eurasia Group energy analyst Will Pearson argued this could prove to be a mistake for Saudi Arabia. Acknowledging that people are going to be dependant on the oil industry for transport for a while, Pearson said that Saudi Arabia was wasting its potential to become a major solar player saying the kingdom had not made "too much concrete progress so far." In fact, he went so far as to say that without a "huge, revolution[ary], game-changing technology," an abrupt shift in Saudi Arabia's "fuel mix" is doubtful. That collapses the current Saudi regime and results in a coup Bucholz 97 (Jennifer, University of Michigan graduate, " Saudi Arabia as a Potential Rogue State/ ." June, http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~rtanter/S97PS472_Papers/BUCHOLZ.JENNIFER.SAUDI.HTM L, AD 7/7/11) AV All famous revolutions have a leader who becomes the embodiment of the revolutionary movement. For the French he was Robespierre or Danton, for the Americans he was Washington, for the Iranians he was Khomeni. Who will it be for the Saudis? As of yet, no one. There are many possible leaders: the six thousand princes, the religious leaders within and outside the regime. But none has yet emerged as The One. Also, there must be a spark to start the revolutionary coup in motion. This is typically a national crisis or hardship, or else a very blatantly unacceptable act on the part of the old regime. For the Saudis, still highly dependent on the ebb and flow of the world oil market, a catastrophe on the world oil market could be that spark. The lifting of international sanctions on Iraq and subsequent crash in oil prices or the end of Saudi oil reserves, concurrent with continued dissatisfaction of the Saudis with their government, would

spell the end of the current regime. A quote by an astute American reporter on the Saudi situation quite accurately relates the tale of the Saudi future: "Riyadh will be able to keep a lid on an increasingly tense and uneasy society. But if something happens to break that bubble, the odds would shift." (52).

Saudi Arabia Oil 1NC (2/2) A Coup allows for the escalation of a Middle East nuclear arms race Markey 8 (Edward, Wall Street Journal, " Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?" June 10th, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, AD 7/7/11) AV Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions. Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology. Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants. Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran. The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that two can play the nuclear game. In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense. The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia." That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the

Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging to U.S. security. We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatile region of the world. While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race . That escalates and guarantees extinction. Cirincione 7 (Joseph, Director of Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress, "Apocalypse When?," November 12th, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15998, AD 7/7/11) AV Third is the risk of new nuclear nations. I agree with Mueller that the danger here is not that Iran or North Korea would use a nuclear bomb against America or their neighbors. Deterrence is alive and well; they know what would happen next. Nor is it that these states would intentionally give a weapon they worked so hard to make to a terrorist group they could not control. Rather it is the risk of what could happen in the neighborhood: a nuclear reaction chain where states feel they must match each other's nuclear capability. Just such a reaction is underway already in the Middle East, as over a dozen Muslim nations suddenly declared interest in starting nuclearpower programs. This is not about energy; it is a nuclear hedge against Iran. It could lead tp a Middle East with not one nuclear-weapons state, Israel, but four or five. That is a recipe for nuclear war.

****Russian Relations DA****

Russian Relations 1NC (1/3) US-Russian relations are high Burns 2/10/11 (William J Burns is a Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Moscow, Russia http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2011/156449.htm, TDA) I am very pleased to be back in Moscow. This is a moment of great promise in relations between Russia and the United States. In the two years since our two presidents launched the reset, weve made significant progress. Weve ratified the New START agreement; completed the 123 Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation; deepened our cooperation on Afghanistan; worked closely together on nonproliferation issues, especially on Iran and North Korea; strengthened our partnerships on counternarcotics and counterterrorism; and established the Bilateral Presidential Commission to intensify ties not just between our governments but between our societies, on issues ranging from energy efficiency to health and youth and sports exchanges. (and) Trade and investment are also increasing in both directions. And recent public opinion polling suggests that more than 60% of Russians today have a favorable view of the United States, which is more than two times what it was two years ago. There are similar trends in the United States in attitudes toward Russia. The challenge before us today, and the central purpose of my visit, is how to build on this momentum, to move beyond the reset, to widen and deepen our cooperation in a range of areas, but particularly in the economic area. I met, over the course of the last couple of days, with a number of senior government officials in the Kremlin, the White House, and the Foreign Ministry. Ive also met with political reform, civil society, and business leaders. I emphasized the very high priority that President Obama attaches to doing everything the United States can to help Russia achieve accession to the World Trade Organization and graduation from Jackson-Vanik this year, in 2011. I also highlighted the value for both of us in building genuine cooperation on missile defense. Both of our presidents have stressed the importance for Russias future of transparent, accountable, democratic government. Thats not easy. As many Russians know far better than I do, the truth is that there are problems and abuses in the path of that progress, whether its pervasive corruption; the unsolved murders of journalists like Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya; attacks on human rights activists; and the selective application of justice. Its deeply in the interest of Russia, in our view, to address those challenges, and its certainly deeply in the interest of the United States to do everything we can to support economic and political modernization in Russia. What I would say overall is that weve come a very long way together over the last two years, and I think a great deal more can be accomplished in 2011 and beyond.

Russian Relations 1NC (2/3) Space underlies ALL other aspects of cooperation the plan crushes relations Logsdon and Millar 01 [February 2001, John, Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington, and James, emeritus professor of economics and international affairs at George Washington University, U.S. -Russian Cooperation in Human Space Flight Assessing the Impacts, Space Policy Institute and Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies Elliott School of International Affairs The George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/usrussia.pdf DH] Yet, to one participant, "If nothing else, good relations in the area of space policy help provide us with a cushion when they are failing in other areas. . . . Moscows military as well as its space program are in very dire straits. Both would seem to be close to cardiac arrest. Having said that, I think our interactions with the Russians in both of these areas are critical to our future bilateral relationship. It would be easy to dismiss the Russians as serious players given their internal situation- an attitude often heard around Washington. To a large degree, we have to carry the ball for them. . . . So why should we continue to pick up the tab? Why should the American taxpayer continue to subsidize the Russian space program - or our military to military contacts? It seems to me that there are two answers to this question. First, when it comes to the space program we are dealing with a very high visibility program. If we ignore the Russian space program, we run the risk of wounding their pride in a very serious way. They don?t need to be told that they are down and out. They know it better than we do. My experience with Russians tells me that they are experts when it comes to knowing the extent of their technological inferiority vis-a-vis the West - or put differently, just how far they are behind us. But by keeping them involved in the space program we are at least giving them a psychological fig leaf." This participant noted that "the more ties we can develop with the Russians in sensitive areas like space and the military the better off our overall relationship will be. . . . It is also worth noting that we have a unique, and even unparalleled opportunity. Both the Russian military and space programs will shortly be forced to undergo some major reforms. It is clear to everyone - and especially the Russian professionals for whom I have developed considerable respect over the years - that something must be done. And it is not just a question of money, although that is critical. Putin is addressing this issue in the military area right now. It is only a matter of time before the space programs undergo the same process. The closer our ties are to these two critical institutions the better will be our chances of impacting on the evolution of these structures. I am not suggesting that either the Russian military or space program will mirror what we have in this country. Both will be Russian and carry an indelible Russian trade-mark. Nevertheless, I think we would be silly to underestimate the impact these two programs will have on our bilateral relations." He concluded that "further development of our bilateral space and military to military relations is a win-win process." Another reason for continuing cooperation was suggested: "it is important for U.S. decisionmakers to recognize that even the short-term cutoff of ISS cooperation could have severe costs, undermining changes that have not yet become consolidated and incurring other risks. . . . It can be argued convincingly that U.S. withdrawal of support or conditioning of funding for cooperative space projects on the proliferation-related behavior of other

Russian entities not involved in the project but under some form of state control (as some critics have suggested) would be counterproductive to U.S. policy aims. Specifically, not engaging these Russian companies would greatly exacerbate proliferation problems (by reversing market forces that make the United States their currently preferred partner), cause the ISS to suffer scientifically (from the loss of Russia's considerable experience and expertise in manned space flight), and remove one of the few positive signs of long-term cooperation in the current U.S.-Russian relationship (which has suffered greatly in the past two years due to NATO expansion, U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and U.S. national missile defense tests and attempts to revise the ABM Treaty). Alienating firms currently involved in cooperative projects may push Russian space know-how into the willing arms of India or China, possibly encouraging the formation of new alliances in space activities. Thus, while enterprises directly involved in the ISS should be held to a very high nonproliferation standard, the United States should exercise restraint in considering blanket sanctions that punish innocent as well as guilty enterprises, just because both are nominally under Russian state control.

Russian Relations 1NC (3/3) Relations solve miscalc and nuclear war Gottemoeller 8 (Rose Gottemoeller was appointed Director of carnegie moscow center in January 2006. formerly, Gottemoeller was a senior associate at the carnegie endowment, where she held a joint appointment with the Russian and eurasian Program and the Global Policy Program. a specialist on defense and nuclear issues in Russia and the other former soviet states, Gottemoellers research at the endowment focused on issues of nuclear security and stability, nonproliferation, and arms control, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States, Russia-US Security Relations after Georgia available at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia .pdf) No holds barred, no rulesthe United States and Russia may be heading to a confrontation more unpredictable and dangerous than any we have seen since the Cuban missile crisis. A confrontation today would be differentthe two countries are in constant and intense communication, unlike the situation in 1962but if those exchanges provoke mutual anger and recrimination, they have the potential to spark a dangerous crisis. This effect is especially dangerous because both countries are in presidential transitions. Russia, whose government is riven by corruption, internal competition, and disorder, is attempting an unprecedented tandem leadership arrangement. The United States is in the midst of its quadrennial election season, with both political parties competing to show that their man is more skilled and tough on national security issues than his opponent. The unpredictability of these two transitions stokes the potential for misunderstanding and descent into crisis. We must avoid such a crisis, because we have never succeeded in escaping the nuclear existential threat that we each pose to the other. We never even came close to transforming the U.S. Russian relationship into one that is closer to that which the United States has with the United Kingdom or France. What if Russia had refused to confirm or deny that no nuclear weapons were on the bombers it flew to Venezuela? Our nuclear weapons are still faced off to launch on warning of an attack, and in a no-holds-barred confrontation between us, we could come close to nuclear catastrophe before we knew it. What next? Is it possible to outrun confrontation and return to a pragmatic working relationship in pursuit of mutual interests? Clearly the answer should be yes, if the Russian Federation completely withdraws its troops from Georgian territory according to the SarkozyMedvedev plan. But, following Russias recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, that process may take months and perhaps years. Some Russian commentators have been arguing that a relevant time frame to consider is how long Cyprus has been the site of an unresolved territorial dispute between Turkey and Greece: nearly thirty years. In the meantime, the United States and Russia have about six months of intense political transition to get through, until the new U.S. president settles into place. This begs for a short-term modus vivendi that would enable the two countries to avoid a potential crisis and establish an agenda to confront some of the severe

problems that have emerged in their relationship. Ultimately, the United States and Russia should want to re-create a book of rules that both will embrace, corresponding to international law and in fact strengthening it. Seize the Superstructure The first step in this process, and the best way to begin it, is to grab onto the existing superstructure of the U.S.Russia relationship. This is the system of established and well-understood treaties, agreements, and arrangements that has been built up over time. Beginning in the 1950s, many efforts have been made to insert predictability and mutual confidence into the relationship in the form of both bilateral and multilateral arrangements. For the next six months, both governments need to take advantage of this established and well understood system. Derided in recent years as a Cold War relic not worthy of the friendship the two countries had developed, it could now be a lifeline.