You are on page 1of 64

LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__

Team Sparta Stacy

Index 1

Russia 1nc 2-5

Middle East 6-8

Venezuela 9-10

Nigeria 11-12

Canada/Mexico 13-14

Uniqueness Ext 15-17

Link Ext 18-21

Internal Link Ext 22-24

Impact Ext 25-31

Aff Answers 32-58


Non-U

Link Turns

Impact Defense

No Link

1
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Russia Module
A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currently
imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the number
is not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly
for its dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its
latest issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily
top US$400 billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW.
Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million
barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd
of imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic
crude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport
fuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in
2008.
The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90
per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil
began, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong
or stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced
volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices
and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners
require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix
are likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,
according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the Middle
East" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge and
rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.
Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third of
crude imports.

B) Link: Cross-Supply the Aff advantage evidence that indicates that


Alternative Energy Incentives would decrease U.S. dependence on oil.

2
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

C) Internal Link: Russia dependent on U.S. oil imports

Max Jakobson, 2004 (THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION PLENARY MEETING WARSAW,


RUSSIA AND THE TRILATERAL COUNTRIES, RESTORING RUSSIA AS A GREAT POWER,
ttp://www.trilateral.org/AnnMtgs/PROGRAMS/warsawpdf_folder/jakobson_russia_power.pdf)

we have to take into account the key


When we judge the Russian economy,
importance of oil. Part of Russian export earnings is very much
dependent on oil exports, oil products, oil and gas. More than 50% of
export earnings are derived from oil and about 20% of minerals and
raw materials, which leaves a very small part of exports for industrial
products. These are revealing figures because we can see how totally
dependent the Russian economy today is on the price of oil. The price of oil
has gone up and up in recent years but I suppose one day there may be a stop. And I am reminded of what
happened in the 1970s, when the oil price was suddenly raised very high and the consequences in the
Soviet Union were far reaching. It was believed that the Soviet Union was becoming an important
economic power, which was a total illusion and led to a standstill by the end of the 70s. I am not saying
that this is necessarily being
repeated now, but certainly the importance of oil is decisive.

3
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

D) Impact: Russian econ collapse causes escalatory nuclear war

David '99 (STEVEN R. DAVID is a Professor of Political Science at The Johns


Hopkins University. "Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars." Foreign Affairs
January, 1999 / February, 1999.)

AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloody
conflict than it is today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of
problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union
operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party.
Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable
to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government must
prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance.
But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the
most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look to
the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care,
or even electrical power. In the place of government authority, criminal groups --
the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapse
of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability to govern
coherently raises the specter of civil unrest.

If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime


cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society
where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in
1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-
two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a
month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it
is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's
cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and
where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an
American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive
devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is
even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic
Russian people will soon run out of patience.

A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days
civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party
out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile
foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military
commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous
low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical
care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split
between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk
that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of
soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties
between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow

4
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages.
Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the
armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and
Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support.

Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the
Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to
erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a
system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself
unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the
periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive
to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of
them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to
sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may
motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt
against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence
throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with
force, civil war is likely.

Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United
States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though
in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian
Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China.
Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed
struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the
fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment
of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even
worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the
privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another
horrific regime.

Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia
could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has
ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim
consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons
and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered
throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of
any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak
grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a
wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear
weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is
hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that
would follow a Russian civil war

5
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Middle East Module


Saudi and Iran

A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currently


imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the number
is not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly for its
dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its latest
issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily top US$400
billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW. Last year, PIW
reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million barrels per day of crude oil
imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd of imported oil products.
This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic crude production continuing
to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport fuels remaining strong, and oil prices
around 30% higher year-on-year so far in 2008.
The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90 per
barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil began,
US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong or stronger
than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced volumes. While oil
demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices and greater fuel
efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners require and the
emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix are likely to keep
upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable, according to PIW. Although
"energy security" and "dependency on the Middle East" get the attention in the American
national debate over oil imports, huge and rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate
economic significance, PIW says. Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico
account for about one third of crude imports.

Link: Cross-supply the Aff evidence that indicates U.S. oil


dependence will decrease as a result of plan.

6
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

B) Internal Link: US decrease in oil dependence leads to


Middle East producers alignment with China and get
WMDs

GAL LUFT October 20, 2005 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTORINSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY (IAGS)CO-CHAIRSET
AMERICA FREE COALITIONPresented beforeSENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTHASIAN
AFFAIRS <http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2005/LuftTestimony051020.pdf>)
The Middle East is gradually shifting from being a unipolar region in which the U.S. enjoys uncontested hegemony to
a multipolar region. The U.S. will face more competition from China and India over access to Middle East oil. Throughout its history, the Middle East
has been the center of an imperial tug of war with major implications for the region’s inhabitants. This was the case during the Cold War years. In the
decade after the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. enjoyed uncontested hegemony in a unipolar Middle East. The
rise of China and
India is driving the Middle East back to multipolarity. In thecoming years the Middle East will turn increasingly to
Asia to market its oil and gas. By 2015 it will provide 70% of Asia’s oil. By far the most important growth market for countries
like Iran and Saudi Arabia is China. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal rate, China is today the world’s second largest
oil consumer and is becoming heavily dependent on imported oil. By
2030 China is expected to import as much oil
as America does today. To fuel its growing economy China is following America’s footsteps, subjugating its foreign policy to its energy
needs. China attempts to gain a foothold in the Middle East and build up long-term strategic
links with countries with which the U.S. is at odds like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Though some optimists think
that China’s pursuit of energy could present an opportunity to enhance cooperation, integration and interdependence with the U.S., there are ample
signs that China and the U.S. are already on a collision course over oil. This will have profound implications for the
future and stability of the Middle East and for America’s posture in the region. For China the biggest prize in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, home of
a quarter of the world’s reserves. Since 9/11, a deep tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the Chinese with an opportunity to win the heart of
the House of Saud. The Saudis fear that if their citizens again perpetrate a terror attack in the U.S., there would be no
alternative for the U.S. but to terminate its long-standing commitment to the monarchy — and perhaps
even use military force against it. The Saudis realize that to forestall such a scenario they can no longer rely solely on the U.S. to
defend the regime and must diversify their security portfolio. In their search for a new patron, they might find China
the most fitting and willing candidate. China has also set its sights on Iran. Last year China and Iran entered a $70 billion
natural gasdeal that Beijing sees as critical to continued economic expansion. China has already announced that it will block any effort to impose
sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. No doubt that as China’s oil demand grows so will its involvement in Middle East politics. China
is likely to provide not only a diplomatic support but also weapons, including assistance in the development of WMD. In sum, the
prospect of a region, scarred by decades of rivalries, turning once again into an arena of competition between two or more of the major powers could
well be one of the most important geo-strategic developments of the 21-Century, with profound implications for U.S. national security

7
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

C) Impact:
1) The Middle East will use WMD’s for terrorism

Gilmore in 2003 (Gerry J. [Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
addresses National Defense University Class of 2003 graduates at a June 10 ceremony at Fort
McNair, Washington, D.C. Photo by Sgt. Linda Tsang, USA]. American Forces Press Service
“War on Terrorism Is 'Toughest Challenge' Yet, Myers Says”,
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28884)

The war against global terrorism continues, Myers pointed out, noting, "there are still terrorists out
there who want to do us harm."

Terrorists, the general emphasized, "will use violence against the innocent." In recent weeks, he
pointed out, more than 50 people, including Muslims, Christians and Jews were killed in terror
attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Israel.

U.S. and coalition forces have achieved significant victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet it is
paramount, Myers emphasized, "that we don't let our successes lull us into a sense of
complacency." He emphasized that "the war on terrorism is far from over."

Another modern-day threat to global security involves the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the general remarked, noting that some countries with WMD programs "would let these
weapons fall into the hands of terrorists."

Civilized nations of the world "simply cannot afford to let this happen," the JCS chairman said.
Enemies of peace, he continued, would likely use WMDs to kill innocent civilians, destabilize the
global economy, or simply for blackmail.

2) Terrorism sucks balls. It threatens survival as we know it


Alexander 03(Yonah, Director of Inter-University Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, August 28, 2003.
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983842&highlight=Alexander )

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically
that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and
implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United
States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather
than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on
September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists
striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel
and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism
triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack
at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked
cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries
affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are
many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's
expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double
standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist
propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have
introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The
internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we

8
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and
cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

9
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Venezuela Module
A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currently
imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the number
is not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly
for its dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its
latest issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily
top US$400 billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW.
Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million
barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd
of imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic
crude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport
fuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in
2008.
The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90
per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil
began, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong
or stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced
volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices
and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners
require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix
are likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,
according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the Middle
East" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge and
rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.
Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third of
crude imports.

B) Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they would decrease U.S. oil
dependence

10
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

C) Internal Link: Venezuelan economy is strongly dependent on oil


exports

CEPMLP Annual Review 2001


(http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/car/html/car5arti6.htm)

The oil industry is a very capital intensive one, involving big projects with heavy
investment in fixed assets. The profitability of any oil project is highly dependent on the
market price. Oil prices have proved to be very volatile and subject not only to market forces but also to political, climatic and
environmental factors, among other. As a consequence, companies find themselves in the need to protect against the risk of fluctuating
oil prices. One way of achieving this objective is by means of integration, where risks are spread over several sectors of the industry,
and the potential losses in one stage of the chain can be overlapped by gains in the others. This is a risk management decision known
as diversification.

As stated previously, Venezuelan economy is strongly dependent on oil exports to the


United States, which represent an important percentage of its total exports, as well as of
the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Hence, its economy in general can be impacted by
volatile oil prices. According to the company's directives, PDVSA's integrationist
strategy provides an element of security of supply for consuming countries while
ensuring market outlet for the producing countries (in this case, Venezuela).

D) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts and


extinction

Bearden 00 T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), ["The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final

economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and
number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic
suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown
for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception

The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
of preparations by one's adversary.

coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD
exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are

already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.

11
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Nigeria Module
A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currently
imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the number
is not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly
for its dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its
latest issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily
top US$400 billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW.
Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million
barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd
of imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic
crude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport
fuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in
2008.
The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90
per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil
began, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong
or stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced
volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices
and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners
require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix
are likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,
according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the Middle
East" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge and
rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.
Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third of
crude imports.

B) Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they would


decrease U.S. oil dependence

12
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

C) Internal Link: U.S. Oil imports Is 80% Of Nigeria’s Economy

Fawole, William 2006 (The Politics of Oil, Plunder and Poverty in Nigeria, http://www.cpsa-
acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdf)

Oil has generated great national wealth for the Nigeria state. Petro-dollars assured
Nigeria’s global prominence as Africa’s largest – and the world’s eleventh largest –
oil-producer. The Nigerian economy is heavily-dependent on oil exports and foreign
personnel and technology for oil extraction. Oil accounts for some 80% of all
government revenues. Despite its enormous oil-wealth, some 70% of the population live in poverty. Since 9/11 the
United States has characterized African oil as of ‘national security interest’. It is
estimated that by 2015 some 25 percent of US oil will come from Africa, primarily from Nigeria and
Angola, followed by Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo-Brazzaville. Instead of creating national social well being, the petro-dollar
windfalls have sealed Nigeria’s fate as a ‘conquered state’, subjugated by civilian and military elites, and administered to satisfy the
prebendal obsessions of its domestic conquerors, as well as the interests of the world’s largest multinational oil companies including
Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell, Elf, Agip and ConocoPhillips. Post-colonial elites, both civilian and military, have plundered the
national wealth for personal aggrandizement. Corruption and impunity became hallmarks of politics and governance dominated by
these elites and their trans-national oil alliances. This paper will do three interrelated things: first, it will interrogate the political
economy of oil in Nigeria; second it will examine the unholy alliance between national civilian-military elites and trans-national actors
in pillaging Nigeria’s oil-wealth; and, third, it will examine the implications of these dynamics for social well being in Nigeria’s oil-
communities.

D) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts and extinction

Bearden 00 T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), ["The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]

desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final


History bears out that

economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and
number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic
suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown
for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception

The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
of preparations by one's adversary.

coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD
exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are

already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.

13
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Canada/Mexico Module
A) Uniqueness and Link: The United States is highly dependent and
currently imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the
number is not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly
for its dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its
latest issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily
top US$400 billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW.
Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million
barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd
of imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic
crude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport
fuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in
2008.
The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90
per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil
began, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong
or stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced
volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices
and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners
require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix
are likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,
according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the Middle
East" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge and
rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.
Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third
of crude imports.

B) Internal Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they


would decrease U.S. oil dependence

14
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

C) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts and


extinction

Bearden 00 T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), ["The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final

economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and
number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic
suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate
responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown
for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception

The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
of preparations by one's adversary.

coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD
exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are

already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.

15
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Uniqueness Extensions

Uniqueness : The US’s Oil Supply for the Future

Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center for
Policy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,
July 14, 2006)

The United States needs oil and natural gas. Oil is fuel and a feedstock for plastics,
pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and lubricants. Natural gas is used for cooking, heating homes
and water, and is also critical to chemical manufacturing. The best estimates indicate that
by 2025 U.S. oil consumption will grow by one-third — even with the rise of renewable
biofuels — and electricity demand will increase by more than 45 percent, with natural
gas fueling much of the new electric power generation. Where will Americans find the
additional oil and gas they need? Much of it lies under the deep waters of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Only politics prevents the development of decades’ worth of oil and
gas supplies. The Problem of Oil. Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, the United
States has become dependent upon foreign nations for a majority of its oil. Many of these oil-rich
countries are either politically unstable, have governments hostile to U.S. interests or have
economies that are mostly unfree, meaning political calculations rather than market demand
dictate the pace of exploration and development.

16
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Uniqueness: The U.S. continues to be dependent on Saudi oil and our


dependency isn’t going to go away soon.

Evans-Pritchard 08
(Ambrose, Intl Business Editor of The Daily Telegraph. Also wrote for The Economist and Spectator. May 19.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml? view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/05/15/bcnoil115.xml )

When President George Bush went to see Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in January to
plead for higher oil output, he was politely rebuffed.

The rematch today is likely to be a great deal more strained.

If the Saudis deny help once again, they risk incalculable damage to their strategic alliance with
Washington. The price of crude has rocketed by over $30 a barrel since that last fruitless meeting, briefly
touching the once unthinkable level of $127.

Goldman Sachs fears a "super-spike" to $200 a barrel this year.

Asked what he would tell King Abdullah this time, Mr Bush said caustically: "the price is even higher."

The US-Saudi tango has been on thin ice ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Sixteen of the hijackers
were Saudi nationals. The Bush family has cleaved closely to the Saudi monarchy, but strong
factions in Washington see Riyadh's Wahabi monarchy as part of the Mid-East problem--
not the solution.

Saudi Arabia's one saving grace -- in the eyes of US critics -- is that it has over the years been
willing to cap extreme surges in the price of oil, deploying its power as the world's swing
producer. This time Riyadh is giving no ground.

Oil minister Ali al-Naimi insists that there is plenty of oil about, blaming the latest spike on "the internal
logic of the financial markets", meaning hedge funds and speculators. The US Congress gave its riposte this
week.

17
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Right now, the U.S. is desperately dependent on foreign oil. It creates various
problems, as far as foreign policy goes.

David L. Greene, Engineering Science and Technology Division, ORNL. 2005. “Oil Dependency High Now: U.S.
Oil Dpendence” http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article04.shtml

U.S. oil imports are at an all-time high, accounting for approximately 57% of domestic
consumption. Americans today import some 12 million barrels per day at a cost that in
2004 skyrocketed above $50 a barrel.
ORNL researchers have made important contributions to understanding and addressing the challenge of oil
dependence.
Imported crude oil as a percent of U.S. consumption.
Using a scientific approach to define the problem, the researchers have advised the Department of Energy on the
appropriate size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contributed to National Academy of Sciences studies of the
potential to increase vehicle fuel economy, and produced comprehensive estimates of the costs of oil consumption.
America's growing dependence on foreign oil represents an interrelated combination of
factors that together create economic, political, and security problems of the highest
order. Oil supply is increasingly determined by a small number of nations that wield a near monopoly over world
production. An insatiable demand, driven in part by the robust growth of Asian economies,
makes American industry and consumers even more vulnerable to the recent shock of
higher oil prices. Whether America can remove this vulnerability will depend on substantially reducing the
volume of oil imported and consumed, an ambitious goal tied directly to making available affordable and practical
petroleum substitutes.
After oil prices fell from $40/bbl in 1985 to $20/bbl in 1986, many analysts predicted the end of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). By 1995, some were confident that the problem of oil dependence was a short-
term anomaly.
ORNL researchers disagreed. A three-parameter equation published in 1992 by Heinrich von Stackelberg cautioned
that a producer's ability to influence prices depends on: 1) market share, 2) the responsiveness of demand to price and,
3) other producers' ability to increase supply when prices rise.
The report suggested that the market's ability to respond to oil prices in the short run (1-2 years) is about one-tenth of a
long-run capability. OPEC could double, triple, even quadruple prices for 24 months but could not sustain such high
prices for an extended period. Absent events such as military conflict, OPEC's only recourse to sustaining historically
high oil prices is to cut production. Cutting production, however, would mean a loss of market share and thereby a loss
of market power.
From 1979 to 1985 OPEC's share of the world oil market shrank from 50% to 30% as members (especially Saudi
Arabia) continuously cut production to maintain high prices. But loss of market share did not alter the fact that OPEC
members held 75% of the world's proven reserves and approximately 55% of the ultimate resources of conventional oil.
Unless world oil demand could be curbed or economical substitutes to oil quickly developed, OPEC would inevitably
regain lost market share. In 1999-2000, with help from Russia, Norway, and Mexico, OPEC engineered a doubling of
world oil prices.
\In a 1995 ORNL report, "The Outlook for U.S. Oil Dependence," Don Jones, Paul Leiby, and I simulated the impact of
a two-year supply shock similar to those that occurred in 1973-74 and 1979-80, but starting in 2005 and ending in
2006. The model predicted that the shock would cause oil prices to jump from $20/bbl in 2004 to $50/bbl in 2005,
costing the U.S. economy an estimated half a trillion dollars.
If the U.S. thirst for oil continues unabated, Americans increasingly will be forced to
extract petroleum from unconventional sources. Oil sands and heavy oils are already in the early stages of
exploitation in Canada and Venezuela. Continued demand will lead to oil shale, coal, or methane for liquid fuels. Such
a path might allow OPEC to remain the lowest cost producer of oil and to sustain for several decades the capacity to
supply a third or more of the world market.
The world could, of course, pursue a different path leading to low-carbon energy sources or even hydrogen fuel.
Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to direct future energy transitions on the scale required for a global economy.
Developing the right technologies is a critical but probably insufficient solution. These technologies would need to be
accompanied by a fundamental rethinking, on an international level, of how we acquire, distribute, and use our planet's
energy resources.—David L. Greene, Engineering Science and Technology Division, ORNL.

18
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Link Extensions

Lifting Prohibitions on Oil Exploration would Reduce Vulnerability


Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center for
Policy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,
July 14, 2006)
U.S. Energy: Vulnerable to Nature. U.S. energy problems are compounded by the
vulnerability of our domestic oil and natural gas supplies to nature’s whims. Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita highlighted the fact that from an energy perspective, Americans have
put too many eggs in one very fragile basket — the Gulf of Mexico. Each year energy
prices spike out of fear that the ports, refineries, pipelines and offshore drilling platforms
in the Gulf of Mexico will be damaged during the hurricane season. Unfortunately,
successive Congresses and administrations have banned new production off most of the
U.S. coast. As a result: The storm-ridden Gulf of Mexico is the source of nearly 30
percent of the oil and 20 percent of the natural gas produced off U.S. shores. One reason
for high fuel prices is that facilities that produce or transport 21 percent of the Gulf’s oil
and 13 percent of its natural gas are still closed due to damage during the 2005 hurricane
season. Improving Energy Security: Opening the OCS. Much of America’s remaining
large deposits of oil and natural gas lie offshore. Unfortunately, other than portions of
the Gulf of Mexico, coastal areas are off-limits to new oil and gas exploration and
production due to various federal moratoria. Lifting these prohibitions would be one of
the most effective actions Congress could take to ensure long-term economic growth
while also decreasing America’s vulnerability to foreign powers. The Interior
Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) has estimated that the OCS
contains:

19
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Offshore Drilling and Pipelines are Environmentally Sound compared


to Tankers
Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center for
Policy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,
July 14, 2006)
Offshore Environmental Concerns. Federal moratoria were put in place due to
environmental concerns. Offshore natural gas production has never harmed U.S.
coastlines, but offshore oil platforms have occasionally spilled or leaked substantial
amounts of crude oil. However, technology has improved greatly since the earliest
platforms were built. As proof, very little oil spilled into the Gulf after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. Although the storms destroyed 111 production platforms and seriously
damaged another 52 platforms and 457 pipelines, the MMS found only six hurricane-
related oil spills of at least 1,000 barrels — none of which damaged shores or wildlife.
Since platforms and pipelines are less prone to spills than tankers, increasing the amount
of oil produced in the OCS and delivered through pipelines to shore could be
environmentally beneficial. The amount of oil spilled from all sources has decreased
dramatically in recent years; however, since 1991, tankers have still spilled three times as
much oil as offshore platforms and more than twice as much as pipelines. Furthermore,
when tankers leak, run aground or founder and sink, they tend to do so in port or near
shore, resulting in more severe environmental damage. Of all the sources of petroleum
released into the ocean, offshore platforms have less frequent spills and leak less oil than
any other. Indeed, for the past 20 years, less than 1/1,000th of one percent of the oil
produced in U.S. state or federal waters has spilled.

20
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

The US Needs to Act on Offshore Drilling Now


Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center for
Policy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,
July 14, 2006)
Congressional Action on the OCS. Accordingly, Congress and the president should
allow new offshore exploration and production. Indeed, the United States is the only
industrialized country with substantial coastlines not actively seeking new offshore oil
and gas deposits. Canada and even economically-backward Cuba are moving forward
with plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters. Since pools of oil do
not respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba will
be accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and benefit Americans. Currently,
production in the OCS is a net loser for coastal states. The federal government receives
all of the royalties, leases and taxes, while states bear most of the risks. If spills occur,
the states lose tourist revenues and their coastal environments suffer. However, in the
face of high gasoline and electricity prices, consumer demand for action appears to be
forcing Congress’s hand. A bill that passed the U. S. House of Representatives on June
29, 2006, would end the federal moratoria on new drilling — at least with state buy-in.
The bill: Lifts all leasing bans beyond 100 miles from state shores; Allows leasing
between 50 miles and 100 miles of state shores, unless a state acts to block such leases,
and allows the question of leasing in those areas to be revisited every five years; and
permanently bans exploration and production within 50 miles of state shores unless a
state chooses to opt-out of the restriction. States that choose to allow drilling off their
shores would share the revenue with the federal government. Initially, coastal states
would get 25 percent of the proceeds. Beginning in 2010, however, their share of
revenue would increase 5 percent per year, but never exceed 75 percent. At first, some
states will likely continue to ban oil and gas production off their coasts. However,
legislators in those states will have to explain their decision to their constituents the next
time their economy falters, state budgets are tight and cuts in programs are made, while
the coffers of states that allowed drilling are full.

21
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

ENERGY POLICIES HAVE CONTINUED AMERICA'S RELIANCE ON FOSSIL


FUELS, WORSENING GLOBAL WARMING

Congressional Documents and Publications May 5, 2008(SECTION: U.S. SENATE


DOCUMENTS, LENGTH: 2198 word, SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, Bush Republican
Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security)

2005 Energy Bill Gave Billions in Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Industry. "On the eve of
the 35th anniversary of the first Earth Day, the House of Representatives has passed
a grossly porkified energy bill that doles out billions in subsidies to fossil-fuel
industries, shortchanges alternative energy and efficiency initiatives, and indemnifies makers of the gasoline additive
MTBE against liability for groundwater contamination. And this time the bill may actually have a chance of passing in the
Senate, perhaps as early as next month, after years of stalemate." [Salon.com, 4/22/05]

Union of Concerned Scientists Estimated Burning of Fossil Fuels Produces 75


Percent of Annual CO2 Emissions from Human Activities. "The scientific consensus is in. Our
planet is warming, and we are helping make it happen by adding more heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), to
the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas) alone accounts for about 75 percent of annual CO2
emissions from human activities. Deforestation-the cutting and burning of forests that trap and store carbon-accounts for about
another 20 percent." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 9/30/05]

"The UN's Nobel-


IPCC Warned Consequences of Global Warming Could Be Far-Reaching and Irreversible.
winning panel on climate change on Friday completed a draft report that said the
consequences of global warming could be far-reaching and irreversible. The report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global-warming issue, with the goal
of guiding policymakers for the next five years. Human activities 'could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and
impacts,' the agreed text said." [Agence France-Presse, 11/16/07]

*IPCC Report Warned All Countries Would Be Affected, Producing Drought, Cyclones and Sea Levels That Could Cause
rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges
Flooding, Hunger and Water Shortages. "Heatwaves,
in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more
widespread and/or more intense this century. As a result, water shortages, hunger,
flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat. 'All cuntries' will be affected, says
the IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creating
the problem." [Agence France-Presse, 11/16/07]

Military Experts Warn Projected Climate Change Poses a Serious Threat To


America's National Security. "Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include extreme
weather events, drought, flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts,
and the increased spread of life-threatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disrupt
our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure." [Military Advisory Board, "National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change," 4/07]

Military Experts Predict Climate Change Will Act as Multiplier for Instability in
Most Volatile Regions of the World. "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for
instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will
seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing
widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile
areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large

22
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

populations move in search of resources." [Military Advisory Board, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,"
4/07]

23
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Internal Link Extensions

China and India economy depends on oil growth

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

My job, as the President of the country, is to put pro-growth policies in place. But we're
dependent upon oil, and
so as our economy grows, it's going to create more demand for oil -- same with China,
same with India, same with other growing countries. It should be obvious to you all that the demand is
outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up. And it's making it harder here in America for working families to save, and for
farmers to be prosperous, and for small businesses to grow.

Big Oil key to Econ

Copley News Service May 23, 2008 ( Friday 2:45 PM EST BYLINE: Malcolm Berko,
SECTION: TAKING STOCK,LENGTH: 906 words, Grain for oil? Chew it over)

Dear W.C.: In the 1960s, Big Oil had accumulated mountains of debt, earnings were generally
weak and the future looked barren with oil trading at $5 and $6 a barrel. So the Energy Crisis of 1971-72
was a warning shot across the bow that Congress, for reasons that may be criminally suspect, blithely chose to ignore.

As the U.S. trudged through a painful recession, the price of crude tripled while Big
Oil raped the consumer and produced record profits. Then in 1981, we had our Second
Energy Crisis. The cover of National Geographic portrayed an oil derrick beneath a
headline that screamed: "Oil at $100 a Barrel Possible." Oil tripled again to $50-$60 a
barrel and while Congress twiddled its thumbs, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. ransomed their oil to Americans,
reported obscene profits and the economy tanked into the great recession of 1981-1982.

The Third Energy Crisis began in 1991 as a result of the Persian Gulf War. Big Oil cozened
record profits from the crisis while our representatives sat in their Congressional
"snivel" chairs and the economy writhed through another recession.

And it happened again in 2007: oil at $125 a barrel, gas at $4 a gallon, Big Oil's enormous
profits sucked the consumer dry and the economy may be sinking into its most
severe recession since the Great Depression.

Four major energy crises and Congress has done nothing in the last 37 years to reduce our oil dependency. It's enough to convince
Rep. Edward Markey,
folks that most members of Congress and Big Oil are joined at the lips and hips. And when
chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence, was forced to admit
that "Exxon-Mobile is resisting the renewable energy revolution,"

24
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Bush Republican Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security


Congressional Documents and Publications May 5, 2008(SECTION: U.S. SENATE
DOCUMENTS, LENGTH: 2198 word, SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, Bush Republican
Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security)

Seven years of Bush Republican policy failures have weakened America's energy
security. America's dependence on oil undermines our national security interests by
funding terrorism and hostile nations, as well as limiting America's strategic options. America's
economy is so dependent on oil - and our energy infrastructure is so vulnerable to
natural disasters and attacks - that high prices and other crises can cripple our nation.
But the biggest threat to America's energy security is our continued reliance on fossil
fuels, which contributes overwhelmingly to man-made global warming. President

Bush

and his allies in Congress have had seven years to strengthen America's energy
security, but have done just the opposite. Democrats believe we must invest in alternative energy in order
to end our dependence on oil, stem the tide of global warming and strengthen America's energy security.

In this document:

1.America's dependence on oil undermines its national security interests.

2.The American economy is dependent on oil, making it vulnerable to high prices.

3.America's oil supply is not secure - vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorist
attacks.

's energy policies have continued America's reliance on fossil fuels, worsening global warming.

25
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

AMERICA'S DEPENDENCE ON OIL UNDERMINES ITS NATIONAL


SECURITY INTERESTS

Congressional Documents and Publications May 5, 2008(SECTION: U.S. SENATE


DOCUMENTS, LENGTH: 2198 word, SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, Bush Republican
Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security)

Dependence on Foreign Oil Compromises U.S. National Security. "Since 2001,


America's dependency on foreign oil has steadily increased even as the cost of oil has
more than doubled.[America is] compromising its foreign policy objectives by funding unstable or hostile regimes in oil
rich regions that threaten its national security." [Center for American Progress, Energy Security in the 21st Century, 7/2006]

U.S. Oil Dependence Finances Terror. American oil dependence enriches countries
such as Saudi Arabia which harbor charities, nongovernmental organizations,
mosques, and banks that have funded terrorist groups around the world. Former CIA
director James Woolsey described the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism and Islamist
extremism as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are
flourishing." [Institute for the Analysis of Global Security]

Dependence on Global Oil Supply Limits Strategic Options. "All consuming


countries, including the United States, are more constrained in dealing with
producing states when oil markets are tight. To cite one current example, concern about losing
Iran's 2.5 million barrels per day of world oil exports will cause importing states to
be reluctant to take action against Iran's nuclear program." [Council on Foreign Relations, National
Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, 10/12/06]

Hostile Nations Are Enriched by Flood of Oil Revenue from Sales to America. "The
control over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose U.S. interests and
values.Iran proceeds with a program that appears to be headed toward acquiring a
nuclear weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western attitudes as it has
moved to authoritarian policies in part because huge revenues from oil and gas
exports are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has the
resources from its oil exports to invite realignment in Latin American political
relationships and to fund changes such as Argentina's exit from its International
Monetary Fund (IMF) standby agreement and Bolivia's recent decision to nationalize
its oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer
countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our
national security." [National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, 10/12/06]Revenue from Oil Sales to
America Has Been Used to Undermine Local Governance and Promote Instability. "Revenues from oil and gas exports can
undermine local governance. The United States has an interest in promoting good governance both for its own sake and
because it encourages investment that can increase the level and security of supply. States that are politically unstable and
poorly governed often struggle with the task of responsibly managing the large revenues that come from their oil and gas
exports. The elements of good governance include democratic accountability, low corruption, and fiscal transparency.
Production in fragile democracies, such as in Nigeria, can be undermined when
politicians or local warlords focus on ways to seize oil and gas rents rather than on
the longer-term task of governance. Totalitarian governments that have control over

26
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

those revenue flows can entrench their rule." [National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,
10/12/06]

27
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Impact Extensions

Impacts
Oil Exports Three-Fourths of the Venezuelan Economy.
Advameg. 2007 (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Venezuela-ECONOMY.html)

During the colonial era and until the development of petroleum resources, the export of coffee and cocoa and the raising
of cattle and goats provided the main supports for the economy. However, agriculture now accounts for only about 5% of
the GDP.
For over 40 years the economy has been completely dominated by the
petroleum industry; in the mid-1980s, oil exports accounted for 90% of all export
value, and in 2002 petroleum accounted for over one-third of the GDP, three-
fourths of export revenues and half of government revenues. The Venezuelan
economy is therefore greatly influenced by petroleum market conditions and
Venezuela through its membership in OPEC has exercised influence on the rest of the world. The
Venezuelan oil minister is reputed to be one of the principle architects of the first oil shock in 1973, and in 1999,
Venezuela's decision to cut production to halt the continuing slide in oil prices led the way to their recovery in 2000 and
after. The second most important mineral product is iron, and Venezuela's mineral wealth is augmented by frequent
discoveries of additional reserves. Industrial development is fostered by government policy.

28
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil’s importance to Venezuela


Stephen J. Kay and Myriam Quispe-Agnoli 02 (Atlanta Fed’s Latin America Research Grou,
http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=1B0BDCE0-904D-43E4-BF7E42DC3F12D06F&method=display)

Latin America’s oil economy and volatile oil prices have varying
impacts on the region’s economies. High oil prices help large producers
like Venezuela and Ecuador that rely on exports for fiscal revenue and
foreign exchange. For the net oil-importing countries of Brazil, Peru and Chile, the price of oil is a
key determinant of inflation, the cost of production, the trade balance and the strength of the currency.
Oil prices today are extremely volatile, and sharp fluctuations in oil prices contribute to macroeconomic
volatility in the region. Over the past 20 years, oil prices have been more volatile than the prices of other
commodities like raw agricultural products, ores and metals. The impact of this volatility varies according
to a country’s relative dependence on oil production and exports.

Using Nonrenewable Resources Causes our Civilization to Collapse


Heinburg in 2004 (Richard, publisher the Museletter and teaches at New College in
Santa Rosa, California, US Conference on Peak Oil: November 12-14, 2004)
Societies become complex in order to solve their problems. We adopted agriculture to
make up for the caloric deficit consequent upon our overhunting of megafauna during the
late Pleistocene. We irrigated so that we could practice agriculture in seasonally arid
places. We built social hierarchies to allocate irrigation allowances from a single river to
hundreds or thousands of individual farmers, or to store and distribute grain from
seasonally abundant harvests. At first, such investments in social and technological
complexity may yield dizzying returns, and societies that make them often grow quickly
and tend to overpower their neighbors. An empire may develop, and may persist for
centuries or even millennia. But the strategy of social complexification imposes hidden
costs that gradually build up. The support population eventually tires under the burden.
Once the point of declining returns is reached, almost anything can push a society into
decline. Climate change and other environmental disasters sometimes play a role.
Typically, civilizations that are near their point of collapse become involved in wars over
resources, and they are often plagued by poor leadership that is unable to understand the
nature of the challenge or to propose effective responses.
Does any of this sound familiar? Surely a civilization whose entire basis rests upon the
extraction and use—and thus the depletion—of a few nonrenewable resources is the most
vulnerable sort of civilization that has ever existed.

29
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Impact : Collapse is Inevitable if a Society uses Resources


Unsustainably
Heinberg in 2007 ( Richard, MuseLetter #178, Five Axioms of Sustainability, Feburary
2007)
1. (Tainter’s Axiom): Any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably will
collapse. Exception: A society can avoid collapse by finding replacement resources. Limit to
the exception: In a finite world, the number of possible replacements is also finite.
Discussion: I have named this axiom for Joseph Tainter, author of the classic study, The
Collapse of Complex Societies, which demonstrates that collapse is a frequent if not
universal fate of complex societies, and argues that collapse is directly related to
declining returns on efforts to support growing levels of societal complexity with energy
harvested from the environment. Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose
to Fail or Succeed similarly makes the argument that collapse is the common destiny of
societies that ignore resource constraints. This axiom defines sustainability by the
consequences of its absence, i.e., collapse. Tainter defines collapse as a reduction in
social complexity—i.e., a contraction of society in terms of its population size, the
sophistication of its technologies, the consumption rates of its people, and the diversity of
its specialized social roles. Often, historically, collapse has meant a precipitous decline in
population brought about by social chaos, warfare, disease, or famine. However, collapse can
also occur more gradually over a period of many decades or even several centuries. There is also
the theoretical possibility that a society could choose to collapse (i.e., reduce its
complexity) in a controlled as well as gradual manner. While it could be argued that a
society can choose to change rather than collapse, the only choices that would substantively affect
the outcome would be either to cease using critical resources unsustainably or to find alternative
resources. A society that uses resources sustainably may collapse for other reasons, some beyond
the society’s control (as a result of an overwhelming natural disaster, or of conquest by
another, more militarily formidable and aggressive society, to name just two of many
possibilities), so it cannot be said that a sustainable society is immune to collapse unless many
more conditions for sustainability are specified. This first axiom focuses on resource
consumption because that is a decisive, quantifiable, and, in principle, controllable
determinant of a society’s long-term survival. The question of what constitutes
sustainable or unsustainable use of resources is addressed in axioms 3 and 4. Critical
resources are ones essential to the maintenance of life and basic social functions—
including (but not necessarily limited to) water and the resources necessary to produce
food and usable energy. The Exception and Limit to the Exception address the common
argument of free-market economists that resources are infinitely substitutable, and that
therefore modern market-driven societies need never face a depletion-led collapse, even
if their consumption rates continue to escalate. In some instances, substitutes for
resources become readily available and are even superior, as was the case in the mid-19th
century when kerosene from petroleum was substituted for whale oil as a fuel for lamps.
In other cases, substitutes are inferior (as is the case with tar sands as a substitute for
conventional petroleum, given that tar sands are less energy-dense, require more energy

30
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

input for processing, and produce more carbon emissions). As time goes on, societies will
tend first to exhaust substitutes that are superior and easy to get at, then those that are
equivalent, and increasingly will have to rely on ever more inferior substitutes to replace
depleting resources—unless rates of consumption are held in check (see Axioms 2–4).

31
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

A Middle East Cutoff of Oil Would Be Suicidal


Francis in 2006 (David R., Why Iran oil cutoff could be suicidal, March 27, 2006)
For Iran, the use of its own oil as a bargaining chip has limited value. Iran gets 90 percent of its
government revenues from oil. Its exports of about 2.5 million b.p.d. amount to 80 percent of its
total exports. Oil provides some 40 percent of Iran's gross domestic product. Yet Iran is the only
major producer of oil to suffer from a budget deficit. The Iranian public, notes Alhajji, is
heavily dependent on government subsidies for staple goods and fuels. From 1980 to 2005,
Iran's population grew by 22.4 million and now stands at 68 million. Its daily oil output during
that period rose by only 600,000 barrels. So a cut in oil exports by Iran would be risky at home.
"If they are willing to commit suicide, they could do it," says Alhajji. The blow to the US would
not be so severe. Hurricane Katrina shut off 1.5 million b.p.d. from the Gulf of Mexico, but oil
prices rose only $10 a barrel. Any Iranian embargo could be countered by more exports from
other OPEC nations and tapping the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Alhajji says an Iranian
embargo might raise crude prices initially by $20 a barrel before they fell back toward $60. The
result would be an energy crisis in Iran, which depends substantially on imported gasoline from
Europe, but not a worldwide threat, predicts Alhajji. Last week the American Petroleum
Institute said US commercial crude oil reserves in February were the highest since May 1999.
That sounds reassuring. But Alhajji notes those record oil reserves would cover only three days
of imports.

Arab oil Provides better future

Paulson 08 (june 2) States news service

Surging oil revenues have led to a massive accumulation of capital in the Gulf of
arab in a very short time. To put this in context, GCC countries will provide about 18
percent of global capital exports in 2008 -- more than double their share just five
years ago.

The upside of this oil wealth is that the Gulf countries have an historic opportunity to
shore up their economic fundamentals, diversify their economies and make needed
investments in human capital -- steps that should help avoid the boom and bust
cycles of the past and support broad based growth. Many of the region's leaders are
embracing this opportunity by paying down debt, setting aside wealth for future
generations, increasing health and education spending, and improving the
environment for foreign and domestic private investment.

32
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Chinese dependency means they support oppressive


regimes, causing conflict with the US
Chietigj Bajpaee 10 March 2006 (Power and Interest News Reports)
For example, the visit by Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz to China in January was the first by a Saudi monarch to China. This visit demonstrated
the deepening relationship between the world's fastest growing source of oil demand (China) and the world's biggest oil supplier (Saudi Arabia). Since
2002, Saudi
oil shipments to the U.S. have been declining while shipments have been
increasing to China. Indeed, last year Saudi Arabia was China's leading source of oil imports.
China has secured numerous energy exploration agreements with the Saudi government. For example, Sinopec has won the right to explore for
natural gas in Saudi Arabia's al-Khali Basin, while Saudi Arabia has agreed to assist China in the development of its strategic petroleum reserves and
to upgrade China's downstream refinery capacity as demonstrated by the construction of a refinery for natural gas in Fujian Province.

Sino-Saudi relations extend beyond the energy sphere. Both countries maintain close relations with Pakistan, and China has sold Saudi Arabia CSS-2
"East Wind" intermediate range ballistic missiles. Saudi Arabia has also emerged as China's leading trade partner in the region with Sino-Saudi trade
amounting to US$14bn in 2005.
A similar deepening of relations can be seen in the case of Sino-Iranian relations. While China abstained in the vote to refer Iran's nuclear
ambitions to the United Nations Security Council at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) in January 2006, it still
maintains strong relations with Iran. When the Iran issue will be discussed at the U.N. Security Council, China could employ a
similar tactic to what it employed over the issue of Sudan, which is also a significant oil supplier to China; in 2004, the U.N. Security
Council was forced to water down a resolution condemning atrocities in the Darfur region
to avoid a Chinese veto.
China's relations with Iran, while rooted in centuries of history from the "Silk Road" and the voyages of Zheng He, have recently blossomed as a result
of China's growing energy needs. China has signed a US$100bn deal with Iran to import 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas over a 25-year period
in exchange for a Chinese stake of 50 percent in the development of the Yadavaran oil field in Iran. China has also expressed a desire in direct
pipeline access to Iran via Kazakhstan.
Relations in the economic sphere have also continued to blossom as bilateral trade reached US$9.5bn in 2005, fueled by growing Chinese investment
in Iran's infrastructure. Iran has also been drawn into China's sphere of influence by its observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Given the ongoing frictions between Iran and the West, Sino-Iranian relations are also a source of potential friction for Sino-U.S. relations. For
example, while China has voiced its commitment to the non-proliferation regime, Chinese companies have been the subject of numerous sanctions for
the transfer of ballistic missile technologies to Iran. Since the mid-1980s, China has sold Iran anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Silkworm (HY-2),
the C-801, and the C-802.
While gaining access to the region's vast energy resources is China's primary motivation for deepening relations with the region, there are a number
of other factors driving China's Middle East policy. Since the Middle East is the ideological center of the Islamic world, China has attempted to
maintain good relations with the Arab world in order to get their support on the Uighur insurgency in Xinjiang Province and maintain amicable relations
with the 55 million Muslims residing in China.
While China's main efforts in preventing external actors from fueling the Uighur insurgency have focused on Central and South Asian states, countries
in the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also had an important role to play in quelling the insurgency given their moral and
material support. Most notably, Wahabbi Islam, which is an export from Saudi Arabia, has played a significant role in the rise of extremist,
fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics on China's western borders.
In order to garner the goodwill of the region, Beijing has made numerous symbolic gestures. For example, in September 2002 Beijing appointed its
first Middle East peace envoy. While this has had little significance for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it has, nevertheless, demonstrated
China's increasing attention to the region.
Similarly, while China has maintained a low-profile in the U.S. intervention in Iraq, in May 2004 China submitted a document to the U.N. Security
Council proposing that U.S.-led forces withdraw from Iraq. China has also consistently called for a larger U.N. role in Iraq. China is deepening its
economic cooperation with the region through the China-Arab Cooperation Forum and the Framework Agreement between China and the Gulf
Cooperation Council, which includes negotiations for a free trade zone.
While China has maintained a historically close relationship with the Arab world, including sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, it has nevertheless
also pursued an increasingly close relationship with Israel in recent years. Israel is one of only a handful of countries that has never granted diplomatic
recognition to Taiwan. In recent years, Sino-Israeli relations have been fueled by China's growing dependence on Israel for arms imports and
upgrades, particularly hard-to-find U.S.-made weapons platforms. Israel is now China's second largest supplier of weaponry after Russia. Most
notably, Israel has sold China "Harpy" anti-radar drones and Python-3 air-to-air missiles.
Nevertheless, there are limits to Sino-Israeli relations given the close relationship between Israel and the United States as evinced by Israel's decision
(under U.S. pressure) to cancel the sale of the Phalcon airborne early-warning radar system to China in July 2000 and its decision not to upgrade
harpy drones for China in 2004. [See: "Return of the Red Card: Israel-China-U.S. Triangle"]
Potential for China-U.S. Rivalry
While China and the United States are not engaged in an overt competition in the
Middle East, it is not difficult to envision that the region
could emerge as the stage for future Sino-U.S. rivalry. Not only are the United States and China dependent on
energy resources from the Middle East, but both states offer competing models for international conduct,
with the Chinese model becoming increasingly popular in the region.

While the United States has become more willing to engage in humanitarian intervention,
preemptive action and regime change, with the Middle East emerging as the most likely
candidate for the U.S. to practice these policies, China retains a preference for a traditional
Westphalian-style of conducting international relations with emphasis on non-intervention, state sovereignty and
territorial integrity.

33
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Impact : A Middle East oil embargo would be ineffective,


and hurt the producer more than the consumer.
Dependency ensures global influence

Shikha Dalmia May 5, 2006 (Senior Analyst with Reason Foundation, http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml)
As the nuclear stand-off with Iran helped push oil prices to near-record levels, President Bush once again declared, "Dependency on oil creates an
economic problem for us, and it creates a national security problem for us."
But if Iran's behavior makes the case for anything at all, it is that America
should become more – not less – "dependent"
on foreign oil. In fact, the best way for America to defuse the so-called Middle Eastern oil weapon is by purchasing even more oil from the
region.
The economic case for energy independence has always been nonsensical. It
is not possible to shield American consumers
from rising prices at the pump simply by replacing foreign oil with domestic oil. Why? Because regardless of where the oil
is produced – Oman or Oklahoma – its prices are set by the global market.
The global demand for oil and its ease of transportation have synchronized oil prices everywhere. Therefore, unless compelled by draconian
government mandates, no American company that can command $3 a gallon in Oman would sell it for much less in Oklahoma. If war prevents Middle
Eastern oil from reaching its global customers, the incentive for American companies to sell U.S. oil overseas would be even greater given the higher
prices that it would fetch. War or peace, no amount of domestic production will give us "independence" from the law of supply and demand.
But if domestic production won't ensure access to cheap oil, some believe that it will at least shield us from the kind of geo-political manipulation that
Arab countries attempted during the 1973 oil embargo. That, however, is also a myth.
For starters, OPEC -- the Arab-dominated cartel of oil producing nations – did not succeed in its manipulation even then. It
lifted the embargo in less than two months, once it became clear that while its members were giving up oil revenues, its
oil was still reaching the United States because of diverted shipments from Europe. There
was some diminution of oil supply in the United States, but not nearly enough to do any serious damage to the American
economy.
The long lines outside gas stations that Americans associate with the embargo resulted more from panic buying and domestic oil price controls rather
than lost Arab oil, notes M.A. Adelman, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
But if
all OPEC countries together couldn't pull off their political blackmail, a rogue regime
acting alone will surely not succeed.
Saudi Arabia's experience in 1980 demonstrates why. The country elected to play the role of OPEC's "swing producer," unilaterally limiting its oil
production in order to boost world oil prices. It expected that higher oil prices would compensate it for lower oil sales.
But Saudi Arabia was forced to abandon its policy in a few years as other OPEC members bumped up their production on the sly and pushed its
exports to nearly zero. Since then, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that it would never again unilaterally cut output.
The lesson of Saudi Arabia's experience – oil
sales that one producer foregoes will quickly be captured by
others – is not lost even on regimes such as Iran, especially now when there are more oil suppliers than ever before.
Given Iran's defiant mood and tension with the U.S. and Europe over its nuclear program, one would have thought that this would be a perfect
moment for its hot-headed president to further escalate – if not act on – his threat to cut off Iran's oil exports to the West and shut down oil shipments
through the Straits of Hormuz.
But beneath all of Iran's saber-rattling and its threat to retaliate against Israel in the event of a U.S. attack, it realizes
how suicidal
such a move would be. During a recent OPEC meeting, Karem Vaziri Hamaneh, Iran's oil minister, went out of his way to reassure the
world that Iran had no intention of disrupting the oil market. "The need of the world for energy is soaring and, if Iran is taken out of the equation, prices
will shoot up," he told the Wall Street Journal. "But we don't want to cause hardship for any consumers around the world."
Vaziri's concern is not so much for the world's oil consumers, of course, as for the economic consequences for his own country. The Iranian
government depends on oil exports for nearly half of its total revenues. If it cuts these exports, buyers could go to other suppliers. But there is not
much else that Iran could sell to other countries to replace its lost oil revenues.
Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is only the flip side of their dependence on our purchases. But given the narrow base of Middle Eastern
economies, the
power in the relationship is firmly on the side of the oil buyers. If that
relationship were to end because of "energy independence," we would give up crucial
leverage to control the worst behavior of some of the world's worst regimes. Of course, this
leverage is no magic wand that would protect us from a totally irrational regime willing to absorb the economic cost of using the oil weapon. But the
more oil we get from such a regime, the higher the price it would have to pay.

34
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Aff Answers
Non Unique: Addiction going down

The Frontrunner May 20, 2008 Tuesday


Bush Signs Bill Suspending Oil Reserve Additions

On its front page, the Financial Times (5/20, Hoyos) reports, "The US is starting to
break its 'addiction' to foreign oil as high prices, more efficient cars, and the use of
ethanol significantly cut the share of its oil imports for the first time since 1977. The
country's foreign oil dependency is expected to fall from 60 per cent to 50 per cent in
2015, before rising again slightly to 54 per cent in 2030, according to the head of the
Department of Energy's statistical arm." US net imports "are expected to fall
between now and 2030, ending what has been an almost relentless 30-year climb in
the use of foreign oil and a fall in domestic production. In 2006, George W. Bush
said in his State of the Union speech that America was 'addicted to oil' ? often
imported from unstable parts of the world ? and said he would work to address the
issue. ... The US decline in foreign oil dependency is already becoming more visible,
with imports making up 57.9 per cent in the first three months of this year, down
from 58.2 last year."

Turn: Oil dependency leads to mercy of terrorists

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

The dependency upon oil also puts us at the mercy of terrorists. If there's tight supply and
demand, all it requires is one terrorist disruption of oil and that price goes even higher. It's in
our interests to end our dependency on oil because it -- that dependency presents a challenge
to our national security. In 1985, 20 percent of America's oil came from abroad. Today
that number is nearly 60 percent.

Now, all the countries we import from are friendly, stable countries; but some countries we get oil from don't particularly like us.
They don't like the form of government that we embrace. They don't believe in the same freedoms we believe in, and that's a
problem from a national security perspective, for the United
States and any other nation that values its
economic sovereignty and national sovereignty.

And finally,
our dependence on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to our
environment. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased
substantially. We recognize all three of these challenges, and we're doing something about it.

35
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Economic Collapse not Bad


Heinburg in 2004 (Richard, publisher the Museletter and teaches at New College in
Santa Rosa, California, US Conference on Peak Oil: November 12-14, 2004)
Most scientists I know who study these things have come to the conclusion that we are
living at the end of the current empire, the first truly global empire in the history of our
species. By “end” I don’t mean that the whole thing will come crashing down tomorrow
or next year. Historically, collapses have usually occurred over a period of decades or
centuries. In our case the signs of diminishing returns, and of overextension, are already
unmistakable. And, perverse as the comment may seem, I don’t think collapse, in this
instance, would necessarily be such a bad thing. As Tainter points out, collapse really just
means a return to the normal pattern of human life—life, that is, in tribes or villages;
small communities, if you will. Collapse is an economizing process in which a society
reverts to a level of complexity that is capable of being sustained. This is all so easy to
understand from an academically detached perspective. But of course we are not Martian
anthropologists observing the events through a telescope; we are talking about the
circumstances of our lives.

U.S Intervention Against Iranian Nuclear Weapons Threatens Oil Security


Francis in 2006 (David R., Why Iran oil cutoff could be suicidal, March 27, 2006)
Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States, Europe, and other nations has led to considerable
speculation of $100-per-barrel oil and $4-per-gallon gasoline in the US. Such high prices might
kick off a worldwide energy crisis and recession.
The West already suspects that Iran's uranium enrichment program is a cover for bombmaking.
To try to put a stop to it, the United Nations Security Council could impose sanctions, or even
riskier, the US or Israel might attempt to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities with an air or missile
strike. In retaliation, Iran could act against its own best economic interests and slash oil
exports. Last September, the head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that "any
sanction against Iran" could push the price of oil to $100 a barrel. "It would be easy to see oil
trading at $100 a barrel," says Milton Ezrati, an economist with Lord Abbett, a mutual-fund
company in Jersey City, N.J. But if oil traders view the action by Iran as merely a short-lived
"diplomatic stunt," he says, oil would rapidly head back toward today's $62 a barrel price.Mr.
Ezrati warns that a long-term action would cause energy prices to soar. That would set back the
incipient recoveries in Europe and Japan and seriously slow the US economy as well.

36
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

The End of Oil Could Provide New Opportunities


Heinburg in 2004 (Richard, publisher the Museletter and teaches at New College in
Santa Rosa, California, US Conference on Peak Oil: November 12-14, 2004)
Sustainable. Unsustainable. What do these words really mean? Perhaps peak oil at last
provides the word sustainability with teeth. People now speak of “sustainable
development,” “sustainable growth,” and “sustainable returns on investment.” That, my
friends, is sustainability lite. The word has been diluted and denatured almost beyond
recognition. An understanding of peak oil provides us with a minimum definition of the
word: can we do this, whatever it is we’re talking about, without fossil fuels? If we can,
then it just might be a sustainable activity or process. There’s no guarantee: there are a lot
of human activities that don’t involve fossil fuels and that are not sustainable—like large-
scale whaling with sailing ships, or intensive irrigation agriculture in soil that isn’t
properly drained. But if you can’t do it without fossil fuels, by definition, it ain’t
sustainable. And that includes most of what we do in North America these days. What we
here are saying is that a transition to a lower level of social-technological complexity
need not be violent, need not be chaotic, and need not entail the loss of the values and
cultural achievements of which we are most proud as a society. And the end result could
be far more humane, enjoyable, and satisfying than life currently is for citizens of this
grandest of empires.

Best thing possible for us, is to end foreign oil consumption


Kevin Drum December 17, 2007 washingtonmonthly.com
Mike Huckabee told Katie Couric that we ought to be "free of energy consumption in this country within
a decade," what do you think he really meant? There are a couple of possibilities, but I suppose the most likely is "free of
energy imports," or perhaps "free of foreign oil." This, of course, has the benefit of not being literally impossible, but I wonder if
anyone will bother to follow up with him about this? After all,
ending foreign oil consumption in the next
decade is the next best thing to impossible, and in any case, would require federal
action of a staggering size and scope -- certainly far more staggering than anything Huckabee has ever given the
remotest indication of supporting. Basically, he was just randomly shooting his mouth off without the slightest idea of what he was
talking about.

Tax on oil is essential

Amitai Etzioni December 27th 2007 huffingtonpost.com

A $5 tax on every oil barrel would enhance our security by reducing our dependency
on our enemies and adversaries. It would reduce the shiploads of scores upon scores of
billions of dollars the U.S. is now sending each month to Putin's Russia, to Ahmadinejad's Iran, to the mother of all 9/11
terrorists Saudi Arabia, and other such good friends. These nations, in turn, use the oil funds to counter U.S.
policies overseas, to shore up their regimes at home, to purchase arms, and -- in Iran's case -- to finance terrorists
groups. . . . What is particularly distressing about the across-the-board failure of our politicians to tell the truth to voters -- to
explain why a tax on oil is essential and overdue -- is that it does not take nearly as much courage as it at first seems.

37
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Major layoffs are due because of high gas prices.

Matt Nauman, May 2, 2008 Friday, San Jose Mercury News, Calif.

With gasprices near $4 a gallon, and sales of GM's big trucks and SUVs falling, the automaker announced
3,500 layoffs at the factories making those vehicles earlier this week. On Wednesday, it
announced a first-quarter net loss of $3.25 billion.

So going green has become vital to the automaker's survival, GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner

"One fact stands above all others," Wagoner said at a Commonwealth Club speech at the Fairmont Hotel. "The
auto industry can no longer rely almost exclusively on oil to supply the world's
automotive energy requirements."

Adding to that urgency, he said, is that the auto industry has become increasingly global. GM, which
celebrates its 100th birthday later this year, sold 59 percent of its vehicles outside the United States in 2007. It emerged as the
leading foreign automaker in China, Russia and South America.

"Energy supply, sustainable growth, CO2 emissions, fuel economy -- these are top concerns around the world," Wagoner said.

Wagoner's remarks -- interrupted briefly by protesters who say GM isn't doing enough to fight climate change -- touched on what
many thought the company considered another foreign country: California.

"GM actually does sell cars in

California," Wagoner joked. "Granted, not many."

But, he said, the Golden State remains "an important market" for the seller of the Chevy, Buick, GMC, Saturn, Pontiac, Buick,
Cadillac, Hummer and Saab brands. In fact, it was at the Los Angeles Auto Show in 2006 that GM revealed its plan to build a
plug-in hybrid, once the battery technology is ready.

He praised a state program that awards $120 million a year for alternative fuel and
vehicle research. But GM and other automakers continue to fight California's attempts to
regulate greenhouse-gas emissions as pollution.

There's no denying, though, that the company is making a huge investment in green technology: It will sell eight hybrids by the
end of the year. It is testing its experimental hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in California with consumers. It promises to bring out the
Volt by the end of 2010. And it continues to develop plug-in hybrid technology.

Wagoner,
a member of the basketball team while a student at Duke University, said
newer, greener technologies will cost more.

Consumers "must be willing to pay more for greater value and better fuel economy," he
said.

38
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Cure to global warming, but numbers don’t work

Epstein in 2008 (Eric J. [chairman of TMI-Alert Inc., a safe-energy organization]


Industry hasn't answered waste and cost questions, Patriot News(Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania) March 28, 2008, lexis)

The nuclear industry has announced it can cure global warming and make America
energy independent. The problem is the numbers don't add up and our cars don't run on
uranium pellets. Don't be fooled again by the same people who brought you electricity
"too cheap to meter."

ERIC J. EPSTEIN is chairman of TMI-Alert Inc., a safe-energy organization based in


Harrisburg, and a member of the American Nuclear Society.

Hungarian prime minister predicts growth slowdown in Eastern Europe

January 23, 2008

George Jahn, Associated Press Writer January 23, 2008

Eastern Europe's growth will slow because of the economic downturn in the United States but the
region will not slip into recession, the prime minister of Hungary said Wednesday.

Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany also expressed concern about Europe's growing gas and
oil dependency on Russia, telling The Associated Press that Europe needed to replace its
fragmented energy policies with coordinated action.

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, Gyurcsany said his country's economic growth could shrink below 1
The 2008 growth target was 2.8
percent this year as U.S. economic turmoil ripples out to Eastern Europe.
percent before U.S. sub-prime problems led to fears of a worldwide credit crisis that in
turn sparked global stock market free-falls early this week.

He also expressed concern about the "very high portion" of European energy dependence on
Russia following the Kremlin's latest energy deals with Bulgaria and Serbia.

Under a deal tentatively agreed to on Tuesday, a majority stake of the Serbian oil
monopoly NIS will be sold to Russian energy giant Gazprom, and Russia will route part of
the gas pipeline through Serbia in a deal that Serbian officials said was worth at least
€1.5 billion ($2US.2 billion.) Just days earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin won Bulgaria's
support for the project, known as the South Stream pipeline, further denting EU hopes of reducing its
reliance on Russian energy.

"Our duty is to decrease the level of this dependence," Gyurcsany said. Within Europe, "markets now are
very fragmented and sometimes are competing with each other," he said, calling for "more integration among

39
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

buyers," so as to present a common front when dealing with Russia.Still, he resisted suggestions
that attempts by Austrian oil and gas company OMV to buy out MOL, its Hungarian counterpart, would create leverage against
Russia by creating a major European player. Hungary late last year passed a law essentially designed to prevent such a
takeover."Integration has to be paced not by takeovers but by mutually shared long-term visions between two companies," he said.
He also invoked Hungarian fears that OMV was too close to Gazprom, as "one more cause to be very very cautious" about OMV's
overtures to MOL.

Foreign oil is funding resurgence

Matthew Bromberg (Sentinel & Enterprise (Fitchburg, Massachusetts)

January 23, 2008 is a senior research scientist working for a start-up company in the
area of wireless broadband Internet access. He lives in Leominster.)

The final issue that confounds America is our foreign oil dependence.

Foreign oil funds Middle Eastern sheiks who support Al Qaeda. Foreign oil flows into
the coffers of Hugo Chavez whose Marxist anti-American rhetoric and friendship with
the 'axis of evil' states should cause alarm.

Foreign oil is also funding a resurgence of Russia's military and has made them much
bolder in their opposition to American interests.

Even worse, the scarcity of oil (or so we are told) has caused prices to skyrocket.

So naturally, given this dire situation, our government has launched a Manhattan project to achieve energy independence, right?

Actually the opposite is true. It appears the status quo is defended by force if necessary, if United Nuclear's attempt to sell
hydrogen conversion kits for automobiles is any example.

Their equipment was confiscated and their business was shut down by force of arms.

We can end all oil dependency

Matthew Bromberg (Sentinel & Enterprise (Fitchburg, Massachusetts)


January 23, 2008 is a senior research scientist working for a start-up company in the
area of wireless broadband Internet access. He lives in Leominster.)

The U.S. actually has some of the largest coal reserves, the largest shale oil reserves in the
world, and significant untapped oil reserves in Alaska's North Slope. Yet none of these sources are being
tapped and no significant new energy technology is coming on line to end our oil
dependency.

We have dire issues that will ruin us if


These examples tell an interesting story about how our country is run.
not addressed, and yet they are systematically ignored or suppressed.

40
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Our oil addiction is killing them

Last 07

The most pernicious effect of our Middle Eastern oil addiction is that it retards
the region's political development, keeping it mired in destitution and
instability. Oil revenues in Gulf states make taxation there largely unnecessary.
Policy observers long have recognized our oil problem. Nearly every U.S.
president since Richard Nixon has made noise about achieving oil independence;
none has gotten far. But we may finally have reached a point where there's enough
consensus - and concern - to build toward real action. If so, then what is to be done?

Environmental crash if we keep using oil

Last 07

But when it comes to oil, there are externalities that markets cannot easily process.
Environmental impact is a classic one. Even more immediate, more obvious, are the
national-security implications of the oil trade. The market cannot assign the costs of,
say, positioning an aircraft carrier group in the Persian Gulf - or fighting a war - to
American petroleum companies. Eventually, citizens and taxpayers, not oil companies,
pay those costs. By the same token, the market cannot establish the cost of funding
Wahhabi radicalism or weakening Middle Eastern liberalism, both of which occur
as a result of our oil consumption

41
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

The U.S. is currently undergoing the transition to a recession, which


means we’re sinking like a stone in a lake.
Evans and Maher 08
(Kelly and Kris. Writers for the Wall Street Journal, the premier economic magazine in the U.S. Article from WSJ. June 7, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article /SB121279701661353763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj )

The likelihood that the U.S. is in a recession appeared to increase Friday, following weeks of
hopes that the country might be skirting one.

Unemployment rose sharply and payrolls shrank for the fifth consecutive month. The
economy news came on a day that oil surged to record prices, the dollar weakened and the Dow
Jones Industrial Average plunged nearly 400 points. The deteriorating job numbers led markets
to scale back the odds that the Federal Reserve will boost short-term interest rates this fall to ward off
inflation.

The jobless rate posted its largest one-month gain in two decades, rising to 5.5% in May
from 5.0% in April, the Labor Department reported Friday. Payrolls, measured by a separate survey,
fell by 49,000 jobs last month, bringing the tally of job losses so far this year to 324,000. (Read more about
the report.)

The rise in unemployment has been accompanied by higher food and energy prices,
pushing up the "misery index" -- the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates -- to
around 9.4, the highest level since the recession of the early 1990s apart from a one-month blip in 2005.

The U.S.’s dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia leads to the funding of
terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda.
Bandow 02
(Doug, Former Fellow at the Cato Institute as well as a former columnist with Copley News Service, advisor to President Regan, etc.
December 2, 2002. http://www.cato.org/ pub_display.php?pub_id=4124 )

In short, an unfriendly Saudi Arabia might hurt America's pocketbook; it would not
threaten America's survival. (In contrast, control of the Gulf by a hegemonic rival -- notably the
Soviet Union -- would pose a significantly different, and greater, security threat, but that prospect
disappeared with the end of the Cold War.) Thus, it is worth risking Saudi displeasure in order to
try to starve al Qaeda of funds.

Anyway, Riyadh isn't likely to turn hostile. It needs the money from selling oil as much as America
needs the oil. Moreover, it will be as brutal as necessary to defend itself from internal foes and the
withdrawal of U.S. forces would remove a prime source of potential instability.

Nor need Washington treat the Saudis as enemies. Rather, the U.S.
simply should reorder its
priorities, accepting a cooling of the relationship if that is the only way to halt terrorist
funding.

42
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

America's most important foreign-policy objective is defeating terrorism, and the most
important contribution that Saudi Arabia can make is to cut off funding for al Qaeda or related networks.
That's worth achieving even at the cost of lost bear hugs in the White House, princely
visits to the ranch, and Cabinet-level jaunts to Riyadh.

43
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Venezuela is ready to cut off oil supplies to the U.S., and it’s going to
happen soon.
AP in 08
(The Associated Press issued this statement on February 12, 2008; http://www.kval.com/ news /national/15543787.html )

Venezuela's oil minister said today the nation's ready to cut off oil supplies to the United
States if necessary.

Rafael Ramirez's statement to a Venezuelan newspaper (Ultimas Noticias) echoes a threat by


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (OO'-goh CHAH'-vehz). Chavez has said the Venezuelan
embargo could be triggered if Exxon Mobil successfully seizes billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets
though lawsuits abroad.

Chavez first made the threat Sunday in response to a drive by Irving, Texas-based Exxon
Mobil to seize Venezuelan assets through U.S. and European courts. Ramirez accuses Exxon Mobil of
having political motives and being "very closely linked" to the U.S. State Department.

The cases center on the Chavez government's nationalization of lucrative oil ventures in
Venezuela's Orinoco (oh-rih-NOH'-koh) River basin. A British court issued an injunction last
month temporarily freezing up to $12 billion in assets of Venezuela's state oil company.

THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS DEPENDENT ON OIL, MAKING IT


VULNERABLE TO HIGH PRICES.

Congressional Documents and Publications May 5, 2008(SECTION: U.S. SENATE


DOCUMENTS, LENGTH: 2198 word, SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, Bush Republican
Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security)

Bush Has Failed to Reduce the Nation's Oil Dependency. "America's oil addiction has
worsened. Since 2001, America's dependency on foreign oil has steadily increased
even as the cost of oil has more than doubled. The Bush administration's approach to
this challenge has been to concede that there is a crisis while opposing new policies or
strategies that would change the status quo. In his 2006 State of the Union address,
President Bush declared that America is addicted to oil, but in the days and weeks that followed his administration failed to adopt a
new energy policy or support adequate funding for new initiatives that would significantly reduce the country's oil dependency."
[Center for American Progress, 8/06]

High Oil Prices Can Cripple the American Economy "America now faces a crisis of historic
proportion: a liquid transportation fuels crisis. Oil, the lifeblood of our economy, is in increasingly short supply and oil and
derivative product prices have recently soared to record levels." [Southern States Energy Board, Building a Bridge to Energy
Independence and to a Sustainable Energy Future, 7/06]

U.S. Oil Dependence Allows OPEC to Set and Sustain High Oil Prices. "Global oil
reserves are concentrated in a volatile region of the world, with 60% of reserves in the Persian Gulf region. Partly as a
OPEC producers are able to exercise market
consequence of this concentration of low cost reserves,
power, functioning as an imperfect ("clumsy") cartel and at times maintaining oil
price well above estimated competitive levels. The strength and influence of this cartel grows and
44
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Nonetheless,
declines, largely in relation to cycles of growth in global import demand and OPEC market share.
OPEC's production or pricing decisions can impose sustained economic costs over
many years and can exacerbate, or ameliorate, short-run supply shocks." [U.S. Department
of Energy, Estimating the Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports, 2/28/07]

AMERICA'S OIL SUPPLY IS NOT SECURE - VULNERABLE TO


NATURAL DISASTERS AND TERRORIST ATTACKS

Natural Disasters Highlight America's Vulnerability to Disruptions of Oil Supply.


"Tightening oil markets and record high prices have brought U.S oil vulnerability
back into focus, and hurricane Katrina demonstrated how quickly oil supply
disruptions can impact the country. More serious supply disruptions will likely occur
in the future, caused again by natural forces like Katrina, or by terrorist acts, or
purposeful rationing by the OPEC cartel and rogue nations such as Iran and
Venezuela." [Southern States Energy Board, Building a Bridge to Energy Independence and to a Sustainable Energy
Future, 7/06]

U.S. Is Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks on Oil Transportation Infrastructure. "The


tankers, pipelines, and trucks required to import oil from foreign countries to the
United States is the Achilles heel of U.S. transportation. This complex system is a
constant target for Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and a disruption could have a massive impact on global oil
prices."[Institute for the Analysis of Global Security]

Much of World's Oil Passes Through Vulnerable "Choke Points" That Could be and Have
Been a Target for Terrorism. "A large fraction of the world's traded oil already passes through a handful of
strategic choke points, such as the Strait of Hormuz. The infrastructure for delivering oil has several potential
weak links, including major oil processing facilities that are vital yet vulnerable to attack and difficult to repair." [National
Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, 10/12/06]

Global Energy Infrastructure Remains Dangerously Vulnerable. "The global energy infrastructure and distribution channels
have not been adequately protected or modernized. The global energy infrastructure and the distribution channels used by the
United States and the entire international community remain dangerously vulnerable; yet, no comprehensive strategy for
protecting and modernizing them has been implemented.Terrorist attacks, in particular, pose a grave threat. In a videotape
released last December, deputy al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri singled out energy infrastructure as a key strategic target
for his followers. Just two months later, suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia attacked the Abqaiq oil processing facility, where
two-thirds of the country's output - 6.8 million barrels per day - is refined." [Center for American Progress, 8/06]

45
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Spend your own money, Mr. Kennedy


The Washington Times February 22, 2008 (BYLINE: By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, SECTION:
LETTERS; A18, LENGTH: 367 words)

President Joseph P. Kennedy II is not all wrong in his Monday letter, "Chavez's generosity," and his motivation is pure: to aid
low-income Americans with their winter energy needs. The main thrust of his argument, however, is faulty.

In seeking to defend his push for energy assistance to Americans through aid from Venezuela and its dictator, President Hugo

Chavez,

the United States has made other deals with the devil to satisfy our
Mr. Kennedy notes that
energy needs, citing Saudi Arabia as a case in point. This point is correct: We shamefully deal
with Middle Eastern dictators whose countries gleefully take our money while
engaging in human rights abuses and denigrating the United States. Our Middle
Eastern oil dependency, which, remarkably, is greater today than it was at the time
of the 1970s oil embargo, skews and perverts U.S. foreign policy. By praising "our
good friends" in Venezuela in his organization's television commercials, Mr.
Kennedy glorifies Mr. Chavez and permits him the means to humiliate us and to
make us dependent on him.

Mr. Chavez has used the United Nations to engage in a vicious attack on our
president, referring to him as "the devil." I am a relentless critic of President Bush on
a host of issues, but the broadside attack on him by Mr. Chavez has transformed Mr.
Bush into a sympathetic figure. The democracy Mr. Chavez promised his people has
devolved into autocratic rule rife with threats and takeovers of private industry.

Would Mr. Kennedy accept oil from North Korea's Kim Jong-il if he had any to
give? Would he have accepted it from Adolf Hitler? Is there any leader whose record
of ruthlessness is sufficiently deplorable for Mr. Kennedy to say "no, thanks" to a
handout?

If Mr. Kennedy wishes to pursue the noble goal of helping the purported 200,000 low-income Americans with their energy
needs, he is welcome to use some of the Kennedy fortune to do so and to raise money from like-minded generous Americans
rather than making a hero out of the loathsome Mr. Chavez.

Let us finally work feverishly toward energy independence, but in the meantime,
may no patriotic American welcome handouts from an oppressor.

We need to get off of oil

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

46
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

I welcome the ambassadors who are here. I welcome -- listen, let me start first by telling you that America has got to change its
habits. We've got to get off oil. And the reason why is, first, oil is -- dependency on oil
presents a real challenge to our economy. As economies grow -- and we want all our economies to grow; we
want people to be prosperous, we want people who are living in poverty to be able to grow out of poverty. We want there
to be general prosperity, but as economies grow, until we change our habits, there is
going to be more dependency on oil.

America has incentives to change there dependency on oil

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

America is a country that when they see a problem, we address it


I've come today to tell you that
head-on. I've set a great goal for our country, and that is to reduce our dependence on oil by investing
in technologies that will produce abundant supplies of clean and renewable energy, and
at the same time show the world that we're good stewards of the environment.

Now, look, I understand stereotypes are hard to defeat. People get an image planted in their head, and sometimes it causes them
not to listen to the facts. But America is in the lead when it comes to energy independence; we're in the lead when it comes to new
technologies; we're in the lead when it comes to global climate change -- and we'll stay that way. (Applause.)

47
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Perm Solvency: We already have partnerships for Nuclear power

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

We're also working with our friends overseas for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I believe
developing nations ought to be encouraged to use nuclear power. I believe it's in our interests, I believe it will help take
pressure off the price of oil, and I know it's going to help protect the environment. And so
we're working with other nations, like Japan and France and Great Britain and Russia
and China, to form this energy partnership, the purpose of which is to help developing
nations secure cost-effective and proliferation-resistant nuclear power, and at the same
time to conduct joint research on how to deal with the nuclear waste issue, through
positive, productive reprocessing.

And so the United States of America has got a strategy to help change our electricity mix
here at home. And part of that strategy is on nuclear power. Another part of that
strategy is based upon wind power. Now, since 2001, America has increased wind
energy production by more than 300 percent. This is a new industry for us, and it's
beginning to grow. More than 20 percent of new electrical generating capacity added in
America came from wind last year. I met some of the wind boys. They're excited about the opportunities in the
U.S. market, and they should be, because this new technology is taking hold. Last year, America installed more wind power
capacity than any other country in the world.

I don't know if you know this or not: When I was the governor of Texas, I signed a electric deregulation bill that encouraged and
mandated the use of renewable energy. Today, Texas produces more wind energy than any other state in the Union. If an oil state
can produce wind energy, other states in America can produce wind energy. (Applause.) I remember when I signed the bill, I said,
there's a new day coming for wind. And they said, well, you're leaving the state, and a lot of hot air is going with it. (Laughter.)

In addition to wind power, we have spent, since I've been the President, a billion dollars on harnessing the power of the sun. The
solar technology folks who are here will tell you there's some amazing changes have taken place in a quick period of time. I mean,
I really see a day in which each house can be a little electric generator of their own, and feeding back excess power into the grid
through the use of solar power. (Applause.)

U.S.A. is looking for a plan to do, to change climate issues.

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference
2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

last year U.S. solar installations grew by more than 32


I told you that we're -- and by the way,
percent in the U.S. In other words -- I hope you're excited by these statistics; I certainly am. But these are just the
beginning. Before I came over here, I really did sit around the Oval Office trying to figure out what a President will be saying 10
years from now. If you really think about what would have been said in 2000 compared to today, imagine what's going to be said
10 years from now compared to today.

The United States is serious about


I will repeat something I've been saying a lot here in America:
confronting climate change, and the strategies I just laid out for you are an integral part of dealing with
climate change. Should there be an international agreement? Yes, there should be, and we support it. (Applause.) But I would
remind you, an agreement will be effective -- and that's what we want, we want an effective

48
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

agreement. I think we ought to be results oriented people, not process people. It's one thing to have a nice conference, but out
of those conferences we should expect results. We want a strategy that works, not sounds good.

49
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

We Will Run Out We need to change

Sarasota Herald-Tribune May 13, 2008 ALL EDITION

The United States has only 3 percent of the world's known petroleum reserves, but it
consumes 25 percent of the world's production. If we further tap America's reserves
now, they will soon run out -- and we will be even more reliant on foreign oil.

Rather than trying to drain our limited reserves, our nation's leaders should increase
funding for the research and development of alternative energy sources, impose
stricter fuel-economy standards on cars and trucks and provide new financial
incentives for energy conservation.

The United States can't drill its way out of its dependence on oil. The sooner our
leaders acknowledge that, the closer our nation will be to true energy security

Congress gives us crappy plans not answers

Sarasota Herald-Tribune May 13, 2008 ALL EDITION

Summer is coming, gas prices are up and -- just as sure as the changing of the
seasons -- oil drilling proponents in Congress are back with another bogus energy
plan.The latest version is an expansion of a proposal last summer that would have let
Virginia opt out of the federal ban on new oil and gas drilling off the U.S. coast.
That proposal was rejected by Congress.

But, undaunted and fueled by $3 million in campaign contributions from the oil and
gas industry, Republican drilling proponents now offer a plan that would let any
state on the Atlantic or Pacific coast seek an exemption from the ban, as reported
Monday by Kirsten B. Mitchell of the Herald-Tribune's Washington bureau. The
plan would also open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas
leasing.

This so-called energy plan, scheduled for a vote in the Senate today, deserves to be
defeated like last year's proposal -- and for the same reasons:

50
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

51
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil Prices Hurts Everyday America

Murphy May 22, 2008 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOCUMENTS

"When we talk about energy independence we are more often than not talking about
energy security. Our national security, for better or for worse, is tied to our energy
resources. Dependence on oil from unfriendly nations threatens our strategic
interests. It burdens our military which has to power a vast array of military
equipment using oil. And, rising energy prices put a strain on our vital transportation
sector and on American businesses which directly undermines our economic
competitiveness in a growing global market place.

"This dialogue on the national security ramifications of oil dependency - in particular


foreign oil dependency - is further impetus for this Congress to take proactive steps
towards investing in alternative energy sources like nuclear energy, promoting
conservation, and recognizing the strategic advantage we gain by investing in energy
exploration here at home.

Oil Prices Hit U.S. upside the head

States News Service May 22, 2008


IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND ACT ON OIL DEPENDENCY

Today the cost of driving kids to soccer practice, of putting food on the table because
of soaring transportation costs and of commuting to school and work is crippling the
economies of middle-class Americans.

I've lived in Ventura County for 40 years. My wife, Janice, and I raised four children
here, all of whom are now grown, married and have children of their own. They're
among those struggling to meet daily expenses as the cost of our dependence on
foreign oil has skyrocketed. Like most Ventura County families, they must balance
the costs of everyday life with dreams of a three-day weekend in the desert or on the
Colorado River, which was an easy reality not too long ago.

When OPEC cut production to force up prices in 2000, President Bill Clinton's then-
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson said, "It is obvious that the federal government
was not prepared. We were caught napping."

But instead of using it as a wakeup call, many went back to sleep.

52
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Congress takes small step but it is not enough

States News Service May 22, 2008


IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND ACT ON OIL DEPENDENCY

Congress did pass a comprehensive energy bill that was signed into law in 2005"the
first comprehensive energy bill passed in about 20 years. But the compromises that
had to be made to get it through Congress meant that any meaningful expansion of
domestic supply or refinery capacity was taken out first.

Perhaps today's wakeup call, with Republican, Democratic and independent families
alike having to prioritize among Girl Scout outings, vacations, getting to and from
work and dinner, will finally spur real action.

Weaning ourselves off foreign supplies requires increasing domestic production, at


least for the short term. Our infrastructure is based on an oil and gas economy.

We need to work faster by building more refineries

States News Service May 22, 2008


IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND ACT ON OIL DEPENDENCY

While it's possible to change it in the long term, changing it overnight isn't possible.

Congress also needs to pass laws and provide incentives to expand our refinery
capabilities.

The last U.S. oil refinery was built in 1976 while overall demand and demand for
special blends"such as that required by California"has soared. New technology has
expanded what each refinery can produce, but even so, current refineries are running
at nearly 100 percent capacity all year, leaving little downtime for maintenance and
repair.

53
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil is not the only thing we need.

States News Service May 22, 2008


IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP AND ACT ON OIL DEPENDENCY

At the same time, we must unleash American ingenuity to develop alternative


energy. Solar and wind power are two solutions, and Congress needs to extend the
tax credit currently applied to producers to encourage more development.

Congress also needs to revise federal regulations on research and development of


other energy possibilities, be it solar, water-driven, nuclear, extracting methane from
waste disposal sites or methods we haven't even considered yet"and extend tax
credits to those industries as well.

Link to terror impact

Murphy May 22, 2008 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOCUMENTS

"When we talk about energy independence we are more often than not talking about
energy security. Our national security, for better or for worse, is tied to our energy
resources. Dependence on oil from unfriendly nations threatens our strategic
interests. It burdens our military which has to power a vast array of military
equipment using oil. And, rising energy prices put a strain on our vital transportation
sector and on American businesses which directly undermines our economic
competitiveness in a growing global market place.

54
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

America hurting because of oil


The Frontrunner May 20, 2008 Tuesday
Bush Signs Bill Suspending Oil Reserve Additions

on Monday signed a bill that forces his administration to temporarily stop acquiring
oil for its emergency stockpile, even though an aide said the president considers it a
bad idea that won't lower fuel costs. ... In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week
voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto
could be easily overridden." Bush "and White House officials had spoken out
strongly against the measure, although there wasn't a specific threat to veto it. 'He
remains against it,' [deputy press secretary Scott] Stanzel said. So why is he signing
it? 'I think he saw the overwhelming numbers of members of Congress who want to
attempt to have an impact on prices by stopping the fill of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.'"

ABC World News (5/19, lead story, 3:00, Gibson, 8.78M) reported, "Another week,
another record price for gas. The average price of a gallon went up seven cents in
just the past week. The average price of a gallon, $3.79." ABC (Harris) added, "You
can blame this latest gas price record in the rise in oil prices. In fact oil hit another
record today, $127 a barrel. This situation may get worse before it gets better.
According to today's numbers, gas is now officially over four dollars gallon in
Chicago and it's pretty darn close in Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle,
Cleveland and New York City. The angst and anger over these prices has the
politicians in Washington on high alert, hauling big oil executives before the
Judiciary Committee this Wednesday. ... Also today, the White House criticized
Congress for not doing enough to ease the pain." Scott Stanzel, White House Deputy
Press Secretary was show saying: "Going from band aid to band aid, that they think
will have an impact but really won't." The AP (5/20, Schreck) also reports on the rise
in gasoline and oil prices.

Impact New Oil Rigs bad in the States

Sarasota Herald-Tribune May 13, 2008 ALL EDITION

1. It would break the federal ban and open the door to further expansion of oil and
gas drilling -- including in the Gulf of Mexico. Offshore drilling poses a potentially
disastrous threat to marine and tourist economies and the fragile coastal
environment.

55
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

2. It would have no effect on current gas prices or ease present U.S. dependence on
foreign oil. If new drilling were approved today, it would take a decade to bring any
of that oil to market.

3. It proposes to deplete our nation's few untapped reserves of oil and gas, while
distracting us from any serious efforts to reduce U.S. oil consumption and invest in
the development of alternative energy sources.

Oil Drilling Decision should be Congresses

Sarasota Herald-Tribune May 13, 2008 ALL EDITION

The oil industry has long hoped to weaken the federal ban. Many of its efforts in the
past have focused on expanding drilling in the Gulf, though this proposal currently
excludes the Gulf Coast.

Yet, like other plans in recent years, it seeks to shift drilling decisions out of
Congress and into state legislatures, which would be tempted by potential revenues
from royalties paid by energy companies.

These decisions should remain in Congress' hands, because any new oil and gas
drilling would impact the economies and environments of nearby coastal states and
affect national interests as well.

The United States can't drill its way out of its dependence on oil. The sooner our
leaders acknowledge that, the closer our nation will be to true energy security

Aff Answer to Arab(saudi arabia) Disad

Arab oil Provides better future

Paulson 08 (june 2) States news service

Surging oil revenues have led to a massive accumulation of capital in the Gulf of
arab in a very short time. To put this in context, GCC countries will provide about 18
percent of global capital exports in 2008 -- more than double their share just five
years ago.

The upside of this oil wealth is that the Gulf countries have an historic opportunity to
shore up their economic fundamentals, diversify their economies and make needed
investments in human capital -- steps that should help avoid the boom and bust

56
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

cycles of the past and support broad based growth. Many of the region's leaders are
embracing this opportunity by paying down debt, setting aside wealth for future
generations, increasing health and education spending, and improving the
environment for foreign and domestic private investment.

OIL DEPENDACE HURTS ARAB COUTRIES

Paulson 08 (june 2) States news service

The downside of increased oil revenues is that the Gulf is experiencing new
challenges - such as inflation -- that are, in some instances, being addressed with
measures like price controls and wage hikes that are likely to exacerbate the
problem. And beyond this region, record high oil prices are putting a large burden on
the world economy and creating hardships for families, households and industries
everywhere. This threatens to exacerbate economic volatility in the Gulf and abroad.

There are no simple or quick remedies for this, and let me be clear in stating that the
Gulf region alone cannot alleviate the pressures in global oil markets. High oil prices
are the result of supply and demand factors that are likely to persist for some time.
Supplies have been affected by low capacity expansion and declining yields, while
demand has surged largely due to growth in emerging markets. Speculation and the
depreciation of the dollar are likely only small factors behind oil price increases.

Congress has the right idea about oil


The Post-Standard June 6, 2008 (staff, editorial, “It's time to tackle our oil
dependency head-on” The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York), lexis)

I was driving a former member of Congress and U.S. senator from Cortland to
Syracuse when he mentioned the crisis that could be caused by our addiction to
fossil fuels, and proposed a tax on the purchase of the more gas-guzzling
automobiles as one step toward averting or ameliorating the crisis.

I have heard it said that we shouldn't worry about the supply of oil decreasing over
time, since it just means that the price will increase commensurately.

However, any undergraduate economics course, or good high school textbook for
that matter, will explain that when the demand is inelastic (as when the buyers are

57
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

addicted to something), prices can rise drastically with only small decreases in
supply.

Oil Addiction Hurts America

The Post-Standard June 6, 2008 (staff, editorial, “It's time to tackle our oil
dependency head-on” The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York), lexis)

It doesn't matter what the commodity is that buyers are addicted to, whether gasoline
or heroin. The answer is to break -- or at least lessen -- the addiction.

A succession of Congresses and administrations has avoided tackling this issue of oil
dependency over the past 35 or more years, and it has led to increased instability in
the Middle East, including a disastrous war, and economic decline at home, in
addition to the climate change that perhaps wasn't understood until more recently.

The Gov is the Prob


Rutigliano May 11 2008 FOREIGN WIND FIRMS WON'T SOLVE ENERGY FIX
The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York

To the government “You and your party have been the energy problem: "no" to
nuclear power, new oil refineries, drilling in ANWR that would decrease our oil
dependency; "no" to reasonable alternatives to foreign oil -- all equal "no" to growth
and lower energy costs.”

Wind turbines are inefficient and expensive to build, and are only a Band-Aid for a
failed energy policy. People will certainly leave the state due to credible information
available on the harmful effects of the wind industry.

Our Congress, with a disapproval rating of 78 percent, hurts the country and boosts
energy costs. We need responsible people with vision, not a quick-fix political solution.

58
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

The last thing we need is more of the same -- dependence on a foreign wind energy
company.

59
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil dependence has a negative impact on the US economy


Huffington Post 2007 Why the U.S.' Oil Dependence is Bad for the U.S. Economy,Posted July 3, 2007 | 01:54 PM
(EST) huffington post.com

. The U.S.' dependence on oil has had a negative impact on the U.S. trade
deficit. In September 2006, the San Francisco Federal Reserve issued a paper titled Oil Prices
and the U.S. Trade Deficit. It concluded:

Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-
importing country like the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of
petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this increase has exacerbated the
deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of 2004. One factor can
explain this evolution: The real volume of U.S. petroleum imports has remained
essentially constant. One explanation for why the demand for petroleum imports has not
declined in response to higher prices comes from a model in which firms are fairly limited in their
ability to adjust their use of energy sources, such as oil, in the short term.

Middle Eastern Oil Dependence becomes an ideal target for terrorist


attacks
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.Heritage Lecture #1021 In 2007

Oil as a Weapon. Many Arab leaders understand the dynamic of the world's oil
dependence. For example, as early as 1990, the late Yassir Arafat said:

When the North Sea oil dries up in 1991, the United States will want to buy Arab
petroleum. And when the American oil fields themselves run dry and oil
consumption in the United States increases, the American need for the Arabs will
grow greater and greater.[7]

This observation has not been lost on the current generation of politicians and terrorist leaders.
However, bin Laden and Zawahiri are not satisfied with the unwieldy weapons of
oil boycotts and buying political influence in the West. Instead, they are clearly zeroing in
on the oil-rich kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf as their principal
targets. They also appear increasingly interested in attacking the entire global oil industry, from
wells to wheels.

Some analysts have warned that a carefully targeted terrorist attack on oil
facilities in Saudi Arabia could reduce Saudi oil production to 4 million barrels per
day or less for up to three months, which would have disastrous results for the
global economy.

60
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

61
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil Cartels such as OPEC historically contradict United States


interests
Ariel Cohen and William L.T. Schirano in 2005,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm777.cfm
Since its inception in 1960, OPEC, which is dominated by Persian Gulf producers, has
successfully restricted its member states’ petroleum production, artificially
distorting the world’s oil supply to line its members’ pockets. Member states’
production quotas are determined at semi-annual meetings of members’ petroleum ministers and
are at times changed through telephone consultations. Several times, this supply-fixing
strategy has brought devastation to the U.S. and global economies:

In 1973, OPEC’s actions in response to U.S. support for Israel, which was
attacked in the Yom Kippur War, resulted in a worldwide economic recession that
lasted from 1974 to 1980.

In 1980, OPEC’s failure to increase production in the face of the Iranian


revolution resulted in historically high oil prices of $81 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).

In 1990, OPEC refused to increase production sufficiently to keep prices stable


as Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait.

62
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

Oil dependence leads to Global Energy Crisis


Gavin Longmuir and AF Alhajji, in 26-Feb-2007 This article was written for MEES. Dr Longmuir
is a Stanley, NM-based consulting petroleum engineer, affiliated with International Petroleum Consultants
Association Inc of Evergreen, Colorado (LongmuirG@aol.com). Dr Alhajji is an Energy Economist and
Associate Professor at Ohio Northern University, Ada, Oh,
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v50n09-5OD01.htm

• Alternatively, expecting a decline in demand for their oil, producing countries might
decide to reduce planned investments in production capacity expansion and maintenance
and mothball some planned projects, which would quickly lead to declining oil supplies. If
new technologies do not come on-line by the time oil production starts
declining, the world will face a serious energy crisis, probably unparalleled
in history. Reversing such a trend of declining investments would take
years, despite a massive increase in oil prices. This alternative is not a mere
possibility: several major projects have been mothballed in the past when the oil
producing governments deemed these as not needed, given perceived future demand
and prices.

Western posturing over reducing the demand for oil could cause major oil
exporters to react in a variety of ways, most of which would exacerbate rather
than help the global energy situation. Even in a scenario where Western countries
successfully replaced their demand for oil from alternative indigenous energy sources, they would
still have to live on the same planet as former major oil-exporting countries whose fragile
societies would then be faced with the additional economic strain of the loss of their main current
source of revenue. Energy independence for current oil-importers may carry a high moral price. If
a sharp decline in oil revenues leads to instability in the oil producing areas, the West will not be
able to turn a blind eye to such conflicts. In the age of globalization, these countries are economic
and political partners of the West. Political instability that results from declining oil
revenues must be added as a potential cost of oil independence. In
addition, it is unclear what will happen to the world monetary system without the
trade in oil and the associated recycling of petrodollars. A change to a world where
most industrial countries depend on their own domestic energy resources would require a major
change in the world’s financial and monetary system. Such a change will bring its own
challenges and difficulties to all, including the industrial countries.

63
LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__
Team Sparta Stacy

High energy prices will cause recession, destroying demand.


Richard Heinberg, September 23, 2004, The Consequences of Oil Dependency
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat.
http://www.energybulletin.net/2431.html

Economists tell us that higher oil prices will stimulate investment in energy alternatives. However,
the prospects for a painless market-driven transition away from fossil fuels are hardly
encouraging. Globally, trillions of dollars will have to be spent on research and on new
infrastructureÑtens or hundreds of billions per year, starting immediately. We are not seeing
anything like that level of investment now; we have to assume that it will begin after the global oil
peak (that is, after an obvious price signal making alternatives more attractive). But then, with
less energy available to fuel the economy, we will have trouble simply maintaining basic
services. There won’t be any surplus to jumpstart the new energy infrastructure, which will take
decades to build.

High energy prices will cause recessions, destroying demand. Then, reduced demand will lead to
partial relaxations of energy prices. Temporarily lowered prices will stimulate economic recovery
and hence renewed demand, which will again be constrained by declining rates of oil extraction,
leading to more recessions, and so on. In other words, as demand begins to exceed supply,
expect increasing price volatility, with a general upward and steepening underlying price trend.
The ultimate consequence will be a global depression worse than that of the 1930s. No
government in the world is even remotely prepared. Even though we were warned by the “Limits
to Growth” report of the 1970s that resource shortages would arise in this century, politicians
have assured us that all will be well. None dare suggest that our fossil-fueled way of life cannot
be sustained. This is humanly understandable: voters respond well to optimistic messages. But
the result is that, in the decades since the oil shocks of the 1970s, we have become ever more
dependent on oil and gas.

The U.S. dependence on oil has a negative impact on the U.S. trade deficit.
Oil Prices and the U.S. Trade Deficit, September, 2006
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-24.html

Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like
the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data
suggest that this increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially
since the second half of 2004. One factor can explain this evolution: The real volume of U.S.
petroleum imports has remained essentially constant. One explanation for why the demand for
petroleum imports has not declined in response to higher prices comes from a model in which
firms are fairly limited in their ability to adjust their use of energy sources, such as oil, in the short
term.

64