Download - 1nc SPS 3-6 Michael Morse

8/2/2019 1nc SPS 3-6 Michael Morse

1/26

1NC Its excludes Private Sector

Interpretation: Its means all exploration and development must be done by thefederal government.

Its is possessive English Grammar 5 (Glossary of English Grammar Terms,

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute anoun and to show possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine.(Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

Violation: The Affirmative uses private companies to implement the plan not topical

Private contractors are distinct from the federal government

Barbier 7 (Carl, US District Judge, TIEN VAN COA, ET AL VERSUS GREGORY WILSON,ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-7464 SECTION: J(1) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87653)

However, in their motion to remand, Plaintiffs argue that as an independent contractor, P&J is not an employee of the federal government, and consequently doesnot enjoy derivative immunity and cannot invoke the FTCA. Plaintiffs cite UnitedStates v. New Mexico in support of the notion that private contractors, whether prime

or subcontractors, are not government employees nor are they agents of the federalgovernment. 455 U.S. 720, 102 S. Ct. 1373, 71 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1982). According to theCourt, "[t]he congruence of professional interests between the contractors and theFederal Government is not complete" because "the contractors remained distinctentities pursuing private ends, and their actions remained [*4] commercial activitiescarried on for profit." Id. at 740 ; seealso Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S. Ct. 755, 94 L. Ed. 1017 (1950).

Standards:

a. Limits a strict interpretation of its prevents explosion of the topic. Theywould allow anyone working with the government, like China or Google, to betopical, which is unpredictable.
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.htmlhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/pronoun.htmlhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/noun.htmlhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=455%20U.S.%20720&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=455%20U.S.%20720,%20740&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=339%20U.S.%20497&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=339%20U.S.%20497&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=455%20U.S.%20720,%20740&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10427521803&homeCsi=6323&A=0.4336064238087415&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=455%20U.S.%20720&countryCode=USAhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/noun.htmlhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/pronoun.htmlhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html


2/26

b. Ground Private actors and international organizations are CP ground. Theaff doesnt test whether the USFG should imp lement or not.

c. Extra-t even if they include things that the govt owns, they have other actorsto put things in space.

Voters for education and fairness.Multi-Actor Fiat Bad

Strat Skew steals neg ground

Education Multi Actor plans kill in depth education on the topic and force the debate toshift away from the resolution

Unpredictable there are millions of actors that the negative could fiat in the round

Fairness There are too many other actors that are out there to research that the negativecould propose which is key to education

****Cadmium DA****


3/26

Cadmium 1NC (1/2)

Government slashing solar energy now aff keeps robust solar production alive

Samuelsohn and Goode 11 (Darren and Darren, POLITICO Writers, 6-19,http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57322.html, accessed 6-26, JG)

The budget-slashing mentality permeating the halls of Congress is forcing lawmakers

and lobbyists to get creative when it comes to financing energy projects . The politicalviability of any one particular idea notwithstanding, the wheels are desperately turning ,and members are throwing out a myriad of ideas new and old to see what mightstick. If were not creative now, were headed towards a very rough patch , saidRichard Kauffman, chairman of Levi Strauss & Co. and a participant in the nonprofitCoalition for Green Capital, a group of businesses, investors and attorneys that advocatesinvestments in renewable energy and efficiency projects. Popular programs offering cash grants and loan guarantees to renewable and other advanced energy projects are set toexpire this year, and other production and investment tax incentives for wind and solarmay run out as well in the near term . These industries are going to need some type of continued assistance to help President Barack Obama keep his pledge to create and sustainhundreds of thousands of green jobs.

Solar energy production uses toxic cadmium

Flux Energy 11 (Flux Energy, Solar Industry, 06-08,http://sundial365.com/pdfs/EnvironmentalMyths_final.pdf, accessed 6-26-11, JG)

Operators of solar installations are currently under fire to find ways to reverse the negativeenvironmental impact their systems deliver. One issue of great concern is theproduction of PV panels utilizing the newer thin-film technology. Thinfilmtechnology reduces the amount of material required in creating a solar cell. Thus, it isquickly becoming a preferred manufacturing process due to cost, flexibility, lighter weightand ease of integration compared to wafer silicon cells. The thin-layer production of panels, however , involves the mining of rare earth minerals such as cadmium andselenium. These minerals are so rare that the yield per truckload of ore is very small,implying that many truckloads are required to feed the global need for these elements. Asmore and more solar installation operators elect to center their production on thin-layer PV elements, the industry will respond. As with many rare elements, when

demand goes up, price goes up. These minerals also possess a level of toxicity that canbe dangerous to the environment as well as to humans. They are consideredhazardous materials. Assuming a 30- to 40-year life for most PV panels, there are graveconcerns over the proper disposal of thin-film panels to keep these minerals from leakinginto waste and water streams. Additionally, the mining processes for these elements arevery invasive and pollutive. China is the primary global producer due to the lowerstandards for invasive mining . The mining of cadmium and other toxic elements isallowed in the U.S. as a by-product of other mining efforts such as the extraction of zinc.However, following in the standards set by the E uropean Union to ban the use of some


4/26

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

Cadmium 1NC (2/2)

Cadmium can spread its toxics through global air currents

UN 8 (United Nations Environment Program,http://www.chem.unep.ch/pb_and_cd/SR/Files/2008/UNEP_Cadmium_review_Interim-APPENDIX-MAR2008.pdf, accessed 6-26, JG)

Some small portion of anthropogenic cadmium from North America has been noted in theRussian Arctic. Further, aerosol measurements in Taiwan show that a portion of airborne cadmium can be transported over a thousand kilometres from developingareas of China . Besides, some indication of cadmium potential to intercontinentaltransport can be obtained from measurements of stable isotope signatures of theairborne dust in combination with air-mass back trajectories. These measurementsindicate the origin of dust particles transported by air masses, and provide evidencethat aerosols are transported intercontinentally, as well as from industrializedregions to remote regions with few local emission sources such as the Arctic. Ascadmium is transported in the atmosphere adhered to aerosol particles, these studiesindicate that cadmium has a potential to be transported intercontinentally .

Cadmium has a direct link to global warming

Pinkham 93 (Sandra, Doctor @ Columbus,http://www.bodycenteredtherapies.com/pinkhammedical/documents/Scan_2a.pdf, accessed 6-26, JG)

According to ''the precautionary principle,'' it is better to accept as true what cannot beperfectly proved, even though it might be wrong, if doing so can lead to actions which willprotect our ecosystem. This paper uses this guideline to assess the effects of cadmiumexposure and its toxicity. This highly toxic metal is apparently used by the cell in thestress response to get rid of damaged, virus-infected, and cancerous cells. Indiscriminant


5/26

exposure to global cadmium air pollution alters the cellular content of free cadmiumions and the minerals that antagonize its effects, affecting the response of cells,organs, and individuals to all other stimuli . Cadmium's effects at low dose are thusinfluenced by many factors, not just dose. These factors include age, gender, species,genetic factors, prior nutritional history and exposure to cadmium and other stressors, andcurrent nutritional history and exposure to other stressors. Other toxic metals, organiccompounds, biological pathogens and emotional stresses interact with cadmium toproduce effects . Stress effects at a cellular level appear linked with current globalproblems affecting the environment, such as global warming, and human healtheffects, like the increase in disabling fatigue and infectious disease.

Warming causes extinction

Henderson 6 (Bill, Environmental Scientist, 8-19-06,http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm, accessed 6-25-11, JG)

The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let

alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of theimpending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures , heat waves,melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points torunaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconiansecurity measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the endof civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several millionyear old existence , along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man inthe world we share.


6/26

****CO2 Famine DA****


7/26

Famine Shell (1/2)

Plan decreases fossil fuel consumption, leads to global famine. Only continued carbondioxide emissions solve.

Idso et al 3 (Craig, PhD in geography @Arizona State, M.S. in Agronomy from UNebraska, Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, CO2Science, April,

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.php, 6-29-11, SRF)Over the last four decades of the 20th century, per capita world food production roseby approximately 25% (FAO, 2000). Nevertheless, as noted by Pretty et al. (2003),"food poverty persists ." In fact, out of the six billion people currently inhabiting theplanet, they say some 800 million lack adequate access to food . Writing as advocates forthese undernourished individuals -- for whom more food would be a godsend -- Pretty etal. suggest there are "three strategic options for agricultural development if foodsupply is to be increased." The first of these options, in their words, is to "expand thearea of agriculture , by converting new lands to agriculture." However, as they rightlynote, this option results in "losses of ecosystem services from forests, grasslands andother areas of important biodiversity ," as they are transferred from the realm of natureto the domain of man. Hence, this solution to the problem of world food security isuntenable , unless, of course, we care nothing about maintaining what little of the naturalworld yet remains. The second of Pretty et al.'s strategic options is to "increase perhectare production in agricultural exporting countries ," so as to not take additionalland from nature to feed mankind. However, as they again rightly note, this option meansthat food "must be transferred or sold to those who need it." And those who need it , inthe words of Pretty et al., are those "whose very poverty excludes these possibilitie s," inthat they can't afford to pay for the food they need. We come, then, to the last of Pretty

et al.'s three options, which is to "increase total farm productivity in developingcountries which most need the food." This option is essentially the same as option two,only applied to parts of the world where farmers are constrained by their poverty to use"low cost and locally available technologies and inputs." The rest of Pretty et al.'s paperdescribes a number of well-conceived programs designed to achieve this goal and liststheir successes to date. We describe another such program (perhaps we should call it aphenomenon) that was neither conceived nor planned by anyone, but which has also hadmany successes and is destined to have many more in the years and decades to come. Thephenomenon to which we refer is the enriching of the air with carbon dioxide that hascome about as a consequence of the development and progression of the IndustrialRevolution. Because of the prodigious and ever-increasing quantities of CO2 that havebeen released to the atmosphere by the burning of the coal, gas and oil that has fueled thisincredible human enterprise, the air's CO2 concentration has risen -- without any overtplanning on the part of man -- from a pre-industrial value of approximately 275 ppm to acurrent concentration on the order of 375 ppm. What has this extra 100 ppm of CO2 donefor us to date in the way of increasing farm productivity? In our Editorial of 11 July 2001,we describe experimental work based on the studies of Mayeux et al. (1997) and Idso andIdso (2000) that suggest its aerial fertilization effect has led to mean yield increases of
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.phphttp://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.php


8/26

approximately 70% for C3 cereals , 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62%for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables . Although lessthan the 93% increase in per-hectare food production brought about by the many low-cost,low-tech projects assessed by Pretty et al., these historical CO2-induced yield increaseshave nevertheless been both substantial and important. What is more, they were totallyunplanned by man, coming about solely as a result of humanity's flooding of the air withCO2. In addition, this unanticipated but welcome godsend is not just a relic of the past;for, if we will let it, it will grow even stronger in the years and decades ahead, as the air'sCO2 content continues to rise.


9/26

Famine Shell (2/2)

Security and environmental benefits of carbon dioxide outweigh warming.

Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall,Issue 62, Policy Review)

For the present, the direct effects of an increasing atmospheric CO2 on food

production and the outputs of rangelands and forests are much more important than any effects thus far manifest for climate . A recent review of over 1,000 individualexperiments with 475 plant crop varieties, published in 342 peer-reviewed scientific

journals and authored by 454 scientists in 29 countries, has shown an average growthenhancement of 52% with a doubling of the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.Yet some scientists, especially those with ecological orientations, take delight inglamorizing, along with a sympathetic press, the few exceptions which, in turn, becomewidely quoted in the scientific literature. These include tussock arctic tundra; somegrasslands where undesirable species may, under restricted conditions, outgrow the moredesirable; and in some ecosystems where competition among species may create a lack of balance. (See "Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants," CR, December 1992.) Globally,it is estimated the overall crop productivity has been already increased by 10%because of CO2 and may account for much of what has been attributed to the GreenRevolution. Meanwhile, changes in climate in specific fields where crops actually growand are culti-vated remain defiantly uncertain. Conversely, the effects of an enrichedCO2 atmosphere on crop productivity in large measure are positive and leave littledoubt as to the benefits for global food security . With this note, it is a sad commentarythat most of the current and modern textbooks on plant nutrition omit, inadvertently orotherwise, any mention of the role of carbon dioxide as a fertilizer or essential nutrient.

This was true 35 years ago and remains so to this day. Textbooks still ignore the fact thatdifferent levels of CO2 may have pronounced effects on plant growth and may interrelateand complement various levels of other nutrients applied to crops in the rooting media.The complementary effects are also manifest with respect to water requirements and positive interrelations with temperature, light, and other atmospheric constraints . (See -"Environmental 'Science' In The Classroom," CR, April 1997.) Today, in the greenhousesof the Westlands of Holland, where the first use of elevated levels of greenhouse carbondioxide for enrichment of food crops occurred 40 years ago, there are glass green housescovering over 10,000 hectares. These are all enriched with atmospheric levels of 1,000ppm of CO2 during daylight hours. This practice is followed during the entire year whencrops are produced. Increases of marketable yields of tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers,eggplant, and ornamentals range between 20% to 40% with an annual return of $3billion. There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of theworld . This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physicalsciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 . The satellite data on globaltemperature changes are now in. There has been no appreciable warming . Accordingly,the rising level of atmospheric CO2 does not make the United States the world's worstpolluter . It is the world's greatest benefactor . Unlike other natural resources (land,


10/26

water, energy) essential for food production, which are costly and progressively in shortersupply, the rising level of atmospheric CO2, is a universally free premium gaining inmagnitude with time on which we can all reckon for the future. The effects of theincreasing atmospheric level of CO2 on photosynthetic capacity for the enhancement of food production and the output of rangelands and forests, appear far more importantthan any detectable change in climate . Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 alsoprovide a cost-free environment for the conservation of water which is rapidlybecoming another of the world's most limiting natural resources, the majority of which isnow used for crop irrigation .

****Russian Oil DA****


11/26

Russian Oil 1NC (1/2)

Oil prices rebounding driven by dollar and OPEC

Amadeo 11 (Kimberly, M.S. @ Sloan School of Business, M.I.T., M.S. Planning @Boston College, What Makes Oil Prices So High? 4 -15-11,http://useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/p/high_oil_prices.htm, CT)

Crude oil prices have been increasing steadily since February 2009 , when pricesdropped to $39 a barrel. Prices hovered at a comfortable $70-$80 a barrel until late 2010.In February 2011, oil prices broke $100 a barrel, creating fears of inflation. High oilprices translate to high gas prices . Petroleum is an ingredient in fertilizer. This,combined with higher transportation costs, increases food prices. The forces driving highoil prices are similar to what happened when oil hit an all-time high in 2008. OilPrices Skyrocketed to $145 a Barrel: Oil prices hit an all-time high of $145 a barrel inJuly 2008. This drove gas prices to $4.00 a gallon. Most news sources blamed this onsurging demand from China and India, combined with decreasing supply from Nigeria andIraq oil fields. (Source: BBC, Oil Price May Hit $200 a Barrel, May 7, 2008) Supply andDemand Were Not Alone in Driving Up Oil Prices: Although these points were true, theprice of oil was driven by much, much more than supply and demand. In fact, globaldemand was actually down and global supply up during that time. Oil consumptiondecreased from 86.66 million barrels per day (bpd) in the fourth quarter 2007 to 85.73million bpd in the first quarter of 2008. At the same time, supply increased from 85.49 to86.17 million bpd. According to the laws of supply and demand, prices should havedecreased.Instead, they increased almost 25% - from $87.79 to $110.21 a barrel. (Source:EIA. See Google Spreadsheet) Why? Although the EIA pinned part of the blame onvolatility in Venezuela and Nigeria, it warned of an influx of investment money into

commodities markets . As investors retreated from the falling real estate and globalstock markets, they diverting their funds to oil futures . This sudden surge drove up oilprices, creating a speculative bubble . (Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook) Thisbubble soon spread to other commodities . Investor funds swamped wheat, gold andother related futures markets. This speculation drove up food prices dramatically aroundthe world. The result? Food riots in less-developed countries by people facing starvation.(Source: BBC News,Commodity Boom Continues to Roll, January 16, 2008; CNN, Riots,Instability Spread as Food Prices Skyrocket, February 18, 2008) High oil prices are alsodriven by a decline in the dollar . Most oil contracts around the world are traded indollars. As a result, oil- exporting countries usually peg their currency to the dollar.When the dollar declines, so do their oil revenues, but their costs go up . Therefore,OPEC must raise the price of oil to maintain its profit margins and keep costs of imported goods constant . (Source: USA Today,Oil Briefly Spurts Near $104 per Barrel,March 3, 2008)

Perception of large alternative energy projects cause reactionary drop in oil prices thatdamage profit


12/26

Baker 8 (David, Staff SF Chronicle, Feb.09 http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-27/news/17137888_1_oil-prices-plunge-power-and-alternative-fuels-oil-costs AQB)

This decade's historic high prices for oil and natural gas have stoked the rise of renewable power and alternative fuels . As fossil fuel prices smashed record after record,options like ethanol, hybrid electric cars, solar power and wind looked better and better .Now oil costs less than half what it did this summer . Ditto natural gas. If prices keepdropping and stay down, future fuels like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel will have aharder time competing. So will solar and wind power projects, which compete againstpower plants that burn natural gas. Public interest in alternative energy may dwindle aswell. "The excitement has subsided in the last few months, " said Brian Youngberg,senior energy analyst with the Edward Jones investment company. "When oil comes down,there's still interest, but it's not as passionate. That's a potential risk." like a rerun of amovie they've already seen, one with an ugly ending . American interest in renewablepower and alternative fuels swelled during the oil shocks of the 1970s, which exposed thecountry's deep dependence on imported petroleum. But after the price of oil hit a recordhigh in 1981, it crashed and took the country's interest in alternatives with it.

Alternative-energy entrepreneurs hope this time will be different. No matter how far oildrops, the fear of global warming won't go away, they say. That should keep both thepublic and the government interested in tapping energy sources that don't add toclimate change .


13/26

Russian Oil 1NC (2/2)

Oil price collapse causes collapse of the Russian economy

Harding 8 (Luke, lead correspondent @ Guardian, Russia close to e conomic collapseas oil price falls, experts predict 20 -11-08,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/oil-russia-economy-putin-

medvedev, CT)The collapse in the value of oil was likely to have several catastrophic consequencesfor Russia including a possible devaluation of the rouble and a severe drop in livingstandards next year , they warned. With oil prices tumbling, and his own credibility atstake , Russia's prime minister Vladimir Putin today insisted that the country's economywas still robust. Speaking at a meeting of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, Putin tolddelegates in Moscow the country would survive the current global financial turmoil -which he blamed on the US. But the Kremlin is acutely aware that any loss of confidence in the Russian economy could lead to a loss of confidence in Putin and hisally Dmitry Medvedev, who took over from Putin as Russia's president in May.Medvedev's biggest initiative so far has been to float an extension in the presidential termfrom four to six years - a proposal that entrenches the current Kremlin's grip on power, andwhich Russia's loyal Duma is likely to approve on Saturday. Putin today said hisadministration would do everything it could to prevent a recurrence of Russia's lastoil-related financial crash in 1998 - which saw the savings of many ordinary Russianswiped out. But the plummeting oil price leaves him little room for manoeuvre. Expertssuggest that Russia's economy is now facing profound difficulties, despite two massivestabilisation funds accumulated during the booming oil years. The fall in oil prices from$147 this July to below $50 today has blown a gaping hole in the government's budget

calculation s. It is now facing a $150bn shortfall in its spending plans - and will have toslash expenditure in 2009. Today Putin sought to assure hard-up Russians that their socialbenefits would not be affected, promising a $20bn assistance package. " We will doeverything, everything in our power ... so that the collapses of the past years shouldnever be repeated, " he said. The oil slump , however, exacerbates Russia's alreadysevere economic problems . Since May Russian markets have lost 70% of their value .Russia's central bank, meanwhile, has been spent $57.5bn in two months trying to prop upthe country's ailing currency. " If the current trend continues with the governmentsupporting the rouble, oil prices falling and a slowing economy we are going to have amajor crisis ," said Chris Weafer, an analyst with the Moscow brokerage Uralsib.

Russian economic decline causes nuclear war

Filger 9 (Sheldon, Staff Huffingtonhttp://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356 AQB)

In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to adegree that is rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies . It was theeconomic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall.Similarly, Medvedev and Putin , both intimately acquainted with their nations history,


14/26

are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russias economic crisis willendanger the nations political stability , achieved at great cost after years of chaosfollowing the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurringamong rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries.Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin andMedvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, whohave been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in adesperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the pointwhere economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond theobvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis . Thereis a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despiteits economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russiaremains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scopeand capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not onlyPresident Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over theprospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and

destabilizing social and political upheaval . It just may be possible that U.S. PresidentBarack Obamas national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recentnational intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have alreadyconcluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threatto the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During theyears Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nationsnuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperatepersonnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the currenteconomic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would theRussian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the GlobalEconomic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.


15/26

****Saudi Arabia DA****


16/26

Saudi Arabia Oil 1NC (1/2)

A shift to renewable energies would devastate Saudi Arabia's economy - it's vulnerable and not diverse.

Singh 11 (Timon, MENA Magazine Issue 4, " The Middle East: Renewable energy friendly?" http://www.menainfra.com/article/middle-east-renewable-energy/, AD

7/7/11) AV It is hardly surprising, after all apart from Russia, the Kingdom is the world's leading oilproducer , so embracing renewable energy would almost be detrimental to SaudiArabia's economy . However while Russia has said that dependency on its energy exportsis 'humiliating' and have striven to diversify, Saudi Arabia have stood firm. Riyadh haverecently stated plans to spend US$170 billion over the next five years on energy andoil refining efforts confirming thoughts that they aren't treating renewable energy as aserious investment, despite green technologies doing well in terms of market shares. SaudiAramco , the country's state-owned oil company, has even been quoted as saying it is"unrealistic" for Saudi Arabia to invest heavily into alternative energy sources whenits 'cash cow' is essentially its oil wealth . While the Kingdom may have made half-hearted efforts to embrace renewable technology such as cursory investment in biofuels and electric vehicles, it is still very much placing all its eggs in one basket .Speaking to Oilprice.com, Eurasia Group energy analyst Will Pearson argued this couldprove to be a mistake for Saudi Arabia. Acknowledging that people are going to bedependant on the oil industry for transport for a wh ile, Pearson said that Saudi Arabiawas wasting its potential to become a major solar player saying the kingdom had not made"too much concrete progress so far." In fact, he went so far as to say that without a "huge,revolution[ary], game-changing technology, " an abrupt shift in Saudi Arabia's "fuel

mix" is doubtful.

That collapses the current Saudi regime and results in a coup

Bucholz 97 (Jennifer, University of Michigan graduate, " Saudi Arabia as a PotentialRogue State/ ." June, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rtanter/S97PS472_Papers/BUCHOLZ.JENNIFER.SAUDI.HTML, AD 7/7/11) AV

All famous revolutions have a leader who becomes the embodiment of the revolutionarymovement. For the French he was Robespierre or Danton, for the Americans he wasWashington, for the Iranians he was Khomeni. Who will it be for the Saudis? As of yet, noone. There are many possible leaders: the six thousand princes, the religious leaders withinand outside the regime. But none has yet emerged as The One. Also, there must be aspark to start the revolutionary coup in motion . This is typically a national crisis orhardship, or else a very blatantly unacceptable act on the part of the old regime. Forthe Saudis, still highly dependent on the ebb and flow of the world oil market, acatastrophe on the world oil market could be that spark. The lifting of internationalsanctions on Iraq and subsequent crash in oil prices or the end of Saudi oil reserves ,concurrent with continued dissatisfaction of the Saudis with their government, would


17/26

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


18/26

Saudi Arabia Oil 1NC (2/2)

A Coup allows for the escalation of a Middle East nuclear arms race

Markey 8 (Edward, Wall Street Journal, " Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia BuildNukes?" June 10th,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, AD 7/7/11) AV

Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of theOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In aceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist SaudiArabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructingnuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, theAmerica n consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions. SaudiArabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domesticelectricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline andstepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production thatcould meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand,would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertisein this complex technology. Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward?The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friendsin Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclearplants. Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by thedangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the

Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran. The twocountries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms andwaging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radicallyalter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights thetinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran thattwo can play the nuclear game. In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is]already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, aswell, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclearprogram is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential,importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense. The Bushadministration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh saidit won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerousnuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on EnergyIndependence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, sayingsimply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in theleadership of Saudi Arabia." That's not good enough. We would do well to rememberthat it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the


19/26

Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 IslamicRevolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging toU.S. security. We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spreadof extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollarscould flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatileregion of the world . While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon withoutrealizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race .

That escalates and guarantees extinction.

Cirincione 7 (Joseph, Director of Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress,"Apocalypse When?," November 12th,http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15998, AD 7/7/11) AV

Third is the risk of new nuclear nations. I agree with Mueller that the danger here is notthat Iran or North Korea would use a nuclear bomb against America or their

neighbors. Deterrence is alive and well; they know what would happen next. Nor is itthat these states would intentionally give a weapon they worked so hard to make to aterrorist group they could not control. Rather it is the risk of what could happen in theneighborhood: a nuclear reaction chain where states feel they must match eachother's nuclear capability. Just such a reaction is underway already in the MiddleEast, as over a dozen Muslim nations suddenly declared interest in starting nuclear-power programs. This is not about energy; it is a nuclear hedge against Iran. It couldlead tp a Middle East with not one nuclear-weapons state, Israel, but four or five.That is a recipe for nuclear war.


20/26

****Russian Relations DA****


21/26

Russian Relations 1NC (1/3)

US-Russian relations are highBurns 2/10/11 (William J Burns is a Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Moscow,Russia http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2011/156449.htm, TDA)

I am very pleased to be back in Moscow. This is a moment of great promise inrelations between Russia and the United States . In the two years since our two

presidents launched the reset, weve made significant progress . Weve ratified theNew START agreement ; completed the 123 Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation;deepened our cooperation on Afghanistan; worked closely together on nonproliferationissues , especially on Iran and North Korea; strengthened our partnerships oncounternarcotics and counterterrorism; and established the Bilateral PresidentialCommission to intensify ties not just between our governments but between our societies,on issues ranging from energy efficiency to health and youth and sports exchanges. ( and)Trade and investment are also increasing in both directions . And recent publicopinion polling suggests that more than 60% of Russians today have a favorable viewof the United States , which is more than two times what it was two years ago. There aresimilar trends in the United States in attitudes toward Russia . The challenge before ustoday, and the central purpose of my visit, is how to build on this momentum, to movebeyond the reset, to widen and deepen our cooperation in a range of areas, but particularlyin the economic area. I met, over the course of the last couple of days, with a number of senior government officials in the Kremlin, the White House, and the Foreign Ministry.Ive also met with political reform, civil society, and business leaders. I emphasized thevery high priority that President Obama attaches to doing everything the United States canto help Russia achieve accession to the World Trade Organization and graduation fromJackson-Vanik this year, in 2011. I also highlighted the value for both of us in building

genuine cooperation on missile defense. Both of our presidents have stressed theimportance for Russias future of transparent, accountable, democratic government. Thatsnot easy. As many Russians know far better than I do, the truth is that there are problemsand abuses in the path of that progress, whether its pervasive corruption; the unsolvedmurders of journalists like Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya; attacks on humanrights activists; and the selective application of justice. Its deeply in the interest of Russia,in our view, to address those challenges, and its certainly deeply in the interest of theUnited States to do everything we can to support economic and political modernization inRussia. What I would say overall is that weve come a very long way together over thelast two years, and I think a great deal more can be accomplished in 2011 andbeyond.
http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2011/156449.htmhttp://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2011/156449.htm


22/26


Space underlies ALL other aspects of cooperation the plan crushes relationsLogsdon and Millar 01 [February 2001, John, Director of the Space Policy Instituteat George Washington, and James, emeritus professor of economics and internationalaffairs at George Washington University, U.S. -Russian Cooperation in Human SpaceFlight Assessing the Impacts, Space Policy Institute and Institute for European,

Russian and Eurasian Studies Elliott School of International Affairs The George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/usrussia.pdf DH]

Yet, to one participant, "If nothing else, good relations in the area of space policy helpprovide us with a cushion when they are failing in other areas. . . . Moscows militaryas well as its space program are in very dire straits. Both would seem to be close tocardiac arrest. Having said that, I think our interactions with the Russians in both of these areas are critical to our future bilateral relationship. It would be easy to dismissthe Russians as serious players given their internal situation- an attitude often heard aroundWashington. To a large degree, we have to carry the ball for them. . . . So why should wecontinue to pick up the tab? Why should the American taxpayer continue to subsidize theRussian space program - or our military to military contacts? It seems to me that there aretwo answers to this question. First, when it comes to the space program we are dealingwith a very high visibility program. If we ignore the Russian space program, we runthe risk of wounding their pride in a very serious way. They don?t need to be told thatthey are down and out. They know it better than we do . My experience with Russianstells me that they are experts when it comes to knowing the extent of theirtechnological inferiority vis-a-vis the West - or put differently, just how far they arebehind us. But by keeping them involved in the space program we are at least givingthem a psychological fig leaf." This participant noted that " the more ties we can develop

with the Russians in sensitive areas like space and the military the better off ouroverall relationship will be . . . . It is also worth noting that we have a unique, and evenunparalleled opportunity. Both the Russian military and space programs will shortly beforced to undergo some major reforms. It is clear to everyone - and especially the Russianprofessionals for whom I have developed considerable respect over the years - thatsomething must be done. And it is not just a question of money, although that is critical.Putin is addressing this issue in the military area right now. It is only a matter of timebefore the space programs undergo the same process. The closer our ties are to these twocritical institutions the better will be our chances of impacting on the evolution of thesestructures. I am not suggesting that either the Russian military or space program willmirror what we have in this country. Both will be Russian and carry an indelible Russiantrade-mark. Nevertheless, I think we would be silly to underestimate the impact these twoprograms will have on our bilateral relations." He concluded that "further development of our bilateral space and military to military relations is a win-win process." Another reasonfor continuing cooperation was suggested: "it is important for U.S. decisionmakers torecognize that even the short-term cutoff of ISS cooperation could have severe costs,undermining changes that have not yet become consolidated and incurring other risks. . . .It can be argued convincingly that U.S. withdrawal of support or conditioning of funding for cooperative space projects on the proliferation-related behavior of other


23/26

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


24/26


Relations solve miscalc and nuclear warGottemoeller 8 (Rose Gottemoeller was appointed Director of carnegie moscow centerin January 2006. formerly, Gottemoeller was a senior associate at the carnegieendowment, where she held a joint appointment with the Russian and eurasianProgram and the Global Policy Program. a specialist on defense and nuclear issues in

Russia and the other former soviet states, Gottemoellers research at the endowmentfocused on issues of nuclear security and stability, nonproliferation, and arms control,the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organizationdedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting activeinternational engagement by the United States, Russia -US Security Relations afterGeorgia availab le athttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia.pdf )

No holds barred, no rules the United States and Russia may be heading to aconfrontation more unpredictable and dangerous than any we have seen since theCuban missile crisis. A confrontation today would be different the two countries are inconstant and intense communication, unlike the situation in 1962 but if those exchangesprovoke mutual anger and recrimination, they have the potential to spark adangerous crisis. This effect is especially dangerous because both countries are inpresidential transitions . Russia, whose government is riven by corruption, internalcompetition, and disorder, is attempting an unprecedented tandem leadershiparrangement. The United States is in the midst of its quadrennial election season, withboth political parties competing to show that their man is more skilled and tough onnational security issues than his opponent. The unpredictability of these two transitions

stokes the potential for misunderstanding and descent into crisis . We must avoid sucha crisis, because we have never succeeded in escaping the nuclear existential threatthat we each pose to the other . We never even came close to transforming the U.S. Russian relationship into one that is closer to that which the United States has with theUnited Kingdom or France. What if Russia had refused to confirm or deny that nonuclear weapons were on the bombers it flew to Venezuela? Our nuclear weapons arestill faced off to launch on warning of an attack, and in a no-holds-barred confrontationbetween us, we could come close to nuclear catastrophe before we knew it. What next? Isit possible to outrun confrontation and return to a pragmatic working relationship inpursuit of mutual interests? Clearly the answer should be yes, if the RussianFederation completely withdraws its troops from Georgian territory according to theSarkozy Medvedev plan. But, following Russias recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, that process may take months and perhaps years. SomeRussian commentators have been arguing that a relevant time frame to consider is howlong Cyprus has been the site of an unresolved territorial dispute between Turkey andGreece: nearly thirty years. In the meantime, the United States and Russia have about sixmonths of intense political transition to get through, until the new U.S. president settlesinto place. This begs for a short-term modus vivendi that would enable the two countriesto avoid a potential crisis and establish an agenda to confront some of the severe
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia.pdfhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia.pdfhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia.pdfhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/russia_us_security_relations_after_georgia.pdf


25/26

problems that have emerged in their relationship. Ultimately, the United States andRussia should want to re-create a book of rules that both will embrace, corresponding tointernational law and in fact strengthening it. Seize the Superstructure The first step inthis process, and the best way to begin it, is to grab onto the existing superstructureof the U.S. Russia relationship . This is the system of established and well-understoodtreaties, agreements, and arrangements that has been built up over time. Beginning in the1950s, many efforts have been made to insert predictability and mutual confidence intothe relationship in the form of both bilateral and multilateral arrangements. For the nextsix months, both governments need to take advantage of this established and wellunderstood system. Derided in recent years as a Cold War relic not worthy of thefriendship the two countries had developed, it could now be a lifeline.


26/26