Ocs Neg - MGW - 2014

***case defense
econ 1nc
[Insert defense to answer specific 1AC Internal Links]
Plan causes oil spills kills the economy and ensures job loss
Valtin 6 (Tom, Offshore Drilling Moratorium Threatened, April 28,
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200603/offshore.asp, CMR)

For the past 25 years, there has been strong, bipartisan support for a moratorium on offshore drilling. In 1981, responding to public sentiment,
Congress adopted the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters off the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts and Alaskas Bristol Bay for fossil fuel development. Each year since then Congress has
renewed the moratorium. In 1990, the first President Bush authored an additional level of protection deferring new leasing until 2002, which
President Clinton extended to 2012. But these protections are now in danger of being weakened or overturned by the
current Bush administration and its allies in Congress. Drilling off our coasts is not the way to achieve energy independence or bring down
gas-pump and home heating prices, says Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. We dont need to sacrifice our beaches and coastal waters
to meet Americas energy needs. Tourism, commercial and sport fishing, and real estate generate billions of
dollars of economic activity and millions of jobs in Americas coastal communities. And spills are more
common than the drilling industry would have the public believe, as the 200,000-gallon crude oil spill just west of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this March attests. Between 1980 and 1999, three million gallons of oil spilled from offshore
oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexicothe equivalent of 400 gallons a daywhile tens of thousands of
pounds of mercury have been dumped around oil rigs in the Gulf. Nevertheless, in February the Department of
Interiors Minerals Management Service released a 5-year OCS planning document that details future leasing and development on the mid-
Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. Meanwhile, Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) introduced a plan to open up nearly four million
acres of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, and Representative John Peterson (R-Pa.) introduced a House bill to immediately repeal the OCS
moratorium. Fresh off a year of record-breaking profits, the oil and gas industry is taking aim first at Virginia. In March, the Virginia General
Assembly passed a bill, S.B. 262, calling on Congress to authorize drilling off the Virginia coast. The Assembly not only wrote off the bipartisan
support that has kept the moratorium in place, it also disregarded the economic lifeblood that tourism pumps into the state, says Sierra Club
Virginia Chapter Director Michael Town. Offshore drilling could turn our beaches and coastal waters into an
industrial zone. The city of Virginia Beach alone attracts more than three million visitors each year, generating $700 million in tourist
spending and providing some 11,000 jobs within the city. We have too much to lose by allowing oil and gas companies
to drill off our coast, says Chesapeake Bay Group Chair Fred Adams. The economy of the Tidewater region is based on tourism,
retirees, and the military. The first two groups in particular come here for the environment. Any potential benefits of drilling are not
commensurate with the risks involved.
Wont help the economy lack of demand
Auer, 12 (Matthew, dean of the Hutton Honors College and professor at the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, March 4, 2012, Without a surge in demand, drilling for oil
won't help economy http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765556024/Wiithout-a-surge-in-demand-
drilling-for-oil-wont-help-economy.html?pg=all)

Why? Natural gas prices are near 10-year lows and some wells are losing money. Breakthroughs in gas
extraction in particular, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" have made gas cheap and abundant. Gas inventories are piling
up, and if reserves go unsold, expect prices to fall further. The natural gas glut has repercussions in other parts of the
energy sector. Comparatively expensive solar has lost its luster and cheap gas could knock the wind out of wind especially if Congress
allows tax credits for wind energy to expire. Dirtier parts of the national energy portfolio are suffering, too. Cheap
gas is partly to blame for recent layoffs in Appalachian coal mines. Cheap energy for the ethylene industry or any
industry is wonderful, so long as there is sustained consumer demand. What ails the economy isn't solved by new
investments in coal mines, oil fields, and gas wells unless people are consuming. Post-recession
personal consumption has badly lagged the previous two economic recoveries. Stubbornly high
unemployment rates are a big part of the problem. So is a deflated housing market and feeble levels of
residential investment. Meanwhile, prospective full-bore development of American offshore oil won't have
a major dampening effect on gas prices nor will the modest additions to our crude oil supply from TransCanada's currently-
stalled Keystone XL pipeline project. Drill all you want, baby. But don't be a cry baby when gas prices stay high. What works to
make natural gas affordable currently doesn't work the same way for oil. Gas injection and other enhanced oil
recovery methods are more complicated and costly to deploy than fracking. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a big burst
of investment public, private or both in fossil fuel production really shifts our economy into high gear in 2012.
Can't complain, right? Wrong, once the long-term costs are accounted for. A fossil-fuel intensive
economic recovery may generate jobs in areas we never really intended: experts at repairing groundwater fouled by
fracking, doctors skilled at treating asthmatics, idled fishermen donning hazmat suits, scrubbing oil off the beaches, and so on. Fossil fuels are
the engines of our economy. We are dumb to develop and bring these fuels to market in the absence of robust
demand. We are dirty and dumb if we extract and burn these fuels without anticipating the public health and environmental consequences.
Any effect on the economy is long-term and insignificant 3 reasons
Elmendorf 11 (Douglas, Director of CBO, Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment
in 2012 and 2013 before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate, Nov 15,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf,
CMR)

Energy and the Environment. Projects to increase the production of energy are typically subject to review by multiple levels of government.
Federal agencies generally focus on compliance with national performance standards and on infrastructure that crosses state boundaries,
such as pipelines and electric power transmission lines. Federal agencies also determine the conditions under which the
private sector can develop resources on public lands, such as the Outer C ontinental S helf and national forests. Those review
processes generally aim to limit damage to health and the environment from economic activity, but they also affect the amount and pace of
investments in the energy sector. For example, the federal approval process may delay or prevent the launching of projects that, if ultimately
approved and undertaken, would result in significant investment and production. In addition, the prospect of such delays and the risk of
projects being blocked deter some projects from being proposed at all. The federal government could increase employment and output
during the next few years by hastening or relaxing the approval process for energy projects or by expanding opportunities to develop
resources on public lands. However, the short-term effects of such changes would probably be small relative to
the size of the overall economy for several reasons. First, state and local governments strongly influence the
siting of energy facilities within their boundaries, and the federal government does not control the
actions of those governments. Second, even if additional projects were approved in the next few years, many of
them would not commence in earnest for several years. Finally, energy production accounts for only a small
percentage of overall output, so incremental gains in that sector would have only a modest effect on the
economy as a whole.
econ 1nc impact d
Recovery deep and resilient no risk of relapse
Perry 13 (Mark J, full professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan, where
he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in economics and finance since 1996. Starting in the
fall of 2009, A testament to economic resilience, 12-24, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-
testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-
october/)

Bottom Line: World industrial output and world merchandise trade both reached new record monthly
highs in October. The volumes of world output and trade are now both solidly above their previous peaks during
the early months of the global slowdown in 20 08 (by 10.1% and 7.2% respectively), suggesting that the global economy
has now made a complete recovery from the 20 08 -2009 economic slowdown. At the forefront of the global economic
expansion this year are the emerging economies, which experienced especially strong growth over the last year through
October in both trade volumes (4.7% export growth and 5.4% import growth) and industrial output (4.1%). The complete recovery
over the last several years in the global economy to new record highs for both global trade and global industrial output
demonstrates the incredible resiliency of economies around the world to recover and prosper, even
following the worst financial crisis and global economic slowdown in generations.
No global economic collapse and it wouldnt cause conflict
Drezner 11 (Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, 8-12-2011, Please come down off the ledge, dear readers, Foreign
polivy, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/, CMR)

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard
times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and
disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for
a while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it
1931? Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how
1931 played out. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression. I'm
gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank
heads replay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and
institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of publuc attitudes, compare the
results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: 2007 poll
results 2010 poll results The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things
stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased
in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the
Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands
to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc. Another big difference is that
multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters, even if the
Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working
quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The
IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking
Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an
improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious
macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is
reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything
worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working paper cited
in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that
paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the
responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower . Where constraints on the executive are
minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of
social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less
significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient
declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good
news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931. What happened in
London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic news might seem
grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the
19 30's . And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.
Global economy resilient
Zakaria 9PhD Poli Sci @ Harvard *Fareed, Editor of Newsweek, The Secrets of Stability, 12/12,
Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425, CMR]

A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider
this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does
reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The
question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now
we're back to business as usual?" This revival did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own.
Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis
hit. By massively expanding state support for the economythrough central banks and national treasuriesthey
buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The
extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned
the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 19 30s , when governments
played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the
cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and
bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful
economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could
provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking againthe animal spirits of investors, consumers, and
companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have not
faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 19 87 , the
recession of 19 92 , the Asian crisis of 19 97 , the Russian default of 19 98 , and the tech-bubble
collapse of 2000 .The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think . The
world today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.
Economic decline doesnt cause war people tolerate bad econ, poor countries cant
organize wars, empirical studies prove
Miller 1Professor of Economics [Morris, Professor of Economics, Poverty: A Cause of War?,
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm, CMR]

Library shelves are heavy with studies focused on the correlates and causes of war. Some of the leading
scholars in that field suggest that we drop the concept of causality, since it can rarely be demonstrated. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to look
at the motives of war-prone political leaders and the ways they have gained and maintained power, even to the point of leading their nations to
war. Poverty: The Prime Causal Factor? Poverty is most often named as the prime causal factor. Therefore we approach
the question by asking whether poverty is characteristic of the nations or groups that have engaged in wars. As we shall see, poverty has
never been as significant a factor as one would imagine. Largely this is because of the traits of the
poor as a group - particularly their tendency to tolerate their suffering in silence and/or be deterred
by the force of repressive regimes. Their voicelessness and powerlessness translate into passivity. Also,
because of their illiteracy and ignorance of worldly affairs, the poor become susceptible to the messages of war-bent demagogues and often
willing to become cannon fodder. The situations conductive to war involve political repression of dissidents, tight control over media that stir
up chauvinism and ethnic prejudices, religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The poor succumb to leaders who have the power to create
such conditions for their own self-serving purposes. Desperately poor people in poor nations cannot organize wars , which
are exceptionally costly. The statistics speak eloquently on this point. In the last 40 years the global arms
trade has been about $1500 billion, of which two-thirds were the purchases of developing countries.
That is an amount roughly equal to the foreign capital they obtained through official development aid (ODA). Since ODA does not finance arms
purchases (except insofar as money that is not spent by a government on aid-financed roads is available for other purposes such as military
procurement) financing is also required to control the media and communicate with the populace to convince them to support the war. Large-
scale armed conflict is so expensive that governments must resort to exceptional sources, such as drug dealing, diamond smuggling, brigandry,
or deal-making with other countries. The reliance on illicit operations is well documented in a recent World Bank report that studied 47 civil
wars that took place between 1960 and 1999, the main conclusion of which is that the key factor is the availability of commodities to plunder.
For greed to yield war, there must be financial opportunities. Only affluent political leaders and
elites can amass such weaponry, diverting funds to the military even when this runs contrary to the interests of the population. In
most inter-state wars the antagonists were wealthy enough to build up their armaments and propagandize or repress to gain acceptance for
their policies. Economic Crises? Some scholars have argued that it is not poverty, as such, that contributes to the support for armed
conflict, but rather some catalyst, such as an economic crisis. However, a study by Minxin Pei and Ariel
Adesnik shows that this hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22
countries in Latin American and Asia since World War II, they concluded that much of the conventional thinking about
the political impact of economic crisis is wrong: "The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of
inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... or (in democratic states, rarely) to an
outbreak of violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression
(thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."

econ 1nc AT: jobs
Jobs recoveringnew high point
Buford 7-3 (Talia, Pro Report: Economy adds 288,000 jobs U.S. trade deficit shrinks Dems begin
fundraising on Export-Import Bank, 2014,
http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html)

JOBS REPORT COMES IN BETTER THAN EXPECTED: This from Jon Prior and Zachary Warmbrodt [http://politico.pro/VjdzN6]:
The stronger than expected jobs report released on Thursday will likely calm fears about the strength of the
economic recovery and bolster Democrats arguments that hiring is on the upswing in advance of the mid-term elections. The
economy added 288,000 jobs in June while the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1 percent, the Labor
Department reported Thursday. Analysts had expected job growth of about 215,000, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists. The
unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since September 2008, when the financial crisis hit full stride following
the failure of Lehman Brothers.
No effect on jobs or oil prices recent production trends prove
Krugman 12 Nobel Prize Winner, American economist, Professor of Economics and International
Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University,
Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics (Paul, Natural Born Drillers, March 15,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.html, CMR)

The irony here is that these claims come just as events are confirming what everyone who did the math already knew, namely, that U.S.
energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. For the truth is that were
already having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel imports
dropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantially
lower gasoline prices and lots of new jobs. Predictably, however, it has done neither . Why the hydrocarbon boom?
Its all about the fracking. The combination of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing of shale and other low-permeability rocks has opened
up large reserves of oil and natural gas to production. As a result, U.S. oil production has risen significantly over the past
three years, reversing a decline over decades, while natural gas production has exploded. Given this expansion,
its hard to claim that excessive regulation has crippled energy production. Indeed, reporting in The Times makes it
clear that U.S. policy has been seriously negligent that the environmental costs of fracking have been underplayed and ignored. But, in a
way, thats the point. The reality is that far from being hobbled by eco-freaks, the energy industry has been given a largely
free hand to expand domestic oil and gas production, never mind the environment. Strange to say, however, while natural
gas prices have dropped, rising oil production and a sharp fall in import dependence havent stopped gasoline
prices from rising toward $4 a gallon. Nor has the oil and gas boom given a noticeable boost to an
economic recovery that, despite better news lately, has been very disappointing on the jobs front.
---ext: jobs recovering
Unemployment declining
VOA 7-3 (US Trade Deficit Narrows as Exports Hit Record High, VOA News, 2014,
http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.html)

Jobless rate Thursday's report from the Labor Department shows the unemployment rate falling two-tenths of a
percentage point to hit 6.1 percent in June. The study also shows a net gain of 288,000 jobs. The job
growth and the unemployment rate are both better than economists had predicted. An economic advisor to
President Obama said it is the first time since 2000 the economy gained 200,000 jobs per month for five
straight months. But Jason Furman also said many families are still struggling with long-term unemployment and stagnant wages.
---ext: drilling no solve jobs
Drilling wont solve job growth empirically any boost is insignificant

Meanwhile, what about jobs? I have to admit that I started laughing when I saw The Wall Street Journal offering North
Dakota as a role model. Yes, the oil boom there has pushed unemployment down to 3.2 percent, but thats
only possible because the whole state has fewer residents than metropolitan Albany so few residents
that adding a few thousand jobs in the states extractive sector is a really big deal. The comparable-sized
fracking boom in Pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the states overall employment picture,
because, in the end, not that many jobs are involved . And this tells us that giving the oil companies carte
blanche isnt a serious jobs program. Put it this way: Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen more
than 50 percent since the middle of the last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs , around
one-twentieth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment. So the idea that drill, baby, drill can cure our jobs
deficit is basically a joke . Why, then, are Republicans pretending otherwise? Part of the answer is that the party is rewarding its
benefactors: the oil and gas industry doesnt create many jobs, but it does spend a lot of money on
lobbying and campaign contributions. The rest of the answer is simply the fact that conservatives have no other job-creation ideas to
offer. And intellectual bankruptcy, Im sorry to say, is a problem that no amount of drilling and fracking can solve.
Wont create jobs past decade proves
Farley 12 (Allison, Deceive Deny, Delay and Do it all again, April 20,
http://westofroanoke.com/2012/04/20/deceive-deny-delay-and-do-it-all-again/, CMR)

What about jobs from digging and drilling? In southwest Virginia, coal mining employment dropped by nearly 60% between 1990
and 2009. Sixty percent. That huge job loss happened almost entirely before President Obama took office. In fact much of it occurred during the
eight years of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, whose energy policy was nearly identical to what Mr Griffith proposes. Its the same for the oil
industry. Over the past decade again, most of it pre-Obama the oil industry shed almost 11,000 jobs, which helped the
big five oil companies earn nearly a trillion dollars in profits during those 10 years. Theres no doubt that more digging and drilling
will make a lot of money for a few senior industry executives. To tout it as a job creation strategy,
however, is pure deception .
Wont solve oil prices or jobs
Jones, 12 (Forrest, March 16, 2012, Krugman: More Oil Drilling Won't Help Economy by Creating
Jobs http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Krugman-Oil-Drilling-Economy/2012/03/16/id/432834)

Drilling for more oil in the United States won't lower prices at the pump and won't create jobs, says Nobel
economist Paul Krugman . Demand for oil is growing worldwide, and drilling in U.S. territories won't produce
enough oil in a global market to lower prices at the pump, Krugman writes in his New York Times column. "Oil prices
are up because of rising demand from China and other emerging economies, and more recently because of war scares in the
Middle East; these forces easily outweigh any downward pressure on prices from rising U.S. production,"
Krugman writes. Meanwhile, the oil industry wouldn't create more jobs. Take North Dakota, where an energy boom is playing
out. Proponents of more drilling argue low unemployment in North Dakota should serve as model for overall U.S. energy policy. "Yes, the
oil boom there has pushed unemployment down to 3.2 percent, but thats only possible because the whole
state has fewer residents than metropolitan Albany so few residents that adding a few thousand jobs
in the states extractive sector is a really big deal," Krugman says. Natural gas fracking, meanwhile, hasn't made much
of a dent in Pennsylvania's employment rates. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said oil prices serve as a hurdle to U.S.
economic recovery, especially with Europe's fate remaining murky. "We're going to need to keep a close eye on oil and Iran and gas prices plus
we've got to make sure Europe keeps moving to sustain its progress," Geithner told the Economic Club of New York, according to Reuters.

econ 1nc AT: trade deficit
SQUO solves energy trade deficit
Donilon 14 (Tom, American lawyer and former government official who served as National Security
Advisor in the Obama administration, We're No. 1 (and We're Going to Stay That Way), Why the
prophets of American decline are wrong,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way
_american_decline)

Meanwhile, the reduction of energy imports has brought our trade deficit to a four-year low, which allows a
greater share of the money Americans spend on energy to remain within the country. We also now have the opportunity for the
export of both natural gas and crude oil to the world, which will support our allies, stabilize the
world's energy supply, and expand our own prosperity.
Overall trade deficit shrinkingensures overall recovery
VOA 7-3 (US Trade Deficit Narrows as Exports Hit Record High, VOA News, 2014,
http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.html)

The U.S. trade deficit narrowed a bit more than expected in May as exports jumped to a record high, and the
U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level in nearly six years. The Commerce Department said on Thursday the trade gap fell
5.6 percent to $44.4 billion, indicating the U.S. economy is benefiting from a strengthening global
recovery, data released Thursday showed. April's trade deficit was revised slightly down to $47.0 billion. The narrowing of the
trade deficit in May followed five straight months of increases. "The improvement in U.S. exports seen
in the May trade data suggests that the world economic recovery is gaining traction," said Tu Packard of
Moody's Analytics, as reported by the French news agency AFP. Exceeded expectations Economists polled by Reuters had expected the trade
deficit to narrow to $45 billion in May from a previously reported $47.2 billion shortfall, suggesting trade could be less of a drag on
second-quarter growth than earlier feared. When adjusted for inflation, the deficit narrowed to $51.96 billion from $53.88
billion in April. Trade subtracted 1.5 percentage points from first-quarter gross domestic product. The economy contracted at a 2.9 percent
annual pace in the first three months of the year. In May, exports increased 1 percent to a record high of $195.5
billion. Exports were driven by a surge in automobiles, parts and engines, which rose to a record high. Exports of consumer goods were also
the highest on record. Imports fell 0.3 percent to $239.8 billion as petroleum imports tumbled to their lowest level since
November 2010. Non-petroleum imports, however, hit a record high in May.
Wont solve the trade deficit makes it worse by trading off with renewables
innovation
Rusnak 12 (Karl, Drilling Wont Fix Our Trade Deficit, May 9,
http://economyincrisis.org/content/drilling-cant-solve-our-trade-deficit, CMR)

In a recent post on Forbes.com, contributor Tim Worstall put forth the dubious idea that we may be able to turn our trade deficit into a trade
surplus through the exploitation of Americas fossil fuels. Drilling our way out of high gas prices and dependence on OPEC is popular in right
wing circles, but the idea that we can restore our balance of trade with oil and gas takes the delusion to a
new level . Worstall claims that *i+ts not inconceivable that the U.S. will start to run a sustained trade surplus for the first time in [his]
adult lifetime. There are certainly ways to make this happen, but short-sighted thinking and reliance on fossil fuels will
not make this prediction a reality. Oil imports currently account for approximately half of our nations $560 billion trade deficit.
U.S. oil and gas production has increased recently with advances in drilling technology that have allowed us to access new sources of energy,
but we are still net importers of both oil and natural gas. We are closing the gap between production and consumption in
natural gas, but the disparity in oil is still much larger. The United States consumes 19,150,000 barrels of oil a day while
currently producing only about 5.5 million barrels per day. Even with the new sources of oil , the U.S. Energy
Information Administration estimates that we will only be producing 6.7 million barrels per day by 2020, while
consumption is expected to rise. It is clear that fossil fuel production will not save us in the short term, and
depending on fossil fuels for our economic well-being in the future would be foolhardy . While we are
learning to harness more of our available reserves, the world will inevitably move away from oil and gas. Many countries have set specific goals
for the move away from fossil fuels. For instance, the European Union has set a target of obtaining 20 percent of its energy from renewable
sources by 2020, up from the 9 percent it achieved in 2009. With power grids shifting to alternative energy sources and increasingly efficient
cars and buses hitting the market regularly, the idea that oil and gas will be the area of energy production that is most profitable in the future is
questionable. Drilling our way to energy independence is partisan rhetoric, not a real solution to either our
energy or economic problems. If we want to think about energy independence and the trade deficit, we should be concerned with
things such as the fact that China is subsidizing its solar industry to undercut the pricing of our domestic manufacturers. Domestic fossil
fuel production may make a dent in our trade deficit, but it will not eliminate it and a focus on drilling
over innovation in renewable sources may hurt the United States long term. There are much better ways
to fix our economy than pretending that we can drill our way to prosperity.
--ext: no trade deficit
US trade deficit shrinking
Buford 7-3 (Talia, Pro Report: Economy adds 288,000 jobs U.S. trade deficit shrinks Dems begin
fundraising on Export-Import Bank, 2014,
http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html)

U.S. TRADE DEFICIT SHRANK IN MAY TO $44.4 BILLION: The decline resulted from a rise in exports and
a drop in imports. U.S. exports rose slightly to $195.5 billion, while imports fell by a smaller amount to
$239.9 billion. May exports of goods set a record high of $135.7 billion. Record highs were also set for autos and auto parts and for
consumer goods. Non-petroleum imports were the highest on record at $169.5 billion, while the value of petroleum imports was the lowest
since November 2010 at $27.2 billion. More from Doug Palmer: http://politico.pro/1mODK3J

econ 1nc AT: revenue
Economic benefits overstated
Solomon 8/12/2012 (Deborah, Drill, Baby, Drill? It Wont Necessarily Pay, Baby, Pay,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/drill-baby-drill-it-won-t-necessarily-pay-baby-pay.html,
CMR)

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continually faults President Barack Obama for not allowing more oil and gas drilling in the U.S.,
saying he's leaving money on the table in the midst of an energy boom. A new report shows that claim comes up a bit short. The
C ongressional B udget Office found the potential revenue from expanded offshore and onshore drilling may be
less of a budgetary boon than lawmakers hope. Immediately opening most federal lands to oil and gas
leasing, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would yield about $7 billion in additional receipts over the next 10
years, according to CBO. Much of that money would flow not to the U.S. Treasury but to the state of Alaska. Oil and
gas drilling is now restricted on some federal lands, including ANWR and sections of the Outer Continental Shelf, which consists of submerged
lands off the Atlantic, Pacific and Florida coastlines. Lawmakers -- particularly those in coastal states like Virginia and Louisiana -- have asked
Obama to allow expanded drilling for economic reasons, saying leases and royalties will provide much-needed revenue. In July, a group of
bipartisan lawmakers proposed legislation to open drilling in ANWR and the outer-continental shelf, saying it would create jobs, produce
revenue and reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil. The potential amount of money has seemed tantalizing. The U.S. is expected to
realize $150 billion over the next decade from oil and gas drilling that's currently allowed on federal land. Opening additional lands to oil and
gas drilling would provide more revenues to the U.S. government but the actual economic boost depends on many
variables, including how much oil is found, its future price and any revenue-sharing deals cut with
coastal states.

econ 2nc link turn
The economic costs outweigh any benefit
Moriarty 11 (Jim, The Economic Case Against Offshore Drilling, Jan 14,
http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/, CMR)

Lets start by establishing the value of the coastlines were talking about in the United States. Coastal tourism in CA,
FL, NY, NJ and WA alone account for $129 billion dollars in leisure and hospitality companies, services and
jobs. Fishing from both coasts accounts for $11.8 billion and $1.9 billion in recreational and commercial fishing respectively. If we stripped
away the political rhetoric and solely looked at offshore drilling with economic lenses wed see that it doesnt make good business
sense . We know the most expensive property is coastal. A house near or on the coast is worth much more than a
comparable house away from the coast. This summers horrific BP spill delivered an economic hit that will be in
the billions of dollars to the Gulf Coast. Now lets look at how much oil is potentially available offshore related to how much
we use and need. The United States is a massive user of other countries oil. We have less than 3% of the worlds oil reserves and yet we use
over 20% of the worlds oil reserves. Those two figures should make you pause. More than making you pause they should underscore the fact
that we cannot solve our problem by drilling offshore . We dont have enough oil everywhere in the
United States to satisfy even half of our current needs. To put this consumption into daily figures, the amount the United
States consumes is 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. The amount the United States produces 8.3 million barrels a day. The best case
scenario for what we COULD drill off our coasts is 2 4 million barrels a day. Increased offshore drilling
cant get us off foreign oil anymore than a half a talk of gas in your car cant magically act like a full tank.
We dont have a full tank we barely have a half tank. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy) stated:
*drilling in+ the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on oil prices before 2030. The report continues
to say: Because oil prices are determined on the international market any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be
insignificant. We have to wait several years in order to experience a small amount of relief at the pump? And while were waiting for
relief at the pump, we would be harming our economy and environment by drilling

econ 2nc small effect
Economic benefits too small
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) 12 (Energy Security in the United States, May,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf, CMR)

Even though increased domestic oil production would probably not enhance U.S. energy security as defined in this report, policymakers
might choose to evaluate the need for increased production according to other criteria. For example, increased domestic
production on federal lands would raise royalty payments to the federal government and thus have a
positive budgetary effect. To the extent that increases in domestic production reduced the price of oil, they would also lessen the
revenues earned by oil-producing countries that are hostile toward the United States. Increased production of domestic oil could reduce
imports of oil as long as U.S. consumption did not step up by a corresponding amount. Moreover, increased domestic oil production
could boost employment and output in the United States. The short-term effects of such changes, however,
would probably be small relative to the size of the U.S. economy.40 Increased domestic production would also have
negative consequences, such as a higher risk of spills and other environmental impacts.

transition 1nc fails
No transition to alternatives cost and self interest
Polczer, 11 (Shaun, North American Editor, Petroleum Economist Magazine at Euromoney Institutional
Investor, April 2011, Renewable energy still too expensive, says report,
http://www.cges.co.uk/media/articles/2011/04/07/renewable-energy-still-too-expensive-says-report)

Despite high oil prices, fossil fuels will continue to trump renewable energy sources such as solar and
wind power without massive government subsidies, a new investment bank says. A report by Calgary-based AltaCorp
Capital says the economic realities of oil and natural gas mean that the world will remain largely
dependent on non-renewable energy sources for the foreseeable future. Author John Mawdsley said he didnt set
out to make a case for oil and gas, but found that hydrocarbon fuels are by far the most cost efficient on an energy equivalent basis compared
to solar, biofuels and wind power. We didnt have any particular bias, but we were surprised by some of the things we found, he said in an
interview. Despite massive government subsidies, so-called green energy such as wind, solar, and
biomass accounts for about four per cent of global energy consumption. On an barrel of oil equivalent
basis, an equal amount of solar power would cost about $450 a barrel even after factoring carbon
dioxide costs of about $50 per tonne which Mawdsley noted is more than double the current price of emission credits in
Europe and three times higher than the Alberta governments $15 per tonne levy on emissions. In that context, expensive oil sources such as
the oilsands remain relatively cheap. Due to the practical and economic realities, we believe high oil prices are
here to stay, which will continue to make Canadas conventional oil and oilsands companies attractive investments. There are also
ethical considerations. Even though corn-based ethanol and soya biodiesel are cheaper than nuclear power and coal-fired electrical generation,
Mawdsley notes that the amount of land under fuel cultivation in the U.S. is enough to feed 150 million people. Electrical cars might reduce
tailpipe emissions, but could be considered coal-fired if they increase demand for dirtier burning electricity. There are trade-offs, he said.
AltaCorp. is the new investment bank and research house formed by Tristone Capital founder George Gosbee late last year. The firm, which is
partially owned by ATB Financial, has a mandate to invest in emerging Alberta companies in the areas of energy, alternative energy and
agriculture. Mawdsley said the comparison highlights the economic disparities between energy sources, but also the opportunities for
innovators to reduce the gap on some of the higher cost energy sources. The report also notes the tragedy of the hydrocarbons, where
cheap oil and gas discourages a transition to cleaner fuels. The tragedy lies in the reality that people will continue to use
and deplete the non-renewable hydrocarbons even though it is not in the best long-term interest of the
individual society, mankind or the planet for this to continue.
Renewable energies are ineffective and cost too much
Forbes, 11 (September 19, 2011, More False Hope About Renewable Energies That Consumers
Reject, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/19/more-false-hope-about-renewable-
energies-that-consumers-reject/2/)

Americans seek affordable energy and expect greater fiscal prudence from Washington. Yet the Obama administration
continues to tout economically failing, deficit-swelling renewables as the elixir to our economic and energy needs. Green jobs
is the code word for the ruse, which is nothing more than artificial job creation for energies that consumers emphatically reject. Dont be
fooled by the political hype. Alternative energy sources fail the cost, reliability, and scalability tests. Whether it is
ethanol for transportation or wind and solar for electricity, politically correct energies are an economic drain. Wind and
solar, in particular, are touted as the energy sources of the future. But entrepreneurs have tried to harness both for
centuries. Their limited utility and obstacles, documented since the 1800s, explain why wind and solar make up just
a tiny portion of our energy supply today despite a quarter-century of highly preferential taxpayer and
ratepayer subsidy. The problem concerns the vicissitudes of weather, which makes wind and solar inherently
unreliable and unsuitable for todays energy-intensive economy. Wind turbines produce at maximum capacity during a range of wind
speeds typically 30 to 55 mph. At slower speeds, electrical output falls dramatically. If wind speeds fall by half, production
decreases by a factor of eight. Therefore, turbines scarcely produce at capacity. In fact, the annual output of a
turbine averages just 20% to 30% of capacity. And about 10% to 15% of the time, these turbines produce virtually no power at
all. Solar energy is equally dependent on weather it doesnt work at night without a storage device, and even during
the day, cloud coverage can make the technology stall. A general solar panel will produce eight to ten watts of energy per
square foot. Thats during periods of direct sunlight, which is about five hours per day. For the amount of energy that solar and
wind produce, their start-up and ongoing operating costs are exorbitant.

EOR Fails
Benefits from EOR are insignificant
Cobb 10 (Kurt, Will enhanced oil recovery be an oil supply savior?, March 25,
http://www.energybulletin.net/52137, CMR)

To read ExxonMobil Corporation's website one might get the impression that the world's largest oil and gas company has begun only recently
to employ enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques. If that were true, this industry bellwether might have been able to say that these
techniques will have a substantial effect on the future flow of oil. After all, the claim for EOR is that it could potentially double the amount of oil
we can get out of the Earth--from the current one-third to two-thirds or so of the original oil in place. The implication is that not only will future
wells yield more of their oil than previous ones, but that far more oil can now be harvested from existing wells. The big problem with this
thesis is that EOR is already being widely applied--so much so that the Oil & Gas Journal will sell you its most recent worldwide
survey of EOR projects for only $330. You can get the full historical database all the way back to 1986 for a mere $1,100. (Hint: Both contain
more than a few entries.) The three main types of EOR are gas injection, steam (both cyclic stimulation and flooding), and chemical
injection, and they've been around for a long time. The poster child for EOR among the oil optimists is the Kern River Oil Field near
Bakersfield, California. Kern was discovered in 1899. As production waned, steamflooding was introduced in 1964. In 1961 production was
about 19,000 barrels per day. By 1966 it had risen to 53,000 barrels per day. Production reached its peak at 141,000 barrels per day in 1985.
Production continues today at around 80,000 barrels per day. The Kern River steamflood has proven how well EOR can work in some
situations. But as any reader will deduce, the results are already reflected in current production and reserve
estimates. Steamflooding has been in use for a very long time. Natural gas injection is also an old technique used to maintain reservoir
pressures. It has been used continuously, for example, at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay Oil Field which began shipping oil in 1977. Nitrogen injection is
newer, but has been used, for example, since 2000 on the huge Cantarell Field in the Mexican portion of the Gulf of Mexico. Results were
excellent at first. But the subsequent crash of production at Cantarell has called into question whether this form of EOR merely hastened
production without increasing ultimate recovery. The same issue has been raised by another technique called maximum recovery contact
wells, which is often grouped with EOR. The technique worked superlatively for a while in Oman's largest oil field only to lead to a precipitous
crash in production later. Carbon dioxide injection has also been used successfully, but supplies are expensive if
they are not near the field. The newest of the major EOR techniques involves inoculating reservoirs with microbes that will make the
oil flow more freely. It looks promising. Oil company sources tell me that indeed these techniques are used wherever practical. Limitations
include high capital and operating costs. For example, Cantarell's nitrogen injection system cost $6 billion to build. Other limits may result from
the existing infrastructure. For instance, will that infrastructure be able to handle additional production? And, if not,
what would it cost to upgrade it? High costs almost always mean high energy inputs . Even if the
capital and expertise is available, it may cost more energy to implement an EOR program than will be
gained from the extra oil. Inevitably, the energy return on investment for oil obtained using EOR will
be lower, often far lower, than oil obtained using standard methods . Oil supply optimists often talk about doubling
average recovery from oil wells. But B. J. Doyle, vice president of operations for a small Houston-based oil and natural gas exploration company,
cautions against such talk. Every reservoir is unique. This means that 1) many reservoirs will simply not benefit
from EOR and 2) the increase in recovery when EOR is applied can vary widely. In addition, Doyle says, there
are fields where the techniques won't be applied until small operators take over. After large oil companies get the
majority of oil out of a field, they often find it's not worth their while to continue pumping. Frequently, they sell their interests to smaller
operators who have the willingness and patience to squeeze out the final barrels using a variety of techniques, some of which wouldn't
necessarily qualify as EOR. In places such as the United States and Canada this happens as a matter of course. That's why these countries have
so many operating wells, many of which pump fewer than 10 barrels a day. But this pattern of exploitation in mature oil fields is only happening
in these countries because they allow private ownership of oil rights. In places such as Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, private companies cannot
simply purchase or lease mineral rights from the owner because the owner is the government. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, the government has
total control over the oil industry. There is no entrepreneurial class of small operators able to take over largely exhausted fields and revive
them. That means that in many of the most oil-rich places in the world, EOR on the scale practiced in the United States and Canada will
probably never become a reality. Energy writer Chris Nelder gives us perspective on what we can expect from EOR. He writes that
history shows us that EOR "does not affect the date of the peak, nor the peak rate of production. It typically just
extends the 'tail' on the back end of the curve and increases the ultimately recoverable total."
EOR projections overblown
Standing 7 (Tom, A dose of reality for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projection, Oct 29,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/36384, CMR)

The October 1 Commentary showed a huge discrepancy between the National Petroleum Councils (NPC) projection for
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and the history of actual EOR results. NPC projected that EOR production worldwide would reach 20
million b/d in 2030 (1). Such a projection is unachievable given that actual production was 1.8 million b/d in 2006. In the U.S. where EOR was pioneered, EOR
production peaked in 1992 at 761,000 b/d, and slipped to 649,300 b/d by 2006 (2). With their projection, NPC
perpetuates the misguided belief that EOR might be successfully applied to the full spectrum of oil
fields worldwide, thus extracting additional oil from formations that have been depleted of primary and secondary reserves. Royal Dutch Shell promoted the same belief in 2006.
In its webcast, Shell declared that extracting an additional 10 percent of original oil in place (OOIP) from the worlds oil fields with EOR, also called tertiary recovery, would yield another 500
billion barrels of oil (3). Shells statement is merely hypothetical , with little resemblance to reality. In a series of Commentaries here, we will see that
EOR processes have been narrowly confined to only two categories of resources. Highly permeable reservoirs containing
heavy, viscous oil respond to thermal methods, e.g., steam injection. Reservoirs with poor permeability containing light oil respond to carbon dioxide or nitrogen injection at miscible
pressures. Reviewing how the industry methodically developed EOR technologies over 50+ years reveals EORs high level of maturity. Consequently, EOR development in the U.S. is a
powerful indicator of where EOR can be applied to oil resources worldwide, and where applications have negligible potential .

***a2 oil dependency/geopolitics

1nc no solvency
Production take at least 10 years and wont solve prices star this card
- 10 years for development
- 10 more years for peak production
- wont solve short-term disruption
- benefits are offset by other countries responses
- recent production proves no effect on prices
- impossible to predict

Increase Domestic Oil Production. Policies designed to increase the domestic production of oil could lower world oil prices
over the long run (though the effect would probably be small), but they would probably not reduce the vulnerability of U.S.
households and businesses to disruptions in oil supplies. Such policies could include opening more of the Outer
Continental Shelf or the Arctic to drilling, expediting regulatory approval of applications to drill, or reducing the fees charged to private
firms (for example, the royalties paid to the government for each barrel of oil produced) when the government makes oil underlying federal
lands available for extraction.34
Those policies would probably increase the amount of oil brought to the world market, which would lower world oil prices for the time that
the additional supply was available. The magnitude of the price reduction would depend on the volume of oil produced and the response by
other countries to the introduction of the new supply. To illustrate, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that opening the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling could boost domestic oil production by as much as 0.5 to 1.5 million barrels per day (an increase of
9 percent to 27 percent of U.S. production based on 2010 production levels), which could lower world oil prices by $0.41 to $1.44 per barrel
in 2025, relative to a base case in which oil was $65 per barrel and assuming no change in oil production elsewhere in the world; that decline
would be expected to reduce gasoline prices by 1 to 3 cents per gallon.35 Production would not commence until 10 years
after development was first allowed, and peak production would not occur until 10 years after that .
Some oil fields on land can be developed more quickly (within a few years), but deepwater oil fields are expected to have the largest quantity
of oil. Such development would not be expected to offset temporary supply disruptions but could increase long-
run production in the United States.
EIA further estimates that such an increase in production would be largely offset by a corresponding decrease
in output from other large oil-producing countries, resulting in little observable change in the price of
oil. For example, Khalid Al Falih, chief executive officer of Saudi Aramco, recently said that Saudi Arabia would reduce its
planned output capacity expansion given massive capacity expansions coming out of countries like Brazil
[and] Iraq.36
Thus, increasing production in the United States might not increase the worlds oil supply substantially or
lower the price of oil significantly. For example, oil and gasoline prices have not fallen over the past few years
despite an increase in U.S. oil production during that period. Moreover, because any new productive capacity in
the United States would be controlled by private firms and not the government (as it is for OPEC members), that
new capacity would be used in amounts determined by the owners and not necessarily held as spare
capacity to offset disruptions.
U.S. government agencies estimate that the amount of oil that is technically feasible to recover in the United States is 162 billion barrels (22
billion barrels of which has already been discovered); according to recent estimates, technically recoverable oil resources in the United
States are equivalent to 78 years of supply at 2010 domestic production levels, or 29 years of supply if produced at the level of current
consumption.37 Determining the effect on world prices of finding and producing additional oil is difficult, given the
uncertainty inherent in bringing the oil to market and the possible reaction of other oil producing
countries.
OCS drilling wont solve energy dependence or prices empirics, lack of supply, and
magnitude
Altaffer 8 (Mary, Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling, Sept 15,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-
offshore-drilling/, CMR)

The nearly 30-year moratorium on oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will expire on September 30th, and President Bush
opposes its extension. Nonetheless, offshore oil drilling in areas that have been off-limits since 1982 is not the way to solve
our energy crisis . There are many reasons that offshore drilling in sensitive coastal areas is a bad idea. These 10 are only the beginning:
1. We cant drill our way out of the energy crisis. According to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources
Majority Staff: Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands
increased by more than 361 percent, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically, contradicting the
argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.
2. We dont have enough oil to meet our demand. The U.S. oil supply-demand balance is
insurmountable . We have less than 2 percent of the worlds known reserves, yet use 25 percent of its
oil. Even if we drilled off of every beach, and inside every national park, refuge, and forest, we could
not produce enough oil to offset our growing demand. 3. Oil companies have not utilized the leases they have now. Why
open up new areas to drilling when oil companies hold over 4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of Mexico? Whats more, the
government already leases 44 million acres offshore, of which only 10.5 millionor one quarterare producing oil or gas. 4. Offshore
drilling would have an insignificant effect on long-term prices. Offshore drilling in sensitive areas
would increase domestic oil production by 3 percent by 2030 compared to a reference case, according to the Energy
Information Administration. But because oil prices are determined on the international marketany impact on
average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
Production is too expensive and any benefit is 20 years away

6. Production would be expensive , would not start for a long time , and would have no short-term
effect on oil prices. The average oil field size in the OCS is smaller than the average in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is already being developed. As a result, much of the oil in the OCS would be expensive to extract , and
is only becoming attractive now as a result of high oil prices. According the Energy Information Administration, it would take at least
five years for oil production to begin. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil
production or price until nearly 20 years after leasing begins.
Lack of drilling equipment

7. There isnt enough drilling equipment . Due to the high price of oil, existing drilling ships are booked solid
for the next five years , and demand for deepwater rigs has driven up the price of such ships. Oil companies just dont
have the resources to explore oil fields in the OCS.
Lack of refineries

8. We cant refine the oil we would extract . In a June speech, President George W. Bush noted that, Refineries are
the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. Yet
refineries are already so stretched that last year, the United States had to import almost 150 million barrels
of gasoline. The Wall Street Journal reported oil companies are not building new refineries because it would be bad
for their bottom line: Building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for long-term
business.
Zero chance the AFF effects oil dependence or prices
Plumer 12 (Brad, True oil independence is an unrealistic dream, 5/10,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-
dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.html, CMR)

Over the past few years, the United States has experienced a boom in oil and gas production. And thats led a few commentators to declare that the country is on the verge of ending its
dependence on foreign energy and supply disruptions. Alas, thats never fully possible . Over at the Council of Foreign Relations, Michael Levi
takes issue with some of the recent hyperbole about U.S. energy independence. He points out that even if the United States does become the worlds
biggest producer of oil, natural gas and biofuels by 2020 an impressive achievement, for sure wed still be importing 22
percent of our oil and gas from abroad. To put that in perspective, that would still leave the U.S. more dependent on
foreign energy than it was back in 1973, when OPEC oil shocks were kneecapping the economy. But heres the
kicker: Even if the United States goes further and somehow manages to produce every last drop of the oil and gas it
needs to run its economy, the country would still be vulnerable to events in the Middle East, tensions in Iran, strikes in Venezuela and
other disruptions in the oil markets. To see why, heres an interesting chart from a new report out of the Congressional Budget Office on energy security. It looks at
how gasoline prices have moved in Japan, Canada and the United States in the past decade: These three countries are all in very different oil situations. Canada is a net exporter of oil its
achieved the dream of oil independence. The United States, by contrast, still imports around 60 percent of its crude. And Japan imports just about all of its crude. Yet gasoline prices
have followed the same pattern for all countries, rising and falling as global events dictate. (The absolute levels are a
bit different among the different countries because of taxes and fees.) That shouldnt be surprising. As the CBO explains, oil prices are set by the global oil
market. Disruptions in oil production in one country will cause the world oil market to readjust so that
all countries and firms continue to receive oil at the new prevailing price. Even if the United States produced
100 percent of its own oil, the price would still go up if rising demand from China outstripped the ability
of supplies to keep up. The price would still go up if Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. And so on.
The only way the United States could completely shield itself from global swings in price, the CBO notes, is by cutting itself off from
the world oil markets and preventing its domestic producers from ever selling crude abroad. Even then,
CBO notes, this could only work if the United States kept discovering large new domestic fields and could somehow
force multinational oil companies to keep investing in the United States even if they found it unprofitable to
do so. In other words, its an unrealistic goal . Now, its true that more production in the United States could, potentially, increase the worlds overall supply of oil,
lowering the absolute price of crude a bit. But even here, the CBO is doubtful that more U.S. production would have a large impact
on global prices most likely, producers in other countries would cut back on production in response , diminishing
or eliminating the effect . (Saudi Arabia, for instance, recently announced that it would reduce a planned drilling expansion because of increased production in Brazil and
Iraq.)
Even if you lowered prices it would encourage greater use of oil equalizing the aff
Stocking, 12 (Andrew, May 9, 2012, CBO Macroeconomic Studies, U.S. budget office finds producing
more domestic oil wont minimize pain at pump; using less will,
http://theenergycollective.com/jimpierobon/86881/fast-fix-us-budget-office-finds-producing-more-
domestic-oil-won-t-minimize-pain-pump)

Policies that promoted greater production of oil in the United States would probably not protect U.S.
consumers from sudden worldwide increases in oil prices, even if increased production lowered the
world price of oil on an ongoing basis. In fact, such lower prices would encourage greater use of oil , thus
making consumers more vulnerable to increases in oil prices. Even if the United States increased production and became
a net exporter of oil, U.S. consumers would still be exposed to gasoline prices that rose and fell in response to
disruptions around the world.
Cant solve dependence we cant access most oil and wed run out in three yars
Kolbe 11 (Matt, e-how contributor, Problems With Offshore Drilling, Jan 19,
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7147109_disadvantages-drilling-oil.html, CMR)

Impractical Offshore drilling, at least in America, is fairly impractical. According to NorthByNorthwestern.com, if the U.S.
hypothetically used all of the oil available through offshore drilling and no foreign oil, we'd run out in
less than three years. Of course, in reality this isn't even possible, since there's no way to access much of
the oil and to do so would take way too long. The United States Energy Information Administration says that if the process
of drilling for oil is started in 2012, no economic advantage will be realized until around 2030. With such
a low return on investment over such a long period of time, offshore drilling is very impractical, especially
given the damage it can cause.

2nc no solvency

[work in progress keep in mind some of the 1nc args arent block]
Extend Plumber even large-scale drilling wouldnt solve dependence because
vulnerability to crises and high demand on the global market is inevitable also wont
affect price levels because countries will just cut back their own production
Extend Stocking increased production will just encourage people to use oil more
frequently, offsetting any short-term drop in prices makes vulnerability to oil shocks
inevitable
Any benefit from the aff is minimal only our evidence quantifies the effect
Weissmann 12 associate editor at The Atlantic (Jordan, The Myth of Energy Independence: Why
We Can't Drill Our Way to Oil Autonomy, Feb 9,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-
cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/, CMR)

If you're not too concerned about how much carbon gets pumped into the atmosphere over the next few decades, these are all great developments. (If you do care about global warming,
these are all reasons to have a stiff drink, and perhaps consider moving far from the coasts). But even if we're approaching energy independence,
the chances of ever actually getting there are rather slim, especially if our economy is still running on oil in 20 years. MANAGE YOUR
EXPECTATIONS It may theoretically be possible for the U.S. and Canada to more than double our oil output, as the NPC suggests. To put that in perspective, we'd be adding the rough
equivalent of another Saudi Arabia to the world oil market. To do it, the countries would have to pretty much tap every resource they have, both onshore and off. Obviously, the old "drill baby
drill" crowd would love that approach. But it's' still controversial in coastal swing states like Florida. Beyond that, accessing some of the resources would require
technology we don't have yet . In the most likely scenarios, North American oil production will get a big boost in the coming
years. It just won't be enough for us to start waving goodbye to OPEC. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that the American oil production will reach
6.7 million barrels a day by 2020, up from 5.5 million in 2010, then drop back to 6.1 million by 2035. Canada's National Energy Board foresees future production doubling to 6.0 million barrels
per day by that year. So we'd end up with about 12.1 million barrels a day, around two-thirds* of what the United States
currently chugs through on its own. But let's not be realistic for a moment. Let's assume the U.S. and Canada did manage to drill enough
oil that we could tell Saudi Arabia to take it's light sweet crude and shove it. What then? Well, we'd still be exposed to all the ugliness of the
global oil market . American and Candadian crude would be priced just like everywhere else -- based on what
the world's highest bidders are willing to pay for it. Americans would continue to feel pain at the pump
every time a war broke out in the Middle East or African militants blew up a pipeline. WHAT WE CAN EXPECT This isn't
to say there wouldn't be benefits to greater energy independence. Because natural gas is so difficult to ship, it's not sold on a truly global market, so a big supply at home means cheaper
prices. Our abundance of gas has already started luring manufacturers back to the United States in industries, such as chemicals, that rely on it for production. Domestic oil supplies would also
help our trade balance. Crude imports account for 44% of the U.S. current account deficit, and buying oil from North Dakota instead of, say, Nigeria would obviously shrink that figure. But it
would still be wise to moderate our hopes, both about North America's ability to drill its way to energy
independence, and about what that would even accomplish. Perhaps we can cut down on what we buy from the Middle East. Perhaps we can cut it down significantly. But
believing that will save us from the world's problems? That's still just a dream.
Massive production now proves domestic production does nothing to affect prices
Conathan, 12 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at Center for American Progress, March 1, 2012,
More Drilling Wont Lower Gas Prices, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/01/435330/more-
drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/)

In an introductory economics class, the first thing the teacher sketches out on the blackboard is a strikingly simplistic graph: two curves making
a swooping X between the two axesthe economic model of supply and demand. The basic underlying principle is simple: The point at
which the supply curve and the demand curve meet will determine the price of the commodity.
Increasing supply when demand remains constant will cause prices to fall. This fundamental concept is widely
understood by anyone who has sat through those Econ 101 lectures, and anyone whos ever noticed a parking lot near a major sports venue
jack up its prices on game day can easily relate. The concept is also the driving force behind the 2012 conservative reincarnation of Michael
Steele and Sarah Palins favorite 2008 campaign slogan: drill, baby, drill. If the solution were so simple, then the problem
of rising gasoline prices wouldnt existwere already drilling like crazy in the United States. And yet
prices have continued to spike . As my colleague Daniel J. Weiss explains, the reasons for the recent price increase
are myriad and include political instability in the Persian Gulf, the influence of financial speculators, and
increasing worldwide demand as economies recover. Yet many conservatives are dusting off their old bumper stickers and
touting more drilling as the sole solution to high prices at the pump. One Republican presidential contender, former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich, is on the campaign trail promising that if elected hell get the price of gasoline back to a nationwide average of $2.50 per gallon. Yet
even in a 29-minute infomercial-style speech, he couldnt find the time to address any of the reasons why more drilling will not lead to lower
prices. Gingrich simply trumpets the misguided talking points of building the Keystone XL pipeline, tapping shale oil in the upper Midwest, and
of course opening more areas to offshore drilling. He then leaves it to his audience to make the assumption that supply-side economics will
work its voodoo magic, and presto-change-o, well all be able to drive Hummers and have enough cash left over to put a latte in every
cupholder. By contrast, President Barack Obama delivered an address on energy last Thursday in which he made
the less politically expedient but actually realistic proclamation that there is no silver bullet that will
solve our energy problem. He further suggested anyone who pitches the idea that drilling alone will
lower gas prices doesnt know what theyre talking about or just isnt telling you the truth. If
increasing oil drilling lowered gas prices, wed know it already. When President Obama took office in 2009, there were
fewer than 400 drilling rigs operating in the United States, a number that dwindled to fewer than 200 by April 2009. Since then, even as his
administration conducted a wholesale review of drilling regulations in the aftermath of the worst offshore oil spill in the nations historythe
BP Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexicothe number of oil rigs operating in the United States has
quadrupled. But that massive influx of supply has done nothing to reduce the price we pay to top up our
tanks. As fundamental as the law of supply and demand might be to macroeconomic theory, the on-the-ground reality is that more drilling
will not lower gas prices. Heres why: It hasnt worked yet. There are currently more oil rigs operating on U.S. lands and
waters than in the rest of the world combined, production is at an eight-year high, and the most recent Short-
Term Energy Outlook from the Energy Information Administration projects production to continue growing at least through 2013 based on
current activity. By the end of President Obamas recently issued five-year drilling plan, fully 75 percent of our undiscovered, technically
recoverable offshore reserves will be open to drilling. All that additional activity hasnt stemmed the recent gas price spike. If oil
companies wanted to increase production, they could. In March 2011 the Department of the Interior
released a report revealing two-thirds of oil-and-gas companies offshore leases and more than half of
their onshore leases are not being produced.
Even if we drilled all the oil it cant solve
Craig, 12 (Michael, Energy Analyst at Oceana, May 23, 2012, Its a Fact: Domestic Drilling Doesnt
Affect Gas Prices, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2012/05/it-s-a-fact-domestic-drilling-doesn-t-affect-gas-
prices)

The two new reports provide much-needed objective and nonpartisan analyses of this crucial question, and
come to the same, clear conclusion: providing relief at the pump to U.S. consumers can only be achieved
through reducing our oil consumption, NOT through more domestic drilling. The reports were issued by the Energy
Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a nonpartisan project of Securing Americas Future Energy thats composed of industry CEOs and retired four-star generals and
admirals, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides nonpartisan economic analysis to Congress. They join a growing list of
impartial publications that refute the notion that the United States can drill its way to energy
independence and free ourselves from the myriad problems associated with our oil consumption and
offshore drilling. The ESLC report begins by laying a solid foundation for how to think about energy security. Energy security is not just about
becoming independent from our foreign oil suppliers its also about protecting ourselves as consumers from the impacts of
high and volatile oil prices. As both reports point out, the latter is simply not possible through increasing domestic
oil production even if we were able to produce all of the oil we consume, which we are a long way from
doing. The reason for this is simple: oil prices are determined in a global market, and producing more or even
100% - of our oil domestically will not isolate our nation from the global market. So what can protect us from volatile
and high gasoline prices, if not increased domestic production? Both reports draw the same conclusion: decreased oil consumption. As the ELSC report puts it, the
long-term goal of energy security policy must be to break the petroleums stranglehold on the transportation sector. Doing so will not be easy by any means, but
plenty of options exist that can reduce our nations dependence on oil. One powerful tool is continuing to strengthen the nations fuel economy standards, which
the ELSC report calls the most important energy security accomplishment in decades. Both reports also highlight the promise of electric vehicles in reducing oil
consumption by providing a transportation solution not fueled by liquids. At a time of political frenzy over high gasoline prices, the CBO and ELSC reports provide a
much-needed reminder of a very simple fact: the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security. If we truly want to protect ourselves from
volatile oil prices and high gasoline prices, we need to invest in alternatives like electric vehicles or more efficient vehicles not in drilling for oil and gas.
US oil would be a drop in the bucket
Hargreaves, 12 (Steve, Senior writer for CNN Money, April 25, 2012, Drill baby drill won't lower gas
prices, http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Every time gas prices reach record highs the call goes out for more oil drilling. This
year it's no different. "The Gulf is ready to get back to work to help create jobs and lower gasoline prices," Washington Republican Doc
Hastings, head of the House Natural Resources Committee and a big proponent of more drilling, said last week. The problem is this: While
increased oil and gas drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade
deficit, it will have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices. That's because the amount of extra oil that
could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes.
Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC production.
"This drill drill drill thing is tired," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for
the motorist organization AAA. "It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist." The feds' convenient oil
market crackdown According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information Administration, opening up waters that are currently
closed to drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030. The
world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then would likely be using over 100 million
barrels. After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a
gallon, the study said. "More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices," said Adam Sieminski,
chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. "But the amount that we're talking about domestically, it
wouldn't move gas prices from $4 a gallon to $3." In fact, more domestic oil is just what we've been
seeing and gasoline prices are still going up. Including liquids from natural gas, biofuels and other products that are all used to
make gasoline, the United States now produces 9.7 million barrels of oil a day, according to EIA. That's the most oil this
country has pumped in 20 years, and puts it just behind Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer. Since 2005 production has been
steadily rising. The United States now produces about a million and a half more barrels today than it did six
years ago. Over this same time period oil hit a record $147 a barrel.
Cant solve prices international pressures outweigh
Slack, 12 (Megan, Associate Director of Digital Content for the Office of Digital Strategy, March 1,
2012, Our Dependence on Foreign Oil Is Declining, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/01/our-
dependence-foreign-oil-declining)

Despite all this, Americans are still paying more at the pump when we fill up. That's because drilling for more oil here at home
wont affect the price of gas on its own. Oil is bought and sold on a world market. In the short term, its
subject to price spikes when theres instability or uncertainty along the global supply chain. And growing
demand in countries like India, Brazil, and China, which tripled the number of cars on the road in the last
five years, will drive prices even higher over the long term. So we have to do more than drill now to bring
down prices for the future. Relying on the fossil fuels of the last century wont be enough, especially as demand
keeps increasing. We need an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. This includes
everything from tapping our offshore oil supplies and vast natural gas reserves, to doubling down on clean energy resources like wind and solar
power, and developing new technologies that help us use less energy altogether.
Not enough supply
Farley 12 (Allison, Deceive Deny, Delay and Do it all again, April 20,
http://westofroanoke.com/2012/04/20/deceive-deny-delay-and-do-it-all-again/, CMR)

Mr Griffith, like most Republican politicians, claims that we can drill and dig our way to energy independence, and that
doing so will create thousands of new jobs. This is pure Deception . Proven reserves of oil in the US are 23
billion barrels, while estimated reserves including speculative sources are 134 billion barrels. That sounds like a lot, until
you realize that at current consumption rates, thats less than 20 years of oil . Shale oil reserves are much larger, but it
takes so much energy to extract and process oil from the shale that the net amount of energy is only a fraction of what shale oil promoters
claim. And while Wyoming may have 100 years or more of coal reserves, there is no denying the fact that coal seams in Virginias 9th district,
and all of Appalachia, are thinner, harder to reach and dwindling fast. The Energy Information Agency estimates we have 20 30 years of
recoverable coal at current rates of production.
Were dependent now and further pushes towards independence would be moot and
inefficient
Eland, 12 (Ivan, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent
Institute June 13, 2012, Smoke and Mirrors in Energy Policy,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3365)

In another example of the administrations smoke and mirrors in energy policy, it has touted lessening U.S.
dependence on foreign oil because of lowered demand from increasing auto fuel efficiency and because
of the rapid rise of U.S. oil production (production has risen by a quarter in the last four years). And that is true as far as it goes,
which is not far. Net imports of U.S. petroleum have been reduced from about 60% of total consumption in 2005 to just
over 40% today. Yet protectionism (euphemistically called energy security or energy independence) is as economically
inefficient in energy as it is in any other product. In a worldwide petroleum market, U.S. companies
should buy from the cheapest source, no matter where the oil is produced. In fact, some new U.S. production may
be sold overseas. Even with American demand declining and domestic production increasing, however, it is unlikely that the
United States will become energy independent anytime soon. Although this goal is one of the few things that both
political parties can agree on, it is a canard and is not even desirable. No one ever tells American voters and consumers that energy
independence, even if possible, would cost them dearly in inefficiency-induced price increases. Technology has increased U.S.
production, but many overseas sources of oil are still cheaper than such domestic drilling. Even for those
politicians unable to shake the erroneous notion that oil is a strategic commodity coming to the United States from dangerous or unfriendly
Middle Eastern countries, increased production in Brazil and from Canadian tar sands will render this notion obsolete. Contrary to
popular belief, the United States doesnt currently import that much of its oil from the Persian Gulf and
will likely import less in the future as production in the United States and Western Hemisphere rises.

2nc no solvency (vulnerability inev)
AFF cant effect dependencecontinual demand inevitably offsets supply gains
Pope 13 (Carl, Oil dependence: Fracking is no remedy; alternative fuels are, 11-1,
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_24427996/oil-dependence-fracking-is-no-remedy-
alternative-fuels)

Increased U.S. oil production, combined with more efficient autos pouring into the marketplace powered by the Obama fuel-
efficiency regulations and a revived U.S. auto industry, are indeed lowering the volume of oil that the U.S. imports.
But world oil prices have risen so much that the dollars and jobs we export to pay for imported oil are
greater than ever. We'll add another $4 trillion to our national debt from importing oil over the next 20 years. As long as the
United States uses almost 20 million barrels of oil each day, increasing our domestic production by fracking a
million or two barrels a day -- which are the projections -- still leaves us importing more oil than we did when the first embargo
hit, at a much higher price. And new U.S. oil costs more than $90 a barrel to find and produce, so it only comes
to market if oil continues to be unaffordable.
Numerous factors outweigh overwhelms the aff

First up, oil prices. Unlike natural gas, which is expensive to ship across oceans, oil is traded on a world market and the big
developments moving prices in that market usually have little to do with events in the United States. Oil prices
are up because of rising demand from China and other emerging economies, and more recently because of war scares in the
Middle East; these forces easily outweigh any downward pressure on prices from rising U.S. production.
And the same thing would happen if Republicans got their way and oil companies were set free to drill
freely in the Gulf of Mexico and punch holes in the tundra: the effect on prices at the pump would be negligible .
Cant solve market disruptions

Second, even though oil prices might be slightly lower if oil production was increased, a reduction in cost
of a few dollars per barrel would be small compared with the price fluctuations that are common to
the oil market. Between 2001 and 2011, price changes of $60 to $90 per barrel of oil occurred. Thus,
increased domestic production would leave the vulnerability of most consumers to disruptions in oil
markets largely unchanged.38
All their impacts are inevitable well feel the effects of disruption even with total
energy independence
Hudson 6/30/12 (John, Energy Independence Is a Farce,
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/energy-independence-is-a-farce/259253/, CMR)

The article suggested dramatic ramifications for U.S. diplomacy as the change "achieves a long-sought goal of U.S. policy-making: to draw more
oil from nearby, stable sources and less from a volatile region half a world away." However, while depending less on unsavory regimes
like Saudi Arabia is a satisfying concept, it doesn't dissolve America's fealty to global crude prices. (Theoretically, even if
all of U.S. oil came from North America, disruptions in Iraq or Iran would still ramp up global prices and
damage the U.S. economy.) That means U.S. energy security is still very tied to the Middle East regardless of
where the U.S. is getting its oil--an undesirable reality that will keep the U.S. militarily invested in the Middle East for decades to
come. But besides the limitations on foreign policy, there's also the question of whether energy independence is a worthwhile goal in the first
place -- a query expanded on during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado Saturday.

Oil vulnerability inevitable
Nye 12 (Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National
Intelligence Council, is a professor at Harvard University and one of the worlds foremost scholars of
international relations, Energy Independence in an Interdependent World, http://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/energy-independence-in-an-interdependent-world, CMR)

But one should not jump to conclusions. A balance of energy imports and exports is only a first approximation of independence. As I argue in
my book The Future of Power, global interdependence involves both sensitivity and vulnerability. The US may be less
vulnerable in the long run if it imports less energy, but oil is a fungible commodity, and the US economy will remain
sensitive to shocks from sudden changes in world prices. In other words, a revolution in Saudi Arabia or a
blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could still inflict damage on the US and its allies. So, even if America had no
other interests in the Middle East, such as Israel or nuclear non-proliferation, a balance of energy imports and
exports would be unlikely to free the US from military expenditures which some experts estimate run to $50 billion
per year to protect oil routes in the region.
2nc no solvency (refining + delay)
No solvency massive delays and refining issues
Conathan, 12 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at Center for American Progress, March 1, 2012,
More Drilling Wont Lower Gas Prices, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/01/435330/more-
drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/)

Pumping oil takes time. Opening new offshore areas will take seven years to produce any new oil, and
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will take 10 years to produce a single drop of oil. Even if more production
would lower prices, it wouldnt happen tomorrow. And the Energy Information Administration finds that even if we wave the green
flag for our entire exclusive economic zone, it will do nothing more than reduce the cost of gasoline by
two cents, and not until 2030 . You cant put crude oil in your tank. Ultimately, gasoline supply is
constrained not by oil production but by refining capacity. More than half of the nations refineries are controlled by five
companies, and last spring, as gas prices surged close to $4 per gallon, the Los Angeles Times reported domestic refineries were
operating at about 81 percent of their production capacity, and that exports of refined products such
as gasoline were increasing because foreign buyers were willing to pay a premium. Take one look at gas prices
in Europe and youll understand why.
1nc link turn
OCS drilling locks-in high gas prices

5. Drilling could lock us in to a future of expensive gas oline. By committing to costly recovery, oil
companies are betting that oil prices (and gas prices) will stay high enough to justify their investments.
Opening the Outer Continental Shelf could never bring us back to $2-a-gallon gas, but would ensure that
companies that develop the newly available oil have an interest in keeping gas prices high enough to
justify their investments.
Plan prevents long-term flexibility turns the case

Another consideration is that increased production of oil in the near term comes at the expense of a decreased
capacity to produce oil farther in the future, when prices might be even higher and the ability to reduce
those prices might be valued even more highly by households and businesses. Consumption of oil by
China, India, and Brazil is expected to rise by 2 percent to 4 percent annually between 2008 and 2035; in
contrast, oil consumption is expected to increase by 0.3 percent annually in the United States over that
period.39 Such growth in world consumption is expected to put upward pressure on oil prices (unless
sufficient new sources of oil are identified and developed), causing the value of oil inventories to rise, regardless of whether
that oil is held above ground or left underground in its original reservoirs. Thus, by not developing all of its oil resources
now, the United States is retaining more flexibility in the future should oil prices rise dramatically.

1nc no dependency
No dependency
Existing production is sufficientalso solves economy
Davidson 14 (Paul, U.S. may be inching toward oil independence, Feb 9,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/07/falling-oil-imports/5268819/)

U.S. oil imports fell sharply again in 2013 while petroleum exports rose, leading some analysts to proclaim that a
new era of energy independence is just a few years away. Experts largely credit new drilling techniques
that have unearthed vast troves of previously inaccessible oil embedded in shale deposits in states such as
North Dakota and Texas. "We're at the beginning of a long upswing," says Citigroup analyst Eric Lee. Crude oil imports
declined 9% last year to 2.8 billion barrels, lowest since 1995, and are down 17% since 2010, according to the
Census Bureau. Meanwhile, exports, mostly of refined gasoline and diesel, rose about 11%, narrowing the country's
petroleum deficit by about $59 billion, or 20%, to $233 billion. Lee attributes the exports' increase to the
abundance of U.S. oil and reduced U.S. consumption as fuel-efficient vehicles proliferate. The
shrinking petroleum gap was almost entirely responsible for a $63 billion decline in the nation's
overall trade deficit last year to $471.5 billion, the lowest since 2009, Census said. The nation's diminishing
dependence on foreign oil doesn't insulate it from wild price swings, because oil prices are set by global markets. But growing U.S.
production has added to the world's supply and prevented sharp price increases that could have
resulted from political conflicts that reduced oil exports from Iran and Libya since 2012, analysts say. "U.S.
crude oil production has played a major role in offsetting disruptions elsewhere," says Jim Burkhard, an analyst
with research firm IHS CERA. U.S. crude oil production increased to an estimated 7.7 million barrels a day last year
from 6.5 million barrels a day in 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA expects
production to rise another 16% by 2020. But Citigroup's Lee expects even more dramatic gains by then,
leaving the U.S. a net exporter of oil and making it virtually self-sufficient in oil production.
flexible fuels
McFarlane 12 served as President Reagans national security adviser and is co-founder of the U.S.
Energy Security Council (Robert, MCFARLANE: Flexible fuel to end foreign oil dependence, 5/30,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/30/flexible-fuel-to-end-foreign-oil-dependence/,
CMR)

It doesnt have to be this way. But the only way we will overcome this challenge will be to introduce competition at the pump. Fortunately, there are
alternative fuels in a family of alcohol products. One hundred years ago, Henry Ford thought we ought to burn alcohol in his cars. It burns cleaner and has a
higher octane (race-car drivers love methanol) and would enable us to stop breathing in carcinogenic benzene, xylene and toluene (additives currently blended into
gasoline to increase octane). Methanol, which a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study concluded is the most desirable alternative to gasoline,
can be made from natural gas - think shale gas - which is being found in great abundance both here and throughout the
world. The best news is that methanol producers think they will be able to deliver at the pump the energy equivalent
to a gallon of gasoline for about $3 (including processing, distribution, infrastructure and taxes) - all without federal subsidies of any
kind. Parallel advances have been made in the chemical industry, where the time isnt far off when a
pound of sugar will replace a barrel of oil and enable the growth of a huge biochemical industry that
doesnt rely on any food feedstock to produce those fibers and plastics mentioned earlier. To reach that day, the industry may
need a little help - in the way of investment tax credits or loan guarantees - to complete the necessary research and development. But that support will be short-
lived and could be offset by no longer needing to give $40 billion annually in subsidies to the oil industry. It would be the best bargain wed ever make. America,
we can do this. Following a week of remembrance when we honored those who have given their lives to preserve the freedoms we enjoy at the ballot box and in
the marketplace, what better time to recommit ourselves to lessening our dependence on unstable parts of the world where our
sons and daughters have died fighting. A good starting point would be investment into ramping up production of methanol and other alternatives
to gasoline. This will add immeasurably to our national security, our economic security, our health and the environment. We simply cannot
go on as we have. To do so is to heap yet another family of burdens on the backs of generations to come.
natural gas
Ganos 12 (Todd, Breaking U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil, 1/3,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddganos/2012/01/03/breaking-u-s-dependence-on-foreign-oil/, CMR)

U.S. crude oil consumption is roughly 7 billion barrels per year, of which approximately 4.5 billion barrels is imported. Based on data from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year would be needed to
replace the 4.5 billion barrels per year we import. The U.S. currently produces just under this amount
each year. With an effective doubling of consumption of natural gas each year, an expansion of infrastructure would be needed. Such an
expansion might take ten years to implement. But, it would be a shift from energy investment that we are already paying for outside
the United States to energy investment inside the United States. This would likely have the effect of pulling jobs back into the U.S.
Various sources estimate that the U.S. has between 1.5 and 2.5 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. If we were to assume its complete
replacement of foreign oil, this translates to a 60 to 100-year supply. Tacking on the additional ten years for implementation, what might
technology yield in the 2080 to 2120 timeframe? I posit that technology will yield a clean, green, cheap source of domestic
energy that will once and for all put the issue to rest. So, while natural gas certainly is not the final solution, it might
well be the steppingstone that gets us there.
Major drilling trends and energy efficiency
Shogen, 12 (Elizabeth, NPR News Science Desk correspondent focused on covering environment and
energy issues and news, January 24, 2012, Foreign Oil Imports Drop As U.S. Drilling Ramps Up
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145719179/foreign-oil-imports-drop-as-u-s-drilling-ramps-up)

Since President Obama took office, the U.S. has made considerable progress in overcoming a problem that
has bedeviled presidents since Richard Nixon dependence on foreign oil. When U.S. oil dependence peaked at 60 percent in 2005,
then-President George W. Bush said the country had a serious problem and was "addicted to oil." Oil imports were down to 49 percent in
2010, and the Energy Information Agency predicted Tuesday that imports would drop to 36 percent by 2035. "Reliance on imported
petroleum we expect to decline dramatically over the next 20 years," says Howard Gruenspecht, acting
administrator of the Energy Information Agency. This reflects in part the fact that after decades of decline, U.S.
oil production started posting gains in recent years. The Energy Information Agency predicted the increase will continue,
and by 2020, the oil production rate would be up 11 percent to 6.7 million barrels per day. "That's really
reversing a long slide," says Gruenspecht. Criticism For Blocking U.S. Production Ironically, this breakthrough is happening during the
administration of a president who has been steadily criticized for blocking domestic petroleum production. Republicans have attacked him for
slowing off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill and for deciding not to open some federal lands in the West to oil and gas
development. But energy experts make it clear that regardless of the criticism, a positive trend is underway that
should change the way the county thinks of itself and its relationship with unfriendly, oil-rich nations.
"We have a complete change in the historic view that we are helplessly dependent on energy imports,
oil imports going forward," says John Deutch, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemistry
professor and former CIA chief who advises the Obama administration on energy. Deutch says the situation is
even brighter than it seems, because Canada could supply most of U.S. oil imports in the future. "I frankly find Canadians as reliable as
Californians [in] providing us with energy, so you should not include the Canadians in that import dependence," Deutch says. Expansion On
Private Lands Oil industry executives agree that the outlook is rosy. "Past assumptions of oil and gas scarcity that went
into business strategic plans, governmental policies and public attitudes are out of date," says James Mulva,
chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips. "The major production trends have certainly been reversed." The breakthrough
comes as oil companies are using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to blast open the rock that contains the oil. According to Mulva, more
rigs are drilling for oil in the United States today than have been for 25 years. But here is where the criticism of
President Obama comes in: Mulva stresses that most of these rigs are on private property. They are drilling into places like the Bakken
formation, which lies under parts of North Dakota and Montana. "Had this been government land, we would likely still be awaiting drilling
permits or fighting lawsuits from NGOs or outright drilling bans enacted from Congress," Mulva says. Using Less Fuel Still, increasing U.S.
oil production is only one reason that reliance on foreign oil is waning. Another is that Americans are
using less fuel. The Energy Information Agency says overall U.S. oil consumption has declined since 2005. The
agency predicts it will grow only very slowly over the next two decades, because of policies that boost
the fuel efficiency of cars and increase the use of renewable fuels like ethanol. President Obama deserves credit
for those policies. So does his predecessor, President Bush. The EIA's Gruenspecht says America's dependency on foreign oil
will ease even more than the agency's forecasts suggest if Obama goes forward with his proposal to
further tighten fuel economy in cars for model years 2017 to 2025.
2nc no dependency
No energy dependence or security risksnew sources solve
Donilon 14 (Tom, American lawyer and former government official who served as National Security
Advisor in the Obama administration, We're No. 1 (and We're Going to Stay That Way), Why the
prophets of American decline are wrong,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way
_american_decline)

For most of the past 40 years, the United States thought of itself as a nation dependent on oil and energy-related events beyond our shores.
Now, as U.S. innovation and technology allow us to tap unconventional resources, nearly every
prediction about our energy future has been turned on its head. Today, the United States is the No. 1
producer of natural gas in the world, and the price of natural gas here is a fraction of what it is
elsewhere. The International Energy Agency projects that the United States will be the world's largest producer of oil
by the end of the decade. Unconventional energy will propel our economy and support American jobs
-- nearly 900,000 by next year will come just from shale gas. Meanwhile, our new energy security is
allowing us to engage the world from a position of strength . It gives us the latitude to support allies
and, if need be, punish adversaries. The success of the international sanctions on Iran, for example, was made possible in large part
because Washington was confident that increased American supply afforded it the possibility of removing a million barrels of Iranian oil off the
market each day without dramatic increases in gasoline costs to U.S. consumers. And it was the bite of those sanctions that ultimately
brought the Iranians to the negotiating table last year.
new production lines solve dependency
Krauss 8/19/12 (Clifford, U.S. reliance on Saudi oil is growing again,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54718663-79/oil-saudi-iran-dependence.html.csp, CMR)

The United States imported a daily average of more than 1.45 million barrels of Saudi crude over the first five months of this year, compared
with a daily average of roughly 1.15 million barrels over the same period last year, according to Energy Department estimates. Many oil
experts say that the increasing dependency is probably going to last only a couple of years, or until
more Canadian and Gulf of Mexico production comes on line.
US is resilient to disruption
Veazey, 12 (Matthew, writer for Rigzone and he has written about the upstream and downstream
O&G sectors for more than a decade, July 20, 2012, Many US Voters Fear 'Foreign Oil,' But Should
They?, http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/119472/
Many_US_Voters_Fear_Foreign_Oil_But_Should_They)

Although the U.S. has made progress in producing more of its oil and gas at home, a national security expert with The Independent Institute
maintains that growing domestic oil production likely will not totally wean the United States off much-
maligned "foreign oil" in the foreseeable future. "The U.S. is most dependent on foreign sources of oil
for vehicle transportation, but even that is being reduced by new technology to exploit oil in the U.S.," said Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow
and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty with the Oakland, Calif.-based think tank. "Nevertheless, the U.S. will not become independent
of foreign oil anytime soon." In fact, Eland challenges claims by policymakers that U.S. energy independence would be good for American
consumers. In a recent commentary, he argued that energy independence is "a canard and not even desirable."
"Politicians of both parties who endorse energy independence as a goal don't tell consumers that even in the unlikely event
that they could achieve it, it would increase the price of energy greatly," said Eland, pointing out that
protectionist measures inevitably increase prices for any item. "For example, the U.S. buys some of its oil from
Saudi Arabia because it is much cheaper to produce than the relatively expensive U.S. supplies. Thus,
shutting off foreign oil would significantly raise the price to the consumer." Eland also dispels the view that energy
independence is essential for the United States to achieve energy security. He reasons that "huge incentives" exist for people and countries to
sell oil and other commodities on the world market. "The two main alleged threats to energy security are that the U.S.
would not have enough oil to run its military or its economy [or, in the latter case, that it would be too expensive]," said
Eland. "We have enough oil within the U.S. many times over to run the U.S. military, even fighting two
medium-sized wars simultaneously." Eland added the attractiveness of selling oil in an international market
has even thwarted threats to energy security such cartels or embargoes. "Because there is a worldwide market for
oil and incentives to cheat on any cartel or embargo, neither have ever been successful," Eland said. "The U.S. will always be able to
get oil, but sometimes the price will be elevated." "[F]ortunately, research shows that contrary to conventional wisdom,
industrial economies are resistant to oil price shocks, Eland added, pointing out the same is true for other price shocks.
"Therefore, with a working global market, energy independence is not needed for energy security." In fact, Eland sees
the U.S. energy security as "usually relatively good, especially if we rely on the market to bring us oil and not resort to armed force." "Wars
fought for oil are usually counterproductive by taking oil off the market, thus increasing the price," continued Eland. "[P]aradoxically,
the best way to secure oil is not to defend it," Eland concluded. "Let the market work. Besides, oil and other
energy exports have been routed around war and even through it. So the market does work, even in the
face of foreign threats to it."
Our reserves outpace our demand and international markets
Slack, 12 (Megan, Associate Director of Digital Content for the Office of Digital Strategy, March 1,
2012, Our Dependence on Foreign Oil Is Declining, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/01/our-
dependence-foreign-oil-declining)

Americas dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year since President Obama took
office. In 2010, we imported less than 50 percent of the oil our nation consumedthe first time thats
happened in 13 yearsand the trend continued in 2011. Were relying less on imported oil for a number of reasons, not
least that production is up here in the United States. In fact, America is producing more oil today than at any
time in the last eight years. As part of his strategy to increase safe, responsible oil production in the United States, President
Obama has opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration and we now have more working oil
and gas rigs than the rest of the worldcombined.
Dependence is the lowest its been since 1973
Doggett, 11(Tom, writer for Reuters, July 25, 2011, U.S. Oil Dependency Drops Below 50 Percent,
Energy Department Reports http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/us-oil-dependency-drops-
energy-department_n_867131.html)

WASHINGTON (Reuters/Tom Doggett) - U.S. dependence on imported oil fell below 50 percent in 2010 for the first
time in more than a decade, thanks in part to the weak economy and more fuel efficient vehicles, the
Energy Department said on Wednesday. The department's Energy Information Administration said it expected the
moderating trend in U.S. oil-import dependency to continue through the next decade due to
improvements in energy efficiency and even higher fuel economy standards. The new data could undercut efforts
by Republican lawmakers to expand offshore oil drilling to reduce oil imports, and support the position of the Obama administration and
environmental groups that higher mileage requirements for cars and trucks would help cut dependence on foreign oil. Imports of crude and
petroleum products accounted for 49.3 percent of U.S. oil demand last year, down from the recent high of 60.3 percent in 2005. It also
marked the first time since 1997 that America's foreign oil addiction fell under the 50 percent
threshold. "This decline partly reflects the downturn in the underlying economy after the financial crisis
of 2008," the EIA said in its weekly review of the oil market. Increased domestic production of ethanol and other biofuels
that are blended with gasoline and consumer purchases of more fuel efficient vehicles also slashed the need for oil imports, according to the
EIA. Crude oil production, especially in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, increased by 334,000 barrels per day
(bpd) between 2005 and 2010, which also cut into foreign oil purchases. U.S. demand for gasoline, jet
fuel, heating oil and other petroleum products that were processed from crude oil dropped by 1.7
million bpd to 19.1 million bpd in 2010 from 20.8 million bpd in 2005. At the same time, U.S. exports of
petroleum products more than doubled to a record 2.3 million bpd last year from 1.1 million bpd in
2005. "Nowhere have U.S. product exports increased more than in the Americas, including Mexico, Canada,
Central and South America and the Caribbean, thanks to economic and population growth and inadequate refining capacity in those countries,"
the EIA said. As a result, U.S. net imports of refined petroleum products fell last year to their lowest level
since 1973, when the government began collecting such data.

1nc no cut-off
No impact producers have zero incentive to cut us off
Powell 11 Senior Fellow @ Cato Institute (Jim, Why 'Dependence' On Foreign Oil Is A Bogus
Worry, 11/15, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2011/11/15/global-oil-and-gas-markets-our-
best-energy-security/print/, CMR)

It makes as little sense to worry about our dependence on foreign oil as it does to worry about our dependence
on private enterprise, computers and other wonders. We would be worse off doing things that cost more or dont work
as well. We should make the most of our comparative advantages. Keep in mind that major oil producers have strong
incentives to sell their oil. In most cases, it dominates their economies and generates a substantial
percentage of government revenues. Moreover, many of these countries live beyond their means. They have spent huge sums on
weapons, wars, palaces, religious police and moneylosing nationalized industries. Generally the major oil producers have failed
to diversify their revenue sources by providing an attractive business climate where different industries could develop. Saudi
Arabias oil revenues, for instance, are almost 40 percent of their GDP. Their expenditures are about 15 percent more than their total revenues.
Kuwaits oil revenues are 75 percent of their GDP. About 48 percent of Qatars government revenue comes from oil exports. Oil is 84 percent of
Omans government revenue and 37 percent of Norways. Oil reportedly accounts for about 80 percent of Irans export earnings and 50
percent of government revenues. Nigerias government budget is usually in the red, and in recent years its oil revenues have been running
between 63 percent and 81 percent of total revenues. Oil represents 57 percent of Kazakhstans exports and 46 percent of government
revenue. Oil generates about two-thirds of Russias revenue from exports. With a growing global market, people who want to buy
oil can be confident of finding sellers who need cash. Deals are done when the price is right. Although Israel, which
imports about 99 percent of its oil, doesnt seem to have done much business lately with its hostile neighbors, over the years Israel reportedly
has bought oil from Angola, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico and Norway, among other producers. These days, Israel is said to be obtaining oil from
Russia and former Soviet republics in central Asia. Now come reports that Israel might be able to extract huge amounts of oil from its own oil
shale deposits a Texas oilman is working on the project.

AT: Abusive States

There is no evidence that high oil prices prop up human rights-abusing dictators
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, The Energy Security Obsession, LIMES: THE ITALIAN JOURNAL
OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.
It is unclear to what extent oil profits are associated with human rights abuses or militaristic activity. There are
plenty examples, after all, of relatively long-lived regimes with terrible human rights records such as North Korea with no
oil revenues to speak of, and this is the case even within the same socio-economic regions. Denuding Iran and Libya of oil
revenues might produce a government that looks a lot like Syria; denuding Venezuela of oil revenues might
produce a government that looks a lot like Cuba; and denuding Russia of oil revenues might produce a
government that looks a lot like Russia used to be. After all, all of these bad-acting petro-states yielded unsavory regimes even
when oil revenues were a small fraction of what they are today.

Even a big price drop wont change the behavior of odious regimes, are better alternatives
While we have no doubt that all other things being a equal a rich bad actor is more dangerous than a poor bad actor, the marginal
impact that oil revenues have on bad acting might well be rather small. The fact that unsavory petro-states
have been fully capable of holding on to power, oppressing their people, and menacing their neighbors during a
decade associated with the lowest inflation-adjusted oil prices in history (the 1990s) suggests that nothing short of
rendering oil nearly valueless will have any real effect on regime behavior. 9 For the sake of argument, however, lets
assume that there is some incremental benefit associated with reducing oil revenues to bad-acting oil producers. Unfortunately, we have
only very blunt and imperfect instruments at hand to achieve that end. Policies that might reduce oil consumption would reduce oil demand
and thus, reduce revenues for all oil producers, whether they are bad actors or not. Producers in the North Sea, Canada, Mexico, and the
United States (which collectively supplied 20.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2006, or 24 percent of the worlds crude oil needs that year)
would be harmed just as producers in Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and Libya (which collectively supplied 20.3 million barrels per day in 2006).20
Given there was plenty of bad acting in 1998 when we saw the lowest real oil prices in world history, its unlikely that even the most
ambitious set of policies to reduce oil consumption would have much effect on bad acting. Accordingly, we doubt that the foreign policy
benefits that might accrue from anti-oil policies would outweigh the very real costs that such policies would
impose on both consumers and innocent producers. We suspect that there are better remedies available to
curtail bad behavior abroad.

Global nature of marketplace means they cannot affect the revenue of unsavory countries
Robert Bryce, fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, 5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit,
WASHINGTON POST, 1-13-08, p. B3.
3 Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries. Fans of energy independence argue that if
the United States stops buying foreign energy, it will deny funds to petro-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Hugo
Chvez's Venezuela. But the world marketplace doesn't work like that. Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set
globally, not locally. Oil buyers are always seeking the lowest-cost supplier. So any Saudi crude being loaded at the Red
Sea port of Yanbu that doesn't get purchased by a refinery in Corpus Christi or Houston will instead wind up in Singapore or Shanghai.

Many nations are aggressive without the presence of large oil profits
The claim that oil revenues increase the threat those regimes pose to their neighbors seems reasonable enough, but here again, it is unclear
to what extent this is true. Pakistan is a relatively poor country with no oil revenues to speak of, but it has still
managed to build a nuclear arsenal and is constantly on the precipice of war with India. Impoverished, oil-poor
Egypt and Syria have at various times been the most aggressive anti-Israeli states in the Middle East. Russia
launched its war with Chechnya before oil revenues engorged its Treasury.

AT: democracy
Oil independence wont cause democratization and even if it does, that leads to war
Miller 10assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma (Gregory D., April 2010, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Washington Quarterly
33:2, The Security Costs of Energy Independence, http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Miller.pdf, CMR)

Another counterargument emphasizes some potential benefits of a loss of revenue, namely a reduction in power by certain domestic groups that could facilitate the emergence of democracy
in these countries. There are two responses to this argument. First, it is not clear that the loss of oil revenue will automatically bring
about democracy. The loss of wealth by those in power rarely leads them to give up power, but more
often causes a greater crackdown on the population to prevent challenges to the states authority.
Iraq, Libya, and North Korea illustrate that the loss of wealth does not lead to a loss of control by those
in power.23 In contrast, diversified economies are more likely to bring about democratic reform, regardless of whether certain groups hold power because of oil or not.
Assuming that the logic is correct and these oil-producing states are undemocratic only because of the oil revenue held by a few individuals, there is no reason to
believe that the subsequently emerging democratic states would be stable or that they would bring to
power individuals and groups friendly to the West. Moreover, newly democratizing states are among the
least stable and are more prone to wars .24 Therefore, even if this counterargument is valid, the results will not alleviate the security concerns discussed in
this article and could make them worse. Although there will be numerous benefits of reducing dependence on oil, including possibly democratization, we need to understand and prepare for
the risks as well.
AT: economy
No economy impact
Auerswald 7 (Philip E, Let's call an end to oil alarmism - Opinion - International Herald Tribune, Jan
23, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/opinion/23iht-edauers.4307288.html, CMR)

The impact of higher fuel prices on most U.S. consumers is minimal . From 1980 to 2005, the share of
consumer spending on energy dropped from 8 percent to 6 percent; the 2006 figure will be higher, but not
enough to signal a consumer calamity. True, the impacts of higher energy prices are unevenly felt. But the fact that U.S. oil
companies celebrate record profits while the rural poor economize on trips to the grocery store is a matter of domestic politics, not
international security. Oil price movements do not have a major impact on the economy as a whole. What actual
damage did the recent oil price run-up cause? When the price of oil doubled, as many long dreaded, which crippling effects
were observed? None . Economic growth continued apace . Any slowing had more to do with higher interest rates. The
U.S. economy is far more adaptable than petro-alarmists would have us believe.

AT: hormuz

Iran wont dare close the strait
Glaser 11 (Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School of International Affairs The George Washington University, Reframing
Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security, August 2011, http://depts.washington.edu/polsadvc/Blog%20Links/Glaser_-
_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.docx)
Although difficult to estimate the probability that Iran would attempt to close the strait, analysts have offered reasons for expecting the
probability to be quite low: Iran would lose the oil revenue from its own exports; and Iran would likely be deterred by
the probable costs of U.S. intervention, which could include the destruction of key military bases and
occupation of some of its territory. Because so much oil flows through the strait, the United States would almost certainly respond to keep it
open.

Well protect the strait regardless of oil
OKEEFE 2012 (William OKeefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute, President of Solutions Consulting Inc., Whats Really Behind The
Anti-Oil Movement? Fuel Fix, April 24, 2012, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/04/24/whats-really-behind-the-anti-oil-energymovement/)
Mr. Lutz claims that we are being forced to protect the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the
worlds oil moves daily. The implication is that that oil comes to America. That is also wrong. If we didnt protect the Strait,
does SAFE think that the Chinese navy wouldnt? Would we view that as acceptable?

Iran wont do it and theres no impact, alternative supplies check
Singh 12 (Michael, managing director of The Washington Institute, The Real Iranian Threat in the Gulf, 1-3, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1789, CMR)

Iran's bellicose rhetoric and Gulf wargames in recent days have given rise to the question of
whether Tehran could close the Strait of Hormuz. As many analysts have observed, the answer
is no -- not for a meaningful period of time. Less frequently addressed, however, is whether Iran would even try. The
answer to that question is also "no" -- even the attempt would have devastating strategic
consequences for Iran.
The presumable target of an Iranian effort to close the Strait would be the United States. However, while we would of course be affected by any resulting rise in
global oil prices, the U.S. gets little of our petroleum from the Gulf. The U.S. imports only about 49
percent of the petroleum we consume, and over half of those imports come from the Western
Hemisphere. Less than 25 percent of U.S. imports came from all the Gulf countries combined in
October 2011 -- far less than is available in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, were Gulf
supplies to be interrupted.
China, on the other hand, would find its oil supplies significantly threatened by an Iranian move against
the Strait. China's most significant oil supplier is Saudi Arabia. China also happens, however, to be Iran's primary oil customer and
perhaps its most important ally: Beijing provides Iran with its most sophisticated weaponry and
with diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Thus a move to close the Strait would backfire strategically
by harming the interests of -- and likely alienating -- Iran's most important patron and cutting off Iran's own
economic lifeline, while doing little to imperil U.S. supplies of crude.
It is perhaps no coincidence, then, that China quickly dispatched Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun to Tehran in the wake of Iran's bellicose statements. In typically opaque fashion, the Chinese
Foreign Ministry said only that "China hopes that peace and stability can be maintained in the Strait"; this is essentially diplo-speak for "Cool it."
Even if Iran ignored these considerations and proceeded with an effort to close the Strait, the
U.S. and others would move to keep it open, and would be unlikely to stop there. As Iran has crept closer to a nuclear weapons capability, the
possibility of military action against Iran has also become more imminent. President Obama has been reluctant to threaten Iran militarily, and any U.S. president would think long and hard
before engaging in another armed conflict in the Middle East.
An effort by Iran to shut down the oil trade in the Gulf, however, would make such a decision straightforward. The U.S. would react with force, and
once engaged in hostilities with Iran, would likely take the opportunity to target Iran's nuclear
facilities and other military targets. It is difficult to envision any scenario beginning with an
Iranian effort to close the Strait of Hormuz that does not end in a serious strategic setback for
the Iranian regime.

--Numerous sources agree its just hypeand the UAE fills-in
Washington Post 11 (Thomas Erdbrink, Iran unlikely to block oil shipments through Strait of Hormuz, analysts say, 12-28,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/despite-threats-iran-unlikely-to-block-oil-shipments-through-strait-of-hormuz/2011/12/28/gIQAVSOSMP_story.html?tid=pm_pop, CMR)

TEHRAN The latest in a series of Iranian threats to block the vital Strait of Hormuz triggered a sharp response Wednesday from the U.S. Navy, although there appeared to
be little chance that Tehran would make good on its warnings. Despite threats to close the narrow waterway if Western nations
tighten sanctions on Iran by imposing an oil embargo, the Islamic republic needs the strait at least as much as its
adversaries do, Iranian and foreign analysts said. Iran, which feels threatened by the presence of U.S. bases and warships in the region,
has warned for years that it would choke off the Strait of Hormuz in the case of war or economic sanctions. The passage at the
entrance to the Persian Gulf hosts a daily caravan of tankers that transport roughly a third of the worlds oil shipments. The European Union, encouraged by the United States, is expected to
decide in January whether to boycott Iranian crude. And countries such as Japan and South Korea are under increasing U.S. pressure to stop buying oil from Iran, the worlds fifth-largest
producer. By undermining Irans ability to generate income through oil sales, the United States hopes to force Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, which the Obama
administration suspects is secretly aimed at enabling Iran to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear arms. The latest furor erupted when Iranian Vice President
Mohammad Reza Rahimi told students Tuesday that Iran would close the strait in reprisal for any Western sanctions on Irans oil exports. In that case, not even a drop of oil will flow through
the Strait of Hormuz, Rahimi said, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Irans navy commander, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, later said that for the nations
armed forces, closing the strait would be easier than drinking a glass of water. A closure could prompt a spike in oil prices, analysts said, further damaging the troubled world economy. In
addition to the threats, Iran has started a 10-day naval exercise to demonstrate what it calls asymmetrical warfare, a military doctrine aimed at defeating U.S. aircraft carriers in a potential
Persian Gulf conflict by using swarms of rocket-mounted speedboats and a barrage of missiles. Does the West expect us to be threatened and attacked and we just surrender? asked Ali
Akbar Javanfekr, head of IRNA and an unofficial spokesman for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What are our options? Be sure, we can find ways to tackle any sanctions. In Bahrain, home
of the U.S. Navys 5th Fleet, a spokeswoman for the fleet said no country would be allowed to block the strategically crucial strait. The Navy is ready to counter malevolent actions, Lt.
Rebecca Rebarich added. Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations, Rebarich said in a statement. Any
disruption will not be tolerated. A State Department spokesman played down the latest warnings as more
rhetoric from the Iranians, suggesting that the Obama administration did not perceive a serious threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Weve seen these
kinds of comments before, the spokesman, Mark Toner, said Wednesday. As the 5th Fleet has said, and I believe other governments have also said, its absolutely
critical that there be freedom of navigation in these international waters, Toner added. Oil producers have not sat idle after decades of
Iranian threats to shut off the only regional energy transportation corridor. The United Arab Emirates has nearly finished a 2.5 million-
barrel-a-day pipeline circumventing the Persian Gulf. U.A.E. officials say the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline
Project is a strategic pass, circumventing the Hormuz Strait in case Iran closes the choke point.
Iranian officials insist that the U.A.E. pipeline and others that are being constructed in the region will not lessen the strategic importance of the Hormuz Strait. But they have raised the issue
repeatedly, which analysts say is a sign that they are nervous about it. And Iran which has enjoyed record oil profits over the past
five years but is faced with a dwindling number of oil customers relies on the Hormuz Strait
as the departure gate for its biggest client: China. We would be committing economical suicide by
closing off the Hormuz Strait, said an Iranian Oil Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. Oil
money is our only income, so we would be spectacularly shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that. Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a political scientist running for
parliament from the camp of hard-line clerics and commanders opposing Ahmadinejad, said it is good politics for Iran to respond to U.S.
threats with threats of its own. But our threat will not be realized, Ardestani said. We are just responding to the U.S.,
nothing more.

--Prefer an expert in the field
Starr 11 (Barbara, and Phil Gast, U.S. Navy won't tolerate 'disruption' through Strait of Hormuz, 12-29, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/28/world/meast/iran-us-
hormuz/?hpt=wo_bn11, CMR)

Physically closing the strait would require means that likely are not available to Iran, said
Professor Jean-Paul Rodrigue of Hofstra University. "At best, Iran can posture and potentially disrupt
traffic for a short duration," said Rodrigue, who specializes in global trade and maritime
transportation issues.
--Adaptation solves and its physically impossible to close
Eugene Gholz (assistant professor of public affairs at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas) and Daryl G. Press (associate professor of government at
Dartmouth College) August 2010 Protecting The Prize: Oil and the U.S. National Interest Security Studies, Vol 19, Issue 3
The worlds most significant oil chokepoint is the Strait of Hormuz, the only sea passage that connects the Persian Gulf to the
rest of the world. Eighty-eight percent of Gulf oil exports travel through the strait, some seventeen million barrels per day. The pipelines that carry the remainder of Gulf exports do not have
enough slack capacity to compensate if the strait were closed.70 Even worse, many of the countries that typically retain the greatest slack capacity to extract oil from the groundfor example,
Saudi Arabia and Kuwaitwould be bottled up if the strait were blocked, meaning that the adaptation to disruption there would have to come from secondtier oil producers outside the
region. The adaptation mechanisms would still work: non-Gulf oil producers would increase
production; firms holding private inventories would consider tapping them; and countries could
access their strategic stockpiles. Fully replacing the lost oil, however, would be very difficult. The United States, therefore, has a significant interest in preventing
closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Thankfully, no country in the Gulf could close the Strait of Hormuz.71 Iran, the country best positioned geographically to try,
could harass shipping and damage some tankers.72 It could not, however, close the strait, nor could it
seriously disrupt shipping for an extended period of time.73 The mission of creating a prolonged disruption to that much commerce is
simply too challenging, especially for a middleweight military power like Iran. First, even at its narrowest point, the strait is 34 km across,
and almost all of that water is deep enough for a laden supertanker to safely pass. Physically
blocking the waterway, for instance with scuttled ships, is therefore implausible.74
Second, if Iran tried to use antiship missiles to close the strait, it would be constrained by the
missiles limited effectiveness against oil tankers, and the heavy ship traffic through the strait
would quickly consume Irans entire arsenal. Irans missile stockpile numbers in the hundreds.75
Those missiles would be pitted against an average of more than one thousand large commercial
ships entering the Gulf each month, including more than two hundred large oil tankers.76 Reliably
distinguishing between oil tankers and other potential targets would not be simple in the Persian Gulf haze or at night, and during a crisis, shipping would
scatter to avoid the missile batteries and complicate targeting.77 Moreover, each attack on a tanker (or
merchantman misidentified as a tanker) would require several shots. During the Tanker War, many missiles launched at undefended commercial ships failed to
function properly or missed their targets. Even when they hit, antiship missiles are not particularly lethal against large commercial ships (in contrast to their highprofile successes against
smaller warships like the HMS Sheffield, the USS Stark, and the INS Hanit). The tankers thick hulls, compartmentalized construction, fire-inert reservoirs of crude oil, and advanced fire-
suppression systems limit damage from missile strikes.78

Most qualled ev concludes that theres no chance Iran messes with the Strait
Thompson 11Citing Roger SternResearch Fellow, Oil, Energy & Middle East Program at the
Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton. PhD from Johns HopkinsThompson is a
defense correspondent for Time. Pulitzer Prize winner. (Mark, A Question For the Obama
Administration, http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-
administration/)

The U.S. has insisted, since the days of the Carter Administration, that the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf is a vital national-security interest of the U.S. Beyond
that, Presidents and the Pentagon have said, the narrow Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerable bottleneck for shipping headed out of the Gulf. Any troublemaker -- especially Iran --
could bring the U.S. and world economies to their collective knees by shutting it down by sinking a couple of
tankers as they pass through. Consequently, the U.S. has poured tons of money into the region since then, including three wars. It has bulked up its military forces in the
neighborhood -- including the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, headquarters in Bahrain, smack dab in the middle of the gulf -- to keep the oil flowing.
Balderdash, says Stern. He uses more technical terms, but his bottom line is the same: Iran and other nations in the region
have just as much, if not more, need to keep the oil flowing than the U.S. Think of it as your right hand --
angry at your left hand for some casus belli -- pinching their shared aorta to punish the left hand. Both would quickly begin turning blue. More critically, Stern argues, the U.S.
military's emphasis on the Gulf has diverted precious defense resources away from the
western Pacific, where China poses a far graver long-term threat to American interests.
"On an annual basis, the Persian Gulf mission now costs about as much as did the Cold War," Stern says in his paper, which appeared in Energy Policy, a
peer-reviewed scholarly journal, in April 2010 to scant notice. He also suggested it could be costly in more ways than one: "Without the extensive long-
term US military presence in the Persian Gulf, it seems an open question whether anti-US suicide terrorism such as the USS Cole and 9/11 attacks would have taken place."
Stern's paper pegs the cost of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf from 1976 to 2007 at $6.8 trillion. Last week, he estimated -- at Battleland's request -- that the cost through 2010 was
about $8 trillion.
The Persian Gulf mission pins down the U.S. military, Stern maintains. "The massive investment in Persian Gulf force projection essentially precludes U.S. ability to project force
elsewhere," he says. "China understands this perfectly, even if we don't." Indeed, Major General Yin Zhuo, director of China's navy information committee, noted this recently. "It will
take the United States a fairly long period of time to return to Asia. Anti-terrorist wars still constrain U.S. power," he said. "China needs to grasp this strategic opportunity firmly."
"If Saudi Arabia felt its oil supply were threatened by Iran, it would do what Iraq did during
the Iran-Iraq War -- build pipelines around the Strait of Hormuz," Stern says. "We're too stupid to
grasp this. National-security experts in government, academia and non-governmental organizations know very little about
the actual business of energy."
No kidding. Battleland asked the Department of Energy to detail where the vessels leaving the Persian Gulf were bound in 2010. Saturday, it provided the list, which DOE said is not
generally made public. Wonder why? Just take a look at the destination for the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf last year:
Japan 20.1% China 14.4% India 13.2% South Korea 12.9% U.S. 9.8% Singapore 5.3% Taiwan 4.5% Thailand 3.5% The Netherlands 1.9% South Africa 1.6%
Do the math: the U.S. is spending trillions to protect the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, when last
year it received less than 10 percent of that oil. So even -- if the heavy U.S. investment in protecting the Persian Gulf pipeline makes
sense -- why is it shouldering close to 100% of the cost of protecting it while countries (and commercial competitors) like Japan, China, India and South
Korea get a free ride?
The Gulf oil states don't have much else to export to earn hard foreign currency. "So they're not
states that can afford to decline to sell -- or even cut the supply -- and that includes Iran
most of all," Stern says. "It has few friends, and many of those are energy investors from
Asia" intent on keeping the Strait of Hormuz -- the world's biggest oil spigot -- open.
"It's not that Iran is this perfectly rational place and they couldn't close the Strait of Hormuz -- it's simply that
we've ceased asking the question: `Well, the supply is not invulnerable, but what is the
probability that it is going to be interrupted?'" Stern adds. "We have long assumed that because
it could be cut, it will be cut, and plans are made accordingly. But not all threats are
equally likely.
"The idea of a vulnerable supply is the central illusion of our policy over the past hundred
years or so," Stern says. "There is a risk of disruption, but not nearly so high that we should have had
an aircraft carrier battle group continuously on station in the Persian Gulf for the past 21 years."

AT: intervention

Oil dependence net reduces interventionism allows for cooperation over terrorism
and gives the U.S. a fiscal incentive to not intervene

One counterargument is that the United States has been drawn into a number of conflicts as a result of its
dependence on Middle East oil, such as the reflagging of the Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987 and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.5 According to this logic, reducing its dependence on
foreign oil would help the United States stay out of such conflicts. Although plausible, a useful exercise is to imagine a future where the United
States is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern states for oil. Although the United States will still have
important economic and political interests in the Middle East, such as Israel, Iraq, and Turkey as a NATO
ally, if oil no longer provides states with some leverage over U.S. foreign policy, then the United States can
pursue its interests with less concern about retaliation by oil-exporting states or by the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC). Conversely, as long as oil-exporting states depend on the United States to purchase oil, they are
more inclined to assist the United States in pursuing any of its interests, such as the fight against
terrorism. Consequently, if states no longer depend on the United States as a consumer, they may have less
interest in cooperating with the United States.

AT: Leadership/Foreign Policy Flexibility

There is no reason to keep friendly relations with oil producersthey will sell us oil anyway
Many foreign policy analysts think that U.S. oil imports are dependent upon friendly relationships with oil producing states. The fear is that
unfriendly regimes might not sell us oil a fear that explains why former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan supported the two Gulf
Wars against Iraq. Maintaining good relations with oil producers, however, interferes with other foreign policy objectives and increases anti-
American sentiment in producer states with unpopular regimes. And of course, it could lead to war. The problem with this argument,
however, is that its fundamental premise is incorrect. Friendly relations with producer states neither enhance
access to imported oil nor lower its price. Selective embargoes by producer nations on some consuming nations
are unenforceable unless (i) all other nations on Earth refuse to ship oil to the embargoed state, or (ii) a naval blockade were to prevent
oil shipments into the ports of the embargoed state. Thats because, once oil leaves the territory of a producer, market agents
dictate where the oil goes, not agents of the producer, and anyone willing to pay the prevailing world crude oil
price can have all he wants.5 The 1973 Arab oil embargo is a perfect case in point. U.S. crude oil imports actually increased from 1.7
million barrels per day (mbd) in 1971 to 2.2 mbd in 1972, 3.2 mbd in 1973, and 3.5 mbd in 1974.6 Instead of buying from Arab members of
OPEC, the United States bought from non-Arab oil producers. The customers that were displaced by the United States bought from Arab
members of OPEC. Beyond the modest increase in transportation costs that followed from this game of musical
chairs, the embargo had no impact on the United In short, it does not matter to consumers to whom the oil is
initially sold. All that matters to consumers is how much oil is produced for world markets.

Negative feelings between states do not even affect oil production decisions
Do oil producing nations allow their feelings towards oil consuming nations to affect their production decisions?
Historically, the answer has been no. The record strongly indicates that oil producing states, regardless of their
feelings toward the industrialized West, are rational economic actors. After a detailed survey of the world oil market since
the rise of OPEC, oil economist M.A. Adelman concluded, We look in vain for an example of a government that deliberately
avoids a higher income. The self-serving declaration of an interested party is not evidence.7 Prof. Philip Auerswald of
George Mason University agrees, For the past quarter century, the oil output decisions of Islamic Iran have been no
more menacing or unpredictable than Canadas or Norways.8

AT: militarism

Oil revenue doesnt harm human rights or cause militarism
Van Doren, Ph.D., 8Peter Van Doren, bachelor's degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, master's degree and doctorate from Yale University, former
professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Senior Fellow at the Cato institute AND Jerry Taylor, adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research,
director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute (The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2, The Energy Security Obsession,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/taylor_vandoren_energy_security_obsession.pdf, CMR)

It is unclear to what extent oil profits are associated with human rights abuses or militaristic activity. There are plenty examples, after all, of relatively long-lived
regimes with terrible human rights records such as North Korea with no oil revenues to speak of, and this is the
case even within the same socio-economic regions. Denuding Iran and Libya of oil revenues might produce a government that
looks a lot like Syria; denuding Venezuela of oil revenues might produce a government that looks a lot
like Cuba; and denuding Russia of oil revenues might produce a government that looks a lot like Russia
used to be. After all, all of these bad-acting petro-states yielded unsavory regimes even when oil
revenues were a small fraction of what they are today . The claim that oil revenues increase the threat those regimes pose to their neighbors
seems reasonable enough, but here again, it is unclear to what extent this is true. Pakistan is a relatively poor country with no oil revenues to
speak of, but it has still managed to build a nuclear arsenal and is constantly on the precipice of war with
India. Impoverished, oil-poor Egypt and Syria have at various times been the most aggressive anti-Israeli states
in the Middle East. Russia launched its war with Chechnya before oil revenues engorged its Treasury. While
we have no doubt that all other things being a equal a rich bad actor is more dangerous than a poor bad actor, the marginal impact that oil revenues have on bad acting might well be
rather small. The fact that unsavory petro-states have been fully capable of holding on to power, oppressing their
people, and menacing their neighbors during a decade associated with the lowest inflation-adjusted oil
prices in history (the 1990s) suggests that nothing short of rendering oil nearly valueless will have any real effect on regime behavior.

AT: middle east presence
Their argument is incredibly reductionist we wont withdraw
OKEEFE 12 (William OKeefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute, President of Solutions Consulting Inc., Whats Really Behind The Anti-Oil
Movement? Fuel Fix, April 24, 2012, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/04/24/whats-really-behind-the-anti-oil-energymovement/)
While the stature and patriotism of these SAFE men is beyond doubt, their logic and views on energy policy are detached from history, foreign policy, energy, and
technological realities. Their premise is that the only reason that we have military forces in the Middle East and Iraq
is because we import oil. To hold that view is to ignore history and the current threats (Iran and Syria) that
have little to do with oil imports. Weve had a military presence in that region of the world for at least five
decades because of the importance of the Suez Canal, the protection of Israel, andyessafeguarding the worlds largest
reserves of oil.

Doesnt trigger instability deterrence and diplomatic credibility solves conflict
TASPINAR 9 (Omer, Prof. Natl. Sec. Studies National War College, and Dir. Turkey Program Brookings, in Global Strategic Assessment 2009:
America's Security Role in a Changing World, Ed. Patrick M. Cronin, p. 212, At http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ifnss/0017602/index.html)
The United States has key national security interests and objectives in the Greater Middle East. The U.S. military is likely to be present in the Gulf for some time.
The desire to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq and the vulnerability of forward- deployed forces need to be balanced
against the diplomatic and deterrent value of a visible U.S. military presence in the Gulf. If friends and
enemies no longer see U.S. forces and operations, they may conclude that the Gulf governments are once again
vulnerable to intimidation or outright threat and that the United States is less likely to defend its interests and honor its security
commitments in the region. As U.S. policymakers approach decisions on the future forward presence posture for the Gulf, several political realities
need to be taken into account: Iraq, Iran, and Syria are not perceived by the Arab states as major and imminent threats to regional security, and most believe the
United States needs to shape strategies to engage them positively. Palestine is important. The fact or perception of Israeli intransigence, as well as divisions within
the Palestinian Authority and U.S. reluctance to take the lead in finding a solution, shapes public attitudes and damages U.S. influence in the Greater Middle East to
a significant degree.

U.S. shift from the neighborhood would not eliminate outside involvement
Robert Bryce, energy analyst, The Impossible Dream of Energy Independence, interviewed by Brian Doherty,
REASON ONLINE, 2-20-08, www.reason.com/news/show/125027.html, accessed 5-15-08.
reason: What about the promise of changes in foreign policy in the Mideast if we could wean ourselves off their
oil? Bryce: People like to think that if only we bought less oil we wouldnt need to be in the Persian Gulf. It sounds appealing. The reality is
the U.S. gets 11 percent [of its oil] from the Persian Gulf. From a strategic point of view it was a big mistake
assuming militarism is better than markets. The key adjustment is to make markets trump militarism when it
comes to the Persian Gulf. Were not the most reliant *on Persian Gulf oil+its the Japanese, the French, the
rest of Europe, China. If we want to have stability in the Persian Gulf, its not just for the U.S. Its good for the whole
world, so the U.S. needs to understand that it shouldnt be its burden alone.

AT: middle east reforms

Cheap oil will do nothing to promote reform in the muslim world
4 Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world. The most vocal proponent of this one is New York Times columnist Thomas L.
Friedman, who argues that the United States should build "a wall of energy independence" around itself and thereby lower global oil prices:
"Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can
compete. It is that simple." When the petro-states are effectively bankrupt, Friedman argues, we'll see "political and economic reform from
Algeria to Iran." If only it were that easy. Between about 1986 and 2000, oil prices generally stayed below $20 per barrel;
by the end of 1998, they were as low as $11 per barrel. As Alan Reynolds pointed out in May 2005 in the
conservative National Review Online, this prolonged period of "cheap oil did nothing to promote economic or
political liberty in Algeria, Iran, or anywhere else. This theory has been tested -- and it failed completely."

AT: terrorism

Oil dependence doesnt cause terrorism

Before we go on, its worth noting that only 15.5 percent of the oil in the world market is produced from nation-states accused of
funding terrorism.23 Hence, the vast majority of the dollars we spend on gasoline do not end up on this purported economic conveyer belt to terrorist bank accounts.
Regardless, terrorism is a relatively low-cost endeavor and oil revenues are unnecessary for terrorist activity . The
fact that a few hundred thousand dollars paid for the 9/11 attacks suggests that the limiting factor for
terrorism is expertise and manpower, not money. That observation is strengthened by the fact that there is no
correlation between oil profits and Islamic terrorism. We estimated two regressions using annual
data from 1983 to 2005: the first between fatalities resulting from Islamic terrorist attacks and Saudi oil prices and the second between the number of Islamic terrorist
incidents and Saudi oil prices. In neither regression was the estimated coefficient on oil prices at all close to being
significantly different from zero.24 Consider: Inflation-adjusted oil prices and profits during the 1990s were
low.25 But the 1990s also witnessed the worldwide spread of Wahabbi fundamentalism, the build-up of
Hezbollah, and the coming of age of al Qaeda. Note too that al Qaeda terrorists in the 1990s relied upon help from state
sponsors such as Sudan and Afghanistan nations that arent exactly known for their oil wealth or robust economies.
Producer states do use oil revenues to fund ideological extremism, and Saudi financing of madrassas and Iranian financing of Hezbollah are good examples. But
given the importance of those undertakings to the Saudi and Iranian governments, its unlikely that they would cease and desist simply because profits were down. They certainly
werent deterred by meager oil profits in the 1990s.26 The futility of reducing oil consumption as a means of improving national / energy security is
illustrated by the fact that states accused of funding terrorism earned $290 billion from oil sales in 2006.27 Even if that
sum were cut by 90 percent, that would still leave $29 billion at their disposal more than enough to
fund terrorism given the minimal financial needs of terrorists.28

Wont reduce terrorism
Cleveland 10Professor of Geography and Environment at Boston University, Ph.D. in Geography from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Cutler, 17 June 2010, The
Myth of Energy Independence, http://www.theenergywatch.com/2010/06/17/the-myth-of-energy-independence/, CMR)

Energy independence would not significantly reduce the risk of terrorism. Terrorism thrived when oil
was $10 per barrelit doesnt need $100 a barrel oil. Terrorism can be done on the cheap: the 9/11 Commission
found that those attacks were accomplished with as little as $500,000.

Cant solve presence and military spending inevitable
Parry and Darmstadter 3 (Ian W.H. Parry and Joel Darmstadter, Senior Fellows at Resources for the Future, The Costs of U.S. Oil
Dependency, Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 03-59, December 2003, http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-03-59.pdf)
3.4 Persian Gulf Military Expenditures U.S. military expenditures in the Middle East are in part the result of U.S.
interests in securing its flow of imported oil from that region, and therefore count as a total cost of oil-import dependency. However,
many analysts do not include them when assessing the external costs of marginal changes in U.S. oil imports. One reason is that it is
difficult to assess what portion of cost-which include recurrent costs of troops and ships in the region, as well as large one-off costs for wars
involving the United States-should be assigned to imports as opposed to other political objectives, such protecting
the security of Israel, reducing the threat of terrorism, and humanitarian objectives. 25 But most important reason
for not counting military spending as a component of marginal external costs is that it does not really vary with (modest) changes in
oil imports; military spending is more of a fixed cost than a variable cost. A policy to moderately reduce imports over time,
and that did not entirely eliminate import dependency, would probably have little benefit in terms of cutting the costs of U.S.
military involvement in the region.

Oil money is not a big contributor to terrorismit is too cheap, plus there is no correlation
between oil profits and terrorism
OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf,
Does Western reliance on oil put money in the pocket of Islamic terrorists? To some degree, yes. Does that harm western security? Probably
not at least, probably not very much. Before we go on, its worth noting that only 15.5 percent of the oil in the world market is
produced from nation-states accused of funding terrorism.15 Hence, the vast majority of the dollars we spend on
gasoline do not end up on this purported economic conveyer belt to terrorist bank accounts. Regardless, terrorism
is a relatively low-cost endeavor and oil revenues are unnecessary for terrorist activity. The fact that a few
hundred thousand dollars paid for the 9/11 attacks suggests that the limiting factor for terrorism is expertise and
manpower, not money. That observation is strengthened by the fact that there is no correlation between oil profits and
Islamic terrorism. We estimated two regressions using annual data from 1983 to 2005: the first between fatalities resulting from Islamic
terrorist attacks and Saudi oil prices and the second between the number of Islamic terrorist incidents and Saudi oil prices. In neither
regression was the estimated coefficient on oil prices at all close to being significantly different from zero.16 Consider: Inflation-adjusted
oil prices and profits during the 1990s were low. But the 1990s also witnessed the worldwide spread of Wahabbi
fundamentalism, the build-up of Hezbollah, and the coming of age of al Qaeda. Note too that al Qaeda terrorists in
the 1990s relied upon help from state sponsors such as Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan nations that arent
exactly known for their oil wealth or robust economies.

Energy independence wont affect terrorismwe buy our oil from other sources, is so cheap
that oil revenues are not necessary
1 Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism. In a speech last year, former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. had some advice
for American motorists: "The next time you pull into a gas station to fill your car with gas, bend down a little and take a glance in the side-
door mirror. . . . What you will see is a contributor to terrorism against the United States." Woolsey is known as a conservative, but plenty of
liberals have also eagerly adopted the mantra that America's foreign oil purchases are funding terrorism. But the hype doesn't match
reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly
known as a belligerent terrorist haven. ad_icon Moreover, terrorism is an ancient tactic that predates the oil era. It does not
depend on petrodollars. And even small amounts of money can underwrite spectacular plots; as the 9/11 Commission
Report noted, "The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct
their attack." G.I. Wilson, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has fought in Iraq and written extensively on terrorism and asymmetric
warfare, calls the conflation of oil and terrorism a "contrivance." Support for terrorism "doesn't come from oil," he says. "It
comes from drugs, crime, human trafficking and the weapons trade."

A decrease in oil profits will not cut off producer funding to terrorist groups--incentives
OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07
Producer states do use oil revenues to fund ideological extremism, and Saudi financing of madrassas and Iranian financing of
Hezbollah are good examples. But given the importance of those undertakings to the Saudi and Iranian governments, its
unlikely that they would cease and desist simply because profits were down. They certainly werent deterred by
meager oil profits in the 1990s.17

Even a major profit drop wold not dry up terror funding
OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07
The futility of reducing oil consumption as a means of improving national / energy security is illustrated by the
fact that states accused of funding terrorism earned $290 billion from oil sales in 2006. Even if that sum were cut
by 90 percent, that would still leave $29 billion at their disposal more than enough to fund terrorism given the
minimal financial needs of terrorists.18

Decreased u.s. demand will do nothing to hurt supporters of terror
reason: What do its proponents think we can get out of energy independence? Bryce: The main talking points for those who promote energy
independence are, one, that if we were just more tech-savvy we can develop lots of new jobs, and that would be greatwe can build
windmills, solar panels, whatever nifty new whizbang tech is going to replace oil, and that will stimulate the economy. Second, they love
biofuels. We can just grow the fuels we need to replace imported oil and it will be great for farmers and the rural economy. Third, [energy
independence proponents] conflate oil and terrorism. Those arguments really came to the fore since the 9/11 attacks. We buy imported oil,
some of our suppliers are Islamic petro-states, some Islamic petro-states send some dollars to support radical Islam, therefore oil equals
terrorism and energy independence is anti-terror. The idea is that if we could isolate the oil-exporting countries that in theory support
terror wed cut off its lifeline. The connections of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 terror attacks are real, Im not denying that. But you cannot,
given the complexity and enormous size and interconnectedness of the global crude oil market, separate one
actor from another. S. Fred Singer [of the Science and Environmental Policy Project] came up with the best analogy. He described
the global oil market like a big bathtub. All the oil production is dumped into one bathtub and all consumers have
straws sucking oil out. [For all economic purposes+ its like were all sucking from the same common pool. To say you are not
gonna buy Saudi oil, or Algerian oilits crazy. For example, the U.S. hasnt purchased a dime of Iranian oilexcept for a small
amount in the early 90s, but for the most part no Iranian oil since 1979. And that hasnt stopped Iran from supporting Hezbollah.

AT: oil shocks

Market adaptation prevents price spike impact
Deverell et al, 12 (Ric e-, Commodities research analyst, Jan Stuart, Commodities research analyst,
Neville Hill, Global economics research Hiromichi Shirakawa, Global economics research Neal Soss,
Global economics research Andrew Garthwaite, Global equity strategy Kasper Bartholdy, Emerging
markets research Oil and the Global Economy: How Worried Should We Be? 02 April 2012 Securities
Research & Analytics http://www.credit-suisse.com/researchandanalytics)

Oil is challenging Greece as the tail risk du jour in financial markets. So far, the US economy seems not to have noticed.
Gasoline-sensitive economic data covering the month of February have so far powered straight
through the rise. Temporary factors (the absence of a true winter in much of the country) may be
shielding the economy from the effect of higher gas prices. But we also believe that consumers are
becoming habituated to higher prices, as this years price rise doesnt carry the same shock value as
last years spike. And the forces of a cyclical recovery are becoming more entrenched, attenuating
higher gasolines negative impulse to the economy. Our baseline view for the economy remains sanguine, albeit rather
dull. The risk of a new slowdown scare in the data over the spring months has probably gone up with
the rise in oil and gasoline, but we would expect a less intense scare this year than last years flirtations with $4 gas and double-
dip recession. This view could change if oil were to move dramatically higher from current levels in a
short period of time. And if oil and gasoline prices broke significant new ground beyond recent experience and stayed there,
confidence and growth could potentially take a bigger hit than we currently expect. We run linear simulations for what oil means for
headline inflation and real disposable income, and a non-linear simulation showing what different oil scenarios might imply for GDP
growth. Both sets of analysis point to $150 oil (Brent) as a potential nexus of strain for the economy, roughly consistent with nationwide retail
gasoline prices in the $4.50-$4.75 zone. Oil is challenging Greece as the tail risk du jour in financial markets. So far, the US economy seems
not to have noticed. Even though gasoline prices rose sharply in recent weeks, the gasoline-sensitive economic data covering the month of
February have so far powered straight through the rise. Consumer sentiment reached a 12-month high, just as news
about $4 gas in many parts of the country entered the media spotlight. Motor vehicle sales surged dramatically in
February, exceeding 15 million units for the first time since March 2008. Early reports on non-auto retail sales have been decidedly upbeat.
Of course, confidence and spending do not always respond instantaneously to changes in gasoline prices. And it is possible that the absence of
a real winter in much of the US is effectively muting gasolines potential drag. A number of retailers cited warm and dry weather as a factor
that lifted sales in February. And energy prices could have further to run. From our Global Commodities Energy Research team, led by Jan
Stuart: Our contention is that global supply/demand balances look and feel significantly tighter than
what market consensus anticipated. Tensions in relations with Iran and headlines about further supply disruptions have added
momentum but cannot alone explain the rally. Indeed the pertinent concern is with a more insidious tightening of balances going forward.
Price creep toward difficult to support levels may follow. Still, we think the stronger economic data carry deeper
underlying messages. Consumers are becoming habituated to higher gas prices, as this years price
rise doesnt carry the same shock value as last years spike. And the forces of a cyclical recovery
are becoming more entrenched, especially with respect to the labor market. This attenuates higher gasolines
negative impulse to the economy. The charts below show a weekly history of retail gasoline prices. Exhibit 10 shows the price
plotted against a trailing 52-week moving average. Exhibit 11 shows the deviation from trend (the percentage difference between the actual
price and the moving average). So far, gasoline prices have not broken significant new territory relative to the
averages of the past year, even with the recent break higher. Current wholesale gasoline futures suggest retail prices
at the pump should move a bit higher from the current level towards $4 by April. Still, $4 gasoline was novel last year a considerable
departure from recent experience at the time. It would not be so novel this year. The story is similar when measured in units of dollars, or the
so-called energy tax. Every penny at the pump is akin to a $1 billion tax hike for the household sector (or $1 billion not available to spend
on non-energy items, assuming a slow response in the alteration of driving habits). As of now, this years marginal energy tax hike from the
lows is only about half the size of last years surge. Current futures prices imply a 64-cent rise in gas prices from the lows (measured from the
December 2011 low to our April forecast). The shock from late-2010 though spring 2011 was almost twice as large a $1.20 increase at the
pump when gas peaked at around $4 in April 2011. The level of prices often gets the most attention, but it is the rate of change that matters
for inflation and real income growth. The rates of change implied here point to a considerably smaller hit to the economy than last year. The
initial conditions also matter. A labor market with momentum can buffer the economy from higher gas prices
through the new paychecks generated for an expanding workforce. We estimate that if payroll growth continues at
its recent pace, along with a modest increase in the average workweek, nominal disposable income would grow by almost $500bn in 2012.
The rise in the gasoline bill under a central oil price scenario provided by our Global Commodities Energy Research team would amount to less
than $50bn for the full year relative to last year.
No impact to oil shocks
Kahn 11 (Jeremy, 13 feb 2011, Crude reality, http://articles.boston.com/2011-02-13/news/29336191_1_crude-oil-shocks-major-oil-producers, CMR)

Economists have a term for this disruption: an oil shock. The idea that such oil shocks will inevitably wreak havoc on the US economy has
become deeply rooted in the American psyche, and in turn the United States has made ensuring the smooth flow of crude from the Middle East a central
tenet of its foreign policy. Oil security is one of the primary reasons America has a long-term military presence in the region. Even aside from the Iraq and Afghan wars, we have equipment and
forces positioned in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar; the US Navys Fifth Fleet is permanently stationed in Bahrain.
But a growing body of economic research suggests that this conventional view of oil shocks is wrong .
The US economy is far less susceptible to interruptions in the oil supply than previously assumed, according to
these studies. Scholars examining the recent history of oil disruptions have found the worldwide oil market to be remarkably
adaptable and surprisingly quick at compensating for shortfalls. Economists have found that much of the damage
once attributed to oil shocks can more persuasively be laid at the feet of bad government policies. The
US economy, meanwhile, has become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil and less sensitive to changes in crude
prices overall than it was in 1973.
Highly qualified studies prove

Among those asking this tough question are two young professors, Eugene Gholz, at the University of Texas, and Daryl Press, at Dartmouth College. To
find out what actually happens when the worlds petroleum supply is interrupted, the duo analyzed every major oil disruption since 1973 . The results,
published in a recent issue of the journal Strategic Studies, showed that in almost all cases, the ensuing rise in prices, while sometimes steep, was
short-lived and had little lasting economic impact. When there have been prolonged price rises, they
found the cause to be panic on the part of oil purchasers rather than a supply shortage. When oil runs short, in other words,
the market is usually adept at filling the gap.
One striking example was the height of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. If anything was likely to produce an oil shock,
it was this: two major Persian Gulf producers directly targeting each others oil facilities. And indeed, prices
surged 25 percent in the first months of the conflict. But within 18 months of the wars start they had fallen back to their prewar
levels, and they stayed there even though the fighting continued to rage for six more years . Surprisingly,
during the 1984 Tanker War phase of that conflict when Iraq tried to sink oil tankers carrying Iranian crude and
Iran retaliated by targeting ships carrying oil from Iraq and its Persian Gulf allies the price of oil continued to drop steadily. Gholz and Press found just one
case after 1973 in which the market mechanisms failed: the 1979-1980 Iranian oil strike which followed the overthrow of the Shah, during which Saudi Arabia,
perhaps hoping to appease Islamists within the country, also led OPEC to cut production, exacerbating the supply shortage.
In their paper, Gholz and Press ultimately conclude that the markets adaptive mechanisms function independently of the US military presence in the Persian Gulf,
and that they largely protect the American economy from being damaged by oil shocks. To the extent that the United States faces
a national security challenge related to Persian Gulf oil, it is not how to protect the oil we need but how to assure consumers that there is nothing to fear, the two write. That is a thorny
policy problem, but it does not require large military deployments and costly military operations.

Multiple empirical examples

Gholz and Press are hardly the only researchers who have concluded that we are far too worried about oil
shocks. The economy also faced a large increase in prices in the mid-2000s, largely as the result of surging demand from emerging
markets, with no ill effects. If you take any economics textbook written before 2000, it would talk about what a calamitous effect a doubling in oil prices would have, said
Philip Auerswald, an associate professor at George Mason Universitys School of Public Policy who has written about oil shocks and their
implications for US foreign policy. Well, we had a price quadrupling from 2003 and 2007 and nothing bad happened. (The
recession of 2008-9 was triggered by factors unrelated to oil prices.)
Auerswald also points out that when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in 2005, it did tremendous
damage to offshore oil rigs, refineries, and pipelines, as well as the rail lines and roads that transport petroleum to the rest of the country. The
United States gets about 12 percent of its oil from the Gulf of Mexico region, and, more significantly, 40 percent of its refining capacity is
located there. Al Qaeda times 1,000 could not deliver this sort of blow to the oil industrys physical
infrastructure, Auerswald said. And yet the only impact was about five days of gas lines in Georgia, and
unusually high prices at the pump for a few weeks.

The economy isnt vulnerable to oil shocks anymore
Losman 1professor of economics at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University (Donald, 1 August 2001, Economic Security: A National Security
Folly?, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1268, CMR)

Considerations of practicality, morality, and efficiency, however, argue that economic goals should not be regarded as national security responsibilities. The economic trauma
of the 1970s was more a result of foolish American economic policy than of the capabilities of oil-
producing nations to do damage. Even at that time, self-inflicted wounds far exceeded those externally imposed.
Today, U.S. susceptibility to such external pressure is minimal . In short, there is no need to use America's military resources to defend
the U.S. economy.
No impact to disruptions empirics prove a multitudes of mechanisms generate
economic resiliency
API 4 (American Petroleum Institute, Achieving Energy Security in an Interdependent World, most recent date cited 2004, http://www.api.org/policy-and-
issues/policy-items/safety/achieving-energy-security-in-an-interdependent-world.aspx)
Progress has been made in this area. While global dependence on oil imports has generally increased since 1980, vulnerability to
short-term interruptions has not. The world has weathered several major interruptions since 1980, namely the tanker
war in the late 80s, the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, none of which has produced economic damage
approaching either the magnitude or the duration of the 70s disruptions. In part, this is attributable to measures adopted to manage such
risks, including building strategic reserves, promoting free trade and investment, and developing traditional
diplomatic and military instruments to secure that trade. In part, it is attributable to favorable market or political
trends, such as the decline in the share of oil in GDP and the increased access to potentially productive lands as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union.
But primarily, it was due to the fact that OPEC since 1980 has had available a large volume of excess capacity, which it has generally used to
offset any such shortfalls.

AT: oil supplies vulnerable

No risk of oil states cutting off our supply lines

Selective embargoes by producer nations on some consuming nations are unenforceable unless (i) all other nations on Earth refuse
to ship oil to the embargoed state, or (ii) a naval blockade were to prevent oil shipments into the ports of
the embargoed state. Thats because, once oil leaves the territory of a producer, market agents dictate
where the oil goes, not agents of the producer, and anyone willing to pay the prevailing world crude
oil price can have all he wants .12
The 1973 Arab oil embargo is a perfect case in point. U.S. crude oil imports actually increased from 1.7 million barrels per day
(mbd) in 1971 to 2.2 mbd in 1972, 3.2 mbd in 1973, and 3.5 mbd in 1974.13 Instead of buying from Arab members of OPEC, the United States
bought from non-Arab oil producers. The customers that were displaced by the United States bought from
Arab members of OPEC. Beyond the modest increase in transportation costs that followed from this game of musical chairs, the embargo had no
impact on the United States.14
In short, it does not matter to consumers to whom the oil is initially sold. All that matters to consumers is
how much oil is produced for world markets.
Do oil producing nations allow their feelings towards oil consuming nations to affect their production
decisions? Historically, the answer has been no . The record strongly indicates that oil producing states, regardless of their
feelings toward the industrialized West, are rational economic actors . After a detailed survey of the world oil market since the rise
of OPEC, oil economist M.A. Adelman concluded, *w+e look in vain for an example of a government that deliberately avoids a higher income. The self-serving declaration of an interested party
is not evidence.15 Prof. Philip Auerswald of George Mason University agrees, stating For the past quarter century, the oil
output decisions of Islamic Iran have been no more menacing or unpredictable than Canadas or
Norways .16

Zero interest in supply disruptions Islamist Iran proves

What if a radical new actor were to emerge on the global stage? For example, if the House of Saud were
to fall and the new government consisted of Islamic extremists friendly to Osama bin Laden, the new regime might
reduce production and increase prices.18 But that scenario is by no means certain given that Iran
despite all its anti-western rhetoric has not reduced oil output out of hostility towards the West .19
Regardless, the departure of Saudi Arabia from world crude oil market would probably have about the same
effect on domestic oil prices as the departure of Iran from world crude oil markets in 1978. The Iranian revolution
reduced oil production by 8.9 percent, whereas Saudi Arabia accounts for about 13 percent of global oil production today.20 Oil prices increased dramatically after the 1978 revolution, but
those higher prices set in motion market supply and demand responses that undermined the supply
reduction and collapsed world prices eight years later.21 The short term macroeconomic impacts of such a supply
disruption would actually be less today than they were then given the absence of price controls on the
U.S. economy and our reduced reliance on oil as an input for each unit of GDP.22
So while it is possible that a radical oil-producing regime might play a game of chicken with consuming
countries, producing countries are very dependent on oil revenue and have fewer degrees of freedom to
maneuver than consuming countries. Catastrophic supply disruptions would harm producers more than
consumers, which is why they are extremely unlikely . The best insurance against such a low-probability event is to maintain a relatively free
economy where wages and prices are left unregulated by government. That would do more to protect the West against an extreme production disruption than anything else in governments
policy arsenal.

Prefer our evidence economic consensus outweighs ideological argumentation

The arguments laid out in this paper are rarely encountered in foreign policy circles. Nevertheless, they represent
the orthodox view of economists and corporate analysts who specialize in the study of oil and
natural gas markets . When foreign policy elites encounter these arguments in public forums, they tend to dismiss them as overly
theorized economics that assume perfectly informed rational actors and, moreover, are divorced from geopolitical reality. Energy producers, we are told, are
not first and foremost wealth maximizers. They pursue foreign policy ends and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice money to secure those ends. Ideological
regimes, moreover, have not always acted rationally in the past and cannot be counted upon to do so in the
future. The possibility that producer states might become economic suicide bombers immolating their own economies in
order to inflict great economic pain on the West cannot be lightly dismissed. The facts, however, indicate that the above narrative is
fundamentally at odds with observable reality . Energy producers have thus far demonstrated a keen
interest in near-term wealth maximization cover stories to the contrary notwithstanding. International actors rarely if ever
act irrationally as an economist would define the term (e.g., they do not act in a manner that would frustrate their self interest as they perceive it). Fears of
economic suicide bombing by anti-Western producer states are greatly exaggerated by an overly pessimistic view
of the harm said bombing could do to Western economies. And worry over embargoes demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of
how international oil markets work .

No security risks producers have no incentive to disrupt supply
Auerswald 7 (Philip E, Let's call an end to oil alarmism - Opinion - International Herald Tribune, Jan
23, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/opinion/23iht-edauers.4307288.html, CMR)

Oil prices have ended their steep ascent for now and are headed downward. The near-universal alarm among politicians, pundits and
consumers over America's dependency on foreign oil has yielded to a wary sense of relief. But both the prior alarm and the current relief are
misguided. Few propositions are at once more widely accepted and less rooted in fact than the notion that increasing U.S.
reliance on foreign oil is a security threat requiring urgent action. Such concern reflects a view of markets that has been
rendered obsolete by globalization. The oft- stated objective of "energy independence" is as devoid of substance and irrelevant to our security
as "computer independence" or "clothing independence." Consider the following facts: Oil producers don't like oil prices that
are "too high." Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, offered this frank assessment to The Wall
Street Journal in 2004, just as oil prices began to increase sharply: "We've got almost 30 percent of the world's oil. For us, the objective is
to assure that oil remains an economically competitive source of energy. Oil prices that are too high
reduce demand growth for oil and encourage the development of alternative energy sources." In response, Saudi
Arabia ramped up oil production, from 8.5 million barrels per day in 2002 to 11.1 million in 2005. Far more dependent on oil revenue
than the West is on oil, the Saudis lose if a high price today prompts their customers to develop substitutes.
The upswing in the price of many commodities, including oil, over the past five years reflects positive economic developments. In the next two
decades or so, most of the world's population including a couple of billion in China and India will finally become full partners in the world
economy. This is good news. For the foreseeable future potential supply problems whether caused by terrorism, political disputes
or other issues in the Middle East or elsewhere will have far less of an impact on prices than these changes on the demand side.
Oil can't easily be used as a strategic instrument of aggression against the United States. Petro- alarmism focused on the
Middle East often emphasizes the concentration of oil reserves and spare production capacity in a few oil-producing nations, particularly Saudi
Arabia. But reserves are only useful as a strategic weapon in pushing prices down. Only by withholding output and
threatening their own livelihood can producers push prices higher.

Energy producers are interested in wealth maximization and behave rationallytakes out
risk of supply shocks
When foreign policy elites encounter these arguments in public forums, they tend to dismiss them as overly theorized economics that
assume perfectly informed rational actors and, moreover, are divorced from geopolitical reality. Energy producers, we are told, are not first
and foremost wealth maximizers. They pursue foreign policy ends and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice money to secure those ends.
Ideological regimes, moreover, have not always acted rationally in the past and cannot be counted upon to do so in the future. The possibility
that producer states might become economic suicide bombers immolating their own economies in order to inflict great economic pain on
the West cannot be lightly dismissed. The facts, however, indicate that the above narrative is fundamentally at odds with
observable reality. Energy producers have thus far demonstrated a keen interest in near-term wealth maximization
cover stories to the contrary notwithstanding. International actors rarely if ever act irrationally as an economist
would define the term (e.g., they do not act in a manner that would frustrate their self interest as they perceive it). Fears of economic
suicide bombing by anti-Western producer states are greatly exaggerated by an overly pessimistic view of the
harm said bombing could do to Western economies. And worry over embargoes demonstrates a fundamental
ignorance of how international oil markets work. There are plenty of things for foreign policy elites to worry
about. Energy security, however, is not one of them.

The oil weapon cannot work in the long-termdrives down demand, gutting prices, as
proven by history
Ronald Bailey, editor, Peak Oil Panic, REASON, May 2006, www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html,
Despite the recent jump in oil prices, the worlds economy has not slowed down. Why not? Goldman Sachs notes
that oil is less important than it was a generation ago. At the height of the Iranian oil crisis in 198081, paying for gasoline took
up 4.5 percent of U.S. GDP and 7.2 percent of U.S. consumer expenditures. In 2005, even though U.S. gas prices peaked at $3.07 per gallon
after Hurricane Katrina, only 2.6 percent of GDP went to pay for gas and consumers spent only 3.7 percent of their incomes to fuel their cars
and SUVs. Goldman Sachs believes gasoline prices would need to exceed $4 per gallon before consumers really started to cut back. As the
oil crisis of the 1970s demonstrated, while the demand for oil is inelastic in the short run, consumers do
eventually adjust to higher prices. U.S. oil consumption declined by 13 percent between 1973 and 1983.
According to Frederick Cedoz, vice president of the D.C.-based energy and political risk consulting group Global
Water and Energy Strategy Team, We get three times more GDP out of a barrel of oil than we did in the 1970s.
The higher prices of the 1970s led eventually to an oil glut and prices below $10 a barrel by 1986. Should one or
more of the energy militants choose to deploy the oil weapon again, they will cause considerable economic
pain to the developed countries. But detonating the oil weapon would end up disarming the energy militants for
a generation, after consumer cutbacks produce a new glut.

Even a massive supply shock would only have mild economic effects, followed by efficiency
gains and a crash in oil prices
Regardless, the departure of Saudi Arabia from world crude oil market would probably have about the same effect
on domestic oil prices as the departure of Iran from world crude oil markets in 1978. The Iranian revolution
reduced oil production by 8.9 percent, whereas Saudi Arabia accounts for about 13 percent of global oil production today.13 Oil
prices increased dramatically after the 1978 revolution, but those higher prices set in motion market supply and demand
responses that undermined the supply reduction and collapsed world prices eight years later. The short term
macroeconomic impacts of such a supply disruption would actually be less today than they were then given the
absence of price controls on the U.S. economy and our reduced reliance on oil as an input for each unit of GDP.14

Suppliers know they cannot strong-arm usmeans there is no real embargo risk because of
interdependence
Sebastian Mallaby, journalist, What Energy Security Really Means, WASHINGTON POST, 7-3-06, p. A21.
What about U.S. relations with energy suppliers ; surely here the model of nationalistic competition is relevant? The Arab oil embargo of
1973 demonstrated the danger of a conflict between suppliers and consumers, and Russia's withholding of natural gas from Ukraine last
winter shows that embargoes remain possible. But suppliers know that strong-arm tactics are the surest way to accelerate
the search for alternative fuels, which is why Russia plays politics with energy more by giving out subsidized
supplies than by refusing to sell any. The threat of an embargo by oil states is therefore smaller than the threat of
violence by non-states -- rebel attacks in Nigeria's oil delta, an al-Qaeda strike in Saudi Arabia. In this sense the energy security of
producers is not in competition with that of consumers. They are interdependent. If the G-8 summit can spread the word
about this interdependence, it will do some good. But the nationalistic conception of energy security is worse than useless. By encouraging a
competitive scramble for resources that could spiral into conflict, this sort of security talk only creates insecurity.

There will be no supply shocksproducers are more dependent on the oil trade than are
consumers
So while it is possible that a radical oil-producing regime might play a game of chicken with consuming countries, producing countries are
very dependent on oil revenue and have fewer degrees of freedom to maneuver than consuming countries. Catastrophic supply
disruptions would harm producers more than consumers, which is why they are extremely unlikely. The best
insurance against such a low-probability event is to maintain a relatively free economy where wages and prices
are left unregulated by government. That would do more to protect the West against an extreme production disruption than
anything else in governments policy arsenal.

An oil cutoff will only encourage more exploration, decreasing prices
Ronald Bailey, editor, Peak Oil Panic, REASON, May 2006, www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html,
Instead of preparing for an energy war, the best policy is to let markets have free rein. Even if, say, the Iranians make the political decision to
disrupt the flow of oil to world markets, those markets left to themselves will eventually discipline them. The temporarily higher
prices will encourage more exploration and technological advances, which will bring energy prices back down. On
the day of his inauguration in 1981, President Ronald Reagan lifted oil price controls. Five years later oil prices fell below $10 a barrel. One
day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for
the bulk of the coming century. But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum. Trusting
markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future, notes the University of Houstons Economides.
Its also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.

We are not running out of oil and it cannot be used as a weapon against us
M.A. Adelman, Emeritus Professor, Economic, MIT, The Real Oil Problem, REGULATION, Spring 2004, p. 16.
According to conventional wisdom, humanitys need for oil cannot be met and a gap will soon emerge between demand and supply. That
gap will broaden as the economies of Europe, Japan, and several emerging nations grow and increase their energy needs. The United States is
at the mercy of Middle Eastern exporters who can use the oil weapon to cripple the U.S. economy. Unless we increase domestic oil
production radically or cut consumption, or nations like Russia quickly exploit recently discovered oil fields, the United States will find itself in
an oil crisis. But conventional wisdom knows many things that are not true. There is not, and never has been, an oil crisis or
gap. Oil reserves are not dwindling. The Middle East does not have and has never had any oil weapon. How fast
Russian oil output grows is of minor but real interest. How much goes to the United States or Europe or Japan
or anywhere else, for that matter is of no interest because it has no effect on prices we pay nor on the security
of supply.

AT: oil supplies vulnerable (iran)

Iran will never cut off oildoing so would destroy its economy
Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst, Reason Foundation, Defend America, Buy More iranian Oil, REASON, 5-5-06,
www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml, accessed 5-15-08.
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.

Iran will never use oil as a weaponknows that doing so is doomed to failure
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.

AT: oil supplies vulnerable (saudi)

Even a radical saudi government would not cut oil exports
What if a radical new actor were to emerge on the global stage? For example, if the House of Saud were to fall and the new government
consisted of Islamic extremists friendly to Osama bin Laden, the new regime might reduce production and increase prices.10 But that
scenario is by no means certain given that Iran despite all its anti-western rhetoric has not reduced oil output
out of hostility towards the West.11 The Iranian economy and regime are dependent on oil revenue and the
Saudis are even more dependent.12

AT: oil supplies vulnerable (terror)

Oil-producing states will secure their own oil production facilities because they are so heavily
dependent upon them
Many believe that reliance on foreign oil requires consumers to militarily defend friendly exporting states and to ensure the safety of oil
supply facilities and shipping lanes. Those marching under banners declaring No Blood for Oil seem to believe thats the case, as do their
arch rivals in the neo-conservative movement. Simple economics suggests otherwise. Oil producers will provide for their
own security needs as long as the cost of doing so results in greater profits than equivalent investments could
yield. Because Middle-Eastern governments typically have nothing of value to trade except oil, they must secure
and sell oil to remain viable. Given that their economies are so heavily dependent upon oil revenues, Middle-
Eastern governments have even more incentive than do consuming states to worry about the security of oil
production facilities, ports, and shipping lanes.2 In short, whatever security our presence provides (and many analysts think that
our presence actually reduces security3) could be provided by incumbent producers were the United States to withdraw. The fact that the
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid for 55 percent of the cost of Operation Desert Storm suggests that keeping the Straits of Hormuz free of trouble
is certainly within their means.4

Oil producing states have enormous incentive to protect their oil fields from terroristsno
need for the u.s. to act
The same argument applies to al Qaeda threats to oil production facilities. Producer states have such strong
incentives to protect their oil infrastructure that additional Western assistance to do the same is probably
unnecessary. While terrorists do indeed plot to disrupt oil production in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, there is no
evidence to suggest that producer-state security investments are insufficient for the job. The U.S. oil mission is thus
best thought of as a taxpayer-financed gift to oil regimes and, perhaps, the Israeli government that has little, if any, effect on the security of
oil production facilities. One may support or oppose such a gift, but our military expenditures in the Middle East are not necessary to remedy
a market failure.

AT: oil wars
No risk of access loss and no coercion

Oil dependence could reduce a states security if its access to oil is vulnerable to disruption and if oil is necessary for operating the states military forces. Vulnerable
energy supplies can leave a state open to coercionrecognizing that it is more likely to lose a war, the state has a weaker bargaining position and is more likely to
make concessions.
1
Closely related, if war occurs the state is more likely to lose. Conflict that is influenced by this mechanism is not fundamentally over the oil;
2

rather, when states already have incentives for conflict, the oil vulnerability influences their assessment of military capabilities and in turn the path to war.
Recognizing this type of danger during the Cold War, U.S. planning to protect its sea lanes of communication with
the Persian Gulf was motivated partly by the importance of insuring the steady flow of oil that was necessary to enable the United States to
fight a long war against the Soviet Union in Europe. During the Second World War, Japans vulnerability to a U.S. oil embargo played an important role in
destroying Japans ability to fight.
3
This type of threat to the U.S. military capabilities is not a serious danger today
because the United States does not face a major power capable of severely interrupting its access to key
supplies of oil. In contrast, China does face this type of danger because its oil imports are vulnerable to disruption by the U.S. Navy.
No need for provocative actions no risk of war

The vulnerability of a states access to oil supplies could reduce its security via a second, more complicated mechanismif the states efforts to protect its access to
oil threaten another states security, then this reduced security could in turn reduce the states own security. The danger would follow standard security-dilemma
logic, but with the defense of oil supply lines replacing the standard focus on protection of territory. In the most extreme case, a state could try to solve its import
vulnerability through territorial expansion. In less extreme cases, the state could deal with its vulnerability by building up military forces required to protect its
access to oil, which has the unintended consequence of decreasing its adversarys military capability and signaling that the states motives are malign, which
decreases the adversarys security, which leads the adversary to build up its own military forces.
4
Just as protecting a distant ally can require a state to adopt an
offensive capability, protecting access to oil can require offensive power-projection capabilities. Thus, a states need to protect its access to oil could create a
security dilemma that would not otherwise exist. Conflict fueled by this security dilemma need not be over oil or access to oil; by damaging political relations the
security dilemma could prevent the states from resolving political disputes and avoiding the escalation of crises. Here again, the United States does not
currently face this type of danger; this is largely because the military status quo currently favors the United States,
which relieves it from having to take provocative actions. In contrast, Chinas efforts to protect its access to oil could be more
provocative and generate military competition with the United States.
No oil wars costs too high and calculations have changed
Fettweis 10 Professor of Political Science @ Tulane (Christopher, Dangerous Times?: The
International Politics of Great Power Peace, pg. 126, CMR)

If the cases above are any indication, no stage of this life cycle carries much risk of major war to control resources. In fact,
the most obvious observation that emerges from the study of petropolitics is that at no time have great powers come close to
loggerheads over control of these vital regions. No country has ever actively prepared to conquer these
weak areas, nor has any felt it necessary to prepare to defend them. Consumer cooperation , rather

1
For a full analysis of the when and how oil dependence leaves states vulnerable to coercion, see Rosemary A.
Kelanic, Black Gold and Blackmail: The Politics of International Oil Coercion (PhD dissertation, University of
Chicago, 2011).
2
For important exceptions, see Kelanic, Black Gold and Blackmail.
3
Jerome B. Cohen, Japans Economy in War and Reconstruction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1949).
4
On the security dilemma see Robert Jervis, Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma, World Politics, Vol. 30,
No. 2 (January 1978), pp. 167-214; and Charles L. Glaser, The Security Dilemma Revisited, World Politics, Vol. 50,
No. 1 (October 1997), pp. 171-201.
than conflict, is the rule . There has never been a war to control territory that contains fossil fuels, and
there are good reasons to believe it is likely that there never will be. The conventional wisdom
concerning the inevitability of energy wars is probably wrong . Why has great power behavior failed to live
up to pessimistic expectations? While it is hard to argue that democracy has helped confound the various ecopessimist projections,
since not all interested parties are democracies, other rationalist explanations for stability cannot be entirely ruled out. Perhaps it is the
fear of escalation toward a nuclear holocaust that has kept the great powers from fighting over oil. Perhaps liberal
internationalists are correct and complex interdependence should be given primary credit. 'Whatever the initial cause the
idea that war would be a viable option to control the most valuable regions in the world does not seem
to have occurred to the great consumer nations. As time goes on, it becomes more and more unlikely
that it ever will. Resources have historically been a primary motivator for war. The most valuable regions-those
worthy of contestation and conquest-have always been those that were the richest. Today, that calculation seems to have
changed, even regarding the most vulnerable, valuable regions in the world. It seems as if the states of the
industrialized world have indeed taken Angell's ideas to heart and have reached the conclusion that oil is not worth
fighting one another for . Perhaps, for the first time, nothing is.

AT: saudi instability
Saudi Arabia is stable it can withstand attacks, oil disruptions, and other dire
predictions empirics prove
Maugeri 12Research Fellow of the Geopolitics of Energy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs;
former top manager of Eni, the largest Italian oil company; former Visiting Scholar @ MIT; International Counselor of CSIS; Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy
Association (Leonardo, Oil: The Next Revolution, Discussion Paper 2012-10, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June
2k12, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil-%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)

Some may assign serious risks within Saudi Arabias oil sector and a high possibility of political instability,
and therefore would revise my evaluation about its future oil production accordingly. However, the Saudi oil system is one of the most
protected in the world, considering no major attack has ever been brought against it, and even the
attempts to hit parts of it such as in the 2006 raid against the biggest Saudi refinery produced no result). Additionally, the
Kingdom appears to be capable of coping with major accidents in a short period of time (thanks in part to the
support of many countries, due to its key role for the global oil supply). In sum, a Saudi oil disruption would most likely be short-term (no
longer than 6-12 months). Its also worth pointing out that since the 1980s, several analyses have suggested the
possibility of impending political crises and even radical upturn of the Saudi regime either because of the
death of a King, or because of the uprisings (particularly in the eastern region of the Kingdom), or because of a supposed
chain-reaction phenomenon determined by international events (such as the Arab Spring). However, these dire
analyses fell short of reality: the Kingdom has proved to be solid and capable to absorb challenges to
its survival.
No Saudi instability and no scenario for intervention wont cut off supplies

In light of recent political upheaval across the region, which few experts foresaw, Saudi stability is now still harder to predict with any confidence. Recent
reassessments have explored the factors that appear to sustain stability in Arab statesincluding the
professionalism of the military, the ethnic composition of the regime and the military, state wealth,
state control of the economy, and the quality of governancemany of which favor continued Saudi
stability.
5
Nevertheless, the possibility of a major uprising in Saudi Arabia has become harder to dismiss. In assessing the risks to the United States, a
change in the Saudi regime should not be conflated with a long-term disruption of Saudi oil. Because Saudi
prosperity depends quite heavily on selling oil, only the most extreme new regime poses this type of oil danger.

5
Gregory Gause, Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 4 (July/August
2011), pp. 81-90; and Anthony H. Cordesman, Understanding Saudi Stability and Instability: A Very Different
Nation, (CSIS: February 26, 2011), csis.org/publication/understanding-saudi-stability-and-instability-very-
different-nation, accessed July 26, 2011.
AT: saudi cut-off
Saudi Arabia has no oil weapon U.S. oil supplies are not vulnerable
Carpenter 1Ted Galen Carpenter, Ph.D. in U.S. diplomatic history, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute AND Jerry Taylor, director of
natural resource studies at the Cato Institute (16 November 2001, Quit Turning the Other Cheek with Saudi Arabia, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6667, CMR)

The common wisdom is that we must turn the other cheek and stay on friendly terms with the Saudi autocrats
because we need their oil. Nonsense. They need our money more than we need their oil. Repeat after us:
"There is no 'oil weapon.'"
First, let's dispel the notion that we need to worry about an oil embargo directed at the United States. Once oil
is in a tanker or refinery, there is no controlling its destination. During the 1973 embargo on the United States and the
Netherlands, for instance, oil that was exported to Europe was simply resold to the United States or ended up displacing non-OPEC oil that
was diverted to the U.S. market. Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo "did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States ... the
world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else."
Second, the Saudis are hardly in a position to "punish" the industrialized nations with a major production
cutback. That's because one of the main causes of instability in the region is declining oil revenues. Saudis who' ve gotten used to living on the state's generous oil dole are now finding
that the dole is running out and that jobs are scarce. If the Saudis stopped selling oil, they'd bankrupt their economy and almost
certainly trigger a revolution.
Third, if the last 30 years have taught us anything, it's that oil producers make decisions based on economicnot political
criteria. Never once in OPEC 's history has the cartel or any member in it left money on the table to
pursue some political objective. When the Ayatollah Khomeini displaced the Shah in 1979, the oil kept
flowing. When U.S. bombs rained down on Libya's Moamar Quaddafi in 1986, the oil kept flowing. We had to impose
an embargo on Iraq's Sadaam Hussein to get him to stop selling oil to the world market. In fact, there is not and has never been any correlation
between OPEC "price hawks" and "price doves" and how those OPEC members felt about America or the industrialized West in general.

***oil dependency good
1nc global war, iran, russia
Oil dependence leads to global peace prevents Iranian proliferation and conflict with
Russia
Howard 8 (Roger, writer and broadcaster specializing in international relations, published author, An
Ode to Oil, Nov 29, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122791647562165587.html, CMR)

Alarming as these scenarios are, they disguise the true picture, one that is really much more complicated and much more
reassuring . While there are, of course, circumstances in which oil can exacerbate tensions and be a source of conflict, it can also act as a peacemaker and
source of stability . So to identify America's "foreign oil dependency" as a source of vulnerability and weakness is just too neat and easy. This identification
wholly ignores the dependency of foreign oil producers on their consumers, above all on the world's
largest single market -- the United States. Despite efforts to diversify their economies, all of the world's key exporters are highly
dependent on oil's proceeds and have always lived in fear of the moment that has now become real -- when global demand
slackens and prices fall. The recent, dramatic fall in price per barrel -- now standing at around $54, less than four months after peaking at $147 -- perfectly exemplifies the
producers' predicament. So even if such a move were possible in today's global market, no oil exporter is ever in a position to alienate its
customers. Supposed threats of embargoes ring hollow because no producer can assume that its own economy will be damaged
any less than that of any importing country. What's more, a supply disruption would always seriously damp
global demand. Even in the best of times, a prolonged price spike could easily tip the world into economic recession, prompt
consumers to shake off their gasoline dependency, or accelerate a scientific drive to find alternative fuels.
Fearful of this "demand destruction" when crude prices soared so spectacularly in the summer, the Saudis pledged to pump their wells at full tilt. It seems that their worst fears were realized:
Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in July this year compared with last, according to the Department of Transportation. Instead, the dependency of foreign oil
producers on their customers plays straight into America's strategic hands. Washington is conceivably in a position to
hold producers to ransom by threatening to accelerate a drive to develop or implement alternative
fuels, realizing the warning once uttered by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister who pointed out that "the Stone Age did not end for lack of stone." Back in 1973, as
they protested at Washington's stance on the Arab-Israeli dispute, Middle East producers were in a position to impose an oil embargo on the Western world. But a generation later,
technological advances, and the strength of public and scientific concern about global warming, have turned the
tables . The United States has powerful political leverage over producers because it holds the key to future oil
supply as well as market demand. The age of "easy oil" is over, and as fears grow that oil is becoming harder to get, so too will the dependency of producers on
increasingly sophisticated Western technology and expertise. Such skills will be particularly important in two key areas of oil production. One is finding and extracting
offshore deposits , like the massive reserves reckoned to be under the Caspian and Arctic seas, or in Brazil's recently discovered Tupi field. The other is prolonging the lifespan
of declining wells through enhanced " tertiary " recovery . Because Western companies have a clear technological edge over
their global competitors in these hugely demanding areas, Washington exerts some powerful political leverage
over exporters, many of whom openly anticipate the moment when their production peaks before gradually starting to decline. Syria illustrates how this leverage can work. Although oil has
been the primary source of national income for more than 40 years, production has recently waned dramatically: Output is now nearly half of the peak it reached in the mid-1990s, when a
daily output of 600,000 barrels made up 60% of gross domestic product, and can barely sustain rapidly growing domestic demand fueled by a very high rate of population growth. With enough
foreign investment Syrian oil could be much more productive and enduring, but Washington has sent foreign companies, as well as American firms, a tough message to steer well clear. It is not
surprising, then, that the Damascus regime regards a rapprochement with the U.S. as a political lifeline and in recent months has shown signs of a new willingness to compromise. The same
predicament confronted Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi, who first offered to surrender weapons of mass destruction during secret negotiations with U.S. officials in May 1999. Facing a
deepening economic crisis that he could not resolve without increasing the production of his main export, oil, Col. Gadhafi was prepared to bow to Washington's demands and eventually
struck a path-breaking accord in December 2003. Col. Gadhafi had been the "Mad Dog" of the Reagan years, but oil's influence had initiated what President Bush hailed as "the process of
rejoining the community of nations." Oil could also help the outside world frustrate the nuclear ambitions of Iran , whose
output is likely to steadily decline over the coming years unless it has access to the latest Western
technology. Many wells are aging rapidly and the Iranians cannot improve recovery rates, or exploit their
new discoveries, unless Washington lifts sanctions, which have been highly successful in deterring international
investment. Sometimes the markets will prove at least as effective as any American sanctions in keeping a tight political rein on oil producers. For example, when Russian forces attacked
South Ossetia and Georgia on Aug. 8, Russia's stock market -- of which energy stocks comprise 60% -- plunged by nearly 7%, and within a week capital outflow reached a massive $16 billion,
suddenly squeezing domestic credit while the ruble collapsed in value. A month later, the country was facing its worst crisis since the default of August 1998. But the future of the
oil sector is so dependent on attracting massive foreign investment, and the wider Russian economy so
heavily dependent on petrodollars, that the Kremlin simply can't afford to unnecessarily unnerve
investors. Today the markets know that Russia needs at least $1 trillion in investment if it is to maintain, let alone increase, its oil production. Just five years ago, output was increasing
so fast -- energy giants Yukos and Sibneft were posting annual production gains of 20% -- that even the Saudis were worried about their own global dominance. But in the past year Russian oil
production has started to wane. Leonid Fedun, a top official at Lukoil, Russia's No. 2 oil producer, admitted back in April that national output had peaked and was unlikely to return to 2007
levels "in my lifetime" and that "the period of intense oil production [growth] is over." Without foreign money and expertise to extract offshore oil and prolong the lifespan of existing wells,
Russian production will fall dramatically. Russia's oil, in other words, acted as peacemaker . This seems paradoxical for it has sometimes been said that the
Kremlin's attack on South Ossetia and Georgia was prompted by an ambition to seize control of local pipelines. But although this was an aggravating factor, it was not the primary cause
because Russian leaders would have felt threatened -- reasonably or not -- by the presence of NATO in what they regard as their own backyard even if the region was not an energy hub. They
were also reportedly eyeing Ukraine, which has no petroleum deposits of its own and poses no threat to the dominance of their giant energy company, Gazprom. Oil can also act as
a peacemaker and source of stability because many conflicts, in almost every part of the world , can
threaten a disruption of supply and instantly send crude prices spiraling. Despite the recent price falls, the market is still vulnerable to sudden supply
shocks, and a sharp increase would massively affect the wider global economy. This would have potentially disastrous social and political results, just as in the
summer many countries, including France, Nepal and Indonesia, were rocked by violent protests at dramatic price increases in gasoline. Haunted by the specter of higher oil prices at a time
of such economic fragility, many governments have a very strong incentive to use diplomacy, not force , to resolve
their own disputes, and to help heal other people's. This is true not just of oil consumers but producers,
which would also be keen not to watch global demand stifled by such price spikes. Consider the events of last fall, when the
Ankara government was set to retaliate against the Iraq-based Kurdish guerrillas who had killed 17 Turkish soldiers and taken others prisoner in a cross-border raid on Oct. 21, 2007. Even the
mere prospect of such an attack sent the price of a barrel surging to a then record high of $85 because the markets knew that the insurgents could respond by damaging a key pipeline which
moves 750,000 barrels of oil across Turkish territory every day. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration pushed very hard to prevent a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq -- State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack aptly described the frenzy of diplomatic activity as a "full-court press" -- not just to avoid shattering the vestiges of Iraq's political structure but also to stabilize oil
prices. In the end it was American pressure that averted a major incursion, allowing crude prices to quickly ease. And the Turks would also have been aware that any invasion could have
prompted retaliatory damage on the oil pipeline, losing them vast transit fees. In general, oil is such a vital commodity, for consumers, producers and intermediaries alike, that it represents a
meeting point for all manner of different interests. Sometimes it offers an opportunity for competitors and rivals to resolve differences, as in March 1995, when Iranian President Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to break deadlock with Washington by offering a technically very demanding oil contract to Conoco. Today, the symbiotic energy
requirements of Europe and Russia allows scope to improve mutual relations , not least if European governments act in
unison to impose the rules of the European Union's energy charter on Moscow. Oil also gives consumers a chance to penalize, or tempt,
international miscreants, just as U.S. sanctions are forcing the Tehran regime to reassess its cost-benefit
analysis of building the bomb. What cannot go unchallenged is a facile equation between oil on the one hand, and war, bloodshed and, in America's particular case,
strategic vulnerability on the other. For oil , fortunately, can often be our guardian .
Impact to Iran is terrorism and nuclear war
Haass 9 [Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, A Nuclear Iran: Live and Let Live,
or Die Another Day?, Jan 13, 2009, http://www.cfr.org/publication/18209/nuclear_iran.html+

Aside fromGaza, Barack Obama's next foreign policy crisis after taking office may be Iran and its nuclear program. Iran is well down the path of being able to enrich uranium on a large enough scale to produce a nucl ear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported
that Iran may reach this point this year. An Iran with the ability to produce one or more bombs poses a true danger. One path for the new American administration would be to adopt the "North Korea"
option and live with the threat. But this risks making an unstable and conflict-prone Middle East even more so. In a crisis, Israel
or Iran may be tempted to use nuclear weapons out of fear the other might do the same. There is also the
chance other countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia may develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The United States could reduce these risks by providing missile defence and
security guarantees to selective countries, but it is far fromclear it would succeed. Moreover, nuclear proliferation is not the only danger if Iran proceeds with its nuclear efforts. What Iran does directly and through
such groups as Hezbollah and Hamas will continue to have a major and mostly adverse effect on the future of
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. Iran is one of the Middle East's most powerful
countries. A nuclear Iran would probably act more aggressively , believing its nuclear capability
afforded it considerable protection. A second policy option would be for the US, Israel or both to attack Iran's known nuclear installations. Such a pre-emptive attack would destroy some or even most of Iran's nuclear facilities and materials. But
some capability would probably survive, and the program could be rebuilt in a manner that would make a second attack much more difficult. There would be serious consequences before then. Iran could be expected to retal iate by attacking US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, unleashing
terrorist attacks throughout the region and the world, and interrupting the flow of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The last thing the world economy needs is a $200 barrel of oil, but this could be the result. Both options - living with a nuclear Iran or attacking it - involve
serious risks and costs. The best outcome would be one in which Iran was persuaded to freeze or suspend its nuclear efforts or, better yet, give up an independent capability to enrich uranium. It could be allowed a symbolic "right" to enrich, but any enrichment program would have to be
so small as not to pose a strategic threat. The country would also need to be subject to intrusive inspections.
Russia war outweighs only extinction impact
Bostrom 2 (Nick Bostrom, Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, March 2002,
Journal of Evolution and Technology, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and
Related Hazards)

A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An
all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that
might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with
the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy
human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future
confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear
arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk ,
since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most
likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential
risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

1nc nuclear war, heg, prolif
Moving past oil causes diversionary nuclear wars, a collapse of hegemony, and global
proliferation
Drezner 8professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University (Daniel, 30 November-December 2008, Oil Dependence As Virtue, The National Interest,
CMR)

Let's say that conservation, substitution and recession cause a slide in the price of oil. This has already happened to some extent; after hitting $140 a barrel, as of mid-October, the price dipped
below $70 a barrel. Now let's say that this trend continues: within a few years, a mix of greater exploration, greater conservation and the development of
alternative energy sources causes the price of oil to fall even further, to $50. Despite this drop, assume the memory of $140 oil looms
sufficiently large in the minds of Western and Chinese consumers, so prevailing fears about energy security, combined with elevated concerns about global warming, spur investments in
radical energy-saving innovations in transport and electricity generation. These innovations then allow many developing economies to "leapfrog" the pollution-intensive phase of economic
development, further lessening demand for oil. The price of all hydrocarbon-based sources of energy plummets, as environmentally friendly alternatives replace oil and natural gas almost
everywhere. By the end of the next decade, then, we would be living in a world where oil prices had dropped in real terms to levels not seen since before the 1973 oil shock. In this
alternative future, the only place Americans would see a combustion engine is on the "NASCAR classic" circuit. If this scenario actually came to pass, optimists might anticipate being able to
rejoice at a return to the end of history, while pessimists might fear that the oil-exporting states would descend into anarchy. But, to imagine one way in which this
scenario could play out, let's fast-forward to 2025. What actually happened in the world after oil turned out to be something entirely unexpected.
The Year is 2025 Beijing is the most authoritative voice in the international arena. Unencumbered by the resource curse, the Middle
East is at long last stable, once-fragile African countries are active participants in the global economy and authoritarian regimes suffer from their
inability to adapt while nuclear weapons proliferate. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The United States, meanwhile, enjoys only
second-tier-power status .Contrary to the most dire predictions, the end of the oil era did not destroy the Persian Gulf states. Instead of becoming the sand dunes of desperation the West expected, the Gulf states put money into
education and infrastructure, and loosened their religious constraints. While the West assumed the Persian Gulf contained bri ttle and feckless sheikhdoms, in reality these governments proved resilient and adaptive. That is because at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the GCC
regimes had sufficient institutional memory to recall the previous oil bust of the late eighties and early nineties. Unlike i n past booms, they did not permit consumption to rise at the same rate as their trade surpluses; the governments of the Gulf spent less than 45 percent of their oil
revenue in 2008. The excess revenue filled the coffers of the region's sovereign wealth funds and central banks. And so, by 2010 the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority was sitting on close to $1 trillion in assets. These funds were large enough for the GCC economies to use the interest
income without drawing down on the principal of the funds in order to invest in the non-oil aspects of their economy.These changes had less to do with the character of the regimes than the fact that they moved up the learning curve. Back in t he 1970s, most oil exporters did one of
three things with their bulging coffers: they passively recycled their petrodollars through American banks; dramatically expanded their welfare states and increased consumption of luxury goods; or invested in ill -conceived white-elephant industries in their home countries. None of these
strategies worked terribly well. The subsequent downturn in the oil market in the 1980s led cash-strapped GCC regimes into politically sensitive budget cuts and increased borrowing. Despite predictions that the sheikhdoms would collapse, they were able to retrench and survive the lean
years. So this time, these states saved enough during the oil spike of 2008 to maintain their standard of living even after petroleum ceased to be a strategic commodity. Governments across the region began by investing in the basic infrastructures necessary for a diversified, modern
economy. Qatar was already spending more than $1.5 billion a year on research and development. Saudi Arabia commissioned six "knowledge cities," at a cost of more than $100 billion, for construction in the kingdom's less developed regions. And they ploughed significant sums--S20
billion by 2008--into their educational infrastructure. The emirate of Dubai took it a step further, leading the way toward sustained economic growth in the post-oil era. During the final oil boom, it was the hub of nonpetroleum business activity. The $10 billion foundation the emirate
established to fund higher education in the region was just the beginning. Since Dubai anticipated running out of oil by 2020 anyway, it took the lead in remaking itself as a financial and transport hub in the global economy. It liberalized its markets and began to tolerate a much more
cosmopolitan lifestyle than the rest of the Middle East. Out of desperation and jealousy, the other emirates of the UAE adopted similar strategies and policies. Abu Dhabi created new SWFS like Mubadala for the express purpose of partnering with Western multinational corporations,
like General Electric. In exchange for acquiring stakes in these firms, the Western companies agreed to invest in Abu Dhabi. With depressed markets elsewhere, they were eager to establish a toehold in the Middle East.The rest of the Gulf governments took notice of the success of their
more cosmopolitan neighbor. Thus they were able to make a fairly smooth transition to ordinary, non-resource-based economies by following the Dubai model. With ballooning numbers of young people entering the workforce, anything that promoted job creation was deemed
consistent with the Koran as a way to achieve sustainable non-oil development. The Saudi regime protected itself fromclerical criticismby offsetting its new liberalized visa regime with the innovation of a two-hundred-mile "zone of Islam" around the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina.
This grand compromise allowed the GCC states to take more radical steps, such as recognizing Israel, without losing the support of conservative clerics.All this has left a region filled with economic prosperity, more open societies and decreased extremism. The Gulf states are liberalized,
but not completely democratized. Though not all of these states have made the transition with the same success as Dubai, the GCC states have integrated their economies to the point where they share a common currency and a common external tariff. The combination of enhanced
security and an economic union created a rising tide lifting all the sheikhdoms. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Though poorer energy-exporting states were initially hit hard by plummeting oil prices, as it turned out they have also faired well. The first stages were difficult because most of
these countries were unstable or failing regimes that lacked diversified economies. States like Nigeria, with nondemocratic and weak governments unable to force change, stripped of oil rents, had only a few years to adjust to a much harsher economic environment. This time political
scientists and economists were proven right. Exactly what was expected to happen did in fact come to pass: the end of oil for these governments meant the end of several bloody and divisive conflicts, and these states became more stable and prosperous.During the oil era, theory held
that despite the apparent boost in revenues, an economy dependent on the export of natural resources like diamonds or oil suf fered from a "resource curse." Oil revenues brought a host of negative effects, civil war being the most obvious. (1) The reasoning behind this relationship
was assumed to be straightforward. The more wealth controlled by the state, the more incentive for political groups to wrest control of it by any means necessary. At the same time, oil wealth would increase the likelihood of a "rentier state"--one that is disconnected fromits citizens
because it does not need to rely on them for resources. Rentier states are therefore more vulnerable to external and internal challenges to their authority.After the first OPEC oil shock in 1973, the likelihood of a petroleum-rich state being involved in a conflict more than tripled. Long-
standing disputes in Colombia, Nigeria, Sudan and Indonesia were linked to or exacerbated by conflicts over the distribution of oil wealth. Theorists saw a tight correlation between a country having an oil -rich economy and being enmeshed in civil war. Disputes over the distribution of oil
revenues helped to extend the civil war in post-2003 Iraq. Five years after the overthrow of SaddamHussein, different ethnic groups were still battling over the final administrative status of oil-rich Kirkuk. Without oil, many economists and political scientists predicted that these smaller,
resource-dependent states would be free of the "resource curse." Nigeria, Iraq, Angola and Sudan would see an end to resource-driven conflicts and become more stable.And for many states, these assumptions about a post-oil era held. The removal of internal and external oil did
contribute to the end of long-standing conflicts. Shockingly enough, the end of the oil era meant that Iraqi ethnic groups cared a lot less about who administered Kirkuk. Across the globe, fears of resource wars in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia disappeared. Fragmented states like
these became less divided and more representative. Granted, the effects of declining oil prices weren't all magical. In some of these war-torn societies, like Sudan, the bitterness and
blood feuds have a self-sustaining momentum, propelling continued fighting even after the main catalyst disappears. And truly, not all of the oil-
dependent governments were as fortunate as the GCC. For the middle-income states--like Russia, Venezuela and Iran--the end of
the oil age turned out to be a disaster. These regimes once had leveraged their oil revenues to increase
their power. With only empty coffers and domestic chaos left after the oil crash, however, nuclear states
ended up launching diversionary wars and nonnuclear governments built atomic weapons in the
hopes of regaining some semblance of control, all in the vain hope of bolstering domestic support
and cohesion . Yet, everyone predicted that without oil, these autocratic oil-exporting behemoths would disintegrate because of domestic instability and spending sprees, and
that's exactly what happened. Populist leaders like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded to the oil
boom by dramatically increasing government expenditures. For instance, state-owned firms in Russia, with the expectation of sustained oil
revenues, went on a borrowing spree. These types of actions bought popular support for the regimes, but the collapse of oil prices left them abjectly unprepared to sustain those expenditures.
Like the GCC economies, many of these countries had official reserves and sovereign wealth funds. But their reserves were much smaller than the Gulf states--within a year or two after the
end of oil these governments spent most of their principal. It did not help that some of these reserve funds had been raided before the oil boom even ended. Iran's Oil Stabilization Fund, for
example, was quickly depleted because Ahmadinejad and his political allies proved unable to stop themselves from draining it for domestic spending programs during the boom years. Hugo
Chavez did the same thing with the state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). When the financial storm came, these rainy-day coffers were bone dry. And then
these states got desperate. They faced rising levels of domestic unpopularity and great powers eager to
see them toppled. They undertook two types of actions in response to their predicament. Some countries launched diversionary wars in an
effort to rally disaffected citizens around the flag. Azerbaijan revived its simmering dispute with Armenia, and Libya intervened in Chad--again. Ecuador
announced an "alliance" with the last fragments of Colombia's FARC rebels, while Russia attempted to annex the Russian-speaking provinces in Kazakhstan. Each of these moves led to short-
term increases in support for the regime. But none of them successfully prolonged their leaders' grip on power. After all, diversionary wars have never been a terribly successful tactic to hold
power over the long term. After the initial euphoria, discontent with the notion of a prolonged war led to coups d'etat in each of these countries. Russia was hardest hit.
Domestic instability following its Kazakh misadventure deepened the political and social malaise
triggered by its demographic decline. In the ultimate sign of its weakness, Moscow essentially outsourced the mineral resources of Siberia to China. Other
post-oil regimes tried to ensure their longevity by developing nuclear weapons . Typically, nuclear programs serve multiple
purposes. They can be a credible deterrent against aggression by external actors. Internally, the announcement of joining the nuclear club can swell national pride in countries that already
have strong nationalist sentiments--i.e., Iran and Venezuela. By the time the nationalist rapture in response to their nuclear programs wore off, the regimes were convinced that they had
cemented their hold on power. But in Venezuela this was not the case. Regional outrage at the government's nuclear announcement--led by former near-nuclear states Brazil and Argentina--
undermined Venezuela's international support, and Chavez did not survive. In the end, South America remained a nuclear-flee zone of democratic countries.
Prolif causes nuclear war
Evans and Kawaguchi 9 co-chairs of the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Disarmament Commission which includes 27
distinguished nuclear experts from around the globe [Gareth Evans, currently an Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne,
President Emeritus of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, degrees in Law and Arts from Melbourne and Oxford, and Honorary
Doctorates from Melbourne, Sydney and Carleton universities, and is an Honorary Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, Yoriko Kawaguchi, B.A.
in international relations from the University of Tokyo, and a master's in economics from Yale University, dozens of other top-level officials,
ELIMINATING NUCLEAR THREATS Report of the A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers, 12-16, online]

3.1 Ensuring that no new states join the ranks of those already nuclear armed must continue to be one of
the worlds top international security priorities. Every new nuclear-armed state will add significantly
to the inherent risks of accident or miscalculation as well as deliberate use involved in any possession of
these weapons, and potentially encourage more states to acquire nuclear weapons to avoid being left
behind. Any scramble for nuclear capabilities is bound to generate severe instability in bilateral, regional and
international relations. The carefully worked checks and balances of interstate relations will come under severe stress.
There will be enhanced fears of nuclear blackmail, and of irresponsible and unpredictable leadership
behaviour. 3.2 In conditions of inadequate command and control systems, absence of confidence building measures and
multiple agencies in the nuclear weapons chain of authority, the possibility of an accidental or maverick usage of nuclear weapons will remain
high. Unpredictable elements of risk and reward will impact on decision making processes. The dangers are compounded if the new and aspiring
nuclear weapons states have, as is likely to be the case, ongoing inter-state disputes with ideological, territorial, historical and for all those reasons,
strongly emotive dimensions. 3.3 The transitional period is likely to be most dangerous of all, with the
arrival of nuclear weapons tending to be accompanied by sabre rattling and competitive nuclear chauvinism. For example, as
between Pakistan and India a degree of stability might have now evolved, but 19982002 was a period of disturbingly fragile interstate
relations. Command and control and risk management of nuclear weapons takes time to evolve. Military and political leadership in new nuclear-armed
states need time to learn and implement credible safety and security systems. The risks of nuclear accidents and the
possibility of nuclear action through inadequate crisis control mechanisms are very high in such circumstances. If this is coupled
with political instability in such states, the risks escalate again. Where such countries are beset with internal stresses and fundamentalist
groups with trans-national agendas, the risk of nuclear weapons or fissile material coming into possession of nonstate actors cannot be ignored. The actionreaction cycle of
nations on high 3.4 alerts, of military deployments, threats and counter threats of military action, have
all been witnessed in the Korean peninsula with unpredictable behavioural patterns driving interstate relations. The impact of a
proliferation breakout in the Middle East would be much wider in scope and make stability management
extraordinarily difficult. Whatever the chances of stable deterrence prevailing in a Cold War or IndiaPakistan setting, the prospects
are significantly less in a regional setting with multiple nuclear power centres divided by multiple and
cross-cutting sources of conflict.
Heg solves global war
Robert Kagan, 1-17-12 Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, Not
Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline, Originally at TNR, Republished in Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0117_us_power_kagan.aspx.

Is the United States in decline, as so many seem to believe these days? Or are Americans in danger of committing pre-emptive superpower suicide out of a misplaced fear of their own
declining power? A great deal depends on the answer to these questions. The present world ordercharacterized by an unprecedented number of
democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers
reflects American principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and
military dimensions. If American power declines, this world order will decline with it. It will be replaced by some other kind of order,
reflecting the desires and the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse, as the European world order collapsed in the first half of the twentieth
century. The belief, held by many, that even with diminished American power the underlying foundations of the liberal
international order will survive and thrive, as the political scientist G. John Ikenberry has argued, is a pleasant illusion. American decline, if it is real,
will mean a different world for everyone.

1ncME conflict, terrorism
Oil dependence solves Middle East conflict, state sponsorship of terrorism, and U.S.
interventionism

A drop in demand for oil would lead to increased probability of conflict between current oil exporters
and their customers, including developed Western states, as well as between oil producers and their neighbors. This risk will be
especially pronounced in regions with a high number of oil-exporting states such as the Middle East.
According to the concept of interdependence, the likelihood of states going to war with each other decreases as mutual
dependence between them increases, with trade being the most common measure of interdependence. This idea was reflected in the Clinton administration
policy of increasing trade with China in the 1990s. Early European integration in the 1950s was similarly designed to prevent a future
European war.3 If valid, then the inverse of the theory suggests that as states reduce their demand for foreign oil, levels of
interdependence between consumer states and oil exporters will fall, increasing the likelihood of
conflict. Although it is unlikely that war would occur simply because of lower trade levels, the logic of interdependence theory is that the wealth gained from
trade restrains policymakers who otherwise might engage in conflict.4 If the United States is no longer
dependent on foreign oil and if oil-exporting states no longer gain revenue from the United States, there
would be fewer constraints on each states willingness to use violence , whether it be in the form of
conventional military force or state sponsorship of terrorism.
Terrorism causes lashout and extinction
Morgan 9 (Dennis Ray Morgan, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies at the Yongin Campus in South
Korea, 2009, Futures, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible
extinction of the human race, CMR)

In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question Is Nuclear War Inevitable?? *10+.4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists
obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, theyve figured out that the best way to
escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant
terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or
Israel. Because of the Russian dead hand system, where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed, it is likely that any attack would be
blamed on the United States *10+.
Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate
with the suicidal Samson option against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would
also include attacks on Russia and even anti-Semitic European cities *10+. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S.
would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of
them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive
radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in
a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.
Middle East conflict causes WW3
Newsflavor 11 *Will Middle East Crisis Trigger World War Three?, Read more:
http://newsflavor.com/world/middle-east/will-middle-east-crisis-trigger-world-war-
three/#ixzz1P1K6funG, CMR]

Everyone knows how valuable oil is, even though most of us do not care whether the people in Middle East enjoy political freedom or not. Even a kid knows the value of oil, since he takes bus
or travels in a car. He may not know what or where is Middle East. He definitely cannot name all the countries in Middle East. However, he knows the value of oil. If Middle East
crisis spreads, and everyone in oil producing countries start to revolt, the oil supply will stop for the time being. That will bring the
world to a halt. This may mean the start of World War 3. The plane cannot fly without aviation fuel. The cars cannot move without oil. The farmers
cannot bring their produces to the supermarket if no oil is available for transporting the goods. If and when Middle East crisis spreads, the
world might as well get ready for World War 3. It is hard to imagine the foolishness of a mad man, Muammar Gaddafi, can trigger World War 3,
until we realize that World War 2 started because of another mad man in history. It is still early days to predict how bad the situation is, and the impact on the economy of the world. The fact
is that oil price is heading north rapidly, like an unstoppable mad bull charging forward. The fact is that oppressed people in Middle East want a change, and
they want freedom more than they love their lives. The fact is that Saudi King Abdullah is scared enough to part with $37 billion to stop the residents from revolting. The fact is that
investors and businesspersons all around the world are fearful. Their actions in the stock markets tell us about their fears. Will
Gaddafi become the trigger point for World War 3? Will Middle East crisis trigger World War 3? It is possible. Let us hope not. Let us
hope the mighty powers in the East and West can stop the political crisis from getting worse. Let us hope that the governments in Middle East can handle the uprising wisely.

2ncME conflict, terrorism
Oil revenue allows states to stabilize their populations prevents civil conflict and
terrorism

Although internal violence, including terrorism, is often believed to be born out of economic hardship, the
number of terrorists coming from Kuwait is greater than the number from Niger. 6 This suggests that some level of
wealth is necessary for violence to occur; bomb-making requires some education, and ammunition costs
money. The most dangerous situations appear to be when individuals have wealth, but then lose what
they have or fear they are about to, therefore engaging in violence out of dissatisfaction. For example,
Professor Scott Atran shows that suicide terrorists are not poor or lacking in opportunities, but that relative
loss of economic or social advantage by educated persons might encourage support for terrorism.7 If true,
current oil-exporting states are particularly susceptible to internal violence as a result of this relative
deprivation. Several of these states already suffer from internal problems because of social divisions, but
these issues will grow as national wealth declines, making governments less capable of dealing with
unrest either by providing social programs or through intimidation. Even in states where the majority of the population does not
directly profit from the sale of oil, many people still benefit from oil wealth, such as better roads, more educational
opportunities, and more advanced technology. Even relatively small cuts in revenue will negatively affect those populations.
Similarly, just as resource scarcity is a catalyst for interstate conflict, economic problems stemming from a lack of necessary resources
also lead to internal violence , as illustrated in Sierra Leone in the early 1990s and Indonesia in 1997.8 These same types of conflicts would
increase in frequency within states that are somewhat stable now, only because oil provides them with
a relatively satisfied population and because it gives governments the means to crack down on those who
would engage in violence.
2nc conflict hotspots

Angola, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia all could easily erupt into conflict from losing oil
revenue

Five OPEC members appear to be most vulnerable to a dramatic loss in oil revenue: Angola, Iraq, Kuwait,
Libya, and Saudi Arabia. All five get more than one-half of their GDP from oil, and all are more dependent on
oil wealth now than they were 10 years ago. In other words, these states, all of which already suffer from
internal tension and border conflicts, will run the greatest risk of experiencing the security issues outlined
earlier. Moreover, Algeria, Ecuador, Iran, Libya, and Saudi Arabia have all seen their dependence on oil more
than double in the last 10 years. 17
Iraq instability causes global nuclear war
Corsi, 7 Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard & Staff Reporter for World Net Daily, 1-8 (Jerome, "War
with Iran is Imminent, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that
happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The
Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and
missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military
leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look
like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to go after Taiwan
once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.
Saudi instability risks global wars
Copley 2 (Gregory, Editor GIS, Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, 5-22, Lexis)

Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia's problems have become the problems of virtually the entire Muslim ummah (nation), and are perhaps the
real core of the schism between Western and Muslim societies. The danger exists that the Saudi leadership
could still collapse in the near future and the integrity of the Saudi State could come into question. The problems
in Saudi Arabia -- decades in the making -- are at the geopolitical heart of Islam, thus affecting most of the Muslim world and the relationship
between Islamic societies and the West. The phenomena of Osama bin Laden's worldwide terrorism network, the
radical Islamist anti-state activities under Sudan's Dr Hassan al-Turabi, the related and parallel evolution of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the
direction of the Chechen rebellion, and so on, all owe much to the evolving problems in Saudi Arabia as well as to the
radical clerics in Iran. Not even Saudi Arabia's leadership has acknowledged the extent of the crisis, although privately many leading Saudi
princes have admitted the prospect of an imminent collapse of the House of Sa'ud. Saudi Arabia's problems have an immediate
bearing on whether major war occurs between Israel and its neighbors, and whether Saudi Arabia survives
with its present form of government. They are therefore critical to the global economy and global strategic
stability.

2nc global war
Leverage is good it prevents a host of interventionist policies which overstretches
the US, decks cooperation, and turns their war scenarios

One counterargument is that the United States has been drawn into a number of conflicts as a result of its
dependence on Middle East oil, such as the reflagging of the Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987 and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 5 According to this logic, reducing
its dependence on foreign oil would help the United States stay out of such conflicts. Although plausible, a useful exercise is to imagine a future where the United
States is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern states for oil. Although the United States will still have important economic and
political interests in the Middle East, such as Israel, Iraq, and Turkey as a NATO ally, if oil no longer provides
states with some leverage over U.S. foreign policy, then the United States can pursue its interests with less
concern about retaliation by oil-exporting states or by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Conversely, as long as
oil-exporting states depend on the United States to purchase oil, they are more inclined to assist the United
States in pursuing any of its interests, such as the fight against terrorism. Consequently, if states no longer depend on the United S tates
as a consumer, they may have less interest in cooperating with the United S tates.

U.S. oil dependence actually gives us economic leverage to quell dangerous regimestrade
spurs peace
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. Thus whatever other arguments there might be for boosting domestic oil
production, national security is not one of them. While this might seem counter-intuitive, it is really part of the
overall logic of trade: The mutual dependence that trade breeds fosters peace because it gives hostile trading
partners an incentive to refrain from acting on their hostility. Energy independence would weaken that incentive.

Efforts to promote energy independence risk protectionism and isolationism
Thats the notion that America should disengage from world energy markets and seek self-sufficiency in energy production. To Bryce, this is
not only impossible, but dangerous to even attempt. As he writes in the books introduction, the quest for energy
independence means protectionism and isolationism, both of which are in opposition to Americas long-term
interests. Some of the myths of energy independence Bryce takes aim at are summed up in this January Washington Post op-ed. They
include the false belief that U.S. energy autarky can curb terrorism; that government investment in alternative fuels can end our use of
foreign oil; that we can starve evil petro-regimes of money by refusing to buy their oil; and that less reliance on foreign energy sources can
make our energy supply more secure. Like any decision to isolate ourselves from the free international market, the
search for energy independence would, Bryce demonstrates, lead us to waste our money and, yes, our energy doing
things more expensively than they can be done by taking advantage of the international division of labor and
flow of capital.

Decreasing oil imports will only hurt our economywe should go for the cheapest oil, even if
it comes form the gulf
Justin Fox, journalist, Energy Independence is a Disaster in the Making, FORTUNE, 3-1-06,
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/news/economy/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm, accessed 5-15-08.
Nobody's seriously proposing such drastic action, of course. But the scenario above ought to make clear that energy independence isn't really
what we want. What we want is the most possible economic bang for our energy buck, plus freedom from the feeling that a handful of oil
exporting countries hold our national interest in their hands. It also would be nice if our energy sources polluted as little as possible --
although you can include that under getting economic bang for the buck, since pollution clearly has a long-run economic cost. Why
sentence ourselves to more expensive energy? The simplest way to get the most out of what we spend on
energy is to keep energy costs cheap, and the best way to do that is to take full advantage of global energy
markets. Right now it costs less to pump oil from the sands of the Arabian peninsula than from pretty much anywhere else on earth. Why
exactly would we want to punish ourselves by cutting ourselves off from the cheapest oil?

Scarcity doesnt lead to war their evidence is too reductionist dependence diffuses
conflict
LE BILLON AND CERVANTES 2009 (Dr. Philippe Le Billon, Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia with the Department
of Geography and the Liu Institute for Global Issues, Alejandro Cervantes, Oil Prices, Scarcity, and Geographies of War, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 99, Issue 5, pp. 836-844, February 2009, http://moodle.ncnu.edu.tw/file.php/13756/Oil_Prices_Scarity_and_Geogrphies_of_war.pdf)
The oil scarcity, price, and conict argument is partly valid. Scarcity and its effects on prices can promote destabilizing ventures by oil companies into politically
sensitive areas. Scarcity can also foster state and corporate coalitions to advance particular interests ideological, geostrategic, or commercialthrough conict.
Yet the scarcity argument misses important points. First, scarcity is in part a narrative constructed for and
through prices. Many conicts take place in a context of oversupply and low prices, rather than scarcity and high prices.
Oil glut and associated low prices can be in part addressed through conict-induced scarcity (or the threat thereof). Second,
rising oil prices can help end conicts through military victory (through better funded armies or nancial
enticements). Third, the scarcity argument is too narrowly focused on long-term calculations of interstate
conicts, overlooking other forms and scales of violence. Finally, attributing conict to scarcity rather than the
host of factors already discussed reinforces a counterproductive vision of energy security dismissive of other
concerns such as human rights.

1nc adversary funding
Reducing oil dependence causes a shift towards the Middle East turns their offense
Griswold 11 (Daniel Griswold, former director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Whats Wrong With
Imported Oil? March 30, 2011, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-imported-oil/)

Even if, by the force of government, we could reduce our imports by a third, there is no reason to expect that the
reduction would be concentrated in the problematic providers. In fact, oil is generally cheaper to extract in the
Middle East, so a blanket reduction would probably tilt our imports away from our friends and toward
our real and potential adversaries.

1nc arms prolif
Loss of oil revenue causes widespread shift to arms trafficking multiple examples
prove

Historically, when states have been unable to generate revenue through normal trade channels, they sought other sources of wealth. As oil-exporting
states experience economic turmoil, particularly if their governments feel they must generate wealth to maintain control or to avoid some of
the issues discussed above, many will probably turn to the sale of illicit goods such as drugs and military hardware. There are
several examples of states engaging in such behavior when economic needs arise. For example, Ukraines lack of hard currency since its
independence in 1991 has led it to become one of the most active suppliers of legal and illegal small arms. 9 Although the Taliban in Afghanistan initially claimed to
oppose drugs on religious grounds, they turned a blind eye to the cultivation of drugs when revenue coming into the country from any other sources dried up. 10
For other examples of states turning to illicit trade resulting from the loss of legitimate revenue, one need only examine the behavior of
states following the imposition of trade sanctions. North Korea and Libya each developed networks for arms sales,
including nuclear and missile technology. 11 North Korea continues to lack outlets for legal trade because of international sanctions and
relies on several illicit ways of earning money. According to the Institute for Defense Analyses Andrew Coe: In the 1990s, North Korea engaged in considerable
illegitimate trade, including large-scale narcotics trafficking, currency counterfeiting, ballistic missile sales, and industrial and sexual slavery. These new exports grew
in parallel with the decline in legal exports. 12 Missile technology and conventional weapons make up as much as 40 percent
of North Koreas total exports. The regime earns $1.5 billion from missile sales alone, representing 8.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP).
13 Although this amount pales in comparison to the United States, which led the world in arms sales at $37.8 billion in 2008, 14 the risk is the potential growth in
arms sales by countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, much of which would go to trouble spots in the Middle East and the rest of the developing world. The
danger here is not simply creating illicit trade networks but the link between such networks and various
forms of political violence, both within states and across borders. 15 For example, several terrorist groups, such as the Irish Republican Army in
Northern Ireland and the Euskadi ta Askatasuna in Spain, had links to narcotics as well as arms trafficking and were more active as a result of those connections. 16
Therefore, rather than wait for illicit trade networks to develop and then spend the kind of money the United States has been
spending in combating drugs in countries such as Colombia and Mexico, the West should act now to prevent the growth of such
networks in oil-exporting states.
Precipitates regional conflict and fuels failed states
Stohl 4 (Rachel Stohl, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, The Tangled Web of Illicit Arms Tracking, Center for American Progress,
October 12, 2004, http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/terrorinshadows-stohl.pdf)
Small arms trafficking in the 21st century is nothing if not a global operation. In 2002, traffickers acquired 5,000 AK-47s from Yugoslavian army
stocks and moved them from Serbia to Liberia under the guise of a legal transaction with Nigeria. One of the planes used in this shipment came from Ukraine and
made a refueling stop in Libya while en route. That same year, a group of West African gun smugglers persuaded the Nicaraguan government to sell it 3,000 assault
rifles and 2.5 million rounds of ammunition by pretending to be brokering the deal on behalf of the Panamanian National Police. Instead, the illegal goods
were routed to South America and sold to the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia, an international terrorist organization. These and thousands of similar
incidents combine to make black market small arms trafficking a $1 billion-a-year global business. But the financial profit comes at a
tremendous cost to the world's security. Some 500,000 people are killed each year by the 639 million small arms
in circulation, and in some conflicts up to 80 percent of casualties are caused by these weapons. Moreover, small arms are today the
weapons of choice for all warring parties around the globe whether they be government armies, rebel forces, or terrorists
because they are cheap, widely available, extremely lethal, simple to use, durable, portable and concealable. In particular,
small arms fuel regional instability. These persistent weapons often remain behind at the end of conflicts, thus
enabling disputes to reignite or spread to neighboring countries. Even when further war is avoided, small arms become
instruments for criminal violence and the disruption of development efforts. Ultimately, this kind of regional destabilization can cause
states to fail and create the conditions in which terrorist organizations emerge and thrive.
Goes nuclear
African Studies Centre et al 3 (African Studies Centre et al, December, The Transnational Institute, The Center of Social Studies, Coimbra
University, and The Peace Research Center CIP-FUHEM, Failed and Collapsed States in the International System,
December, http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/failed/2003/12failedcollapsedstates.pdf)
In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several more countries in the world could not be held to
account for respecting international agreements in various fields, be it commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the
national territory for criminal or terrorist activities. The increase in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration, which could have a
knock-on effect, first in neighbouring countries which, having similar politico-economic structures, could suffer increased destabilization and
collapse as well. Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example. Increased international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe
it would put social relations between the population and immigrant communities under further
pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the security of Western
states and societies. Health conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures
taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass destruction could come into the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups, political factions in
control of part of a collapsed state or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea springs to mind; one could very well imagine
such states in (North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral action - a system that
would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one could be faced with an arms race that would sooner or later result in the
actual use of these weapons. In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further
deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable
multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and international migration.
Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At worst, even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European
states - could be faced with direct attacks on their national security.
2nc arms prolif

The link only goes our way empirics

There are at least three plausible counterarguments to the points made above. The first is to question whether the loss of oil revenue will really cause these risks,
because many of the states dependent on oil revenues already suffer from internal conflict and engage in illicit trade. In fact, might the loss of oil
revenue in Iran conversely reduce its ability to sponsor terrorism and decrease the amount of arms it is
able to purchase? Although plausible, the historical record shows the opposite result: as Libya and North Korea
lost legitimate trade as a result of sanctions, both increased their involvement in illicit trade and purchased arms in
greater numbers. 22 Although the sanctions themselves, rather than simply the loss of revenue, possibly led to this behavior, the Ukraine
example discussed earlier illustrates that sanctions are not a necessary condition for states to sell arms illegally and that lack of wealth is a
much more direct explanation.
1nc caspian

U.S. energy development in the caspian key to stability: boosts hegemony, contains russia
and is key to checking terrorism and smuggling
Kalicki 1 (Jam Kalicki, Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, September/October, 2001, ASP, CMR)

The countries surrounding the Caspian Sea -- Russia to the north, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the east, Iran to the south, and Azerbaijan to the west -- hold
some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. And together with neighboring Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, they represent important
economic, political, and strategic interests for the United States. To advance those interests, Washington should
strengthen its policy toward the Caspian by giving the highest level of support to the cooperative development of
regional energy reserves and pipelines. In particular, it should encourage the construction of multiple pipelines to ensure diverse and reliable transportation of
Caspian energy to regional and international markets. Although the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will continue to dominate the global energy market for decades to come, oil
and gas development in the Caspian basin could help diversify, secure, and stabilize world energy supplies in the future, as resources from the North Sea have done in the past. The proven and
possible energy reserves in or adjacent to the Caspian region -- including at least 115 billion barrels of oil -- are in fact many times greater than those of the North Sea and should increase
significantly with continuing exploration. Such plentiful resources could generate huge returns for U.S. companies and their shareholders. American firms have already acquired 75 percent of
Kazakhstan's mammoth Tengiz oil field, which is now valued at more than $10 billion. Over time, as the capital generated from Caspian energy development spreads to other sectors, U.S. firms
in other industries -- from infrastructure to telecommunications to transportation and other services -- could also benefit. In addition to these energy-related and commercial interests, the
United States has important political and strategic stakes in the Caspian region -- including a NATO ally in Turkey, a
former adversary in Russia, a currently turbulent regime in Iran, and several fragile new states. Located at the
crossroads of western Europe, eastern Asia, and the Middle East, the Caspian serves as a trafficking area for weapons of mass
d estruction, terrorists, and narcotics -- a role enhanced by the weakness of the region's governments. With few
exceptions, the fledgling Caspian republics are plagued with pervasive corruption, political repression, and the virtual absence of the rule of law. Even if they can muster the
political will to attempt reform themselves, the attempt will fail so long as they lack the resources to build strong
economic and political institutions. And until they build close, substantive relations with the West, they will remain
vulnerable to Russia's hegemonic impulses. The cooperative development of regional energy reserves and
pipelines -- independent of their huge neighbors to the north and the south -- thus represents not only a boon for the United States and the
world at large, but also the surest way to provide for the Caspian nations' own security and prosperity

Failure to contain russia would destabilize all of eurasia, spark nuclear wars and put a
stranglehold on the west.
Cohen 96 (Ariel Cohen, PhD & Heritage Foundation, BACKGROUNDER n. 1065, January 25, 1996,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065.cfm, CMR)

Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russias transition to a
democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russias IMF and World Bank loans for 1995).
Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would
prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet
arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass d estruction. Scenarios
including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major
destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russias neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in
Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans,
the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian
Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan
already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make
Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in
the early 21st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable, or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the
area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market
economies and free societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be created. The U.S. should ensure free
access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies.

2nc caspian

American military presence in the caspian is driven by the need for american energy supplies,
as per our kalicki ev. Plans reduced energy consumption drops the us out of the area. This
strong presence in the status quo is key to the stability of the caspian states and preventing
the reemergence of a hostile russian hegemon, which is the cohen evidence. Russian
imperialism would destabilize all of eurasia, sparking nuclear wars and ultimately a giant
power conflict between the us and russia

This outweighs case for several reasons
Magnitudea great power war and sudden nuclear wars trumps their case impact. Also, the
strength of us hegemony in the region means the status quo solves their terminal impact in
the caspian
Probabilitywere the only ones with uniqueness, as a strong military presence prevents
violence now. This proves our impact is true because theirs should have already happened
Timeframeour kalicki and cohen cards prove russia is at the doorstep of the caspian,
looking to monopolize. Us presence is the only thing holding them back meaning post-plan, a
power vacuum would rapidly develop, ensuring a fast impact.

Caspian commitments are driven by energy concerns
Matthew Yeomans, author, Oil, Guns and Money, SALON.COM, 9-2-04,
www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/0902yeomans.htm, accesssed 6-1-08.
The Pentagon is also concerned with other areas of the world that have been indentified by the US government as crucial to its energy future.
The Caspian Sea, especially the waters of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, could prove to be one of the largest oil
finds in the world after the Middle East. In 2000, oil companies discovered the Kashagan field off the coast of Kazakhstan -- the single largest
oil find in over 40 years. By the end of the decade, Kazakhstan is destined to be the world's fifth largest oil producer. The U.S. has
invested heavily in the Caspian region. U.S. companies have put many billions of dollars into oil and gas projects and both the
Clinton and Bush administrations have worked hard to curry favor with the former Soviet republics and limit the influence of Russia, Iran and
China in the process. As Anna Borg, a deputy assistant secretary for energy issues at the State Department told Congress in 2003, "The U.S.
government and State Department are focusing on [the Caspian] extensively." Since 2001, the U.S. has not only
established military bases in the region but it has also conducted joint Navy exercises with Azerbaijan in the Caspian and
has supported Kazakhstan's push to establish its own Navy. The U.S. Coast Guard even patrols the Caspian Sea and the combined U.S. military
presence makes Russia -- whose Caspian fleet has long exercised de-facto control over the sea -- very edgy. As General Charles Wald, deputy
commander of the U.S. European Command, explained to the Wall Street Journal in June 2003, "In the Caspian you have large
mineral reserves ... We want to be able to assure the long-term viability of those resources."

1nc democracy
Oil dependence is critical to internal stability and prevent conflict

Similarly, just as resource scarcity is a catalyst for interstate conflict, economic problems stemming from a lack of necessary
resources also lead to internal violence, as illustrated in Sierra Leone in the early 1990s and Indonesia in 1997. 8
These same types of conflicts would increase in frequency within states that are somewhat stable now, only because
oil provides them with a relatively satisfied population and because it gives governments the means to crack
down on those who would engage in violence.

2nc economy

Reducing oil consumption hurts the economy crushes purchasing power
MUTASEM 2012 (Sam Mutasem, Senior Executive, Managing Director, Management Consultant, fortune 500 independent power company,
Dependence on OilGood or Bad? Energy Central, March 1, 2012,
http://www.energycentral.com/generationstorage/fossilandbiomass/articles/2512/Dependence-on-Oil-Good-or-Bad-/)
On the other hand, if we drive to reduce the global dependence on oil, until we find an alternative, we will negatively impact
the US economy and the US consumer. One fact that most do not realize is that all the oil traded globally is nominated in
US dollar. What does that mean? As the demand on oil increase so does the price. As a result the demand on the
US dollar will increase and so will the purchasing power of the American Consumer. The Dollar...remains King!
Therefore the drive to reduce dependence on oil may have its benefits, but it will come at a cost that should be mitigated as an integral part of
the strategy to reduce dependence on oil. Reducing dependence on oil cannot be approached with a tunnel vision strategy
because the lower the dependence on oil the lower the demand on the dollar and the lower the
purchasing power of the American consumer. So, what is more...a matter of National Security? In my opinion there is no alternative to a
diversified strategy particularly when it comes to energy and natural resources. This includes diversification in the fuel mix we use, the sources of the fuels, and the
markets we target. Although we should continue to develop and advance renewable energy, there is no question in my mind that oil, natural gas, and coal will
remain the dominant fuels for the foreseeable future because these fuels are abundant and economical. What we need to focus on is making these fuels more
environmentally friendly by aggressively investing and developing new technologies to accomplish that. Yes, with such a strategy, there will remain uncertainties
that we will have to deal with. However this approach will mitigate our risks and help...Keep the Dollar as King.
1nc heg
Oil dependence is key to dollar hegemony and U.S. global influence
Drezner 8professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University (Daniel, 30 November-December 2008, Oil Dependence As Virtue, The National Interest,
CMR)

But let's imagine--as The National Interest asked me to do--that the summer of 2008 turns out to be the all-time peak of oil prices, and that the end of the oil era is imminent. The first
instinct is to assume that in this world--a world in which oil would be a minor commodity, irrelevant to both
geopolitics and the global economy--America would be much better off. Oil-exporting autocracies would fade into obscurity, and the
Middle East would revert to barren sand-strewn lands. This imagined future, after all, is what drives politicians from George W. Bush to Barack Obama to say that ending dependence on
foreign oil will liberate America.
But would this really be the case? It may be that the assumptions we hold are grounded in a misunderstanding of the global order. Perhaps instead, without
oil dominating their economies, the Middle East oil states would be far less dependent on the United States
for trade, for security and for dollars . Perhaps the dollar would no longer be the world's reserve
currency, which would severely hinder America's ability to fund its current-account deficit--and its military
superiority . And then, perhaps, the security guarantee the United States provides to the Middle East--and by
extension the entire oil-dependent world--would be null and void.
In short, a world that doesn't need oil may also be a world that doesn't need the United States. But when prices of oil are
skyrocketing, people aren't thinking about the possible long-term implications of energy independence, only the short-term gains.
Heg solves global war
Robert Kagan, 1-17-12 Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, Not
Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline, Originally at TNR, Republished in Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0117_us_power_kagan.aspx.

Is the United States in decline, as so many seem to believe these days? Or are Americans in danger of committing pre-emptive superpower suicide out of a misplaced fear of their own
declining power? A great deal depends on the answer to these questions. The present world ordercharacterized by an unprecedented number of
democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers
reflects American principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and
military dimensions. If American power declines, this world order will decline with it. It will be replaced by some other kind of order,
reflecting the desires and the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse, as the European world order collapsed in the first half of the twentieth
century. The belief, held by many, that even with diminished American power the underlying foundations of the liberal
international order will survive and thrive, as the political scientist G. John Ikenberry has argued, is a pleasant illusion. American decline, if it is real,
will mean a different world for everyone.
Dollar hegemony key to economy bypasses resiliency
Freeman, 4 (Chas, Middle East Policy Council President, 9/17, Federal News Service, p. lexis)
The second matter, and far more grave in many ways, is the demonstration of the end of the special
relationship with Saudi Arabia; the end of the discounts and the end of the Saudi emphasis on
primacy in the American market signals -- because there's another issue you didn't mention, which we will get into,
and that is the part of this special relationship has been the defense of the dollar by the
Saudis. Twice within OPEC, other members, Iran in particular, have moved to eliminate the dollar
as the unit of account for the oil trade. Were this to occur in the current context of massive budget,
balance of trade and balance of payments, deficits for the United States, the results could be absolutely devastating
to the global economy and to our own. The reason the Saudis defended the dollar on the
two previous occasions was not economic analysis but political affinity for the United
States. Question if that affinity is no longer there, will they play that role? And this is a large issue with
people like Paul Volcker, saying there is a very substantial danger within the next five years of some sort of dollar collapse, and this is not a
minor, minor matter.
Nuclear war
Cook, 7 *Richard C., retired federal analyst @ the US Treasury Department, June 14, "Its Official: The
Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," Global Research, <online>
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964]

Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face
the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in
the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to
haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they dont want our dollars or our debt any more,
how about a few nukes?

2nc heg
Dependence gives us significant international leverage to protect our interests
Fisher, 10(Max, associate editor at The Atlantic, where he edits the International channel, April 2,
2010, The Upside of Depending on Foreign Oil,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/04/the-upside-of-depending-on-foreign-
oil/38380/)

When President Obama opened the coastline to offshore oil drilling, nearly every aspect of the plan came under heated debate. The only thing
everyone agrees on, it seems, is the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Statements from the Environmental Protection Agency to
automakers to T. Boone Pickens to Obama himself, whether supporting or condemning offshore drilling, all cite the dangers of relying on
foreign energy. It's not hard to see why. Shipping oil from halfway around the world is environmentally costly,
economically inefficient, and lands us in bed with some of the world's least democratic regimes. But our
ties to these states might not be categorically terrible things for us, as they're often assumed to be. Hidden
unexamined among the many downsides of our dependence on foreign oil is an upside: It gives us leverage over the
countries that sell us oil. The top ten oil exporters to the U.S., which account for half of all U.S. consumption, read like a State
Department tourism warning list: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Russia, Colombia, and Brazil. (To
be fair, Canada has long been our number one oil source, and Mexico alternates with Saudi Arabia for the number two spot.) But keep in mind
that most of these countries need our money a lot more then we need their oil. If Saudi Arabia and the U.S.
suddenly ended our trade tomorrow, for example, the U.S. and global economies would not suffer
nearly as much as Saudi Arabia's. The Saudis understand this and so want to keep U.S. and Saudi interests aligned. As a result,
buying Saudi oil gets us a lot more than just energy. It gets us a dedicated ally that wields unparalleled influence in a
part of the world where we desperately need it: the Middle East. The Saudi royal family has put their wily intelligence service
at our disposal and allowed sprawling U.S. military bases onto their soil. In 1992, the Saudis even exiled one of their own on America's behalf: A
prominent, wealthy, and popular humanitarian and freedom fighter named Osama bin Laden. Saudi royalty risked a violent backlash by
expelling bin Laden to Sudan, but U.S. officials had demanded his ouster. That's no small favor. It would be almost as if the United States
deported Google CEO Eric Schmidt to Honduras at the request of angry Chinese officials. The Saudis came to our aid again in 1996 when they
convinced the Sudanese regime to themselves deport bin Laden. Bin Laden's anti-American terrorism did not begin until he fled to Afghanistan,
where the United States then had little influence. In the decade since, he has moved between there and Pakistan, two countries with which the
U.S. has no meaningful economic ties save foreign aid. Unlike with Saudi Arabia, our pleas to those governments to help us rout bin Laden went
largely ignored. If our oil-greased relationships with other top producing states are half as close as the U.S.-
Saudi partnership, it will give us much-needed leverage over some of this century's biggest emerging
threats. In Nigeria, we can pressure the government to peacefully contain the state's alarming increase in terrorism.
For Iraq, the economic ties with America would be an important counterbalance to Iran's religious and
political influence. As for Venezuela, no matter how antagonistic President Hugo Chavez gets, he would be a lot worse if we didn't take
close to a million barrels off his hands every day.

1nc ME military presence
Oil dependence is key to military presence in the Middle East and preventing defense
cuts
Deutsch, former CIA director, 6John Deutsch, Former Director of the CIA and Former Undersecretary of Energy, Ph.D. from MIT AND James R. Schlesinger,
former Secretary of Defense and first Secretary of Energy, Ph.D. in Economics (National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, Independent Task Force sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations, 2006, CMR)

Sixth, some observers see a direct relationship between the dependence of the United States on oil, especially from the Persian
Gulf, and the size of the U.S. defense budget . Such a relationship invites the inference that if it were not
dependent on this oil, the United States and its allies would have no interest in the region, and hence it
would be possible to achieve significant reductions in the U.S. military posture . In the extreme, this argument says that
if the nation reduced its dependence, then the defense budget could be reduced as well.
key to deter regional war and solves prolif, terrorism, and democracy
Deutsch, former CIA director, 6John Deutsch, Former Director of the CIA and Former Undersecretary of Energy, Ph.D. from MIT AND James R. Schlesinger,
former Secretary of Defense and first Secretary of Energy, Ph.D. in Economics (National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, Independent Task Force sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations, 2006, CMR)

At least for the next two decades, the Persian Gulf will be vital to U.S. interests in reliable oil supply, nonproliferation,
combating terrorism, and encouraging political stability, democracy , and public welfare. Accordingly, the United
States should expect and support a strong military posture that permits suitably rapid deployment to the region,
if required.
It is worthwhile to explain what should and should not be expected from this military force, and how it serves U.S. interests. Most importantly, the conventional force of
the United States deters aggression in the region. Any nation (or subnational group) that contemplates
violence on any scale must take into account the possibility of U.S. preemption, intervention, or
retaliation. Deterrence is powerful, but it does not always work (especially if the possibility of a military response is not raised). For example, deterrence did not prevent the Iran-Iraq
war of the early 1980s. Because no clear and credible signal was sent of a possible response in 1990, Saddam Hussein was not deterred from invading Kuwait. Nevertheless, the U.S.
military posture with its capacity to intervene, if managed wisely, can play a role in stabilizing this
highly fragile region and make many countries in the region more secure from hostile action by their
neighbors.

2nc ME military presence link
Reducing dependence on OPEC destroys U.S. influence in the Middle East
Hulbert 11/30/11senior research fellow at the Clingendael International Energy Programme (Matthew, 30 November 2011, U.S. Should Play the Long Game on Energy
Independence, World Politics Review, CMR)

Beyond the numbers, one must consider the politics. The newsflash for U.S consumers is that they are not dependent on Middle East oil and have
not been for a long time. Washington sources less than 20 percent of its oil supplies from the Persian Gulf, far less than what it imports from West Africa. The decision to
underwrite Middle Eastern oil supplies has been about retaining U.S. dominance as the guarantor of
global oil supplies. From that role much else follows -- lose it and the U.S. will be geopolitically
downgraded.
If the U.S. were not part of the Gulf energy game, it would have zero sway in Saudi Arabia, no leverage
over Iran and no say in how the Arab Spring plays out -- beyond democratic props being set up in Arab nationalist republics -- or in how
the Gulf monarchies will handle their succession problems. Even with West Texas Intermediate trading a little cheaper than Brent crude,
geopolitical flashpoints still affect U.S. consumers at the pumps. That is as true for recent turmoil in the Middle East as it would be for blockages of key chokepoints such as the Bosporus or
Malacca Straits. These will remain vital U.S. interests as long as the U.S. stays even remotely connected to world oil flows.

Decreased dependence causes withdrawal from middle east
Mahmood Monshipouri, Professor, Political Science, Quinnipiac University, MIDDLE EAST POLICY v. 9 n. 3, 9
02, p. 69-70.
The history of the post-war period has shown that many nationalist leaders in the Middle East and North Africa have fallen into disfavor with
the United States over the issue of oil. To better understand the regions place in U.S. policy, it is critical to take a hard
look at the economics of war. The lesson is obvious: U.S. petroleum poltiics has often resulted in continued
intervention with tense and uncertain outcomes. Cutting oil dependency would arguably lead to the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from the Gulf region, thus removing an important source of hatred of the United States. All-out embargoes have been show to
be ineffective. Sanctions policies, such as the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA, 1995) and dual containment have been *70+ either softened or
not fully implemented oweing to their uniatleral nature. Meanwhile, U.S. dependency on oil has continued to soar. According
to one source, U.S. demand is expected to grow 20 percent by 2015.

2nc ME military presence MPX
US military presence key to prevent middle east power vacuum, hostile hegemons and arab-
israeli war
Zalmay Khalilzad, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.
In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq
have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might
seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that
dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies.
Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to
build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations.
Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its
influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply
and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and
the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf
would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in
major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major
economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions.
Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high.
The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear
weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a
much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use
would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United
States, would be harmed.

Global nuclear war
John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace, March 2002,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/00_steinbach_israeli-wmd.htm
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control
and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle
East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a
last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major)
target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of
Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel
no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control
negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers
the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its
weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict
could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
1nc - oxygen

fossil fuel burning key to keeping oxygen in biosphere in balance
Dr. David Etheridge, PhD, Global Atmospheric Change Program, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Changes in the
Global Environment, Australian Academy of Science, 2000 Annual General Meeting, Canberra, 2K,
http://www.science.org.au/future/etheridge.htm
Another tool we can apply to understand atmospheric composition changes is the use of isotopes. For example, organic carbon is depleted in
the 13C isotope, compared to carbon in other reservoirs such as the ocean and atmosphere. The CO2 increase from carbon released from
fossil fuel and land clearing is therefore accompanied by a decrease in the 13C/12C ratio. Precise measurements of oxygen concentration
provide another powerful tracer. The concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing, because oxygen is being
combined stoichiometrically with carbon from fossil fuels and from forest burning to form carbon dioxide. The
increase in carbon dioxide is well known, but the related decrease in oxygen is very small compared to its approximately 20 per
cent atmospheric abundance. Measurement of the oxygen change has presented a major measurement challenge. Although oxygens
decrease could be viewed with concern, it will not have a noticeable effect for thousands of years. The global oxygen trend, measured over
the last 20 years or so in air archived at Cape Grim, could be explained quantitatively by the amount of fossil fuel carbon known to have been
burnt over this period. However, we know that large areas of forests have also been cleared and combusted, so the oxygen decrease from
this cause must have been approximately balanced by the release of oxygen from a greater rate of photosynthesis of the remaining terrestrial
biosphere. This is possibly a result of higher plant growth rates caused by higher CO2 levels, or climate change. The biosphere over this period
is said to be in mass balance. Measurements of trace gases are also possible from satellites. Satellite images show quite clearly the ozone
depletion in the stratosphere over recent decades. For this type of applicationn coverage of remote locations and measurement of large
concentration changes satellites are well suited. However, satellite trace gas measurement is presently too imprecise to determine global
exchanges, where regional differences are only 1 per cent or less. Satellite measurements may well be suited to detection of emissions 'hot
spots', such as carbon monoxide from cities, or methane from biomass burning.

upsetting the oxygen balance risks extinction
Schmidt & Harbert, professors, Unit 15: Fate of the Earth: The Balance of Nature, 1996,
http://mac01.eps.pitt.edu/harbbook/c_xv/chap15.html
Take Earth's surface temperature, for example. The range of surface and water temperatures in the tropical regions of Earth are precisely
optimum for the existence of present-day life, yet the temperature of the planet under conditions of a carbon-dioxide-dominated
atmosphere surely would be much higher. Fossil evidence indicates that the prevailing temperatures in the tropics have been stable enough
to support life throughout the past 3,500 million years, even though solar output has increased by as much as 30% during this time, according
to fairly reliable models for solar evolution. This has given rise to what is referred to as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. Lovelock maintains that
an active controlling mechanism could have manipulated the workings of Earth's atmosphere in such a way as to keep the temperature
nearly constant throughout the whole of this time. He points to the inherently unstable conditions that can be produced by positive feedback
mechanisms in climatic systems and suggests that a controlling mechanism would have been necessary to prevent temperature extremes
from occurring that might have destroyed all life on Earth. The oxygen level in our atmosphere is clearly a result of biological
activity, but what is not so obvious is that the percentage of oxygen is precisely at optimum levels for use by life.
Increasing oxygen levels provide greater energy conversion efficiency, but too much oxygen could bring about
worldwide holocaust. The present level stands at 21%, but recent experiments have shown that the probability of a forest fire being
started by a lightning stroke increases by 70% for each 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present level. Ignition is strongly
dependent upon the moisture content of combustible material, and so naturally-set fires are much more prevalent after prolonged drought.
If the oxygen content should exceed 25%, however, ignition becomes highly probable even in the damp vegetation of a rain forest. How is the
oxygen concentration regulated? Lovelock thinks that methane released into the atmosphere by the operation of the carbon cycle provides
the necessary mechanism since it is readily oxidized, converting molecular oxygen into water vapor. On the other hand, nitrous oxide
produced in the nitrogen cycle eventually decomposes in the atmosphere into molecular nitrogen and oxygen. This source of oxygen may
provide the opposite controlling mechanism by which Gaia keeps the oxygen level optimized.

1nc russia
Oil dependence fuels the Russian economy and prevents adventurism

Russia is another potential danger spot because it is the only nuclear state, at least for now, that has significant
revenue from the sale of oil, roughly 820 percent of its GDP. Losing that income will have less dramatic effects on Russia than on many OPEC
states more heavily reliant on oil sales, at least partly because of recent attempts to diversify the Russian economy. Its economy, however, is still
too fragile to handle a major drop in demand for oil. Given the existing tension between Russia and
states such as Georgia and Ukraine, neither the United States nor Russias neighbors can afford the risk of a
nuclear Russia suffering economic instability. 19

Russian adventurism goes nuclear
Weir 9 (Fred, 17 november 2009, Would Russia really use nuclear weapons against neighbors?, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2009/1117/p06s13-wogn.html, CMR)

The Kremlin is drafting a new military doctrine, due by year's end, that may authorize the armed forces to use
nuclear weapons not only to counter a massive conventional attack but even to launch a preemptive
strike against a small regional adversary such as neighboring Georgia or Ukraine that might be deemed a threat to
Russia.
Or so declared the new doctrine's main author, Kremlin Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev, in a newspaper interview that sent shock waves rolling around the world last month and
generated a storm of controversy among military analysts.
Experts divide between those who see the new, forward-leaning nuclear doctrine as a sign that the Kremlin is becoming more menacing toward its post-Soviet neighborhood, and those who
view it as an expression of extreme vulnerability at a moment when the Russian military is undergoing its most radical reorganization in almost a century.
What Mr. Patrushev said, speaking to Moscow's biggest daily newspaper, Izvestia, was that, in a big change
over the previous doctrine adopted in 2000, "We have corrected the conditions for use of nuclear
weapons to resist aggression with conventional forces not only in large-scale wars, but also in regional
or even a local one."

Nuclear war
Forden 01 *Geoffrey, Senior Research Fellow at Security Studies Program at MIT, May 3, Reducing a
Common Danger, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-399es.html]

Because of that need, Russias continuing economic difficulties pose a clear and increasing danger to itself,
the world at large, and the United States in particular. Russia no longer has the working fleet of early
warning satellites that reassured its leaders that they were not under attack during the most recent
false alertin 1995 when a scientific research rocket launched from Norway was, for a short time,
mistaken for a U.S. nuclear launch. With decaying satellites, the possibility exists that, if a false alert
occurs again, Russia might launch its nucleartipped missiles.
2nc russiaAT: Oil Not Key

Oil revenue is key to all Russian growth
Dashevsky 11Managing Director of Dashevsky & Partners (Steven, 24 May 2011, The Russian economy and its oil, http://rt.com/business/news/russia-economy-oil-rpice/,
CMR)

SD: Well, there are many ways how the events happening in the oil and gas sector influence what is happening in the broader economy. On the one hand this is the biggest
source of cash flow generation in the country, so in a sense its the biggest source of investment
funds, both for the companies, and for the government and also because oil companies invest
very significant amounts of money every year, so the ability of Russian oil companies to spend
money affects really the entire Russian economy from transport companies to oil service companies to catering companies to local airlines
so it is still, despite the significant efforts to diversify the economy, its a very important
source of investment funds.Thats kind of one angle, and another angle is what is happening in the Russian oil and gas sector, since it is the biggest sector in the
economy, affects the general investment climate, from the kind of sentiment perspective.So, when something good happens like potentially
was going to happen, BP-Rosneft deal, or if there are good events happening, new fields are
being developed, new pipelines are being brought on-stream, that gives investor additional
confidence that the economy is progressing very well, and people are investing money in it, and
the whole country is open for business. Vice versa, if things are not going well, if deals are breaking
up, if instead of going to work people going to courts against each other, that clearly creates a
big drag on the investors sentiment for all of the Russian economy, not just oil and gas.

Prefer World Bank analysis
ITAR-TASS News Agency 11 (6/8/11, WB forecasts stable GDP growth in Russia, warns of oil prices drop http://www.itar-
tass.com/en/c154/160657_print.html)

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Itar-Tass) The World Bank (WB) considers the possible drop in world oil prices the
main economic risks for Russia, Andrew Burns, the main author of the WB new Global Economic Prospects report that was presented on Tuesday told Itar-Tass
in an interview. According to estimates of the team of specialists headed by Burns, Russias GDP growth this year
will amount to 4.4 percent. Next year it will drop to 4 percent, that is, will return to the level of
2010. In 2013, it will grow again, but not so considerably - only to 4.1 percent. It is obvious that
Russia benefits from the current extremely high oil prices, which help it compensate for some
difficulties with the budget, said Burns. According to him, it promotes rapid growth of income, which is very
positive. Burns explained that the risks for Russia as an oil exporter are different from those that threaten
the rest of the world. For Moscow, high oil prices are very good, and problems may arise in
case of their fall. In this situation, much will depend on how the Russian government is prepared for
such possible scenario, the WB official said. He also expressed the view that if the problems in the rest of the world
become cyclical, the oil sector will be affected by them not so much as other industries. However, he
said, it will affect the economy in general and affect all countries. The report itself states that the average GDP growth in
Russia over the period under review up to 2013 will reach 4.2 percent. The documents authors explain this partly
by high fuel prices. They predict better prospects in the labour market, which will reduce
unemployment by 2013 to around 6 percent. According to them, this in combination with high oil
revenues should affect the increasing share of domestic consumption and investment demand
in the overall economic growth.

Even a 1% change has massive effects
Beehner 5Masters degree in International and Public Affairs from Columbia, Council of Foreign Relations (Lionel, Council of Foreign Relations, Is Russias Economy Running out
of Energy?, October 28, 2005, http://www.cfr.org/economic-development/russias-economy-running-out-energy/p9119, ZBurdette)
Russias oil exports are up, its currency is strong, and its gross domestic product (GDP) growth has hummed
along at a 7 percent clip for the seventh year in a row, surpassing all other Group of Eight (G8) members. Maybe President Vladimir Putins pledge to double Russias
GDP does not sound so farfetched. Think again, some economists say. While Russias economy, buoyed by an
increase in global demand for oil, has fully rebounded after the 1998 collapse and ruble devaluation, experts
urge caution. Recent growth, like a Potemkin village, is not what it seems on the surface, due more to
skyrocketing world oil prices than to sound macroeconomic policies. Indeed, Moscow has expanded control over Russias main cash-
cow: energy. The Russian oil and gas sectors new paradigm can be summarized in two words:
state domination, Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a February
2005 executive memorandum. The free-market paradigm has been abandoned. For example, the governments October 2003 arrest of
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, formerly Russias richest man and head of the countrys second-largest oil company Yukos, sent shockwaves through the market (In the year after Khodorkovskys
arrest, capital flightonly $2.9 billion in 2003soared to $9 billion). Gazprom, the state-controlled gas behemoth, recently acquired Sibneft, Russias fifth-largest oil firm, and now enjoys a
near monopoly on the countrys gas production and vast network of pipelines. Hence, Moscows maneuvers have validated charges that
Russias economy is unhealthily tied to oil, a commodity whose value fluctuates widely. In
1998, when world oil prices dipped to around $10 a barrel, this drop coincided with the worst
of Russias economic crises and the collapse of the ruble, wrote Fiona Hill, a senior fellow with
the Brookings Institution, in a December 2004 article in the Globalist. This has fueled concerns among investors that Russias oil-driven boom may prove short-lived,
that energy companies will be unwilling to reform their outdated pipeline networks, or that the government will squander its newfound surpluses. Added to these worries is Russias inflation
rate, currently at 11 percent, which some investors say could inch upward in the coming years. Economistssome of whom recently sent a sharply worded letter to Prime Minister Mikhail
Fradkovare also concerned about Russias surge in government spending, much of it allocated to Russias cash-strapped regional governments. Then theres growing talk of Russias Dutch
Disease, which means that high commodity prices are driving up the value of the ruble, which in turn makes Russias manufactured goods less competitive abroad. A Tale of Two Russias All of
the above has contributed to the growing gap between the countrys rich and poor, experts say. Despite Russias 88,000-plus millionaires, 20 percent of the countrys population lives below
the poverty line (that is, they earn under $38 per month). The growing economy has not broken up the countrys state-run conglomerates, which are similar to South Koreas government-
owned, inefficient chaebols. Yet their growth has crowded out small and medium-size businesses. In March, President Vladimir Putin jokingly said anyone who opened a small business in
Russia should be given a medal of bravery. The problem, experts say, is not so much starting a small business, made easier by new Russian tax rules, as it is growing a business. Under Russian
regulations, any business larger than a newspaper kiosk is considered mid-sized, according to the Economist, and thus taxed accordingly. Tax breaks are only offered to small businesses, which
employ roughly a quarter of Russias population but make up just 3 percent of tax revenue. Once a business grows to middle-income status, so does its tax burden, but disproportionately so:
Profit taxes, for example, jump from 6 percent to 24 percent. Experts say the fear behind these tax rules is if mid-size companies were afforded a more simplified tax code, then large
companies like Lukoil might break into thousands of tinier companies to enjoy similar tax benefits. Adding to tax problems is the difficulties small firms face securing bank loans. Also adversely
affecting Russia's wealth gap is corruption. This years Global Perceptions Index by Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog organization, ranks Russia ninetieth out of 146
countries, between Niger and Sierra Leone. A 2005 report by the INDEM Foundation, a Moscow-based pro-democracy organization, estimates businessmen pay $316 billion in bribes each year,
more than half Russia s GDP. Moreover, the size of the bribes has risen from $10,000 on average in 2001 to $135,000 in 2005. As Dmitry Larionov, chief expert of the International Road Union,
recently told Vremya Novostei, The ingenuity of bribe-taking officials knows no boundaries. Some positive signs The good news is that businesses big and small appear to be paying their
taxes more. Total tax revenues climbed from $40 billion in 2000 to $153 billion in 2004. Individual Russians are also increasingly paying their taxes, thanks in part to a simplified 13 percent
personal-income flat tax instituted in 2000. Adjusted for inflation, income tax revenues have risen by 14.4 percent, now supplying 31.9 percent of the revenue to Russias cash-strapped
regions. More important, say economists, Russians are beginning to invest more, though Alfa Bank, a Moscow-based investment bank, estimates that Russians continue to keep nearly twice as
much of their rubles under mattresses as they do in banks. Bank loans, credit cards, and mortgages are now commonplace in Russias big cities. More money, some $3.5 billion, is going into
closed private funds, according to Alfa Capital, Alfa Banks asset-management arm, as regulators begin to squeeze offshore tax shelters. Private consumption is also up in recent years.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Russias booming retail market. Over the past five years, retail turnover in Russia, around $41 billion in 2003, has surpassed GDP growth, making it one of
the most promising sectors of the countrys economy, wrote Peter Necarsulmer, chairman and chief executive officer of the PBN Company, a strategic-communications firm, in a January
BISNIS Bulletin op-ed. This growth has been buoyed by the emergence of international retail chains, like Turkeys Ramstore or Swedens IKEA, throughout Russias fast-growing suburbs. For
those well-heeled: Bentleys, Ferraris, and Maseratis are in abundance in Moscow, a city that now boasts thirty billionaires. Whats fueling Russias economy? Russia holds the worlds largest
proven natural-gas reserves, which are nearly twice the size of the next-largest reserves in Iran. Russia is also the worlds largest exporter of natural gas and the second-largest exporter of oil.
Its oil and gas industries, which employ less than 1 percent of the Russian workforce, comprise roughly a quarter of the
countrys GDP, although the official figure of 9 percent is distorted by questionable accounting
practices like transfer pricing, economists say. Oil and gas make up roughly two-fifths of all Russian
exports, leaving many investors wary of investing in such a resource-dependent market: A $1 per
barrel change in the price of oil results in a $1.4 billion change in Russian revenues.

Relative oil price decline has empirically affected the entire Russian economy
Travin 11/18Research Director at the European University in St. Petersburg's Centre of Modernization Studies (Dmitri, 18 November 2011, Russian economy: trying to please
people doesnt help, http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/dmitri-travin/russian-economy-trying-to-please-people-doesn%E2%80%99t-help, CMR)

The market does exist, and Russians have seen the end of the constant shortages of everything that were the
worst aspect of the Soviet economy. But the growth in Russias GDP has been due in large part to
oil exports, and falls in global fuel prices have affected the countrys entire economy.

key to their budget
Brooke 2011 journalist, VOA Russia Bureau Chief, previously Moscow Bureau Chief for Bloomberg and New York Times reporter (James, March 18, 2011, Russia Gets Giant
Boost from Rising Oil Prices http://www.voanews.com/english/news/economy-and-business/Russia-Gets-Giant-Boost-from-Rising-Oil-Prices-118258659.html)
As much of the world reels from civil unrest and natural disasters, Russia is cashing in on high oil prices that may allow it
eliminate its budget deficit in 2011. Libya suspends oil exports. Political revolts put the Persian
Gulf on edge. And Germany and Japan close one quarter of their nuclear reactors. In todays
energy world, Russia seems to be the winner. Producing 11 percent of the worlds energy
output, Russia is the worlds biggest energy exporter. This is a huge amount of energy - about
five times more than Russias share of global GDP or population. This is the basic number, said Leonid Grigoriev, who studies
Russias energy economics at Moscows Higher School of Economics. With prices expected to average over $100 a barrel this year,
the oil bonanza is expected to erase Russias budget deficit this year. This is timely for the Kremlin, which is handing out
pay and pension raises as the nation starts an election cycle. The latest came Friday when President Dmitry Medvedev announced that salaries for soldiers will triple next January - just 10
weeks before election day. Oil and gas pays for about 40 percent of Russias budget. Once prices rise over $27 a
barrel, Russias Finance Ministry takes in 90 cents for each dollar. This is why the Russia
depends so much on oil and on oil prices, said Leonid Grigoriev. And thats why any turmoil in the world immediately brings money to the Ministry
of Finance. Today, foreign currency reserves are growing at $100 million a week. By the end of March,
Russias total reserves are to hit $500 billion - the worlds third largest, after China and Japan. Now,
economists are now raising Russias economic growth estimate for 2011 to five percent - the
highest level since 2008, the year the economic crisis hit.

Oil revenue is key to Russian fiscal conservatism
WSJ 11/25 (IRA IOSEBASHVILI, 25 November 2011, Russia Pledges Budget Discipline, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577060392021764670.html,
CMR)

Russia's finance ministry on Friday warned that the country faces risks from higher spending and urged strict budget discipline next year,
despite a raft of social spending increases promised by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ahead of next year's presidential elections.
"We are determined to carry out a tough budget policy, with the understanding that ballooning obligations only lead to additional risks,"
said acting finance minister Anton Siluanov, speaking in Russia's upper house of parliament.
Though he didn't mention any specifics, the comments were one of the strongest warnings yet from a top official that Russia faces potentially painful belt-
tightening next year. Echoing warnings the International Monetary Fund has been making for months, he said Russia is spending too much of the windfall it gets from high
oil prices, leaving the economy vulnerable. Much of that spending has come ahead of parliamentary elections next week and a presidential poll next March where Mr. Putin is virtually certain
to return to the presidency.
"The finance ministry will very seriously analyze and monitor the requests of various ministries and agencies for raising expenditures," Mr. Siluanov said. "Nobody needs additional risks right
now."
Concerns over the budget were voiced in September by then-finance minister Alexei Kudrin, who lost his job after a public dispute with President Dmitry Medvedev regarding future
spending hikes, among them a $30 billion increase in miliary spending. Such a policy carries a "significant budget and
macroeconomic risks" for the country, Mr. Kudrin said.
High prices for oil, Russia's chief export, are expected to give the country a small budget surplus this year and have
supported robust consumer demand in the last few months. But Europe's ever-worsening sovereign debt
crisis and the country's oft-complained about investment climate have combined to take a heavy tollnearly $64 billion in capital
has fled Russia in the first 10 months of the year, while the ruble has fallen weakened 14% since late July.
With economic growth expected to slow to below 4% next year and the budget deficit forecast at nearly 3% of GDP, it is important for Russia to maintain
its image as a fiscally conservative country, built up in the last decade under the management of Mr. Kudrin, who kept sovereign debt to around 10%
of gross domestic product and created a rainy day fund for stashing Russia's oil debt.

2nc russiaAT: Econ Low

Russias economy will rebound continued investment in oil is key to growth
Smith 11/18 (James, 18 nov 2011, http://www.ftadviser.com/2011/11/18/investments/brics/hsbc-s-conroy-russian-market-will-rebound-
mdPVAePmme4Bg19BR905iP/article.html, CMR)

Domestically, the economy is actually in good shape - gross sovereign debt to GDP is only 10 per cent,
the current account is in a surplus, and the budget deficit is only 1 or 2 per cent. When risk
appetite returns, we feel sure the Russian market will rebound very strongly. Because of its risk levels, Mr Conroy said the
country has always traded at a discount, with the current 10-year average standing at 25 per cent. Against this, he felt the current 50 per cent discount level looked overdone. In general,
transparency and governance have been slowly improving over time, he added. Recent large foreign
investments in Russia by multinationals are evidence that the investment opportunities
outweigh the potential risks. Examples of investment by multinationals include Pepsico acquiring Russias largest juice and soft drinks company Wimm Bill Dann
for $5bn (3.2bn) earlier this year and Exxonmobil announcing a co-operation agreement with Rosneft, a Russian state-owned oil producer, to develop offshore reserves. Mr Conroy said some
of the most exciting investment opportunities lie in oil and gas, and financials. Russian oil stocks trade on
four or five times consensus forward earnings, which is around half the multiple of other major
oil stocks, he added.

Government projections for growth prove
RIA Novosti 10 (Oct 10, 2010, Russian economy to show stable growth with oil price above $60 - Kudrin http://en.rian.ru/business/20101010/160898404.html)
The Russian economy will demonstrate stable growth next year if global oil prices stay above
$60 per barrel, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on Sunday. According to the Russian government's forecast, the price of Russia's Urals oil
blend is expected to stay at the level of $75 per barrel in 2010 and 2011 and rise to $78 per
barrel in 2012 and to $79 per barrel in 2013. The government's projections for Russia's federal
budget in the next three years are based on the average annual price of $70 per barrel. According to
data of the Russian Finance Ministry, the average price of Urals oil blend was $77.4 per barrel in September 2010
compared with $67.15 per barrel in September 2009.

2nc russiaAT: Oil Revenue Not High

Oil revenue is highkey to stave off the European crisis and stabilize Russia
Cook 11/25 (Brad, 25 November 2011, Russia Stocks Rise Third Day as GDP Growth Offsets Europe Woes, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-25/russia-stocks-rise-
third-day-as-gdp-growth-offsets-europe-woes.html, CMR)

Russian stocks rose for a third day after the economy grew faster than expected in October and
oil prices increased, trumping concern that Europes debt crisis will spread.
The Micex Index of 30 stocks advanced 0.4 percent to this weeks high of 1,410.36 at 10:22 a.m. in Moscow. The dollar- measured RTS Index was little changed at 1,421.53.
The Economy Ministry said yesterday that gross domestic product expanded 5.6 percent in
October from a year earlier, a surprisingly strong number that should boost investor
sentiment and take the pressure off the central bank to cut rates, said Natalia Orlova and Dmitry Dolgin, analysts at Alfa
Bank in Moscow, in a research note. GDP advanced 0.9 percent on the month, the biggest monthly gain of the year.
Crude oil, Russias biggest export, climbed in New York as declining stockpiles in the U.S.
outweighed Europes worsening debt crisis. Crude for January delivery rose as much as 50 cents to $96.67 a barrel in electronic trading on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $96.63 at 9:25 p.m. Moscow time.

40% of GDP
Bornell 2011 business major (Jason, 4/5, Russia Benefits from Increase in oil Prices http://russianmind.com/content/russia-benefits-increase-oil-prices)
Russia is the worlds biggest energy exporter, Russia depends so much on oil and its prices, whereas
the prices per barrel is expected to reach at $100 this year, which will totally erase the deficit
from Russias budget .sooner the prices will reach $27 per barrel which will benefit Russia to great extent by leading
to take 90 cents for each dollar. While the slow down of privatization can be a result of main focus of the total emphasis on oil earnings. Until the Japan Nuclear crisis occurred, the energy
pendulum was emphasized on nuclear power, but the situation is leading to change the views, and Russia being rich in natural gas resources
might benefit largely from the new movement of the present worlds scenario as Oil and Gas
pays about 40 percent of Russias budget. And Although Russia is profiting to greater extent in terms of
rise in oil prices, yet, it faced loss in investment sector, Leonid Grigoriev, who studies Russias energy economics at Moscows Higher School of Economics. We have seen it in
the Gulf Arab countries. and we saw it in Russia in the last 10 years that as the oil price is rising governments talk
about the need for reform and using the money wisely, but as the price goes up too high, the whole process slows down, people become
complacent, they become lazy, they live the good life as it were, until the collapse comes, he said. And then whole process starts again.

2nc russiaAT: Turns Generic

Current high oil prices critical to stimulate investment in the Russian economy oil
prices are not high enough to trigger negative effects
Kalish 11 - Kalish is Director of Global Economics at Deloitte Research. He is an expert on global economic issues (Dr. Ira, April 26
th
, Reengeneering the path to recovery
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_BN/bn/b358e40a1245f210VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm)

Events in the Middle East that have resulted in higher oil prices are leading many analysts to make downward revisions to their forecasts of economic growth around the world. However, this
is not the case in Russia. Higher oil prices are likely to have a positive impact on Russias economic
performance in 2011. Unless oil prices climb high enough to create a global recession and significantly reduce demand, Russias export revenue
is expected to expand while government revenue increases. This will have the effect of
reducing the budget deficit, which in turn, could have a beneficial impact on interest rates. The
result could be a boost to business investment. On the other hand, higher oil prices could have an inflationary impact. This would not be helpful
at a time when inflation is already uncomfortably high. Acceleration in growth will certainly be welcome given the recent performance. After a very deep recession in 2009, growth in 2010 was
somewhat disappointing. The summer drought dampened third quarter growth. By the fourth quarter, analysts expected a significant increase. Instead, growth came in at 4.5 percent for the
quarter and 4.0 percent for the year. The fourth quarter figure was lower than many observers expected. Part of the problem was that rising inflation dampened real wage growth, thereby
having a negative impact on consumer spending. In the first few months of 2011, the economic performance appeared to be deteriorating. In the first two months of the year, real disposable
income declined and the unemployment rate rose. The drop in income was probably exacerbated by the increase in the payroll tax that took effect in January (more about this later). In
addition, fixed asset investment declined. Lastly, industrial production also dropped as businesses evidently prepared for a deceleration in demand. Aside from the effect of rising oil prices, the
prospects for a better economic performance are not terribly good. One factor is that much of the growth in 2010 was related to inventory replenishment. Clearly, that cannot continue
indefinitely. Therefore, maintaining a decent performance will require a boost to final demand. Higher oil
prices will help by holding the lid on taxes and increasing export volumes. In addition, if prices are
perceived as permanently higher, it could stimulate increased investment in energy production
capacity. On the other hand, high inflation will hurt real wage gains. In addition, higher payroll taxes will hurt, unless they are repealed as proposed by the President (see below).

2nc russiaAT: Diversification Turn

Diversification will never happen the plan just guarantees short-term economic
collapse
CMR)

SD: Its a trick question. Someone told me that the first time the Russian government has become concerned about its
reliance on oil and gas revenue, was, in fact, almost immediately after oil and gas was found in
Siberia, in 1973, 1974.One of the central communist party committees has discussed the subject. So that was 1974. Almost 40 years later I think we
still find ourselves in the current situation where the economy and the budget are very, very,
dependent on oil and gas. I personally dont see how it is going to change. In the near term, and even in the long term, because even if the
Russian oil production begins to decline, or the global oil production begins to decline, what will
happen at that time would also mean high oil prices, so if global production will be getting
lower, the oil price will be getting higher because of that.S o, as a result, the Russian intake from commodity exports would more or less stay the same
it would be a big amount of money coming into the country. And there is very few other
sources of hard currency the economy could generate. So it would take a miracle to materially
change the structure of the Russian economy and of the Russian budget. Even the long term,
so I think the only thing you can do is really simply take this natural wealth that has been given
to you by god, and simply use it efficiently. I dont think you can really say lets become a hi-
tech nation, or lets become a tourist mecca, or lets become the provider of savoir vivre
products like France. They are just not going to happen. You just take your natural resource
wealth but you try to use that efficiently, and try not to waste it.

Diversification collapses the economy
Gaddy 11 Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, economist specializing in Russia (Clifford G., 06/16/11, Will the Russian economy rid itself of its
dependence on oil? http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20110616/164645377.html)

To ask whether the Russian economy will rid itself of its dependence on oil is to ask whether ideology will trump economics. Many people in Russiaincluding
President Medvedevseem to believe Russia should de-emphasize the role of oil, gas, and other
commodities because they are primitive. Relying on them, they argue, is degrading. From the
economic point of view, this makes no sense. Oil is Russias comparative advantage. It is the
most competitive part of the economy. Oil and gas are something everyone wants, and Russia
has more of them than anyone else. It is true that the Russian economy is backward, and that
oil plays a role in that backwardness. But oil is not the root cause. The causes of Russias
backwardness lie in its inherited production structure. The physical structure of the real
economy (that is, the industries, plants, their location, work forces, equipment, products, and the
production chains in which they participate) is predominantly the same as in the Soviet era. The problem is
that it is precisely the oil wealth (the so-called oil rent) that is used to support and perpetuate the
inefficient structure. For the sake of social and political stability, a large share of Russias oil and gas rents is distributed to
the production enterprises that employ the inherited physical and human capital. The
production and supply chains in that part of the economy are in effect rent distribution chains.
A serious attempt to convert Russias economy into something resembling a modern Western
economy would require dismantling this rent distribution system. This would be both highly
destabilizing, and costly in terms of current welfare. Current efforts for diversification do not
challenge the rent distribution system. On the contrary, the kinds of investment envisioned in those
efforts will preserve and reinforce the rent distribution chains, and hence make Russia more
dependent on oil rents. Even under optimal conditions for investment, any dream of creating a non-oil Russia that
could perform as well as todays commodity-based economy is unrealistic. The proportion of
GDP that would have to be invested in non-oil sectors is impossibly high. Granted, some new firms,
and even entire sectors, may grow on the outside of the oil and gas sectors and the rent
distribution chains they support. But the development of the new sectors will be difficult, slow,
and costly. Even if successful, the net value they generate will be too small relative to oil and gas to change the overall profile of the economy. Thus, while it is
fashionable to talk of diversification of the Russian economy away from oil and gas, this is the
least likely outcome for the countrys economic future. If Russia continues on the current
course of pseudo-reform (which merely reinforces the old structures), oil and gas rents will remain
important because they will be critical to support the inherently inefficient parts of the
economy. On the other hand, if Russia were to somehow launch a genuine reform aimed at
dismantling the old structures, the only realistic way to sustain success would be to focus on
developing the commodity sectors. Russia could obtain higher growth if the oil and gas sectors
were truly modern. Those sectors need to be opened to new entrants, with a level playing field
for all participants. Most important, oil, gas, and other commodity companies need to be freed from the
requirement to participate in the various informal schemes to share their rents with enterprises
in the backward sectors inherited from the Soviet system. Certainly, there are issues with oil. It
is a highly volatile source of wealth. But there are ways to hedge those risks. A bigger problem is
that oil will eventually lose its special status as an energy source and therefore much of its
value. But that time is far off. It will not happen suddenly. In the meantime, sensible policies can deal with the problems.
Otherwise, the approach should be to generate the maximum value possible from the oil and
protect that value through prudent fiscal policies. Russia should not, can not, and will not
significantly reduce the role of oil and gas in its economy in the foreseeable future. It will only
harm itself by ill-advised and futile efforts to try.

Russia uses high oil revenues to invest in economic diversificationthis will drive
growth now.
The Guardian (UK), 1/25/2008. Russia investment fund seeks $4 bln/year from 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7256415.

Russia, flush with windfall oil revenues, runs a strong budget surplus but has substantially
loosened its fiscal policy to accommodate pension and wage hikes as well as infrastructure and
industrial investment needs. The fund, which aims to introduce a concept of private-public partnership in Russia, has so far approved 20 projects worth 1 trillion
roubles with the share of state budget financing at about 30 percent. The budget investment fund is one of several vehicles
created in Russia in recent years aimed at channelling oil wealth into improving infrastructure,
diversifying the economy and boosting economic growth. Cash assigned to the Development Bank and other state-run institutions has
so far only been used to support banking sector liquidity. Analysts see government spending as key for maintaining high
growth rates in 2008.

2nc russiaAT: Dutch Disease

No Dutch disease
CMR)

SD: There are elements of Dutch disease, so I think not all the symptoms are here because the oil
industry is not, Dutch disease happens when one industry, in this case oil and gas industry, really begins to crowd out investment and jobs and becomes the centre of everything,
so the rest of the economy kind of dies. In the Russian case, its a little bit different because a lot of the money that
flows into the country, via the oil and gas sector, subsequently flows further into the economy.
So the impact from the oil and gas sector for example, on the currency is not what it used to be.
So, yeah, if the oil prices are high it gets stronger, but its not dramatically stronger, and I think the
economy is becoming, in relative terms, it is getting better if oil prices are high, instead of getting
worse. Dutch disease really happens if there is one sector that is doing well and it drains
resources from all the other sectors. In Russias case when oil prices are high, all sectors are
enjoying it because it trickles down to the entire economy. So I think there are certain elements of it, but I dont think Russia has
Dutch disease, and whatever people say, fortunately if oil prices are high it is good for Russia, and it is good for Russia as a
whole, not just for Russian oil companies.

1nc russian relations
Oil dependence fuels cooperation and bilateral relations with Russia
ABRAHAM 2002 (Spencer Abraham, Secretary, US Department of Energy, Oil Diplomacy: Facts and Myths Behind Foreign Oil Dependency, Committee
on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, June 20, 2002,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa80291.000/hfa80291_0.htm)
We are developing a strong bilateral relationship with Russia, now the second largest world crude oil producer and exporter. As
you know, Presidents Bush and Putin just signed joint statements launching our strategic energy initiative, and I was in Russia last year laying
the foundation for this enhanced cooperation. We are working with the Russian government and oil
companies to enhance our relationship by launching a commercial energy dialogue and holding a Commercial
Energy Summit in Houston later this year. We are hopeful this cooperation with Russia will lead to increased investment
opportunities and lasting results. In our view, rising Russian production significantly increases the supply diversity in the world oil market.
1nc saudi relations

U.S./Saudi ties high, dependence key to relations
International Oil Daily, staff, November 5, 2004, LN.
Saudi Arabian oil supply is expected to remain at the heart of US energy policy following the compelling election win by
President George W. Bush, according to analysts polled by International Oil Daily. "Bush is more inclined to US dependence on
Middle Eastern oil than Kerry would have been," said Muhammad-Ali Zainy, analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies in
London, adding that he sees the US-Saudi relationship remaining strong. "It isn't the Bush/Al-Saud relationship that promotes
the oil relationship, the US dependence on Saudi oil is a historical fact which is inescapable," said Zainy. "The priorities in
relation to Saudi Arabia will remain the same, that of oil and stability, and both are interlinked," said Mai Yamani, a
Saudi expert at London's Royal Institute for International Affairs. "The most important issue for the US is to keep the oil tap
open," she added. Even if Bush succeeds with proposals to promote domestic production, by opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) for example, this will not change its need for Saudi oil, commented Zainy. "Assuming Congress will approve this [ANWR
exploration ], this has an inherently long lead time from initial exploration to bringing any oil on the markets," he said. "In any case any new
production will only offset declines elsewhere." Despite declines earlier, prompting talk of a possible shift in Saudi policy, the kingdom
has recently returned to the top of the US' crude oil import rankings. In August, Saudi Arabia was by far the largest crude oil
supplier to the US at 1.821 million barrels per day, and also landed 110,000 b/d of products (IOD Oct.20,p4). Saudi Arabia has held the top
spot every year since 1998.

poor U.S./Saudi relations foster a china/saudi allianceoutcome is a world war between the
U.S. and China
Luft 4 (Gal Luft, Executive Director, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, U.S., China Are on
Collision Course Over Oil, LOS ANGELES TIMES, February 2, 2004, http://www.iags.org/la020204.htm)
Sixty-seven years ago, oil-starved Japan embarked on an aggressive expansionary policy designed to secure its growing energy needs, which eventually led the nation into a world war.
Today, another Asian power thirsts for oil: China. While the U.S. is absorbed in fighting the war on terror, the seeds of what could be
the next world war are quietly germinating. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal
8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto
sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S.
and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. Dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven
reserves. With 60% of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines
of the tumultuous region. Its way of forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing
technology and components for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in
places such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress to monitor U.S.-China relations,
warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes presents an increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the
Middle East." The report concludes: "A key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its
dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the
coming decade." Optimists claim that the world oil market will be able to accommodate China and that, instead of conflict, China's thirst could create mutual desire for stability
in the Middle East and thus actually bring Beijing closer to the U.S. History shows the opposite: Superpowers find it difficult to coexist while competing
over scarce resources. The main bone of contention probably will revolve around China's relations with Saudi
Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil. The Chinese have already supplied the Saudis with intermediate-
range ballistic missiles, and they played a major role 20 years ago in a Saudi-financed Pakistani nuclear effort that
may one day leave a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Taliban-type regime in Riyadh or Islamabad. 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 hear the voices in the U.S. denouncing Saudi Arabia as a "kernel of evil" and proposing that the U.S. seize and occupy the kingdom's oil fields. The Saudis especially 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. The risk of Beijing's emerging as a competitor for influence in the Middle East and a Saudi shift of allegiance are
things Washington should consider as it defines its objectives and priorities in the 21st century. Without a comprehensive strategy designed to prevent
China from becoming an oil consumer on a par with the U.S., a superpower collision is in the cards. The good news is that
we are still in a position to halt China's slide into total dependency.

2nc saudi relations link wall

US dependence on Saudi oil is increasing key to relations
Krauss 8/19/12 (Clifford, U.S. reliance on Saudi oil is growing again,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54718663-79/oil-saudi-iran-dependence.html.csp, CMR)

The United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, raising its imports from the kingdom
by more than 20 percent this year, even as fears of military conflict in the tinderbox Persian Gulf region grow. The increase in
Saudi oil exports to the U.S. began slowly last summer and has picked up pace this year. Until then, the U.S. had decreased its dependence on
foreign oil and from the Gulf in particular. This reversal is driven in part by the battle over Irans nuclear program. The U.S.
tightened sanctions that hampered Irans ability to sell crude and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase
production to help guarantee that the price did not skyrocket. Although prices have remained stable, and Irans treasury
has been squeezed, the U.S. is left increasingly vulnerable to a region in turmoil. The U.S. has had a decades-long political alliance with
the Saudi leadership, one that has become even more pivotal during the turmoil of the Arab spring and rising
hostilities with Iran over that nations nuclear program. The development underscores how difficult it is
for the U.S. to lower its dependence on foreign oil even as domestic oil production is soaring. It is a development that has
alarmed conservative and liberal foreign policy experts alike.

U.S. dependence on saudi swing production is the cornerstone of the alliance
Shibley Telhami, Professor, University of Maryland and Fiona Hill, Brookings Institution, FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
November/December 2002, LN.
Finally, Saudi Arabia has a trump card that Russia does not: spare production capacity. Morse and Richard rightly
acknowledge that the kingdom's extra reserves, to be used only as a last resort during a crisis in the oil market,
make "policymakers elsewhere beholden to Riyadh for energy security" and form "the centerpiece of the U.S.-
Saudi relationship." Russia, on the other hand, produces and exports at maximum capacity and is likely to continue to do so -- a fact that
has begun to generate some anxiety domestically. To make matters worse, a recent Russian government energy report indicates that if
current oil-extraction levels continue and new technologies do not bring additional reserves into production, Russia can expect to have
depleted its current reserves by 2040. This is a sobering conclusion for an economy that remains heavily dependent on energy revenues and
subsidies.

U.S. dependence key to u.s.-saudi relationsguarantees us investment and protection of
region
Edward Morse, Executive Advisor, Hess Energy Trading Company and James Richard, Portfolio Manager,
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, March/April 2002, LN.
RIYADH'S RELATIONS with Washington are much more complex than they appear on the surface, because they
involve unspoken understandings and a number of useful fictions. September 11 has complicated these understandings, because the publics
in both countries are suspicious of the cooperation between the two governments. Washington recognizes Saudi Arabia's critical
role in the global oil sector, especially Riyadh's price moderation. Saudi Arabia, in turn, plays its Washington
cards diligently. The kingdom has protected its position as the top U.S. supplier. Today, Saudi Arabia supplies
around 1.7 mbd of the roughly 10 mbd imported into the United States -- a market share higher than that of any competitor.
The kingdom maintains this share to show how important Saudi supplies are to the United States. The Saudi
leadership can thus ensure that Washington will help defend Saudi Arabia, which means not only the defense of
the kingdom's oil fields and territorial integrity but the defense of the House of Saud.

Oil is critical to U.S.-Saudi relations
SALON, staff, 92801, www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/28/saudi_arabia/index.html?x
Oil is the likely explanation for that free pass. America needs it, and the Saudis want to sell it. "Our way of life is
dependent on them, and their way of life is dependent on us. It's a fantastic, symbiotic relationship," adds Bogle.
"It subsumes other issues that arise." (Emory Bogle, Middle Eastern historian and professor emeritus at Virginia's University of
Richmond.)
2nc saudi relations econ MPX
Collapses the global economy
David, 99 (Steven R, prof of poli sci at Johns Hopkins, Jan/Feb, Foreign Affairs, Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars, lexis, CMR)

In a Saudi civil war, the oil fields will be a likely battle site, as belligerents seek the revenue and international recognition that come with control
of petroleum. For either side to cripple oil production would not be difficult. The real risk lies not with the onshore oil wells themselves, which are spread
over a 100-by-300 mile area, but in the country's dependence on only a few critical processing sites. Destruction of these facilities would paralyze production and take at least six months to
repair. If unconventional weapons such as biological agents were used in the oil fields, production could be delayed for several more months until workers were convinced it was safe to return.
Stanching the flow of Saudi oil would devastate the United States and much of the world community. Global
demand for oil (especially in Asia) will increase in the coming decades, while non-Persian Gulf supplies are expected to diminish. A crisis in
the planet's largest oil producer, with reserves estimated at 25 percent of the world's total, would have a massive and protracted
impact on the price and availability of oil worldwide. As the disruptions of 1973 and 1979 showed, the mere threat of diminished oil supply can
cause panic buying, national hysteria, gas lines, and infighting. Prices for oil shot up 400 percent in 1973, 150 percent in 1979, and 50 percent (in just 15 days) in 1990. The oil
shocks of the 1970s threw the United States into recession, causing spiraling inflation and a decline in savings
rates that plagues the U.S. economy even now. Trillions of dollars were lost worldwide. And all this occurred at a time
when the United States was less dependent on foreign petroleum than it is now. Cutting the Saudi pipeline today would cause a severe
worldwide recession or depression. Short of physical attack, it is the gravest threat imaginable to American
interests.

***politics

Politics1NC Link
Plan spurs a huge right
GREENWIRE, "Rough Going Seen for Efforts to Lift Congressional Moratoria," 5--26--06,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295

With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to open more offshore areas to oil and
gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry
groups say momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria on most
offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If
there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources
Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States
that opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the bipartisan coastal
coalition that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other
efforts that are less aggressive than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes to current
restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. "The bottom line is that [the] vote proves that people
care about our coasts, and any proposal that comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected." Also, a House
floor vote last week that would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an
environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only
proposal. One lobbyist who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out idea,
which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely mirrors an opt-out and state
revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a
vote on this on the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground. I am not sure
if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a nuanced approach to
things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year. Republicans are
bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more Democrats
oppose wider offshore leasing.

Politics2NC Link
OCS drilling drains PC
Larson 9 (Jennifer, May 2010 candidate for Juris Doctor at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of
Law, Challenges under OCSLA and the Future of Offshore Drilling under the Obama Administration, Fall, 13 SMU
Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 55, lexis, CMR)

Then, the Obama administration and those parties lobbying to allow drilling in the areas of the OCS previously
prohibited must continue their efforts to convince Congress not to renew the congressional
moratorium on drilling. Due to pressure from environmentalists and the democratic majority in
Congress, this will not be an easy task .

Plan sparks a big fight in congress--greens, military
Alexander Bolton, "Obama's Drilling Proposal Sparks Battle Among Senate Dems," THE HILL, 3--31--10,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/90049-obamas-drilling-proposal-sparks-battle-among-senate-
democrats
President Barack Obamas decision to open the nations coastline to offshore drilling has set up a fracas with
Senate Democrats. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the leading Senate opponents of offshore drilling, has
blasted Obamas plan. But Virginia Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner are on board, urging Obama to move quickly to
open mid-Atlantic shores for oil and gas exploration. Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys
beaches and vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a statement. Giving Big Oil more access to our nations
waters is really a Kill, Baby, Kill policy: it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that
generate billions of dollars, he added. Offshore drilling isnt the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and
continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez
(N.J.) also took a strong stance against Obamas proposal Wednesday. I have let the administration know that offshore drilling is a non-
starter for me, Menendez told The Newark Star-Ledger. A spill in Virginia ends up in Cape May, New Jersey. Obama has proposed
opening a vast stretch of the Atlantic coast, from the northern tip of Delaware to mid-Florida, to offshore drilling. Webb and Warner
pushed the administration to act in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in January. "We would urge you to promptly
commence these steps in order to ensure that the Virginia lease sale is conducted in a manner that is timely and consistent with the
interests of the environment and our national security," the lawmakers wrote. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, also
raised concerns over how the new drilling proposal might affect military exercises in his state. Ive talked many
times to Secretary Salazar and told him if they drilled too close to Floridas beaches theyd be risking the states economy and the
environment, Nelson said in a statement. I believe this plan shows they heeded that concern. Now I need to hear from Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, Nelson added. And I want him to look me in the eye and assure me that this plan will not
compromise national security by interfering with the unfettered space we have for training and testing our
most sophisticated military weapons systems. Republican critics, such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have also put pressure on
Obama to develop the nations energy resources. Environmentalists argue the potential energy gains are not worth
the expected impact on beaches and marine life. Lautenberg argues that an oil spill could create severe ecological damage
within a 500-mile radius putting the New Jersey shoreline in danger. He said the beaches and beach towns of New Jersey generate
about $50 billion in economic activity every year and employ 500,000 people. The government estimates that 130 million barrels of oil
and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie off Virginias shores. The Bush administration crafted a plan in 2008 to begin leasing an
oil and gas patch off Virginias coast beginning in 2011. The Virginia senators contacted Salazar after progress on the lease slowed.
Warner applauded the plan Obama announced Tuesday. "This is good news and a positive step forward as we work to expand our
nation's domestic energy production, Warner said in a statement. Moving forward on the mid-Atlantic off-shore proposal will provide
an opportunity to determine the scope of our region's off-shore energy resources, the economic viability of accessing those resources,
and the potential impacts on our environmental and national security priorities. In September, two Democratic senators voted for an
amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would have prohibited delaying the Bush administrations Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. They were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Ben Nelson (Neb.). Fifty-four Democrats and two
independents voted to support the Obama administrations suspension of the plan. A lobbyist for an environmental group said that
liberals such as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would raise objections to Obamas proposal. Democratic
senators from Washington, Oregon and Rhode Island have also voiced objections to offshore drilling in the past.

Plan deeply controversial--dragged into broader energy fights
Ben Geman, "Drilling Push Shakes Up Climate Fight," THE HILL, E2 Wire, 4--1--10,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
would require congressional approval.That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate
legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or
sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White
House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support. One obvious implication of todays
announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by
restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states. But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) risk losing support among liberal
Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
attacked the plan Wednesday. Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and
vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with
efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council also
slammed the proposal.

Plan drains capital
Derek Orth, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND LIGITATION v. 26, 2011, p. 509+, LN.
The Deepwater Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able to drill
down to 30,000 feet." n6 The disaster occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was mounting production casing and
[*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect. Ironically, integrity tests were due to be performed on
the Macondo well at the time the explosion occurred, after which the well would have been capped until BP was prepared to begin
extraction operations. n7 Tragically, the fiery explosion that occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw BP's plans into
disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8 millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the Gulf Coast. n10 The
subsequent proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised numerous issues
that stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the liability
schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A bill's passage through Congress is
fraught with danger at every turn. In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of Congress, examined and
voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House and Senatefor approval, and, finally,
submitted to the President for his signature. Thus, a well-meaning and complex bill can often only gain
approval through an expenditure of serious political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an event
that exerts public pressure on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis. n14

Removing offshore drilling restrictions costs political capital
Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, "Combustible: The Volatility of the Energy Sector Has
Turned the Industry Upside Down," includes quotes from Andrew Spitzer, founder, Energy and Power
Group, Harris and Williams Co & Douglas Korn, Irving Place Partners, 12--1--08, LN.
But it's also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide basis. Ultimately, we have
to focus on domestic production to help with the supply issue, and, internationally, see if we can't encourage the national
oil companies to open up more acreage for competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem. Mergers & Acquisitions: Is
it even possible, though, to completely eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in our lifetime? Spitzer:
The economics certainly make it extremely challenging, and frankly, without the political willpower to put
in a variety of reforms - whether it's CAFE standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors - it's not something that
would get done without some form of government intervention. Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market and the
government's response have created a very difficult fiscal situation going into 2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn
in government receipts and that overlays all of the government support to shore up the markets. You have to go back to the question of
whether or not there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why we have to become less reliant on foreign
energy; from a geopolitical point of view, from a carbon emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, "How do we make that
happen in an environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints."That's going to be the real
challenge. Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that
people are dealing with is going to be tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to
push through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed.

***off-case
EIS CPSolvency
Current EIS process for drilling is inadequate CPs binding review is key to preventing
environmental damages while still resulting in the aff
Murchison 11 B.A., Louisiana Polytechnic Institute; J.D., M.A., University of Virginia; S.J.D., Harvard
Law School, Professor Emeritus at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center (Kenneth M, Beyond Compensation
for Offshore Drilling Accidents: Lowering Risks, Improving Response, 30 Miss. C. L. Rev. 277, lexis, CMR)

B. Improved Environmental Assessment As explained in the preceding part, environmental assessment has been the
principal method that federal law has employed for minimizing the risks of offshore drilling. NEPA directs all
federal agencies to assess the environmental consequences of proposed actions n125 and requires the preparation of an environmental impact
statement for any proposal for a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. n126 The Endangered
Species Act requires a more particularized evaluation when a proposed federal action might affect a species that has been listed as endangered
or threatened. n127 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides that development plans must assess the environmental impacts of offshore
drilling. n128 Unfortunately, the Minerals Management Service has applied all three statutes in ways that
avoided meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of off shore drilling.[*291] 1. National Environmental Policy Act. Since 1970,
NEPA has required federal agencies to factor environmental considerations into their decision-making. The primary vehicle for forcing consideration of environmental values is the duty to prepare an environmental impact statement for all proposals for major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. n129 To determine whether a proposed action is a major federal action for whi ch an environmental impact statement is required, Council on Environmental Quality regulations n130 ordinarily require that an agency engage in a more
informal analysis called an environmental assessment.The Council on Environmental Quality regulations contain two important exceptions to the general requirements for impact statements and environmental assessments. When an agency makes a series of decisions related to the
same subject, the agency does not have to repeat its environmental analysis in successive impact statements. Instead, the regulations permit "tiering" of impact statements to avoid repetition; when a prior impact statement has already considered a particular issue, tiering allows the
agency to incorporate the analysis of the prior statement by reference. n131 A second exception - the categorical exclusion - allows an agency to avoid the environmental assessment if it is unnecessary. When, an agency can identify a category of actions that never have a significant effect
on the environment, the agency can establish a categorical exclusion for those activities n132 so that neither an impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. Deepwater drilling seems to be precisely the type of decision into which NEPA intended to force agencies to
incorporate environmental values, and preparation of environmental impact statements slowed offshore drilli ng during the 1970s. n133 Unfortunately, the Minerals Management Service managed to blunt the impact of NEPA in the 1980s. By combining inappropriate use of tiering and
unwarranted expansion of categorical exclusions, the Service managed to apply NEPA in a manner that maintained the formof environmental review without any meaningful substance. The Service prepared programmatic and multi-lease impact statements at levels too broad to require
discussion of specific environmental harms and used those general statements as the basis for not preparing statements for individual leases. Equally important, in 1986 it expanded a categori cal exclusion that allowed the basis for categorically excluding exploration and development
decisions in the central and western Gulf of Mexico to proceed without impact statements or environmental assessments. n134[*292] In 2007, the Service actually prepared two environmental impact statements that included the area where the BP Deepwater Horizon well was
located: a programmatic statement on the five-year leasing plan, which included Alaska and the Pacific as well as the Gulf of Mexico, n135 and a multi -lease statement covering eleven leases in the Gulf of Mexico, n136 including the one encompassing the BP site. Given the vast areas
covered by the two statements, the discussions of particular environmental concerns are not very specific as shown in a comparison of the discussion of the potential impacts on blue fin tuna and the Gulf sturgeon, two important species in the region of the BP Deepwater Horizon well.
n137When the Service evaluated the lease for the area in which the BP Deepwater Horizon well was drilled, it prepared an environmental assessment rather than an impact statement. The assessment, which did not even mention the blue fin tuna, n138 concluded that the previous
impact statements adequately discussed the relevant environmental issues. The effect of that conclusion was to foreclose detailed environmental analysis at the critical leasing stage. By the time the inquiry turned to the specific location where BP prepared to drill in 10,000 feet of
water to a depth more than 5,000 feet below the ocean floor, the Service did not even prepare an environmental assessment. Instead, it relied on the categorical exclusion applicable to exploration plan and development documents in the Gulf of Mexico. n139 One could certainly argue
that the categorical exclusion did not apply to the BP Deepwater Horizon well by its own terms, n140 and one can only describe the [*293] available documentation of the determination of the applicability of the exclusion as cursory. n141 The more important omission, however, is
systemic. By using the categorical exclusion for exploration plans in the Gulf of Mexico, n142 the agency did not seriously analyze potential environmental problems or invite comments on those problems fromother federal and state agencies or the publ ic. Following the disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement (BOEMRE) n143 - the successor to the Minerals Management Service - conducted a joint review with the Council on Environmental Quality of the NEPA policies applicable to offshore drilling. n144
Although the report stopped short of finding that the approach used by the Minerals Management Service was unlawful, it did recommend that the Bureau review its rules for the use of categorical exclusions for offshore drilling to determine whether they should be revised. n145 On the
same day that the report was issued, the Bureau suspended the use of categorical exclusions for exploration plans that use subsurface blowout preventers or blowout preventers on floating facilities, n146 and the agency initiated its formal review of the use of categorical exclusions in
October. n147 The solution to the inadequate NEPA assessments of the past is to reform the process to include
meaningful consideration of site-specific issues at the leasing, exploration, and development stages.
One can suggest at least three changes. First, the initial programmatic statement on the five-year leasing plan should
primarily focus on identifying areas that should be excluded from leasing because they are especially
environmentally sensitive and highlight site-specific issues that can be addressed at later stages. Second,
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement should address the site-specific issues in an impact statement for each
lease rather than preparing a single statement for a large group of leases. Third, the Bureau should eliminate the use of
categorical exclusions and require individualized assessment at the exploration and development stages.
At a minimum, the Bureau should prepared a [*294] written environmental assessment that is circulated for comment to the public and to
federal and state agencies with environmental expertise. n148 Obviously, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory
Enforcement can implement these requirements by changing its practices. To make the changes permanent, Congress should amend the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act to require them. Some might criticize the NEPA proposals as paperwork requirements that will have no impact on
minimizing future oil spills because the NEPA reviews are unlikely to stop leasing, exploration, or development. That view, however, is overly
cynical. Replacing a categorical exclusion with an environmental assessment circulated to the public and to
environmental agencies will at least make egregious environmental errors less likely. Similarly, an
environmental assessment or an impact statement does not have to stop offshore drilling to be
effective . Even if drilling proceeds, careful assessment can improve environmental safeguards and suggest
alternatives that lessen the environmental impact or ways to minimize environmental impacts that
cannot be avoided. n1492. Endangered Species Act As noted above, n150 the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to assess whether their actions will affect any species that has been listed as endangered or threatened and
prohibits federal agencies from taking any action that will jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modi fy its critical habitat. If a listed marine species may be present in the area of a proposed federal action, the agency must consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service as to what impact that action will have on the species. n151 The statute also prohibits any person from "taking" any individual member of a listed species of wildlife unless the National Marine Fisheries Service grants an "incidental" take permit as part of the consultation process.
n152As is true with NEPA, administrative implementation of the Endangered Species Act has limited its effectiveness. Decisions by both the Minerals Management Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have narrowed the impact of the Act.The Minerals Management
Service constricted the reach of the Endangered Species Act by avoiding the consultation duty until the exploration and devel opment stages. Rather than waiting until consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Services was complete before proceeding with [*295] lease sales, the
Minerals Management Service allowed the sales to go forward while consultation was continuing. n153 The most obvious impact was to eliminate an obvious "reasonable and prudent alternative," n154 deleting especially sensitive areas fromthe lease area. In addition, although
cancelling a lease after a lease sale is possible, it does entitle the lease-holder to compensation. n155 The joint regulations of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service also blunted the impact of the consultation requirement for offshore drilling by narrowly
defining when an action might affect an endangered species. Essentially, the agency definition of "indirect effects" that would trigger the consultation requirement excluded low probability events even those with potentially catastrophic consequences. n156 Because the low probability
events do not require consultation, they allowed the Minerals Management Service to avoid having to comply with "reasonable and prudent alternatives" that can be imposed as a condition of a no-jeopardy opinion fromthe National Marine Fisheries Service. n157Statutory
amendments provide the safest solutions for both of these Endangered Species Act problems. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement could certainly delay leasing decisions until consultation is complete, and the National Marine Fisheries Service could
probably stop leases from being awarded until consultation under the Endangered Species Act is complete by amending its Endangered Species Act regulations. However, amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act would be more permanent than administrative action by
either agency. Similarly, amending the regulatory definition of indirect effects to include low probability events, even those with catastrophic consequences, would require the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulatory Enforcement to consult regarding dangers to listed
species that would result from blowouts or other oil production mishaps. Implementing the change by a statutory amendment would preclude a claimthat the regulatory definition goes beyond the statute.As with improved NEPA compliance, the most
likely impact of an improved Endangered Species Act process is to minimize environmental harm, not to stop
offshore drilling . Although the Endangered Species Act precludes federal actions that jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their
critical habitats, it also requires the National Marine Fisheries Service [*296] to identify "reasonable and prudent alternatives" that will avoid
those impacts. n158 If the agency taking the action implements the alternatives, the Service can even grant an exemption that allows
"incidental taking" of individual members of the species. n159
Binding environmental review is key to avoid widespread environmental destruction
from drilling
Lopez 10 Staff Attorney at Center for Biological Diversity (Jaclyn, BP's Well Evaded Environmental
Review: Categorical Exclusion Policy Remains Unchanged, 37 Ecology L. Currents 93, lexis, CMR)

The BP oil spill makes it clear that exploratory drilling activities have significant impacts that qualify as
extraordinary circumstances. The effects have been felt on public health and safety in the form of impacts from exposure to oil,
gases, and dispersants. n32 Significant impacts on natural resources and Endangered Species Act listed species have also been documented.
Imperiled species in the Gulf of Mexico include the sperm, sei, North Atlantic right, blue, fin, and
humpback whales; leatherback, green, Kemp's Ridley, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles; gulf
sturgeon, Atlantic bluefin tuna, and smalltooth sawfish; elkhorn and staghorn corals; West Indian
manatee; piping plover, whooping crane, woodstork and recently de-listed brown pelican; Alabama red-
belly turtle; and Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice. Additionally, federally
designated critical habitat upon which these species depend is found throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, oil drilling is unmistakably highly controversial with unique or unknown environmental risks. The MMS
acknowledges oil spills have the potential to directly kill significant numbers of coastal and marine birds,
interfere with almost every life function (including breeding and feeding), and destroy habitat for coastal, marine,
freshwater, and migratory birds. n33 While one obvious risk of drilling is the direct impact from spilt oil, there are numerous other
environmental impacts. Most evident from the BP spill is the untold impact from dispersants. Also, impacts from routine activities
such as servicing rigs and transporting oil and gas result in vessel strikes on whales. Seismic activities
associated with oil and gas exploration and production can also harm marine species. Sometimes random
accidents also result in spilled oil. In fact, the MMS acknowledges that blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response
activities could impact "small to large numbers of sea turtles" and result in "either acute or gradual
population declines." n34 It is apparent that deepwater, and other outer continental shelf oil drilling, can no longer be
approved via this rubber-stamp approval process .
Prior assessment key to avoid environmental damage
Lopez 10 Staff Attorney at Center for Biological Diversity (Jaclyn, BP's Well Evaded Environmental
Review: Categorical Exclusion Policy Remains Unchanged, 37 Ecology L. Currents 93, lexis, CMR)

CONCLUSION The continued use of the categorical exclusion policy in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing short of
reckless and would likely be found illegal in any federal court. Yet President Obama appears content to allow the legal battles to
play out in court, n48 perhaps so as to avoid having to take a position on the troublesome policy and take the
necessary steps to provide the maximum environmental protections for this fragile ecosystem. The
President is the Executive of all the agencies, including the Department of the Interior and MMS. He has the authority to instruct the MMS to
rescind this categorical exclusion policy, but instead the President has only committed in non-binding terms to review it. If the categorical
exclusion policy were eliminated, the MMS would have to conduct environmental review for exploration plans and DOCDs which would provide
the decisionmaker, the MMS, and the public information on the potential environmental impacts. The public should take advantage of this
comment period to tell to President Obama to stop sacrificing the Gulf and put an end to the categorical exclusion policy. We may never learn
what went wrong in the tragic BP oil spill. This sobering fact makes careful assessment of the potential significant
environmental impacts of drilling much more necessary. While we can plead ignorance as to the process that led to the BP
spill, we now know that approving drilling without adequate environmental oversight can have devastating
effects . Hopefully litigation will resolve favorably and the courts will do what the Obama administration has not. However, litigation can
take years. In the meantime, the public must not be fooled again. It must demand that the Obama administration immediately and
permanently abandon this irresponsible policy.

Oil benefits create an employment bubble that will inevitably burst
Gold, 12 (Russell, Columnist for the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2012, Oil and Gas Boom Lifts U.S.
Economy http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577195303471199234.html)

Though the energy boom looks like a road to prosperity, it may be a bumpy one. Drilling is disrupting communities
in ways that are still unfolding, creating concerns about the costs to local governments for things like
road damage. It is also raising fears about potential water contamination, air pollution and even
earthquakes from the effects of drilling thousands of new deep wells. Skeptics warn that individual shale communities could
experience an employment boom, followed by a painful bust. Rosy economic models "tell us nothing
about what will happen when drilling ends," warns a May 2011 paper published by Cornell University's City and Regional
Planning Department and funded in part by a foundation opposed to shale drilling.

***enviro DA
1nc
Oceans ecosystems are healthy
Carey 8/15/12 (Bjorn, Ocean health scores 60 out of 100, says international team that includes
Stanford researchers, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/august/ocean-fisheries-ecosystem-
081312.html, CMR)

A new Ocean Health Index developed with help from Stanford researchers evaluates several factors of ecosystem health.
An international team of scientists has conducted the first comprehensive assessment of the ocean and its ecosystems, called the Ocean Health
Index, to provide a snapshot of the current state of the world's oceans. Overall, the global average was 60 out of 100, with
countries ranging from 36 to 86. If thought of as a school report card, 60 out of 100 looks like a failing grade, but that's not quite how the
assessment should be read. "It's better to think of it like a stock portfolio," said Stanford's Larry Crowder, the science director at the Center for
Ocean Solutions and a member of the international working group that produced the report. "We evaluated 10 public goals for each country.
Some are doing really well for biodiversity, but not so well for food provision. Or some are doing really well for tourism, but poorly at protecting
iconic species," said Crowder, a professor of biology. "The Ocean Health Index is an aggregate of those scores. It's a device to help us think
about the ocean in a more integrated way." The study is scheduled for publication in the Aug. 15 edition of the journal Nature. The Center for
Ocean Solutions in Monterey, Calif., is a collaboration of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station,
the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. About those scores The scores don't necessarily represent
failure, but are a reflection of the current state of ocean health. For example, the United States scored slightly above average
(63), but rated relatively low on aquaculture and sustainable fishing. "The good news for fisheries in the United States is that
although the stocks are reasonably depleted, trends in recent legislation have us on a track of rebuilding those stocks,"
Crowder said. "We think that fisheries should be getting better, based on actions we've already taken."
Drilling kills oceans multiple reasons
Kolbe 11 (Matt, e-how contributor, Problems With Offshore Drilling, Jan 19,
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7147109_disadvantages-drilling-oil.html, CMR)

Offshore drilling is one of the primary ways of obtaining oil. Big oil rigs are set up in the ocean when oil is discovered in a certain
location. While oil clearly has many benefits, there are also strong disadvantages and risks associated with such
drilling. With all the disadvantages, you'll have to decide for yourself whether you think offshore drilling is worth it. Accidents Perhaps the
most unsettling of the disadvantages of offshore drilling is the high rate of environmentally- detrimental
accidents. For proof, you need only look back at the British Petroleum (BP) oil leak in the Gulf Coast in 2010. Such
accidents carry with them both heavy environmental and economic risks. Santa Clara University states that only five to
15 percent of the average oil spill is ever actually cleaned up, leaving the rest to afflict the delicate
marine environment and its animals. Also, oil spills greatly damage the economy of states dependent on offshore
fishing and coastal tourism. Building the Platforms Oil spills aren't the only environmental danger associated with offshore drilling. USA Today
claims heavy damage is caused simply by building and installing the rigs. Large canals are dug to lay
pipeline in delicate wetlands. For example, such construction in Louisiana has caused coastal decay and greatly disturbed the area's
natural ecosystem. USA Today also claims that successful oil rigs also attract ports, petrochemical plants and other
infrastructure that further deteriorates the environment and ecosystem of the area.
Extinction
Craig 8 Robin Kundis, Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund Professor of Law, Florida State University College
of Law, Tallahassee, Florida, CLIMATE CHANGE, REGULATORY FRAGMENTATION, AND WATER TRIAGE,
Summer, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 825, lexis

Marine ecosystems have immense value. Oceans cover more than 70% of our planet, 314 support vast
reserves of biodiversity (in all senses), 315 produce at least half of the Earth's atmospheric oxygen, 316 drive
the planet's hydrological cycle, 317 sequester carbon dioxide, 318 and play a significant role in the earth's
climate and weather. 319 As such, oceans and estuaries are critical providers of ecosystem services - those
"myriad of life support functions, the observable manifestations of ecosystem processes that ecosystems provide and without
which human civilizations could not thrive." 320 According to a comprehensive study that appeared in Nature in 1997,
"about 63% of the estimated value [of the world's ecosystem services] is contributed by marine ecosystems," especially coastal ecosystems.
321 Specifically, "coastal environments, including estuaries, [*892] coastal wetlands, beds of sea grass and algae, coral reefs, and continental
shelves ... cover only 6.3% of the world's surface, but are responsible for 43% of the estimated value of the world's ecosystem services." 322

2nc framing
Evaluate the link above everything else species loss shreds ecosystem resiliency ---
risks crossing an invisible threshold of collapse and human extinction
Diner 94 (Major David N., Judge Advocate General's Corps United States Army, The Army and The
Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161,
Lexis) cmr

D. The Value of Biological Diversity
1. Why Do We Care? -- No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of
life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a
single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. 67 In
past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species
replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now?
The prime reason is the world's survival . Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the
number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would
become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to
find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to
food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 68
2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are
prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services --
pollution control , 70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. 71
3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72 Without plants
and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and
animals. 73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it
is exterminating today.
To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if
not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations
could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on
it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 76
4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass
extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by
reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78
[*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These
ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully
it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better
than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one
by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

2nc uq
US oceans are barely sustaining health
Co.Exist 8/20/12 (The Oceans Health Score Is In: Barely Passing,
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680397/the-oceans-health-score-is-in-barely-passing, CMR)

60 out of 100 is a barely passing grade , but with enormous room for improvement. Those are the results of an ambitious
project trying to quantify the health of the global ocean environment, including human impact. The Ocean Health Index rated 10 different
parameters of healthy oceans for all 171 coastal countries around the globe, scoring them on everything from the oceans ability to provide
food resources to tourism and biodiversity. The research was published Wednesday in the journal Nature. " Jarvis Island, a tiny uninhabited
Pacific isle, nabbed the top spot with a score of 86." Some surprises popped up in the final scores, which can be read like a stock portfolio.
Jarvis Island, a tiny uninhabited Pacific isle, nabbed the top spot with a score of 86, while war-torn Sierra Leone got a 36. West African
countries, overall, scored the lowest of any coastal region in the world. The study authors point out that these countries also rank low on the
Human Development Index, suggesting a relationship between good governance, strong economies, and a healthy coastline. The United
States received a score of 63, just above the global average of 60. While this is a good sign overall, the country rated
relatively low on aquaculture and sustainable fishing. In a country as big as the U.S., the scores reflect regional differences.
Some coastal regions--like the West Coast--are better protected than others, like the Gulf coast. Germany, on the other hand, scored a strong
73. Thats because Germanys marine region is well protected and provides high value to its people, said the study authors (it also has a
relatively tiny coastline compared to the U.S.). Overall, the report brought awareness to some areas that need
improvement . For example, global marine fisheries ranked 25 out of 100, revealing that marine fisheries around the world are very
unhealthy. It also revealed that the difference between the potential and actual net economic benefits from marine fisheries (due to the fact
that were destroying them by removing all the fish) is in the order of $50 billion per year--equivalent to more than half the value of the global
seafood trade. This is a significant lost economic opportunity for many countries.

oceans
Continued drilling risks environmental catastrophe and complete collapse
Favorite 8/28/12 (Danielle, Promote clean energy alternatives to offshore drilling (Letter),
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2012/08/offshore_drilling_mcmullin_1.html,
CMR)

While the state government is considering drilling the Great Lakes (True Conservatives Would Not Risk Drilling for Oil in the Great Lakes, June
27), the federal government is considering drilling off the East Coast in states such as Virginia. Offshore drilling is an
environmental nightmare . There are small oil spills almost every day caused by offshore drilling. In fact,
each year around 880,000 gallons of oil is spilled into our oceans by oil companies in the United States. Plus, there
is always the risk of a big, catastrophic spill that devastates our oceanic ecosystem putting marine
life in danger . Offshore drilling can pollute by adding drilling fluid, toxic metals such as lead chromium and
mercury, and carcinogens such as benzene into our oceans. As an environmental studies alumnus of Western Michigan University, I
believe oil exploration off our coasts also causes problems. Marine mammals can suffer from hearing loss and
physical injuries from seismic surveys, which involves setting off explosive shocks at the surface of the water.
Seismic waves for rig placement damages marine life
Bioeconomic Fuel 12 (Offshore drilling rigs: adding pollution to our oceans; updated article,
March 14, http://www.bionomicfuel.com/offshore-drilling-rigs-adding-pollution-to-our-oceans-upd/,
CMR)

Pollution from offshore drilling starts right at the beginning of the process. Determining and testing
where to place offshore drilling rigs is in itself very damaging to marine life. Oil exploration entails the
use of seismic waves in order to identify if there are fossil fuel reserves under the areas ocean floor.
These waves penetrate the floor, but they damage all the life around it. There have been numerous
cases when oil exploration efforts had to be stopped, because large numbers of whales in the area
became disoriented and started swimming out to the beaches. The effects of the seismic waves are also
harmful for fish, crabs, and many other marine animals.
Drilling discharge and waste
CMR)

The drilling itself has discharges, which pollutes the area and can be just as environmentally damaging as
an oil spill. The drilling process involves using a special fluid to lubricate the drill bit, so that it can easier
get through the hard rock layer. When this fluid starts blending with mud, rock, and natural radioactive
materials, it forms a toxic soup. This can spread for at least a kilometre radius around the rigs. Waste is
another problem with oil drilling being polluting. For every drilled well about 8,000 square feet around it
can be covered by drilling waste as much as a meter thick, which can stick around for at least 2 years. If there
was a strong wind or a hurricane scattering the toxic mud, the waste could last for up to 40 years. All this evidence is sufficient
to demonstrate that building more oil rigs would be nothing but disastrous.
OCS drilling destroy marine ecosystems
Defenders of Wildlife, No Date (Outer Continental Shelf Drilling, *retrieved August 27, 2012+,
https://www.defenders.org/publications/impacts_of_outer_continental_shelf_drilling.pdf, CMR)

There are over 5600 offshore oil and gas platforms in the United States and over 27,000 miles of pipelines in the areas of the Gulf of
Mexico already open to drilling. These major industrial facilities have tremendous impacts on the ocean floor, water
and air quality, and fragile marine ecosystems. Ocean Floor. Drilling infrastructure permanently alters
ocean floor habitats. Drill rig footprints, undersea pipelines, dredging ship channels, and dumped drill
cuttings-- the rock material dug out of the oil or gas well-- are often contaminated with drilling fluid used to lubricate
and regulate the pressure in drilling operations. The fluid contains petroleum products and heavy metals. Strewn on the
ocean floor, contaminated sediments can be carried by currents over a mile from the rig, sharply reducing populations of small
bottomdwelling creatures that are important to the rest of the food chain and biomagnifying toxic contaminants in fish we eat.
OCS drilling kills marine mammals

Marine Mammals. Seismic surveys conducted during oil and gas exploration cause temporary or permanent
hearing loss, induce behavioral changes, and even physically injure marine mammals such as whales, seals
and dolphins. Construction noise from new facilities and pipelines is also likely to interfere with foraging and communication behaviors of
birds and mammals. Risk of collisions with vessels and exposure to pollutants will also increase. Exposure to petroleum causes
tissue damage in the eyes, mouth, skin and lungs of marine mammals. Because they are at the top of the food chain, many marine
mammals will be exposed to the dangers of bioaccumulation of organic pollutants and metals. Expansion
of offshore drilling activities would further threaten imperiled species like the manatee.
Offshore drilling causes widespread environmental damage
CMR)

After the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, oil drilling pollution is a hot topic. The pollution caused by offshore drilling is on
the conscience of more and more people. First of all, this is because all marine life in the area is affected by
the oil drilling process, which causes various pollutants to be released in the water. Oil spills are also a
source of serious damage, which harm not only marine life, but land plants and animals as well. Offshore
drilling rigs also interfere with fishing activities all around. However, it is not just offshore drilling that
causes pollution, because once the oil is recovered, it needs to be stored, transported, refined, etc. This
leads to further risks of accidents and severe damage to the environment .

oceans turns econ
Increased drilling crushes ocean-related industries
Beinecke 10 (Frances, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, More Drilling, More
Risk, http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/whats-behind-obamas-drilling-plan/, CMR)

President Obamas decision to open vast areas of our oceans to offshore drilling is a move in the wrong direction. To make
our country stronger, safer and more secure, we need to look toward solutions that provide more rewards than risks. A more sensible policy
would promote efficiency and get more oil out of the existing wells on land. I began my career trying to manage development along coastal
areas, and when the 1970s oil crisis hit, I fought reckless offshore oil drilling in the North Atlantic. I know from experience that expanding
offshore drilling will take us backward, not forward. Not only does it pose environmental risks, it just isnt necessary. A
more sensible policy would be to promote efficiency as President Obama did in another part of his announcement today and to get more
oil out of existing wells on land, as we could do with a climate and clean energy bill. Heres how we utilize our oceans today: In the U.S. alone,
commercial fishing generates more than $103 billion in sales. Ocean-related tourism and recreation are
responsible for more than 2 million jobs. In 2000, the U.S. ocean economy created two and a half times
the economic output of the farm sector. This economic vitality depends upon clean, healthy seas.
Despite technological advances, drilling off our coasts still poses grave risks, including accidental and
hurricane-related oil spills. The Exxon Valdez spill stretched over 600 miles of Alaskan coastline a stretch
that would cover the eastern coastline from South Carolina to the tip of Florida. Thats a lot of beaches and fishing
communities devastated. While the announcement did contain some positive steps, including the closure of Bristol Bay to drilling
and the commitment to more scientific research for the fragile Arctic region, opening vast areas to drilling also intensifies the larger problem of
climate change. We shouldnt be spending time and money on dirty, 19th century fuels when clean energy technologies can power our
economy and reduce greenhouse gases. The new clean car standards President Obama mentioned today are the kind of solution we need.
Passing a clean energy and climate bill will unleash more solutions like these. As he pointed out, these new standards will not only save drivers
money, but will also save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. That is the equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for a year. If we want to boost our
domestic oil supply, we should focus on enhanced oil recovery from existing fields, a process that can supply more than 10 times the amount of
oil that could be produced by drilling in our oceans over the same period. But sinking more drill pads into our oceans is not
the answer. Not when better running cars and more efficient use of existing oil fields can help us make
the transition into the 21st century without harming marine life or marine jobs.
Key to the economy
Dept of Labor 7 [U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2007, http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs001.htm]
The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry sector plays a vital role in our economy and our lives. It
supplies us and many other countries with a wide variety of food products and non-food
products such as fibers, lumber, and nursery items. It contributes positively to our foreign trade balance
and it remains one of the Nations larger industries in terms of total employment. However,
technology continues to enable us to produce more of these products with fewer workers, resulting in fewer farms and farmworkers.

oil spills
Oil spills even small ones can be catastrophic
CMR)

Oil spills is another big problem causing pollution from offshore drilling. Every year there are 200-500 oil
spills around the world, the vast majority if which never make the news. Oil spills severely contaminate
both the sea and the land around it. The ecosystem around the oil spill may be permanently destroyed
and it will never recover. Only about 5-15 percent of any oil spill can be successfully cleaned up.
Furthermore, about 97 percent of oil spills are less than 1,000 barrels, which means it is not legally
required from them to be reported, as their size is considered small. However, even small spills may
have catastrophic effects, and this fact alone should not allow any more building of drilling rigs.
Plan makes more spills inevitable destroys ecosystems

Spills, Leaks and Catastrophes. Even with safety protocols in place, leaks and spills are inevitable each year
U.S. drilling operations send an average of 880,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. Then there are the
unanticipated catastrophes. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 of the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and
damaged 457 pipelines. Hurricane damage caused at least 124 different spills, totaling over 17,700 barrels (743,000 gallons) of petroleum
products. Oil is toxic to the plants and microscopic animals that form the basis of the marine food chain. It
also poisons birds, mammals and fish. Those not killed outright can suffer a slow death from debilitating illness and injury.

oil spills turns econ
Oil spills kill the economy
Defenders of Wildlife, No Date (Outer Continental Shelf Drilling, *retrieved August 27, 2012],

Coastal Economies. Even a medium sized spill can be a major economic disaster in coastal areas dependent on
tourism or fishing as a major economic driver. Hundreds of thousands of existing jobs and billions of dollars of
economic activity depend on clean coasts and healthy coastal waters. Routine air and water pollution
from offshore rigs, coupled with industrialization in sensitive areas, can quickly undermine local economies.

air pollution
OCS drilling increases air pollution

Air Pollution. A 2004 inventory of air pollution in the Gulf of Mexico found that OCS oil and gas activities account for the
overwhelming majority of air pollutants: 89% of carbon monoxide, 77% of NOx emissions, 72% of
volatile organic compounds emissions, 69% of particulate matter emissions, and 66% of sulfur dioxide.
Extinction
Driesen 3 (David Driesen, Associate Professor at Syracuse University Law, 10 Buffalo Environmental
Law Journal, Fall/Spring, Lexis)

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming
the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant to air pollution. These
principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for
realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." While the Rio
Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the
natural environment. 4 Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates
both of these concerns. 5

invasive species
OCS drilling leads to invasive species

Invasive Species. Ships, drilling equipment and even rigs are used and relocated all around the world.
Animals that colonize a rig surface in one area essentially get a free ride to a new habitat, where they
can easily become invasive. The brown mussel (a marine species with impacts similar to zebra mussels), several species of jellyfish,
barnacles and other nuisance organisms can be spread by drilling equipment.
Extinction
Suzuki 7 *David, Environmental Activist, Invasive Species,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Biodiversity/Invasive_Species.asp]

Biologists believe that invasive species are a major cause of global species extinction. When invasive
species thrive in a new ecosystem, they often outcompete native species by occupying habitats and
competing for food. Some invasive species are brought intentionally as ornamental plants and pets. For
example, English Ivy, still used extensively in gardens, now thrives in many forests across North America.
It crowds out native ground-cover and can damage trees either by sheer weight, or by harbouring
bacteria.

birds
OCS drilling kills birds
Defenders of Wildlife, No Date (Outer Continental Shelf Drilling, *retrieved August 27, 2012],

Birds. Spills pose direct mortality dangers through oiling and poisoning by ingestion as animals try to
clean themselves and as toxins build up in fish-eating birds. In addition, over 200,000 birds die annually in collisions
with oil and gas platforms. Construction of new pipelines will damage sensitive coastal habitats and marshes.

Birds are keystone and key to ecosystems
Endangered Species International, No Date (Birds, retrieved June 28, 2012,
http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/birds4.html, CMR)

Ecological roles of birds Birds occupy many levels of trophic webs, from mid-level consumers to top predators. As with other native organisms,
birds help maintain sustainable population levels of their prey and predator species and, after death, provide
food for scavengers and decomposers. Many birds are important in plant reproduction through their services as pollinators or
seed dispersers. Birds also provide critical resources for their many host-specific parasites, including lice that eat only
feathers, flies adapted for living on birds, and mites that hitchhike on birds from plant to plant and even between countries. Some birds
are considered keystone species as their presence in (or disappearance from) an ecosystem affects other
species indirectly. For example, woodpeckers create cavities that are then used by many other species. After the extinction of the dodo, it
was discovered that a tree whose fruits had been a primary food item of the dodo was unable to reproduce without its seeds passing through
the dodos digestive tracts, which process scarified the seed coat and enabled germination. Birds and humans Birds have been
integral to humans since prehistory. To birds detriment, they and their eggs have been an important human food source since
humans evolved, and we have hunted many species to extinction. Feathers, usually obtained by killing their original owners, have been used as
adornment in hats, headdresses, and capes. Birds are popular as pets throughout the world, and the pet trade has driven many species to the
edge of extinction.

fishing industry
Drilling kills the fishing industry collapses global food supply
Opposing Views 10 (Offshore Drilling Threatens Our Fish Stocks and Ocean Resources, April 22,
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/offshore-drilling-threatens-our-fish-stocks-and-ocean-
resources, CMR)

Offshore drilling endangers wildlife in some of our nations most productive fishing areas. With food
prices at an all time high, we can not afford to jeopardize these vital and finite resources. Offshore oil
and gas operations require serious infrastructure that can damage beaches, wetlands, and other areas
that coastal communities rely on for tourism, recreation and fishing. Since we know drilling cant produce enough
oil to make a real difference in meeting America s demand, why risk endanger ing the fishing industry and our fish stocks?
According to the federal government, offshore drilling operations result in thousands of gallons of oil being
spilled. As storms and hurricanes intensify, the number of spills is also likely to increase. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone resulted in 125
oil spills of petroleum products, totaling 685,000 gallons. Oil is toxic for most fish and marine species. For places like Louisiana
and other states with robust fishing economies, a spill impacts not only the things living in the water, but the people
relying on the coasts to make their living. From a practical standpoint, the opportunity costs of offshore drilling
are too great when we consider the impacts on our fishing industry. Endangering our food supply is not
worth the 2 or 3 cents in savings offshore drilling would generate ten to twenty years from now. So instead
of putting our coasts and our precious food supply in harms way, lets instead invest in safe, renewable technology that will create jobs and
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Extinction
Cribb 10 (Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv0zXxbQ7toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coming+famine&hl=e
n&sa=X&ei=RR_mT7OYFKeq2gXP5tHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20coming%20fami
ne&f=false, CMR)

The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more wars have been triggered by
disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not surprise US: people
have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the
rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the playersthe warring national, ethnic, or religious factionsrather
than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate
people fearful that there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their childrenand believing that they
must fight the others to secure them. At the same time, the number of refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from
conflicts and famines precipitated by food and resource shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The coming
famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in
heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty yearsand also the impacts of war, government failure,
refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings , no matter who they are or where they live. It is
an emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great hardship , and not only in the poorer regions. Mike
Murphy, one of the worlds most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America, succinctly
summed it all up: Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is
starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 1030 year view, I believe that food shortages, famine and huge social
unrest are probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. I believe future food shortages are
a far bigger world threat than global warming .2 The coming famine is also complex, because it is driven not by one or two,
or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the confluence of many large and profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another.
This means that it cannot easily be remedied by silver bullets in the form of technology, subsidies, or single-country policy changes, because
of the synergetic character of the things that power it.

sea turtles
OCS drilling kills sea turtles

Sea Turtles. Dredging of nesting beaches, collisions, and noise disruptions are all potential threats to sea turtles.
Hatchlings are also particularly susceptible to oiling because they spend much of their time near the
water surface, where spilled oil or tar accumulates.
Theyre keystone and key to oceans
Meyer 9 (Kristen, UF celebrates 50 years of sea turtle research, conservation, Nov 29,
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091129/ARTICLES/911291011?p=2&tc=pg, CMR)

Sea turtles have been roaming the world's oceans for more than 100 million years. They have survived natural predators, climatic changes
and dinosaur extinction, and now they are being threatened by human invasion. "You can only speculate why sea turtles are
still here," said Mariela Pajuelo, a graduate student at the University of Florida pursuing a master's degree in traffic ecology of oceanic juvenile
loggerheads. It might be the shell that protects their body, and that they have few natural predators in the ocean besides sharks, whales and
now humans, Pajuelo said. Today, all sea turtles are listed as endangered except for the loggerhead, which is listed as threatened. Although
Gainesville is not located on the ocean, there are still opportunities to help protect these sea turtles. Anyone can get involved with sea turtle
conservation. "You can still have a huge impact, even though you are not near the water," said Natalie Williams, a graduate student studying
wildlife ecology and conservation with a specialization in green turtles. The Caribbean Conservation Corp., the Archie Carr Center for Sea
Turtle Research at the University of Florida and UF graduate students are all working to conserve and protect the threatened or endangered sea
turtles. The CCC is the oldest and most accomplished sea turtle organization in the world. It is a not-for-profit membership organization based
in Gainesville, which has raised awareness about sea turtle protection around the globe for 50 years, thanks in large part to the efforts of the
late Archie Carr, a longtime resident of Gainesville. "By choosing to help protect sea turtles, you are helping save an
entire ecosystem, not just one species," said Rocio Johnson, marketing and communications coordinator for the CCC. "Sea
turtles are a keystone species. They inhabit a lot of ecosystems and help us determine the health of the
oceans." The CCC was founded in 1959 by Joshua B. Powers in response to Archie Carr's award-winning book, "The Windward Road," which
first informed the world of the plight of the sea turtle, according to the CCC Web site. "The No. 1 thing you can do is to join our organization or
any other sea turtle organization," Johnson said. Humans are affecting the places where sea turtles have nested for thousands of years, due to
high demand for beachfront properties and other coastal developments. Sea turtle populations are also decreasing due to accidental captures
in fisheries and entanglement in plastic debris in the ocean. "The damage we've caused is huge," said Melania Lopez, a doctorate
student pursuing a degree in understanding the lost year stage of green turtles. "We'll never reach the natural population that they had." The
ACCSTR was founded in 1986 by the Board of Regents, then the governing body of Florida's state universities, in recognition of the late Carr and
his achievements and pioneering research. Carr was granted the first doctorate in zoology from UF in 1937. His great efforts in the field of
biology set a high standard of quality in the field of natural history. One of his last papers was about ecology and conservation in general. "It's
not only about sea turtles. We're losing a species that's survived so many extinction events. It goes against our ethics not to save them," Pajuelo
said. "Every animal has its place in the world. Everything has to be balanced."

MPX Biod
Biodiversity collapse causes extinction
Diner 94 *David, Major in US Army, Winter, THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S
ENDANGERING WHOM? Lexis+

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more
successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such
a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere
breaks down as a whole ."
79
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many
ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster .
Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings,
80
mankind may be edging closer
to the abyss.
MPX Oceans
Ocean collapse causes extinction
Craig 3 [Robin Kundis, Associate Profess of Law at Indiana, Winter, Taking Steps Toward Marine
Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii, 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155, Lexis]

The worlds oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. Occupying more than seventy percent of
the Earths surface and ninety-five percent of the biosphere, oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and
pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both
aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanitys well-
being: The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary
biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. Ocean and coastal
ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many people assign heritage
and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the worlds seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future
generations. (It continues) More generally, ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all
the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as
well as other less abundant but necessary elements. In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine
ecosystems impairs the planets ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of
marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystems ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues) We may not know much about the sea,
but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black
Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish
and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 More importantly, the
Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

AT: Resilience
Nope
Patrick 8/20/12 Senior Fellow and Director, Program on International Institutions and Global
Governance (Stewart M, Sea Change: A New Tool for Measuring Ocean Health,
http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/08/20/sea-change-a-new-tool-for-measuring-ocean-health/, CMR)

I spent late July alongside the Bay of Fundy, marveling at the worlds most spectacular tides. But the
power of the sea can be misleading. The worlds oceans may look omnipotent, but they are all too
vulnerable to the short-sighted actions of mankind. As I wrote last summer from Norways Lofoten
Islands, the oceans are in deep crisis , thanks to rampant overfishing, calamitous pollution, and
unprecedented acifidication induced by climate change.

Ocs Neg - MGW - 2014

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ocs Neg - MGW - 2014

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

***case defense

Anda mungkin juga menyukai