Greenland DA

Strat Sheet
Put more/better links in
1NC
 DA (2:31)
Removing standardized testing makes Trump lash out—he wants the United
States to be higher on the list of best national education programs.
Jackson 16 Before joining Business Insider, Abby was at JPMorgan where she worked in the
chief investment office and treasury. Previously, she worked in education policy in Washington,
DC, dealing with standards-based reform and the Common Core.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-slams-common-core-and-us-public-education-2016-1

Trump also took a swipe at what he described as America's failing

In the video,

education system, saying the US was rated "28 in the world" in terms of
education and that it lags behind what he called "third-world countries." That
proclamation is nearly identical to comments he made in June when he
officially entered the 2016 presidential race and took a swing at public education. "Twenty-five countries are better than us
at education," he said in June. "And some of them are like third-world countries."

Banning standardized testing triggers the link—removing standardized testing

disqualifies the United States from rigorous consideration making us drop more
in the rankings.

Trumps unpredictability means he lashes out and makes incomprehensible

decisions
Fuchs 17 Michael H. Fuchs is a senior fellow at American Progress, where his work focuses on
U.S. foreign policy priorities and U.S. policy toward the Asia-Pacific region. From 2013 to 2016,
Fuchs served as deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, directing
U.S. policy on the South China Sea, regional security issues, and the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations, and managing the bureau’s foreign assistance budget of almost $800 million.
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/trumps-doctrine-of-unpredictability/ Valdosta AK

one theme is consistent in Mr. Trump’s actions and words: his desire
Whatever the approach,

to make U.S. foreign policy appear as unpredictable as possible. As Trump so

succinctly summarized it himself during a foreign policy speech in April 2016: “We have to be
unpredictable.” Call it a “doctrine of unpredictability,” if you like. Donald Trump believes that the United States
should pursue the foreign policy of a gambler, shedding the more “predictable”
aspects of U.S. foreign policy that have, until now, helped keep the world
somewhat stable. As gambler-in-chief, Trump’s perceived unpredictability will
supposedly give him leverage to negotiate anything with anyone at any time. The
idea might not seem so ridiculous at first blush—after all, a good poker face is an important part of success when staring down opponents. But foreign policy isn’t a poker room

The only thing that a doctrine of unpredictability is really sure to do is

at a Trump casino.

gamble[s] with U.S. national security—shattering U.S. alliances, destabilizing

relationships with adversaries, and suppressing public debate in the United
States. For decades, American leadership has rested on a complex web of alliances and partnerships that create stability through predictability around the world. Peace
and prosperity in international affairs rely on agreements between nations—whether security alliances, trade agreements, or otherwise—and the ability of nations to trust that
partners will follow through on those commitments. For example, knowing that members of the World Trade Organization can be penalized economically for breaking trade
rules helps keep the international economic playing field from devolving into a series of trade wars. Knowing that countries will respond fiercely to violations of sovereign
borders—such as Iraq invading Kuwait or Russia invading Ukraine—helps keep the peace. While these rules are not always enforced, they provide a strong deterrent to potential

Crafting a foreign policy of unpredictability, Mr. Trump believes, would

bad actors.

give the United States the upper hand in its dealings around the world. Mr.
Trump sees international agreements and alliances as stifling to American
action, rather than as force multipliers for American leadership. He acts as
though the United States can get what it wants on its own terms, by itself, no
matter what the issue. This strategy is premised on the notion that friends and enemies alike should not know what the United States would do in
any given situation. As Trump once put it: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”

Unpredictable agenda setting means you vote negative if I am winning any risk
that the disadvantage is true.

Trump buys Greenland—Greenland has been used as a bargaining chip in the

past allowing Trump to leverage U.S. militia.
Leblanc 19 Paul J. LeBlanc is the fifth and current president of Southern New Hampshire
University. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/18/politics/us-buy-greenland-danish-prime-
minister/index.html Valdosta AK

The Danish Prime Minister called Donald Trump's interest in buying Greenland
"absurd" the same day the President confirmed he had discussed the possibility of the US
purchasing the country -- albeit, Trump said, it wasn't a high priority for America. "Greenland is
not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland," Danish Prime Minister
Mette Frederiksen on Sunday told newspaper Sermitsiaq. "I strongly hope that this is not meant
seriously." Greenland has long been a bargaining chip between the US and
Denmark Trump has on multiple occasions brought up buying Greenland -- an
autonomous Danish territory -- from the Danish government and the White
House counsel's office has looked into the possibility, two sources told CNN last
week. On Sunday, Trump confirmed his interest in buying the country, telling reporters that
Greenland is hurting Denmark. "We are good allies with Denmark, we protect
Denmark like we protect large portions of the world, and the concept came
up," the President said in New Jersey before heading to Washington.
"Strategically it's interesting, and we would be interested, but we will talk with
them a little bit."
The impact is excessive resource extraction—Trump wants Greenland for the
resources to challenge China in the resource extraction game.
Inman 19 Phillip Inman is economics editor of the Observer and an economics writer for the
Guardian. He is the author of Managing Your Debt, a Which? essential guide; and the Guardian
e-book The Financial Crisis: How Did We Get Here? https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2019/aug/19/why-does-donald-trump-want-to-buy-greenland Valdosta AK

Greenland, and more specifically its purchase by the US, is being actively
discussed in Donald Trump’s Oval Office. But what exactly is it that makes one of the world’s most desolate places such an
attractive proposition? For the president, it is the real estate deal of a lifetime, one that would secure

a land mass a quarter the size of the US and cement his place in US history alongside President Andrew Johnson, who bought
Alaska from Russia in 1867, and Thomas Jefferson, who secured Louisiana from the French in 1803. To Trump’s advisers, the planned

multibillion-dollar takeover challenges China’s dominance of the world’s

industrial metals and helps to block Russia’s renewed military ambitions. Not that
Washington has put a value on Greenland ahead of Trump’s meeting next month with Kim Kielsen, the province’s leader, and the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen.
These are early days in the discussion, Trump said. Greenland is an autonomous region that effectively runs itself while Denmark, its sovereign owner, takes care of defence and
foreign policy. The three leaders were due to discuss Copenhagen’s Nato contributions, which Washington has long believed could be higher, and could be more in kind – such
as extra airbases – than in cash, given Greenland’s strategic position between the US and Russia. But Trump’s advisers have spent much of their time in the West Wing
downgrading concerns about Vladimir Putin and his military ambitions in favour of plotting how to win an economic war with China. This is why an age-old conversation with

Greenland harbors some of

Denmark about leases for parcels of Greenland has developed into one about buying the whole place outright.

the largest deposits of rare-earth metals, including neodymium, praseodymium,

dysprosium and terbium, along with uranium and the byproducts of zinc. US
corporations once thought of China as a benign supplier of rare-earth metals for
mobile phones, computers and more recently electric cars. And the US
government was relaxed when Chinese companies began hoovering up mines
across central and southern Africa to secure an even greater dominance of the
global market.

An analysis of the literature proves: resource extraction leads to biodiversity

loss
Sonter et al 18 1Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of
Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia 2School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The
University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia 4Gund Institute for Environment,
University of Vermont, VT 05405, USA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283941/

Mining affects biodiversity at multiple spatial scales (site, landscape, regional and global) through direct (i.e.
mineral extraction) and indirect processes (via industries supporting mining operations, and external stakeholders who gain access to biodiversity-rich areas as the result of

most research has examined impacts at the site-level, emerging directly

mining). To date,

owing to habitat loss and degradation (figure 1). This focus is unsurprising, given that site preparation for
mine expansion and waste management is a destructive process, changing
abiotic and biotic conditions [22–24], and in some cases singlehandedly causing
region-wide declines in rare and threatened species and ecosystems [25,26]. Impacts
on biodiversity also occur across landscapes and regions (figure 1). Research at this
scale has focused on the direct impacts of chemical and physical (i.e. dusts and
aerosols) mining waste discharge; chemical emissions include mercury or
cyanide used to extract gold [27] and acids are released from oxidized minerals
when some ores are exposure to the air [28]. Negative impacts to biodiversity occur over great distances (e.g. sediment export
from Madre de Dios in Peru degrades ecosystems along connecting rivers in Brazil [22]) and leave only tolerant species behind [29]. Landscape and region-wide impacts on
biodiversity also emerge through indirect/secondary and cumulative pathways [30]. Indirect impacts occur when mining facilitates additional biodiversity loss. For example,
mining associated infrastructure development can attract human populations causing new threats [18] or exacerbate pre-existing threats, such as over-exploitation (e.g.
hunting, fishing), invasive species and habitat loss for other land uses [31–34]. Cumulative impacts occur when multiple mines cause more biodiversity loss than the sum of
individual mines. These processes and consequences for biodiversity have received little attention in the literature (figure 1). Impacts of mining are more difficult to assess at the
global scale. Mining directly emits carbon, as does associated mineral processing activities, negatively affecting biodiversity via anthropogenic climate change [34,35].

Mineral supply chains can have extensive, yet often hidden impacts on
biodiversity [36]. Although not at the global scale, steel making in Brazil causes extensive habitat loss in the sourcing of non-mineral resources [37]. Other research
suggests that supply chains and global trade can have extensive ecological footprints [38]; however, consequences for biodiversity remain largely unknown. Implementing

Mined materials
effective conservation strategies to mitigate the impacts of mining on biodiversity requires understanding the distribution of threats.

(e.g. metals, construction materials, fossil fuels) are unevenly spread across
Earth's terrestrial biomes and extraction poses unique threats to their
biodiversity (figure 2). For example, copper deposits tend to occur in deserts and xeric shrublands, nickel deposits are frequently mined in tropical and subtropical
grasslands and savannahs, and lead deposits occur in boreal forests (figure 2). However, co-occurrence of mined materials and biodiversity does not always translate into a
threat; many other factors are likely at play. Different mining methods pose different threats to biodiversity. Extracting subsurface alluvial gold deposits affects riparian
ecosystems [22] and downstream ecosystems dependent on regional hydrology; whereas high-value thermal coal is often associated with prime agricultural land (high-quality

Different materials are also extracted

soils, flat accessible terrains; [41]) and thus already highly threatened ecosystems.

using different techniques with varying consequences for biodiversity.

They continue
Future changes in mineral supply and demand will probably shift threats towards
biodiverse regions and thus magnify conservation requirements. This is partly
owing to depletion of higher-grade ores in accessible areas as well as competing
economic land uses in non-conservation areas. However, the direction and magnitude of these shifts are highly
uncertain. An increase in mineral demand is being driven by population and economic

growth trajectories of rapidly industrializing countries where infrastructure

investment and manufacturing are key drivers of growth. Nakajima et al. [91] mapped global flows of
mineral demand for three metals (iron, copper and nickel) and almost half of the consumption of these metals over the past two decades has occurred in China, the United
States and Japan. China has embarked on a very deliberate strategy driven by state-owned enterprises for minerals security through strategic investments and development
bargains in Africa and South America. The United States has relied largely on private-sector investment to source the mineral needs of its industries and military and Japan has
followed a model of minority holding investments in major mineral deposits worldwide, also facilitated by organizations such as the Japan Oil Gas and Metals Corporation.

Biodiversity loss risks extinction - ecosystems aren't resilient

Vule 13-School of Biological Sciences, Louisiana Tech University (Jeffrey V. Yule *, Robert J.
Fournier and Patrick L. Hindmarsh, "Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanity's Future: The
Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource Use", 2 April
2013, manities 2013, 2, 147–159) Valdosta AK
Ecologists recognize that the particulars of the relationship between
biodiversity and community resilience in the face of disturbance (a broad range of phenomena
including anything from drought, fire, and volcanic eruption to species introductions or removals) depend on context [16,17]. Sometimes disturbed communities return

relatively readily to pre-disturbance conditions; sometimes they do not. However, [are] accepting as a general truism that
biodiversity is an ecological stabilizer is sensible— roughly equivalent to viewing seatbelt use as a good idea: although
seatbelts increase the risk of injury in a small minority of car accidents, their use overwhelmingly reduces risk. As humans continue to

modify natural environments, we may be reduc[e] ing their ability to return to

pre-disturbance conditions. The concern is not merely academic. Communities provide the
ecosystem services on which both human and nonhuman life depends,
including the cycling of carbon dioxide and oxygen by photosynthetic
organisms, nitrogen fixation and the filtration of water by microbes, and
pollination by insects. If disturbances alter communities to the extent that they
can no longer provide these crucial services, extinctions (including, possibly, our own) become
more likely. In ecology as in science in general, absolutes are rare. Science deals mainly in probabilities, in large part because it attempts to address the universe’s
abundant uncertainties. Species-rich, diverse communities characterized by large numbers of multi-species interactions are not immune to being pushed from one relatively
stable state characterized by particular species and interactions to other, quite different states in which formerly abundant species are entirely or nearly entirely absent.

there are no guarantees

Nonetheless, in speciose communities, the removal of any single species is less likely to result in radical change. That said,

that the removal of even a single species from a biodiverse community will not
have significant, completely unforeseen consequences. Indirect interactions can
be unexpectedly important to community structure and, historically, have been
difficult to observe until some form of disturbance (especially the introduction or elimination of a species) occurs.
Experiments have revealed how the presence of predators can increase the diversity of prey species in communities, as when predators of a superior competitor among prey
species will allow inferior competixng prey species to persist [18]. Predators can have even more dramatic effects on communities. The presence or absence of sea otters
determines whether inshore areas are characterized by diverse kelp forest communities or an alternative stable state of species poor urchin barrens [19]. In the latter case, the
absence of otters leaves urchin populations unchecked to overgraze kelp forests, eliminating a habitat feature that supports a wide range of species across a variety of age
classes. Aldo Leopold observed that when trying to determine how a device works by tinkering with it, the first rule of doing the job intelligently is to save all the parts [20]. The
extinctions that humans have caused certainly represent a significant problem, but there is an additional difficulty with human investigations of and impacts on ecological and
evolutionary processes. Often, our tinkering is unintentional and, as a result, recklessly ignores the necessity of caution. Following the logic inherited from Newtonian physics,
humans expect single actions to have single effects. Desiring more game species, for instance, humans typically hunt predators (in North America, for instance, extirpating

Wolf removal has led

wolves so as to be able to have more deer or elk for themselves). Yet removing or adding predators has far reaching effects.

to prey overpopulation, plant over browsing, and erosion [21]. After wolves
were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the K of elk increased. This
allowed for a shift in elk feeding patterns that left fewer trees alongside rivers,
thus leaving less food for beaver and, consequently, fewer beaver dams and
less wetland [22,23]. Such a situation represents, in microcosm, the inherent
risk of allowing for the erosion of species diversity.
Frontlines
2NR
 A2 Backlash
No political backlash—the Government Shutdown proves that Trump doesn’t
have to worry about re-election
Green 19 Richard Arlin Green, known as Rick Green, is an attorney and politician from Dripping
Springs in Hays County, Texas, who is a Republican former member of the Texas House of
Representatives. https://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-pol-capitol-watch-trump-
20190115-g43uksjnfjcjjljzi5vm34etuy-story.html Valdosta AK

President Donald Trump’s core support remains strong, despite the government
shutdown, according to a new Quinnipiac Poll. Trump’s negative rating remained at 55 percent,
virtually the same as before the recent controversy over the partial government
shutdown and construction of a wall along the Mexican border. The nationwide poll was conducted
between Jan. 9 and 13, surveying 1,209 voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. Among Republicans, Trumps

approval rating is 86 percent. White males approve of the job the president is
doing by a 55 to 41 percent margin. “Despite very bad grades on honesty, empathy, leadership and fitness to serve, President Donald
Trump’s granite strong base keeps him above 40 percent,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

This is supercharged by the fact that gerrymandering allows Trump’s electoral

college edge to grow in 2020
Cohn 19 Nate Cohn is a domestic correspondent for The Upshot at The New York Times. He
covers elections, polling and demographics. In addition to writing for The Times, he has
discussed politics on CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, and NPR, and at major colleges and universities.
Before joining The Times in 2013, Mr. Cohn worked as a staff writer for The New Republic and as
a research associate at The Henry L. Stimson Center. He is a graduate of Whitman College in
Walla Walla, Wash. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-
edge-.html

His[Trump’s] advantage in the Electoral College, relative to the national popular

vote, may be even larger than it was in 2016, according to an Upshot analysis of
election results and polling data. That persistent edge leaves him closer to re-
election than one would think based on national polls, and it might blunt any electoral cost of actions like his
recent tweets attacking four minority congresswomen. For now, the mostly white working-class Rust Belt states,

decisive in the 2016 election, remain at the center of the electoral map, based
on our estimates. The Democrats have few obviously promising alternative paths to win without these battleground states. The
president’s approval ratings remain higher in the Sun Belt battlegrounds than in
the Rust Belt, despite Democratic hopes of a breakthrough. The president’s
views on immigration and trade play relatively well in the Northern
battlegrounds, including among the pivotal Obama-Trump voters.