1AC

Plan TextThe United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba by authorizing the licensing of American companies to participate in the development of Cuba’s sugar ethanol industry and allow Cuban sugar ethanol imports.

CONTENTION 1: INHERENCYCuban sugar sale to the US is currently nonexistentWolfe ’10 (Lisa Reynolds Wolfe, Dec. 13, 2010. Found at http://www.coldwarstudies.com/2010/12/13/cold-war-havana-prelude-to-american-sanctions/) Accessed 6/7/13 GH

In retaliation, in July 1960, Cuba’s sugar quota was cut from the US market when Eisenhower cut Cuban sugar imports by 700,000 tons, the balance of the quota for 1960. He then fixed any future quota at zero. This move was devastating because, under normal circumstances, Cuba sold an average of 3,000,000 tons of sugar each year to the United States, at “prices that had been kept artificially high by laws designed to protect the high – cost US producer.”

The embargo is a waste and hurting US relations with other countriesStorozynski, 1/15/2013[Nicholas Senior at Phillips Exeter Academy “Dear President Obama: End the Cuba Embargo”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-storozynski/dear-president-obama-end-_b_2434954.html, Accessed 7/9/13]After traveling on an educational tour to Havana last summer and following the political situation between Cuba and the United States, I've

become aware that the embargo of Cuba is pointless . It has done little to hurt Fidel Castro who, according

to Forbes, has a greater net worth than the Queen of England. Instead, it has hurt several generations of innocent Cuban people who remain poor and continues to limit the freedom of Americans who want to visit or do business with Cuba. Officially, the embargo was put in place in 1960 during the Cold War to pressure the Cuban government to bring about democratic reforms. The United States doesn't have an embargo against communist China, Saudi Arabia or other countries that are

on the Freedom House list of "World's Most Repressive Societies." The world has changed dramatically since the fall of the USSR, and Cuba no longer poses a threat to the United States. There is no reason for Cuba to be on the U.S. government's list of "state

sponsors of terrorism." In the past, Castro was a threat to the U.S. because he was trying to export communism and revolution to Latin America and Africa. But these days, Castro can't even feed his own people without ration cards, much less export terrorism. Last year, retired U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. John Adams went on an extensive research trip to Cuba and wrote in The Hill that "it is simply illogical and counterproductive to keep Cuba on the list. There is little, if

any, evidence that Cuba provides support for terrorism, and the evidence further shows that they haven't for more than 20 years." Additionally, the embargo hurts US businesses willing to sell their products to Cuba. It doesn't make sense during an economic slowdown to limit the customers that a business can sell to because of outdated politics. Duke Professor Phyllis Pomerantz recently wrote in the The Globe and

Mail, "It's time to forget about old grudges and remember that the best way to convert an enemy into a friend is to embrace him . Instead of admiring Havana's old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones."

Cuba is a country with thousands of miles of arable land, but because communism has taken away people's incentive to work, the nation has to import most of its food. Removing the embargo would likely speed up the transition to a capitalist economy in Cuba. Since Fidel's brother has taken the helm, Raul has been allowing people to open small businesses and introducing elements of a free market economy. But many Cubans don't have access to goods they need because the Cuban government cannot produce and distribute these goods effectively. A New York Times article in November stated that allowing American companies to trade with the Cuban people wouldn't only benefit American companies, but also

Cuban citizens. In the piece, a Cuban mechanic said, " legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government's controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state." This would strengthen the developing private sector in Cuba. The Cuban government plans to remove more than one million government jobs. The people currently holding these jobs

would be able to find jobs in the private sector, spurred on by the American capital that would flow in. Removing the embargo would also lead the Cuban people to demand better treatment from their government. Cubans would see that American tourists

have a higher quality of life, and they'll want the same for themselves. Currently, the Castro brothers blame the poor conditions in Cuba on the embargo. Without this excuse, Cubans will find that their government is simply unable

to take care of them, and demand a change. Not only has the embargo been entirely ineffective in achieving its goals, but also it has hurt U.S. policy with other nations in the world . In November, the United Nations asked the U.S. to remove the embargo,

with 188 countries out of 193 in the General Assembly supporting the movement. In fact, the United Nations has made this same request to the U.S. each year for the past 21 years. I hope that when the UN asks for the 22nd time, President Obama will give them a different answer.

CONTENTION 2: SOLVENCYImported Cuban biofuel would trade off with corn ethanol production in the USSpecht ’13 (Jonathan Specht, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012. April 24, 2013. Found at http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) GHUnless Congress raises the RFS by a sufficient degree to absorb all domestic ethanol production on top of these new imports, the increase in

such imports would likely damage the domestic ethanol industry. “ Whatever the level or type of biofuel, increased

imports (holding other factors constant) would reduce the quantity of domestically produced biofuels, which

would reduce the demand for biofuel feedstocks .”138 Because very little ethanol is currently imported into the United

States, law and policy changes that successfully fostered the development of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry would have a significant economic impact on the United States. Such a change would have the largest economic effect on two regions: the Midwest, which is currently the primary source of ethanol production in the United States, and the Southeast, especially Florida. This Part of the Article will discuss the likely economic effects of such policy changes first on the Midwest, then on Florida, then on the United States generally.

Sugarcane ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by 78% and will soon increase 9 more percentage pointsWang et al ‘8 (Michael Wang, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory; May Wu, Environmental Scientist, Center for Transportation Research, Energy System Division, Argonne National Laboratory [full credentials at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/experts/resumes/wu.pdf]; Hong Huo Postdoctoral research associate, Energy System Division, Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. [full credentials at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/experts/resumes/honghuo.pdf]; and Jiahong Liu. Found on http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/529.pdf) Accessed 4/7/13 GHBy using data available in the open literature, we expanded the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model developed by Argonne National Laboratory to include Brazilian-grown sugarcane ethanol. With the expanded GREET model, we examined the well-to-wheels (WTW) energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of sugarcane-derived ethanol produced in Brazil and used to fuel light-duty vehicles in the United States. Results for sugarcane ethanol were compared with those for petroleum gasoline. The sugarcane-to-ethanol pathway evaluated in the GREET model comprises fertilizer production, sugarcane farming, sugarcane transportation, and sugarcane

ethanol production in Brazil; ethanol transportation to U.S. ports and then to U.S. refueling stations; and ethanol use in vehicles. Our analysis shows that sugarcane ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by 78% and fossil energy use by 97%, relative to petroleum gasoline. The large reductions can be attributed to use of bagasse in sugarcane mills, among other factors. To address the uncertainties involved in key input parameters, we developed and examined several sensitivity cases to test the effect of key

parameters on WTW results for sugarcane ethanol. Of the total GHG emissions associated with sugarcane ethanol, the five major contributors are open-field burning of sugarcane tops and leaves, N2O emissions from sugarcane fields, fertilizer production, sugarcane mill operation, and sugarcane farming. Brazil is going to phase out open-field burning in the future. This action will certainly help further reduce GHG emissions of sugarcane farming, together with reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants such as Nox

and particulate matter with diameters smaller than 10 microns. The eventual elimination of open-field burning in sugarcane

plantations will result in additional GHG emission reductions by sugarcane ethanol of up to 9 percentage points.

Latin American sugar cane is more efficient than corn, doesn’t need irrigation, self-sustainable, can be cut multiple times a year, and doesn’t encroachSpecht ’13 (Jonathan Specht, Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012. April 24, 2013. Found at http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) GH

Taken together, these factors point to sugarcane-based ethanol grown in Cuba as one of the most environmentally friendly biofuels possible.¶ The environmental benefits of using sugarcane to produce ethanol are numerous. First, it is much more energy efficient to derive ethanol from sugarcane than corn. Making ethanol from corn only creates approximately 1.3 times the amount of energy used to produce it, but making ethanol from sugarcane creates approximately eight times the amount of energy used to produce it.116 Second, unlike much of the corn presently grown in

Great Plains states, sugarcane grown in Latin America does not need to be irrigated.117 Third, sugarcane requires relatively small amounts of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. 118 Fourth, whereas

most U.S. ethanol refineries are powered by coal or natural gas,119 sugarcane ethanol refineries can be powered by bagasse, a natural product left over from the sugar refining process.120 In fact, refineries powered with bagasse can even produce more electricity than they need and sell

power back to the electric grid.121 Fifth, although corn can only be planted and harvested once a year, in tropical climates sugarcane can be cut from the same stalks multiple times per year.122¶ Each of these factors in favor of sugarcane ethanol is true of ethanol from Brazil as well as of any potential ethanol from Cuba. However, there are additional environmental factors that clinch Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol as one of the most environmentally friendly fuel sources available to the United States under current technology.123

First, because Cuba is closer to the United States, transporting ethanol from Cuba to the United States would require less energy than transporting ethanol from Brazil to the United States (especially if it is used in

Florida, an option further explored in the section on economic effects).124¶ Another reason Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol could be one of the most environmentally friendly fuels possible is that Cuba could produce

a significant amount of ethanol without any negative impacts on native habitat. A striking amount of Cuban agricultural land — fifty five percent as of 2007 — is simply lying fallow and is not cultivated with anything.125 Although its character may have changed due to years of neglect, this land is not virgin native habitat like the grasslands of

North Dakota or the Cerrado of Brazil. Cuba therefore cou ld greatly increase its production of sugarcane, and thus its production of sugarcane-based ethanol, without negative impacts on wildlife habitat. While it is not environmentally perfect — no form of energy is — Cuban sugarcane- based ethanol would raise fewer environmental concerns than the fuel

sources it would displace: petroleum, domestic corn-based ethanol, and Brazilian sugarcane based ethanol. Therefore, from a purely environmental perspective, changing U.S. law and policy in order to promote the importation of Cuban ¶ sugarcane-based ethanol should be encouraged.

Sugarcane biofuel can be used in Cuba and would alleviate the Caribbean’s dependence on oilOECD ’04Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, [“Biomass and Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies,” p. 296, online at http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EUqhPP7-tIUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA113&dq=cuban+ethanol+decrease+demand+brazil&ots=esBfp5HH0u&sig=1MTpjY1WvElblGKT2ktgNlvA4ZM#v=onepage&q=cuba&f=false, July 7, 2013, Hostert]

The large energy potential of sugarcane biomass can be taken advantage of in Cuba as well as most of the Caribbean countries, if modern technologies are used for the production of electricity and alcohol. For this, a profound

technological change is required affecting not only the sugar factories, but also agricultural and harvesting practices. The production of electric energy and alcohol from sugarcane can help to alleviate the

dependence of Caribbean countries on imported oil and contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions. But the persistent lack of funds in these developing countries has, until now, proved to be an obstacle to the introduction of modern technologies. Therefore, regional or local production of the required equipment is necessary in order to reduce the cost of the technological change

Sugar cane ethanol is the answer to the world’s addiction of fossil fuelsNewsweek 7 [“Sugar Rush,” Newsweek, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/04/15/sugar-rush.html, accessed 79/13]

He won't be the last. Thanks to global climate change, sugar now is in big demand. The drum-beat of

alarm over global warming has set businesses clamoring for a piece of the sugar-cane action. There are plenty of other ways to make ethanol, of course, and scientists the world over are busy tinkering with everything from

switchgrass to sweet potatoes. U.S. farmers make it from corn, but with the scarcity of arable land there's just so much

they can plant without crowding out other premium crops, like soy beans. (Meantime, the combination of limited land and surging demand have sent corn prices through the roof). So far nothing beats sugarcane—

which grows in the tropics—for an abundant, cheap source of energy. Unlike beets or corn, which are

confined to temperate zones and must be transformed into carbohydrates before they can be converted into sugar and finally alcohol, sugarcane is already halfway there. That means the sugar barons like Ometto spend much less energy than the competition, not to mention money. The moral imperative of finding a substitute for fossil fuels has lent an air of respectability to new ventures to produce biofuels from sugar—a marked contrast to the sugar barons of old, known for their ruthless ways and their appetite for taxpayers' money. "The distillers who ten years ago were the bandits of agribusiness are becoming

national and world heroes," Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula declared recently. "[E]thanol and biodiesel are more than an answer to our dangerous 'addiction' to fossil fuels. This is the beginning of a reassessment of the global strategy to protect our environment."

ADVANTAGE 1: DEAD ZONESCorn fertilizer gets washed into the Mississippi every spring, producing an ever growing dead zoneGreiff ’13 (James Greiff, editor for Bloomberg, on June 16, 2013. Found at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/gulf-of-mexico-s-extinction-by-ethanol.html) GH

Less than a year after the summer drought of 2012 baked the U.S. grain belt, farmers in the region have been deluged by rain . ¶ Aside from the threat that weather might pose for a second year to the U.S. harvest, the heavy rains may help fulfill of a prediction by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: A swath of the northern

Gulf of Mexico that each summer turns into a dead zone, drained of oxygen and devoid of life, will be larger than usual . ¶ The science behind this phenomenon is well understood. So are the remedies, the most practical of which would require changes in farming

policy and practices.¶ The dead zone starts innocently enough. Each year, when the snow melts and spring rains fall on Midwest farmland , millions of tons of nitrogen-based fertilizer that was applied to barren fields the previous autumn are washed into Mississippi River tributaries . ¶ In years when there is more rain, more nitrogen ends up in the water -- and vice versa. Last year's drought is considered the main reason the 2012 dead zone covered only 2,889 square miles in the Gulf, the smallest in several years, and down from 6,767 square miles in 2011. If conditions are right this year, the dead zone might occupy an area the size of New Jersey, or 7,800 square miles. Researchers usually take an official measurement in July.¶ Because the Mississippi has been

dredged, straightened and channelized to control flooding and accommodate shipping, the river flows faster than it once did. Excess nutrients, instead of being absorbed and filtered during a meandering journey, are blasted into the Gulf in a manner that some

have likened to a fire hose.¶ Once the Mississippi's waters reach the Gulf and the warming sun, the nutrients cause huge algal blooms. While the algae are blossoming, they suck oxygen from the water, and again after they die and fall to the bottom to decompose, where bacteria further deplete the water of oxygen. Fish either die or head farther from shore.¶ A state-federal environmental task force in 2008 set a goal of reducing

the amount of nutrients in the Mississippi by 45 percent by this year. By all accounts, little progress has been made.¶ The culprits behind

the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn . Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can't grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.¶

Domestic corn-ethanol production is the root of massive species loss and ecosystem destruction in the Great PlainsSpecht 13[Jonathan-J.D. Wash. U St. Louis, Legal Advisor, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” Environmental Law & Policy Journal, Univ. of California Davis, Vol. 36:2, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf]

Incentivizing farmers to grow consecutive corn crops instead of alternating with soybean crops is only the least damaging of the

environmentally detrimental land use changes that the domestic ethanol industry encourages. Land is primarily converted to corn production in one of three ways: land that is already used to grow another crop is converted to corn

production, land that is used for pasture or is enrolled in a program like the Conservation Reserve Program n69 is converted to cropland, or native habitat is plowed and converted to [*184] cropland. n70 Each of these has varying levels of negative environmental effects. All three types of land use conversions are underway in the Great Plains states, which have ramped up corn production in response to demand from the ethanol industry. n71 While it is not the only reason corn production is increasing in these states, n72 the corn-based ethanol industry and thus the governmental policies encouraging it are

clearly factors driving land use conversion. "While many factors influence land-use changes, the relationship between ethanol incentives and habitat destruction is fairly clear. Ethanol incentives increase demand for corn, which in turn increases corn prices. Increased corn prices lead to land being converted from other uses to corn production." n73¶ Converting pasture or Conservation

Reserve Program Land to cropland causes more damage than changing crop rotation patterns in already cropped land. n74 Yet, the most

environmentally damaging way of converting land to crop production is to plow native habitat and plant it with row crops. n75 This process is underway now in the Great Plains, with devastating environmental effects. Although the most recent data is from 2007, the USDA's census of agriculture (published every five years) provides a clear picture of the trend lines of U.S. agricultural production. This picture is one of greatly increased corn production in the Great Plains states. According to the Census of Agriculture, the number of acres of corn production in North Dakota has increased from 592,078 acres in 1997 to 991,390 acres in 2002 n76 to 2,348,171 acres in 2007, n77 representing more [*185] than a doubling over five years and close to a quadrupling over ten years. Similarly, in South Dakota, the number of acres in corn grew from 3,165,190 in 2002 to 4,455,368 in 2007, n78 an increase of forty-one percent over five years. In Nebraska, the number of acres in corn (for grain) increased from 7,344,715 in 2002 to 9,192,656 in 2007, n79 a more modest but still significant increase of twenty-five percent over five years.¶ While a major portion of this increase in corn production in the Great Plain states is attributable to farmers converting land already used to grow other crops or pasture to corn production, n80 much of it also derives from plowing native habitat. "Recent dramatic increases in corn plantings have been heavily

concentrated in the Prairie Pothole Region, displacing other crops as well as sensitive prairie pothole habitat." n81 The trend of replacing native habitat with fields of cornis an extremely worrying development, andis arguably the strongest reason for displacing at least somedomestic corn-based ethanol with Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol.

Therefore, this trend will be discussed in some depth.¶Increased corn production is degrading two environmentally significant

habitats in the Great Plains, grasslands and wetlands. According to The Nature Conservancy, "grasslands and prairies are the world's most imperiled ecosystem." n82 While grasslands once stretched across the entire central portion of the United

States, it has lost between eighty-three and ninety-nine percent of its original tall grass prairie habitat. n83 U.S. grasslands are the native habitat of a number of threatened and endangered species, such as the greater prairie [*186] chicken, n84 which cannot live in cornfields. n85 In addition to reducing the overall amount of habitat available to native species, the process of plowing grassland to grow crops fragments habitat by splitting it into disconnected segments. n86 The negative effects on wildlife of converting

grasslands to corn fields, and thereby also fragmenting what habitat remains, are well-documented. "In counties with high corn [production] increases, the average number of grassland [bird] species was found to decline significantly

from 2005 to 2008." n87¶ Furthermore, in addition to providing habitat for wildlife, grasslands act as a carbon sink , keeping centuries' worth of accumulated atmospheric carbon in underground root systems. n88 When native grassland is plowed to grow crops like corn, the carbon stored in its soil is released into the atmosphere,

further exacerbating climate change and counterbalancing the greenhouse gas benefits of replacing fossil fuel-based gasoline with corn-based ethanol. n89 Taken together, the environmental costs of increasing domestic corn-based ethanol production by plowing native grasslands in the Great Plains starkly outweigh their benefits. "Plowing up our nation's last remnants of native grasslands to grow more corn for ethanol is like burning the Mona Lisa for

firewood." n90¶ Along with grasslands, wetlands are the other major habitat type in the Great Plains that are being damaged by the domestic corn-based ethanol industry. The draining of wetlands to convert them to agricultural production is a practice in American agriculture that predates the domestic ethanol industry. n91 This trend has been exacerbated by a number of legal and policy factors unrelated to ethanol production (including a 2001 Supreme Court decision interpreting the [*187] Clean Water Act).

n92 To the extent that it increases demand for corn and thus the price of corn, however, the domestic ethanol industry is clearly a factor driving the conversion of wetlands to corn production. This conversion

process is a land use change with wide-ranging environmental consequences. The Prairie Pothole region of the Dakotas and surrounding states - which is composed of a mixture of grasslands and wetlands - is a habitat of international significance. n93 Nearly forty percent of all species of migratory birds in North America -

over 300 species - utilize this habitat at some point in their life cyclesor yearly migrations. n94 The region is where "millions of ducks and geese are born each year." n95 The two greatest threats to North American ducks are the destruction of wetlands and the degradation of prairies, both of which are being driven by the expansion of U.S. corn production. n96 In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, both grasslands and wetlands help to clean up pollution and prevent flooding. n97 "Those areas with native vegetation, and the soils beneath their surface, also retain the water longer throughout the season and use up the water through evapotranspiration." n98 Thus, converting grasslands and wetlands to cropland for corn increases the risk of flooding. n99¶ Taken together, the consequences of

converting grasslands and wetlands in the Great Plains to increase corn production for the domestic ethanol industry are devastating.¶If we proceed along the current trajectory without changing federal policies [including those promoting corn-based ethanol], the prairie pothole ecosystem may be further degraded and fragmented, and the many services it provides

will be impossible to restore. The region will no longer be able to support the waterfowl cherished by hunters and wildlife enthusiasts

across the country. Grassland bird populations, already declining, will be unable to rebound as [*188] nesting sites are

turned into row crops. Water will become increasingly pollutedand costly to clean as the grasslands and wetlands that once filtered contaminants disappear. n100

Flooding creates dead zonesNY Times ’11 (June 2, 2011. Found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/science/earth/03runoff.html?pagewanted=all) GH

As the surging waters of the Mississippi pass downstream, they leave behind flooded towns and inundated lives and

carry forward a brew of farm chemicals and waste that this year — given record flooding — is expected to result in the largest dead zone ever in the Gulf of Mexico.¶ Dead zones have been occurring in the gulf since the 1970s, and studies show that the main culprits are nitrogen and phosphorus from crop fertilizers and animal manure in river runoff. They settle in at the mouth of the gulf and fertilize algae, which prospers and eventually starves other living things of oxygen.¶ Government studies have traced a majority of those chemicals in the runoff to nine farming states, and yet today, decades after the dead zones began forming, there is still little political common ground on how to abate this perennial problem. Scientists who study dead zones predict that the affected area will increase significantly this year, breaking records for size and damage.¶ For years, environmentalists and advocates for a cleaner gulf have been calling for federal action in the form of regulation. Since 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency has been encouraging all states to place hard and fast numerical limits on the amount of those chemicals allowed in local waterways. Yet of the nine key farm states that feed the dead zone, only two, Illinois and Indiana, have acted, and only to cover lakes, not the rivers or streams that merge into the Mississippi.¶ The lack of formal action upstream has long been maddening to the downstream states most affected by the pollution, and the extreme flooding this year has only increased the tensions.¶ “Considering the current circumstances, it is extremely frustrating not seeing E.P.A. take more direct action,” said Matt Rota, director of science and water policy for the Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental advocacy group in New Orleans that has renewed its calls for federally enforced targets. “We have tried solely voluntary mechanisms to reduce this pollution for a decade and have only seen the dead zone get bigger.”¶ Environmental Protection Agency officials said they had no immediate plans to force the issue, but farmers in the Mississippi Basin are worried. That is because only six months ago, the agency stepped in at the Chesapeake Bay, another watershed with similar runoff issues, and set total maximum daily loads for those same pollutants in nearby waterways. If the states do not reduce enough pollution over time, the agency could penalize them in a variety of ways, including increasing federal oversight of state programs or denying new wastewater permitting rights, which could hamper development. The agency says it is too soon to evaluate their progress in reducing pollution.¶ Don Parish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group, says behind that policy is the faulty assumption that farmers fertilize too much or too casually. Since 1980, he said, farmers have increased corn yields by 80 percent while at the same time reducing their nitrate use by 4 percent through precision farming.¶ “We are on the razor’s edge,” Mr. Parish said. “When you get to the point

where you are taking more from the soil than you are putting in, then you have to worry about productivity.”¶ Dead zones are areas of the ocean where low oxygen levels can stress or kill bottom-dwelling organisms that cannot escape and cause fish to leave the area. Excess nutrients transported to the gulf each year during spring floods promote algal growth. As the algae die and decompose, oxygen is consumed, creating the dead zone. The largest dead zone was measured in 2002 at about 8,500 square miles, roughly the size of New Jersey. Shrimp fishermen complain of being hurt the most by the dead zones as shrimp are less able to relocate — but the precise impacts on species are still being studied.¶ The United States Geological Survey has found that nine states along the

Mississippi contribute 75 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus. The survey found that corn and soybean crops were the largest contributors to the nitrogen in the runoff, and manure was a large contributor to the amount of phosphorus.

Gulf Dead Zone is the largest in the world LA Times ’11 (June 14, 2011, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/biggest-dead-zone-predicted-from-mississippi-floodwaters.html) GH

The flood waters racing down the Mississippi River are forecast to create the largest low-oxygen dead zone on record, according to government and university scientists.¶ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts the deadly low-oxygen waters to spread across an expanse of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor equivalent to the geographical size of New Hampshire. To date, the largest low-oxygen, or hypoxia, zone

in the gulf came in 2002, sprawling across 8,400 square miles.¶ Such dead zones are a marine reaction to the nutrient-enriched runoff from fertilized farm fields, animal feed lots and even city sewage systems. These low-oxygen waters can kill fish, shrimp and other marine life that get trapped or fail to swim or scuttle away.¶

Gulf Dead Zone spills over into Atlantic, devastating the marine ecosystemNASA, '04 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Mississippi Dead Zone”, September 14th,2004 http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/dead_zone.html)

Mississippi Dead Zone: Sediment filled water meets the blue ocean. Recent reports indicate that the large region of low oxygen water

often referred to as the 'Dead Zone' has spread across nearly 5,800 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico again in what appears to be an annual event. NASA satellites monitor the health of the oceans and spots the conditions that lead to a dead zone, Ships and Satellites

Match Measurements. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ships measured low oxygen water in the same location as

the highly turbid water in the satellite images. Most studies indicate that fertilizers and runoff from human sources is one of

the major stresses impacting coastal ecosystems – and possibly the Atlantic ecosystem as a whole. Summer rains wash nutrients, dissolved organic matter and sediment out of the mouths of rivers, into the sea, sparking large phytoplankton blooms. Enhanced phytoplankton blooms can create dead zones. Dead zones are areas of water so devoid of oxygen that sea life cannot live there. If phytoplankton productivity is enhanced by fertilizers or other nutrients, more organic matter is produced at the surface of the ocean. The organic matter sinks to the bottom, where bacteria break it down and release carbon dioxide. Bacteria thrive off excessive organic matter and absorb oxygen, the same oxygen that fish, crabs and other sea creatures rely on for life.

Dead zones collapse ocean biodiversityCarlisle 2K[Elizabeth Carlisle 2000 The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone and Red Tides, The Louisiana Environment, http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm]

As the fresh, nutrient-enriched water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers spread across the Gulf waters, favorable conditions are created for the production of massive phytoplankton blooms. A

bloom is defined as an “increased abundance of a species above background numbers in a specific geographic region”. Incoming nutrients stimulate growth of phytoplankton at the surface, providing food for unicellular animals. Planktonic remains and fecal matter from these organisms fall to the ocean floor, where they are eaten by bacteria, which consume excessive

amounts of oxygen, creating eutrophic conditions. Hypoxic waters appear normal on the surface, but on the bottom, they are covered with dead and distressed animal, and in extreme cases, layers of stinking, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which cause the sediment in these areas to turn black. These hypoxic conditions cause food

chain alterations, loss of biodiversity, and high aquatic species mortality.

Destruction of Marine Ecosystems leads to extinctionCraig ‘3 [Robin Kundis-– Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection”, McGeorge Law Review, Winter, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155]

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in¶ political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and¶ dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. 856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem

function¶ that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. 857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling ofall the elements ¶ that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less¶ abundant but necessary elements."

858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's

ability to support life . Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in¶ the face of disturbance is strongly

dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." 859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their¶biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine¶ environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects

on¶ sustaining the rest of the reef system. 860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they ¶ provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. 861 Similar calculations could¶ derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean¶ ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." 862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the¶ actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the¶ oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef¶ ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really

do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness¶ whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. 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

ADVANTAGE 2: CUBAN ECONOMYSugar ethanol is a viable alternative energy--spurs the Cuban economy and leads reform in Cuba.

Herticalt 9[ AP, “Save the Economy, End the Embargo”, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/29/675115/-Save-the-Economy-End-the-Embargo#, Accessed 7/8/13]

Cuba is also a large producer of Sugar Cane which is what Brazil uses for Ethanol allowing the import of Cuban Sugar into the US would significantly decrease the price of Sugar and make it viable as a fuel alternative . Which leaves Cuba a Gold mine if managed correctly. As the Cuban people become wealthier through exports they will also want more finished goods. Which the US can supply and develop a trade relationship. Why? It's good for the Car industry. Everyone has seen the pictures of the cars on the Streets of Havana. They're a Car collectors dream with antique cars made by American manufacturers. However the cars are breaking down due to lack of parts which if trade flows Americans could be back in the factories of Detroit

making for export. Also we could get a Sugar Ethanol industry in this country going. It could be modeled after the Brazilian system which has been pretty successful in reducing the countries dependence on Oil. We need to expand the variety of Alternative fuels in this country. The more choices people have to get off of oil the easier it will be. Another fuel source could also spur the Car

companies to get behind real flex fuel cars that help modernize our country. It's more likely to produce Democratic changes in Cuba. As the Cuban people's economic possibilities increase so will their wants for reform and more independence. The most important thing for a Democracy is a robust middle class with the possibility for economic mobility. That can happen if we encourage fair trade practices with Cuba that make sure the money is pocketed by a few and is distributed widely. Now the main

arguments against normalizing relations tend to range from Protectionism to Fraud. Cubans aren't becoming more free under the embargo. The embargo only makes them more reliant on the Government and less likely to ask for reforms . The only people who'll get hurt by Cuban imports are the large sugar growers in places like Florida, who rely on subsidies and keeping the price high through virtual monopoly. When Smart Economic policy coincides with Smart Diplomatic policy we should jump to it. Continuing to alienate Cuba only pushes them back into their old alliances with Russia and China who want Cuba's oil reserves for different reasons. Russia wants control of the Oil markets to rival OPEC. And China wants to secure a source of Oil independent of

the Middle East. End the Embargo .

Reforms the only way to prevent Cuba collapse and Caribbean instabilityAshby 13—Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs Timothy, “Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises” [http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/] March 29 //mtc Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. Reforms instituted within the past few years have brought the expansion of private sector entrepreneurial activity, including lifting restrictions on the sales of residential real estate, automobiles, and electronic goods. Additional reforms included, more than a million hectares of idle land has been leased to private farmers, where citizens have been granted permission to stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and freedom being granted for most Cubans to travel abroad. Stating that it was time for the “gradual transfer” of “key roles to new generations,” President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1]¶ The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy makers. Normalization of

relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security. To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned.¶ The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area, including 31,000 criminals and mental patients. Today, the United States defines its national security interests regarding Cuba as follows:¶ • Avoid one or more mass migrations; • Prevent Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to the hemisphere; • Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade; • Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others wishing to harm the United States. [2]

Caribbean stability is vital to hegemonyDr. Ivelaw Griffith (Dean of The Honors College, Professor of Political Science International University) 11/16/2004["Mr. President, the Caribbean is Still a Strategic Zone" Institute for National Strategic Studies online @ http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Repository/INSS_Proceedings/Colleagues_for_the_Americas/Colleagues_2004_11.pdf, loghry]

As a global power, the US has several national interests beyond the Caribbean in which it is engaged. Global counter-terrorism, especially in the Afghanistan and Iraq theatres, concerns the US greatly. Improving relations with Europe, engagement in Israel and Palestine post-Arafat, containing Iran and North Korea, and focusing on Mexico, the Andean and the Southern Cone countries are also highly important national

interests. However, national interest also dictates that the Caribbean not be forgotten. Global engagement must

actively consider this region. Four fulcrums of national interest, or “value arenas,” make the Caribbean a zone of strategic importance. These are democracy, geopolitics, geo-economics, and geo-narcotics. Democracy is a core US political value and national interest. Unfortunately the pursuit of this goal often conflicts with other interests, creating a mixed record. For instance, the US has both worked against unacceptable democratic expressions within some countries, and has also supported weak democracies in other countries. Parts of the Caribbean are bastions of electoral democracy. Despite strong procedural democracy, a number of dangers must be resolved. Low and declining voter turn-out, electoral fraud, and drug money in campaign financing endanger the credibility of the democratic process in some places in the region. Moreover, several factors undermine confidence in democracy. These include poverty, corruption, and dysfunctional

judicial systems. Involvement mitigates the risks these problems pose to US core national interests. The second fulcrum is geopolitics. Location and proximity make a difference, especially if they coexist with a strategic resource that is important commercially and militarily. Six Caribbean Basin countries, including Venezuela, produce oil. Chavez and his policies are significant in how the US does business. But the importance of hydrocarbons goes beyond production to refinement. Six other countries refine oil, and provide a significant quantity to service the US market. Bauxite is another strategic resource, and a significant proportion of Unites States imports of this commodity comes from the Caribbean Basin. Used in circuitry, airplane components, and aluminum products, the proximity of the source as well as cheap import costs place access to this resource from the Caribbean an element of US national

interest. As another aspect of geopolitics, the Caribbean is vital in US worldwide engagement as a part of the security network. This is the “southern flank” or “strategic rear” or “third border.” Military Assistance

Advisory groups and Military Liaison Offices coordinate force presence. Beyond this, there are Forward Operating Locations in the Caribbean that are vital to the prosecution of missions against drug production and trafficking, and terrorism. From the Caribbean vantage point, the military bases are an important part of their economy. While the rents may not

represent much money for the US, they can do a lot for the countries concerned. Hence, strategically, the US and Caribbean countries rely on each other.

Instability causes LNG and biological terrorismAnthony T. Bryan & Stephen E. Flynn 1 (director of the North-South Center’s Caribbean Program & senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard) 10/21/2001[“Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation” Council on Foreign Relations online @ http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and, loghry]

Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the

Caribbean. The security of major industrial complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium

sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as

experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently

granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological weapons within national borders.

LNG Terrorism is very destructiveAmory B. Lovins & L. Hunter Lovins (Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute & professor at Presidio School of

Management's MBA in Sustainable Management program) 2001[Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security p. 87-88]

LNG is less than half as dense as water, so a cubic meter of LNG (the usual unit of measure) weighs just over half a ton.1 LNG contains about thirty per- cent less energy per cubic meter than oil, but is potentially far more hazardous.2 Burning oil cannot spread very far on land or water, but a cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about six hundred twenty cubic meters of pure natural gas, which in turn mixes with surrounding air. Mixtures of between about five and fourteen percent natural gas in air are flammable. Thus a single cubic meter of spilled LNG

can make up to twelve thousand four hundred cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture. A single modern LNG tanker typically holds one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters of LNG, equivalent to twenty-seven hundred million cubic feet of natural gas. That gas can form between about twenty and fifty billion cubic feet of flammable gas-air mixture—several hundred times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG will probably, if spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes.3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred twenty-eight Fahrenheit degrees hotter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The resulting gas, however, will be so cold that it will still be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume might extend at least three miles downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to

twenty minutes.4 It might ultimately reach much farther—perhaps six to twelve miles.5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame reminiscent of the 1937 Hindenberg disaster but

about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant heat would cause third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away.6 An LNG fireball can blow through a city, creating “a very

large number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable equipment can put out a very large [LNG]... fire.”7 The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic

meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.

Bioterror leads to extinctionAnders Sandberg 8, is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University; Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Milan M. Ćirković, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and assistant professor of physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro, 9/8/8, “How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinctionThe risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in

reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We mayface even greater risks from emerging

technologies . Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable

of extinction-level pandemics . The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than

those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to becomeexponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of many wild

species. Although most pandemics "fade out " by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host

ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with

high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of causing human extinction . While such an event seems

unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.