Arctic Affirmative

1AC

Inherency

There is a severe lack of funding for arctic infrastructureThe Atlantic 2015 ("The U.S. Is Not Ready for a Melting Arctic." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 11 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 July 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-us-is-not-ready-for-a-melting-arctic/443829/) JTE

America faces an Arctic dilemma.¶ Next month, the U.S. is set to take the helm of the Arctic Council, an international forum for the polar region. That event creates an opportunity for the Obama administration to talk up its commitment to advancing U.S. interests in the Arctic, an expansive land and sea territory that contains vast untapped energy resources.¶ But America has essentially given the Arctic the cold shoulder. Lawmakers, federal officials, and experts warn that Arctic investment has not kept pace with rapid ice-melt and caution that the U.S. must overcome a lack of funding and resources as it patrols the polar region.¶ Yet Congress has hardly lifted a finger so far to foot the bill for infrastructure and technology that would better equip the U.S. to safeguard Arctic waters.¶ America's Arctic strategy has long been plagued by a lack of funding. Vast stretches of polar waters have not been charted or mapped to modern-day standards, and the Coast Guard has been forced to make do with a shrinking fleet of icebreakers, powerful ships that play a key role in search and rescue operations as well as Arctic exploration.¶

Plan The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its economic engagement with China by bilaterally funding the establishment of arctic infrastructure.

ADV 1 Russia

Russia is creating a permanent military presence in the arctic to achieve its political ambitions.International Business Times 2016 ("Russia Military Increases Arctic Permanent Presence Amid Regional Tension." International Business Times. N.p., 29 Jan. 2016. Web. 01 July 2016.

http//www.ibtimes.com/russia-military-increases-arctic-permanent-presence-amid-regional-tension-2285782) JTE

As Europe continues to worry about Russian aggression in the east, the country's defense ministry announced Friday that it is reinforcing its troops further north, in the Arctic, Russian state media reported. The expansion of its military

presence there comes as the U.S. and Scandinavian states modernize their own defenses in the region. “The buildup of the permanent group of troops in the Arctic is underway,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said. “This will expand the armed forces’ capabilities for securing the defense of the national interests in the region.” Shoigu said Russian troops will be stationed in the Arctic on a permanent basis, with a focus on increasing the Kremlin's control over

the region’s airspace. Moscow formed the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army as part of its Northern Fleet in December 2015. Russia continues to build up the fleet with new bases in the region; four were completed in 2015, the defense minister said. “We are creating comfortable living conditions for our military personnel who will serve in the Arctic on a permanent basis,” Nikolai Yevmenov, the fleet’s chief of staff, said. Our neighbor in the east has built up its military capacity, also in areas close to us,” Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen of Norway’s navy said in October. “They have shown that they are willing to use military force to achieve political ambitions.

Arctic maritime transport and infrastructure policies are key to prevent competition from escalating by encouraging cooperationHigginbotham and Grosu 14 (JOHN HIGGINBOTHAM a senior fellow at CIGI and Carleton University, MARINA GROSU master’s graduate in international public policy of Wilfrid Laurier University’s School of International Policy and Governance junior research fellowship at CIGI. “THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND ARCTIC MARITIME DEVELOPMENT IN THE BEAUFORT AREA” MAY 2014, CIGI, http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_pb_40.pdf) JTE

The Arctic is facing remarkable climatic and oceanic change that is triggering unprecedented opportunities and challenges for Arctic nations, as well as for countries that do not have Arctic territory but are eager to engage and invest in the region. For Canada and the United States, the Beaufort basin offers unique

opportunities for Alaska and Canada’s Arctic territories. Large unexplored and unexploited oil, gas and mineral reserves, local and transpolar shipping, fishing and tourism are the main opportunities provided by the melting Arctic Ocean. International competition in attracting domestic and foreign investments for these challenging Arctic economic activities has started, with Russia and Scandinavia leading the way. Large integrated government and private investments in maritime infrastructure, resource development and shipping projects in the Arctic are central priorities for Russia and Scandinavia. The international geopolitical and legal Arctic environment has, so far, been conducive to cooperative development; however, recent tensions in relations with Russia over Ukraine underline the importance of insulating (as much as possible)

Arctic cooperation from negative forces, as well as examining North American preparedness for a less benign political

environment should it evolve. Arctic maritime transport and infrastructure investment will play a vital role in stimulating sustainable community development, responsible resource development and more efficient resupply in both Canadian and US Arctic regions. Canada and the United States, unfortunately, have not yet forcefully tackled Arctic maritime development, although it will be essential to the overall development of our Arctic regions. Canada’s High North, in particular, remains startlingly underdeveloped when compared with southern Canadian provinces and other Arctic regions.

And the aff plan only incentivizes cooperation, easing the growing tension between world leaders, and prevents a US-Russian conflict. .Aerandir 12 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United States Navy B.A., “BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC” December 2012, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf) JTE

There is ample reason and precedent suggesting that countries will resort to armed conflict to secure their interests, especially when those interests are regarded as vital to their national security. While war in the

Arctic appears unlikely at present, this thesis has analyzed why an escalation of territorial and resource disputes in the Arctic up to and including the use of force cannot and should not be ruled out. The potential for U.S.- Russian maritime conflict in the region is genuine. A. SUMMARY OF THE THREAT Opportunity, capability, and perceived intent on their own do not cause conflict, but they do serve to increase anxiety about an apparent threat to national interests. It is when these three factors combine that the potential for conflict emerges. All that remains for an otherwise benign event to quickly escalate into a militarized interstate dispute is a sufficient motive or misunderstanding. In the fog before war, an ostensibly banal event could quickly escalate into a political power play between navies in the presence of historical mistrust, a perception of vulnerability, and nationalist sentiment. In the Arctic, such motives include Russia’s critical reliance on hydrocarbon resources to maintain its political

and economic stability, and therefore its national security. For the United States and its NATO allies, the need to maintain and credibly defend their sovereignty and their own economic interests provides ample incentive to act decisively, if necessary. When national security is challenged or threatened by another power, the potential for militarized conflict can quickly become an actual conflict. Despite the sub-zero physical climate, the Arctic is a hotbed of competing interests. Receding ice cover in the northern cryosphere presents Arctic nations, and

others, with considerable economic opportunities. Whether to exploit a potential “treasure trove” of natural resources or simply to capitalize on time- and money-saving transportation routes, political leaders are under increasing pressure to resolve previously frozen or otherwise insignificant disputes and make these resources available as soon as possible to their constituents. Lack of resolution is bad for business: it creates a “wild west” (or, in this case, a no-law north) of uncertainty as to the legal standing of enterprises and exposes countries and companies alike to unnecessary harassment and possible prosecution by rival interests. Increasing economic opportunities go hand-in-hand with an increased presence in the region, creating

an environment for potential conflict. Economic expansion is triggering an associated build-up in military and law enforcement capability in order to protect, defend, and regulate interests and claims. If economic encroachment were not enough to cause anxiety among the Arctic powers, the subsequent militarization of the Arctic has also caused alarm, making countries feel increasingly vulnerable to conventional military pressure from a previously ice-obstructed front. At present, only Russia is capable of defending its claims in the Arctic militarily. Given Russia’s economic dependence on hydrocarbon resources—which the Arctic promises to offer in abundance—Moscow’s economic claims in excess of its recognized EEZ are likely to encroach on, or overlap with, the legitimate claims of neighbors. But it stands alone. Russia’s overwhelming might in this domain may eventually make “right” in its favor if NATO is unable to deter assertive uses of force similar to those to which the Russian Coast Guard continually subjects Japan near the Kuril Islands. Any loss in this regard would be much more damaging to NATO’s deterrence credibility than its current inaction. Unless Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States can come together under the NATO banner and make the Arctic a centerpiece of the Alliance’s collective defense 93 agenda for the twenty-first century, they each risk standing alone in the Arctic as well, and with a significantly smaller troop-to-task capability than their geopolitical rival. Simon Ollivant’s 1984 warning of the dangers of internal dispute within the Alliance is perhaps even more salient today. Analyzing the effects of the latest developments in military technology, force dispositions, and resource and sovereignty claims on the military stability of the region, Ollivant concluded that the greatest dangers to NATO unity were an unbalanced American hegemony in the region and increased political conflict among allied members over contested economic interests in the region.207 Denmark and Canada have yet to officially resolve their dispute over Hans Island. Canada and the United States continue to argue over the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the Beaufort Sea. Either one of these disputes could undermine decades of Alliance cohesion. Meanwhile, Russia’s actions and rhetoric in the Arctic leave no room to deduce anything but a firm and committed intent on the part of its leadership to secure its claims. There have been scant, if any, peaceful actions undertaken by the Putin and Medvedev

administrations to back up their peace-seeking rhetoric. Calls for diplomatic resolution of territorial disputes in the Arctic and for working “within existing international agreements and mechanisms” have only been operationalized through agreements to cooperate on search and rescue efforts and on (competitive)

scientific exploration and research for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a forum that has no

binding authority to settle such disputes. All the while, however, Russia’s ambitious militarization of the Arctic has been

clearly reinforced with explicit rhetoric proclaiming its intent to defend its national security interests . For Russia, the natural resources in the Arctic are a national security asset of strategic importance. Canada, too, beats the drum of sovereign defense in the Arctic. Though its rhetoric is significantly less militaristic than that of Russia, it is nevertheless increasingly nationalistic. Actions, in this case, speak for themselves. The Canadians have expressed an intention to build up forces in the region to the extent necessary to defend their sovereignty. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper had his way, this build-up would be happening more quickly than it has been. Indeed, financial constraints constitute the only reason that the four NATO countries in the Arctic have not been building up their Arctic capabilities more rapidly. The bottom line is that the intent of the Arctic nations to defend their regional and broader security interests is real. The capabilities, while in some cases only planned or very slowly coming into service, are materializing, and the economic opportunity has never been greater and will only increase in the future. The threat of a militarized conflict in the Arctic is therefore real as well.

Methodological analysis proves our impact Aerandir 12 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United States Navy B.A., “BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC” December 2012, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf) JTE

1. Potential for Maritime Conflict in the Arctic Based on the methodology established for this analysis, it can be reasonably assessed that conflict in the Arctic is likely. To put this another way, with a score of 18 out of 24 possible points, there is a 75 percent chance that maritime disputes involving the United States and Russia will occur in the Arctic necessitating the show or use of force to achieve a political objective. It should be reiterated that this assessment is acknowledged to be an analytically subjective conclusion and that the intervals of

measurement are notably coarse. The evidence presented in this analysis, however, supports this conclusion. Policy-makers should take care not to discount the physical indicators and declared policies of other Arctic nations when judging the seriousness of their intent to protect their various claims in the region. Advocates of a “Pax Arctica” involving regional cooperation ignore the more pragmatic factors underlying international relations and the actual limits of international institutions and economic incentives in restraining actors’ behavior in an anarchic system.

US-Russia war causes extinctionHelfand 14 (Ira Helfand, M.D, past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. “Another View: Ukraine crisis puts focus on danger of nuclear war” May 3, 2014, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/04/another-view-ukraine-crisis-danger-nuclear-war/8665185/)

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has made it clear that the danger of nuclear war is still with us and may be greater than at any time since the height of the Cold War. What does that mean for United States nuclear policy? There are today more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The vast majority , more than 95 percent, are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. Some 3,000 of these warheads are on "hair-trigger" alert. They are mounted on missiles that can be fired in 15 minutes and destroy their targets around the world less than 30 minutes later. During the Cold War, there was a widespread understanding of what nuclear weapons could do. That is not true today. Those who lived through the Cold War have put this painful information out of mind, and a generation has come of age that never learned about the terrible effects of nuclear war. This must change if we are to make rational decisions about nuclear policy. Over the last few years, new information has emerged that underlines the danger posed by even the limited use of nuclear weapons. Studies published in 2006 by Rutgers University's Alan Robock and his colleagues examined the effects of a "limited" nuclear war involving just 100 small nuclear weapons, the size of the Hiroshima bomb, less than 0.5 percent of the world's nuclear arsenals. The specific scenario they examined involved a war between India and Pakistan. The two nations have fought three wars in the last 70 years, have come close to war on two other occasions, engage in daily skirmishes across their contested border in Kashmir, and have more than 200 nuclear weapons in their arsenals, many much larger than the weapons used in the study. The effects in India and Pakistan are horrific. In the first week more than 20 million people are killed by blast, fire and radiation as the great cities of South Asia are destroyed. But the global impact is far worse. As the cities burn,

the fires loft 5 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere, blocking out sunlight . Across the globe,

temperatures fall an average of 1.3 degrees Celsius, and precipitation declines as less water evaporates into the cooler atmosphere to fall back as rain. This climate disruption has a catastrophic impact on food production around the world. In Iowa, as across the entire U.S. Corn Belt, soy production declines an average of 7 percent for a full decade, and corn production declines an average of 12 percent. In China, rice production declines an average of 17 percent and the equally important wheat crop declines a staggering 31 percent. "Nuclear Famine," a report issued last year by Physicians for Social Responsibility,

explored the impact this decline in food production would have on human health. The world is not

prepared to withstand a fall in food production of this magnitude. World grain reserves amount to only some 70 days of consumption and would quickly be exhausted. There are already 870 million people in the developing world who are malnourished today. They get just enough food to maintain their body mass and do a little work to gather or grow food. There are also 300 million people who get adequate nutrition today but live in countries that depend on imported food. All of these people, more than 1 billion, many far removed from the actual conflict, would be at risk of starvation in the event of even this very "limited" use of nuclear weapons. Another 1.3 billion people in China might also starve given the enormous shortfalls in Chinese grain production. And no one has yet studied the effects of climate disruption on other food crops in other countries. Will U.S., Canadian and European wheat production fall as dramatically as in China? A famine of this magnitude is unprecedented in human history. Never have we faced the

possible death of 15 percent to 30 percent of the human race in the course of a single decade. Such a catastrophe would not mean the

extinction of our species, but it would almost certainly bring about the end of modern civilization as we know it. These data make clear that even the smaller nuclear weapons states, countries that might well go to war, and over whose nuclear arsenals the U.S. has no direct control, pose a threat to all mankind. But the danger posed by the U.S. and Russian arsenals is even greater. A single U.S. Trident submarine carries 96 warheads, each 10 to 30 times larger than the bombs used in the South Asia scenario.

That means that each Trident can cause the nuclear famine scenario many times over . We have 14 of them, and that

is only one-third of our nuclear arsenal, which also includes land-based missiles and long-range bombers. The Russians have the same incomprehensible level of overkill capacity. What would happen if there were a large nuclear war? A 2002

report by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 of the 1,500 warheads in the Russian arsenal got through to targets in the United States, up to 100 million people would die in the first 30 minutes. The entire economic infrastructure on which we depend — the public health system, banking system, communications network, food

distribution system — would be destroyed. In the months following this attack, most of the rest of the population would also die, from starvation, exposure to cold, epidemic disease and radiation poisoning. The global climate disruption would be even more catastrophic. Limited war in South Asia would drop global

temperatures 1.3 degrees Celsius. A war between the United States and Russia, using only those weapons they will still possess

when the New START treaty is fully implemented in 2017, drops temperatures an average of 8 degrees Celsius. In the interior of Eurasia, North America and in Iowa, temperatures drop 20 to 30 degrees Celsius to a level not seen in 18,000 years — since the coldest time of the last Ice Age. Agriculture stops, ecosystems collapse, the vast majority of the human race starves and many species, perhaps including our own, become extinct. As events in Ukraine have made clear, there is still a very real possibility that the United States and Russia may find themselves on opposite sides of an armed conflict, and that means that these vast nuclear arsenals might be used. Even if there is not a deliberate use of nuclear weapons, there is the danger of an accidental nuclear war.

Adv 2 Commerce

Arctic Marine Infrastructure is lacking, making shipping dangerous and prevents further development. The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System 2016 ( Arctic Marine Transportation Integrated Action Team April 15th, 2016 A Ten-Year Prioritization of Infrastructure¶ Needs in the U.S. Arctic http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/NSAR_1.1.2_10-Year_MTS_Investment_Framework_Final_5_4_16.pdf) JTE

Over the past five years, with the continuing trend in diminishing Arctic sea ice, discussions and projections for the Arctic as a new international trade route have increased. Some vessels, particularly smaller recreational vessels, currently operating in the Arctic are neither designed nor equipped for hazardous Arctic conditions. 2 As sea ice retreats, the lack of U.S. Arctic infrastructure to support increased maritime activity grows more apparent. Limited nautical charts, aids to navigation, communication, emergency response, and rescue capabilities make operations difficult and potentially dangerous. Other elements contributing to accident risks in the Arctic include inadequate maritime infrastructure and environmental and economic uncertainties, all major challenges identified in the CMTS 2013

Arctic Report. To address some of these risks, a number of studies have examined the gaps and potential infrastructure needs of the U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System. These needs include not only physical infrastructure such as ports, support vessels, and communication networks, but also the informational infrastructure enabling mariners to operate safely, such as nautical charts and electronic aids to navigation. The NSAR Implementation Plan (IP) identifies separate actions related to Arctic communications and aviation infrastructure [Objectives 1.2 Sustain and Support Evolving Aviation Requirements; and 1.3 Develop Communication Infrastructure in the Arctic]. This report synthesizes existing information on Arctic MTS infrastructure and gaps in order to distill requirements for future infrastructure needs over the next decade. As sea ice retreats, the United States must recognize the importance of providing infrastructure to support increased domestic and international maritime activity. The current limitations in nautical charts, aids to navigation, communication, emergency response, and rescue capabilities

make operations difficult and potentially dangerous, hindering U.S. maritime activities in the Arctic. The priorities and recommendations presented in this document create an actionable framework to improve the U.S. Arctic MTS and facilitate responsible activity and growth in the region for a safe and secure Arctic over the next decade and beyond.

Shipping through the Arctic is key to stimulating the Chinese Economy. Savadove 2013 (Savadove, Bill. "China Begins Using Arctic Shipping Route That Could 'Change The Face Of World Trade'" Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 June 2016. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-begins-using-arctic-shipping-route-that-could-change-the-face-of-world-trade-2013-8) JTE

The maiden voyage to Europe by a Chinese merchant ship through the "Northeast Passage" will help the world's biggest exporter speed goods to market and is a symbol of Beijing's strategic ambitions in the Arctic.¶ The emerging Arctic Ocean shipping route north of Russia has been opened up by global warming and cuts thousands of kilometres (miles) -- and many days -- off the journey from China to its key European market.¶ A vessel owned by Chinese state shipping giant COSCO left the northeastern port of Dalian last week bound for Rotterdam in the Netherlands, on a 5,400-kilometre (3,380-mile) voyage which state media said would take just over 30 days.¶ That is up to two weeks faster than the traditional route between Asia and Europe through the Suez Canal, according to COSCO. "The opening of the new shipping route indicates China is participating more in Arctic Ocean affairs," said Zhang Yongfeng, a researcher at

the Shanghai International Shipping Institute.¶ The European Union is China's biggest export destination with 290 billion euros ($385 billion) in goods sold last year and COSCO, China's largest shipper, described the new service in purely commercial terms, saying it will slash shipping times, thus cutting costs and fuel consumption.¶ "The Arctic route can cut 12-15 days from traditional routes so the maritime industry calls it the 'Golden Waterway'," COSCO said in announcing the journey.¶ It will change the market pattern of the global shipping industry because it will shorten the maritime distance significantly among

the Chinese, European and North American markets," Dalian Maritime University professor Qi Shaobin told state media.

But some Chinese estimates claim between five and 15 percent of the country's international trade could use the Arctic route within a mere seven years.

Economic decline causes warRoyal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels .5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Adv 3 Oil Spills

Status-quo infrastructure lacks adequate oil spill responsiveness.Conathan et. al. 2012 (writers for the Center of American Progress, an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to critique and analysis of policy. Individual cites are below. “Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic,” February 2012, americanprogress.org/issues/2012) JTE

The decision to move forward with drilling in some of the most extreme conditions on Earth has deeply

divided Alaska Native communities, drawn stark criticism from environmental groups, and caused other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to raise concerns about the glaring absence of sound science in the region. This is highlighted in a recent letter to the Obama administration, signed by nearly 600 scientists from around the world, calling on the president and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to follow through on their commitment to science and enact recommendations made by the U.S. Geological Survey before approving any drilling activity in the Arctic.3 In addition to the lack of a scientific foundation, the Arctic has inadequate infrastructure to deal with an oil spill, and response technologies in such extreme environmental conditions remain untested . 2 Center for American Progress | Putting a Freeze on Arctic Drilling As we detail in this report, the resources and existing infrastructure that facilitated a grand-scale response to the BP disaster differ immensely from what could be brought to bear in a similar situation off Alaska’s North Slope. Even the well-developed infrastructure and abundance of trained personnel in the Gulf of Mexico didn’t prevent the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Our Arctic response capabilities pale by comparison. There are no U.S. Coast Guard stations north of the Arctic Circle, and we currently operate just one functional icebreaking vessel. Alaska’s tiny ports and airports are incapable of supporting an extensive and sustained airlift effort. The region even lacks such basics as paved roads and railroads. This dearth of infrastructure would severely hamper the ability to transport the supplies and personnel required for any large-scale emergency response effort.

The plan solves – investment and engagement creates effective oil spill response – cooperation keyRosen 2014 [Yereth Rosen, Arctic Editor and Reporter at the Alaska Dispatch, Ability to respond to oil spill in the Arctic called 'sorely lacking', April 23rd, 2014 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140423/ability-respond-oil-spill-arctic-called-sorely-lacking] JTE

Before anyone can adequately respond to oil spills in the U.S. Arctic, people need to know much more about what exists in the Arctic, according to a report issued Wednesday by the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Engineering. The 183-page report on oil spill responses in Alaska’s Arctic outlines a wide range of deficiencies in knowledge about natural resources, ice conditions, weather patterns and even basic geography in the region. Adequate infrastructure to respond to an oil spill in Alaska’s Arctic waters is also sorely lacking , the report

said. “The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill ,”

it said. “It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air

access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel.” The report, requested by the U.S. Arctic Commission, the American Petroleum Institute, and numerous federal agencies, makes 13 recommendations for improved spill readiness in the Arctic waters off Alaska. Those recommendations won consensus from a “really diverse” committee that spent 18 months drafting the report, said University of Alaska Fairbanks Vice Chancellor Mark Myers, a committee member. The group included representatives from the oil industry, academia, government resource agencies and Arctic communities. The report is wide-ranging, Myers said. “The oil spill risk isn’t just about oil and gas,” he said. “It's about marine shipping and even oil tanks on the ground.” Recommendations call for beefed-up environmental and scientific research , enhanced U.S. Coast Guard presence, training oil-spill responders in local Arctic communities, new oil-spill response research, an expedited study of Bering Strait traffic, improved sea-ice and weather forecasts as well as more cooperation with Alaska’s Russian and Canadian neighbors. A major scientific effort is needed because baseline and

historical information is so sparse, the report said. And research must be ongoing because the Arctic is being transformed by climate change, it added. High-resolution satellite and airborne images of coastlines and near-shore environments are needed, and should be updated regularly because the coastline is rapidly eroding and changing, the study said. Expanded use of unmanned aerial and marine vehicles, already deployed by UAF and other institutions, could help in mapping, the report said. Realistic spill-cleanup research would allow for “controlled field releases” of oil in Arctic waters to test cleanup equipment and methods, the study said. Laboratory tests to date have been useful, the report said, but current and emerging oil-spill response technologies should be validated in

tests conducted “under realistic environmental conditions” -- meaning the actual Arctic environment. Up to now,

discharges of oil have not been allowed in U.S. Arctic waters for training or scientific exercises. Also recommended is more cooperation with Alaska’s Russian neighbors. The Coast Guard “should expand its existing bilateral agreement with Russia to include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct regular exercises to establish joint responses under Arctic conditions,” and develop a joint contingency plan with Russia and Canada, the report said. Some of the recommendations -- such as improved mapping -- overlap with ambitions articulated in an action plan released Monday by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. It is unclear whether governments or other

entities plan to make the financial investments to carry out the report’s recommendations. The report suggests some potential funding sources. Revenues from oil leasing or production could be shared with some sort of “public-private-municipal partnership,” the report said. Cost efficiencies could be found if data is shared, including between oil companies, Myers said. The Alaska Legislature appears poised to approve a bill that would establish an Arctic infrastructure development fund, to be administered by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, that could help pay for new facilities in the region. Lawmakers have made no commitment to put any money into the fund, and there are no anticipated appropriations until FY 2016, according to legislative documents. As for boosting cooperative efforts with Russian authorities to enhance marine safety, Myers said he is optimistic, despite rising tensions over Ukraine.

Response time is key – that means we need infrastructure nearby- plan solvesO’Rourke 2012 (Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress”, 6/15/12; < http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf>) JTE

Response time is a critical factor for oil spill recovery. With each hour, spilled oil becomes more difficult to track, contain, and recover, particularly in icy conditions, where oil can migrate under or mix with surrounding ice.96 Most response techniques call for quick action, which may pose logistical challenges in areas without prior staging equipment or trained response professionals. Many stakeholders are concerned about a

“response gap” for oil spills in the Arctic region.97 A response gap is a period of time in which oil spill response activities would be unsafe or infeasible. The response gap for the northern Arctic latitudes is likely to be extremely high compared to other regions.98

The smallest spill in the arctic could destroy the Arctic’s food chainSjogren 2014 [Kristian Sjogren, Writer for Science Nordic, “Even tiny oil spills may break Arctic food chain”, Science Nordic, January 30th 2014, http://sciencenordic.com/even-tiny-oil-spills-may-break-arctic-food-chain] JTE

As the Arctic ice is melting, areas that used to be covered by a thick layer of ice become accessible. These areas contain great amounts of oil and are therefore of great interest to oil companies. However, according to a new study,

drilling for oil in these areas can have disastrous consequences if the increased ship traffic , and the possible oil spills, increase the amounts of oil in the ecosystem. One of the cornerstones of the Arctic food web – the copepod species Calanus hyperboreus – responds particularly poorly to even the tiniest amounts of oil in the water, and once these copepods run into problems, the entire food chain – with everything from fish to humans in it – also runs into problems. So says Professor Torkel Gissel Nielsen, of DTU Aqua at the Technical

University of Denmark, who co-authored the new study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology. “There are huge oil reserves in the Arctic. When we start extracting them, there will inevitably be spillage at some point,” he says. The Calanus hyperboreus is one of 13,000

copepod species. (Photo: Russ Hopcroft) “Our research shows that it only takes tiny amounts of oil in the sea to significantly reduce copepod egg hatching rates. If there are no copepods in the sea, there is no food for the fry. Even tiny oil spills in the Arctic can end up breaking the food chain entirely.” Why copepods are important The reason that the C. hyperboreus is a key species in the food chain is that it is the food source of virtually all fish in the ocean. The copepods feed on algae and thus convert the algae into food for other animals. The total weight of the copepod population also exceeds the weight of all other aquatic animals, so even though each individual copepod is less than one centimetre in length, they collectively make up a considerable

amount of food for fish, birds and crustaceans. A reduction in the copepod population, or a mere displacement of the various copepod species, will therefore have catastrophic consequences for a wide variety of other animals, too. Fatty copepods are most important In their study, the researchers specifically looked at the C. hyperboreus, as this is the fattest one of the Arctic copepods and thus also the most important one in this context. In the Arctic, fat is key to survival, and without the fatty

copepods, there is less fat being transported from algae up through the food chain, first to copepods, then to fish and birds, and lastly to whales, seals, polar bears and humans. “If the number of these fatty copepods is reduced as a result of oil spills in the ocean, it is possible that they will be replaced by other species,” says Nielsen. “However, for animals that feed on the copepods, this would be similar to changing from a diet of bacon to one of rice crackers and still being able to stay warm through the Arctic winters. That is not possible, and many species will be experiencing great problems.” Oil prevents eggs from hatching The problem with the C. hyperboreus is that its eggs are much more susceptible to oil exposure than eggs from

other species. Most copepods have hard eggshells, but C. hyperboreus eggs are only covered by a thin membrane. This membrane is permeable to organic substances such as oil, which can penetrate the egg and kill it. “An oil spill can therefore have the consequence that an entire generation of C. hyperboreus is wiped out. This will result in an entire generation of fry also losing a key food source, as they have no fatty copepods to feed on when preparing for the cold winter,” says the professor. Oil enters the food chain In their studies, the researchers exposed the copepods to very small and realistic amounts of oil in the laboratory. The oil concentrations corresponded to the amount of oil that can be expected from a small oil spill. The oil turned out to cause a sharp reduction in the number of hatched eggs. The oil also affected the female copepods which, although they did not die, became less active and ate less. However, the apparent fact that the copepods survive the small doses of oil is a problem: ”It means that the oil enters the food chain, and that means it may affect other animals whose response to the oil we still do not know. This is another problem caused by oil spills in the Arctic.”

The Arctic is a biodiversity hotspot – it supports globally significant populationsCenter for Biological Diversity 2014 [Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members known for protecting endangered species, “REPORT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE AREAS”, pg. 28-30, May 20th 2014 http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-2014-01/official/ebsaws-2014-01-05-en.pdf) JTE

“Arctic biodiversity is an irreplaceable cultural, scientific, ecological, economic and spiritual asset.” (CAFF

2013, p. 4) “The challenges facing Arctic biodiversity are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and international cooperation.” (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Key Finding No. 9, 2013) 1. The Arctic hosts a globally significant array of biodiversity, and the size and nature of Arctic ecosystems make them of critical importance to the biological, chemical and physical balance of the globe (ACIA 2005). 2. The marine waters of the Arctic are unique in that they contain a deep ocean basin which until recently was almost completely covered in multi-year ice. No other area in the world has such an ice- dominated deep ocean. That property alone would make conservation of the Arctic deserve the attention of Arctic States and the rest of the world. The increasing loss of the multi-year ice places the Arctic under increasing pressure and is exerting impacts on sensitive Arctic ecosystems. These pressures and impacts emphasize the urgency of adopting effective conservation and management measures. The Arctic, as defined by CAFF, covers 32 million km2, 40.6% of which is composed of marine areas. The ecosystems of this vast area exhibit substantial biodiversity, comprising more than 21,000 known species. 3. Arctic species have developed remarkable adaptations to survive both extreme cold and highly variable climatic conditions. Iconic ice-adapted species such as polar bear, bowhead whale, narwhal, and walrus, live among thousands of lesser-known species that are adapted to greater or lesser degrees to exploit the habitats created by sea ice (Eamer et al. 2013). Some species have adapted to the point where they have become ice-dependent, making their population levels vulnerable to loss of sea ice. Sea ice is a generic term for a variety of critically important Arctic marine habitats, which include ice shelves, pack ice, and the highly mobile ice edge. The sea ice complements and modifies other types of habitats, including extensive shallow ocean shelves and towering coastal cliffs (CAFF/ABA 2013). 4. In addition to supporting a diversity of ice-adapted species, Arctic habitats are also remarkable for their roles in supporting globally significant populations, including more than half of the world’s shorebird species . Millions of migratory birds breed in the Arctic and then fly to every continent on Earth, contributing to global biodiversity and ecological health (ABA 2013). During the short summer breeding season, 279 species of birds arrive from all corners of the Earth3 to take advantage of the long days and intense period of productivity. Thirty species come from as far away as South Africa, 26 from Australia and New Zealand and 22 from South America. Several species of marine mammals, including grey and humpback whales and harp and hooded seals, also join the migration (CAFF 2010). 5. Recent changes in Arctic sea-ice cover, driven by rising temperatures, have affected the timing of ice break-up in spring and freeze-up in autumn, as well as the extent and type of ice present in different areas at specific dates. Overall, multi-year ice is rapidly being replaced by first-year ice. The extent of ice is shrinking in all seasons, but especially in the summer. The Arctic Ocean is projected to be virtually ice- free in summer within 30 years, with multi-year ice persisting mainly between islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and in the narrow straits between Canada and Greenland (Eamer et al. 2013). 6. Changes in ocean conditions also mean that subarctic species of algae, invertebrates, fish, mammals (Kaschner et al. 2011) and birds are expanding northwards into the Arctic, while some Arctic- adapted species are losing habitat along the southern edges of their ranges. Relationships among species are changing, with new predation pressures and shifts in diets recorded for some animals. To what extent Arctic species will adjust to these changes is uncertain. Changes are too rapid for evolutionary adaptation, so species with inborn capacity to adjust their physiology or behaviour will fare better. Species with limited distribution, specialized feeding or

breeding requirements, and/or high reliance on sea ice for part of their life cycle are particularly vulnerable (Eamer et al. 2013). 7. Humans have long been part of Arctic ecosystems, and presently the Arctic is home to more than four million people (AHDR 2009). Arctic biodiversity has been the basis for ways of life of indigenous peoples for millennia and is still a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. The CBD recognizes this link, inter alia in the draft plan of Action for Article 10 (c), which states that biodiversity, customary sustainable use and traditional knowledge are intrinsically linked (CBD 2013). In addition to its intrinsic worth, Arctic biodiversity also provides innumerable services and values to people. 8. Industrial exploitation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources poses special challenges in the Arctic. Currently, commercial exploitation of natural resources, including fisheries, only takes place in waters under national jurisdiction in the marginal seas surrounding the Arctic Ocean. While the Arctic Ocean was once ice-covered for most of the year, climate change has reduced ice cover, creating the potential for utilization of natural resources, including fish stocks, in the central portion of the Arctic Ocean, i.e. marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (Lin et al. 2012). The newly seasonally ice-free areas of the Arctic Ocean contain protected species such as bowhead whales (Moore et al. 2011) and fish species that may support a commercial harvest (Lin et al. 2012). Among non-renewable natural resources, the Arctic is estimated to contain a fifth of the world’s remaining oil and gas reserves, the development of which is expected to increase. Already, 10% of the world’s oil and 25% of the world’s natural gas is produced in the Arctic, predominantly onshore, with the majority coming from the Russian Arctic (AMAP 2007). 9. The foregoing makes clear that the Arctic is a region of global significance and that what happens there will have an effect felt far beyond its extent . The description of Arctic areas meeting EBSA criteria is important and necessary because this relatively pristine environment now faces threats from increased warming, ocean acidification and increased pollutants, causing among other things erosion of sea ice, changes in weather patterns, altered natural habitats, and the opening of areas for new development (ACIA 2005). These c hanges will have significant consequences for marine biodiversity and biological productio n, as well as for indigenous peoples’ subsistence use of these resources. Describing ecologically or biologically significant marine areas in the Arctic is an essential process for informing policy and management and for establishing a scientific baseline for future observations and to better inform policymaking. 10. The Arctic Council is a regional body with a long history of effective cooperation on issues related to environmental conservation and sustainable development; it provides an important forum in relation to marine conservation, monitoring and research. Data generated through Arctic Council activities provide important inputs into the EBSA process, e.g., through the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) and the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). Specific reports, such as AMSA IIC, demonstrate the important contribution of these activities. AMSA IIC identified areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance in light of changing climate conditions and increasing incidences of multiple marine uses, and encouraged the implementation of measures to protect these areas from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping. 11. In summary, when considering the EBSA process, the Arctic is unique relative to the rest of the world’s marine and coastal areas for a number of reasons, including that: (a) It supports unique cold- and ice-adapted species, biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems (ABA 2013); (b) The Arctic is undergoing change at a more rapid rate than other places on the globe, threatening the existence of ecosystems such as multi-year sea ice. In the past 100 years, average Arctic

temperatures have increased at almost twice the average global rate (IPCC 2007); (c) When viewed on a global scale, the region as a whole meets several of the EBSA criteria: Uniqueness, naturalness, vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity and slow recovery, which can be found at many scales throughout the Arctic; (d) Owing to cold temperatures, breakdown processes for anthropogenic contaminants occur more slowly than in a temperate and tropical climate (AMAP 2011); (e) The Arctic is more clearly defined as a distinct and unique geographical region than other areas where the EBSA process has been applied; and (f) In the Arctic, there exists a challenge for indigenous peoples and Arctic States in how to include traditional knowledge in the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria, as well as how to assess and include social and cultural significance, especially when these areas cross national borders. 12. These factors justify adopting a higher baseline level of risk aversion in managing of activities in the Arctic relative to the rest of the world. The challenges in maintaining the functionality and biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and international cooperation (ABA 2013), hence the importance of the EBSA process as a means of drawing attention to the Arctic and helping to inform responses to the challenges it faces.

Biodiversity loss risks extinction Danovaro 2008 [Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. “Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse”. http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/]

The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of ecological research. The dark portion of the biosphere likely hosts millions of undiscovered-yet new species. A global scale study conducted on biodiversity collected down to

8000 m depth reveals for the first time that small invertebrates (including worms and crustacea) play a key role in sustaining the overall functioning of these ecosystems. This study concludes that even a minor loss of biodiversity can cause a major impact on the functioning of the global biosphere. In the future, we should start protecting not only large “flag species”, but also the almost invisible and sometime monstrous creatures that inhabit the abyss and the ocean interior. Hard to believe, but so far we dedicated more efforts on the exploration of the Moon or on searching the life on Mars than on exploring the deep interior of our oceans. The total amount of seafloor recovered from depths higher than 4 km (which is the average depth of the oceans) is equivalent to less than the surface of a football pitch. Till few decades ago, we believed that deep-sea habitats were the equivalent of the terrestrial deserts, devoid of life. But recently we accumulated evidence that the dark side of the biosphere is plenty of life and

characterized by an enormous number of species. Despite the deep-sea ecosystems are apparently far from us and difficult to reach and investigate there is an increasing evidence that they are susceptible to the direct and indirect impact of human activities. At the same time they help sustaining human life by providing essential goods and services (including food, biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, minerals) and contribute to climate regulation, nutrient regeneration and supply to the upper ocean. The oxygen produced in the upper ocean, for instance, is about half of the total oxygen produced on Earth and largely depends on the availability of the nutrients regenerated in the deep-sea floor. Therefore, for their profound involvement in global biogeochemical and ecological processes deep seas are essential for the air, water and food we consume and consequently crucial for the sustainable functioning of our biosphere and for human wellbeing. Deep-sea ecosystems are becoming a target for industries for exploiting the huge natural resources (trawling, drilling,

dumping, oil, gas and mineral extraction) and are already being threatened by other pollution sources. These impacts might have important consequences on these highly vulnerable ecosystems determining biodiversity losses . A study published on January 8th on Current Biology, a prestigious publication of Cell Press, provides for the first time evidence that the functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems depends on the richness of species living there. The researchers of a joint team collaborating within the frame of the project Hermes (Hotspot ecosystems along European Margins) and to the EU network of excellence MARBEF, found that the health and functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems are not only linked to biodiversity, but also increase exponentially with the increase of the diversity of species living there. In this study, it was found that sites with a higher diversity of species support exponentially higher rates of ecosystem processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes are performed. Overall, these results suggest that a higher biodiversity can enhance the ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning. This finding, which has no equivalents on terrestrial ecosystems, has an important consequence: the loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to the future of the oceans. In fact, a biodiversity loss by 20-25% is expected

to reduce drastically (by 50%) the functions of these ecosystems, whilst a species loss by 50% could lead to ecosystem collapse. The exponential increase in ecosystem function as species numbers rise indicates that individual species in the deep sea make way for more species, and facilitate each other life . “Facilitation” among species could be

therefore the most efficient strategy to increase the ecological performance of the communities. Deep seas are the largest ecosystem on Earth, covering approximately 65% of the total surface. As such it is possible to conclude that facilitation could be the most common typology of interactions among life forms. There are several possible applications of this finding to

other systems, and even to human societies, as “facilitation” could be the most convenient interaction for the overall wellbeing of the ecosystems and humans. Overall the results of this study indicate that we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deep-sea biodiversity, because otherwise the negative consequences could be unprecedented. In particular we must care also about species that are far from us and [essentially] invisible. To do this we must preserve deep-sea habitats of these life forms. An immediate policy action can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystems on the planet.

Solvency

As the chairman of the Arctic Council until 2017, United States policy direction in the Arctic is key.Tama et al 2015 (Jason Tama¶ Federal Executive Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence¶ Heather Greenley¶ Senior Research Assistant, Foreign Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative¶ David Barata¶ Senior Military Fellow, Center for New American Security¶ "Is the United States Positioned to Lead in the Arctic?" The Brookings Institution. N.p., 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 18 June 2016.) JTE

As the United States readies to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council today, it is timely to assess where the United States stands in terms of its ability and commitment to lead in the region. While there are many important elements of Arctic leadership outlined in the U.S. National Arctic Strategy , the ultimate metric of state leadership comes not from policy alone but also willingness to commit the resources needed to advance national interests and shape favorable global norms for peace, stability, and responsibility. In this context, the United States has yet to demonstrate a strong commitment to 21st century Arctic leadership. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decaying state of the U.S. heavy icebreaking “fleet”—currently consisting of just one operational heavy icebreaker—and the lack of a credible national strategy to expand, much less sustain, this capacity.

The plan aligns with China’s strategic interests MacDonald 2016 (Adam P MacDonald is a Canadian academic specializing in geopolitical developments in the Arctic and East Asia. Receiving his M.A. in Political Science from the University of Victoria, Adam is an independent scholar who has been published in both Canadian and international journals. Adam has articles appearing in The Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, The Canadian Naval Review and the East Asia Forum. Investigating the consequences of a naval turn to the Asia-Pacific region for Canada; the 'militarization' of the Arctic; and Chinese naval developments are Adam's current academic foci. "Is China's Arctic Strategy Really That Chilling?" East Asia Forum. N.p., 16 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 June 2016. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/03/16/is-chinas-arctic-strategy-really-that-chilling/) JTE

Despite some concerns, China’s ability and willingness to invest significantly in the region , despite the possibility that it

will be decades before development generates profitable returns, is perhaps the most important factor motivating Arctic stakeholders to engage with Beijing.¶ China has also been energetic in gaining entry into regional governance arrangements and seeking acceptance as a legitimate and nonthreatening stakeholder . After two failed attempts, in 2013 China (along with a number of other Asian countries) was accepted as a Permanent Observer by the Arctic Council.¶ One of the major conditions China (and other applicants) had to meet was

acceptance of the Nuuk Criteria. This includes acknowledging the pre-eminent role and responsibility of Arctic states in regional affairs; their

sovereignty and sovereign rights; and recognising the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the legal regime governing regional

matters. This helped alleviate concerns associated with a more active Chinese presence in the region. Ultimately, China’s interests in the Arctic align with their broader foreign policy goals of diversifying energy and resources suppliers, securing trade routes with unobstructed access and movement to commercial traffic, and becoming more active in global and regional governance.

A US-Chinese collaborative strategy is key to a secure Arctic.Slayton and Brigham 2015 (David Slayton is research fellow, co-chair and executive director of the Arctic Security Initiative at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. and Lawson Brigham., Ph.D is distinguished professor of Geography and Arctic Policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and a fellow at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy's Center for Arctic Study and Policy. "Strengthen Arctic Cooperation between the US and China." Alaska Dispatch News. N.p., 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 June 2016. http://www.adn.com/commentary/article/strengthen-arctic-cooperation-between-us-and-china/2015/08/28/) JTE

With China's presence more visible on every continent including Antarctica, is there room for Sino-U.S. areas of cooperation at the top of the world? The Nordic states and Canada have already established Arctic policy and research ties to China. With the U.S. chairing the Arctic Council through May 2017, now is the opportune occasion for the U.S. to develop a collaborative strategy, on a range of Arctic research and policy issues. There are three approaches for engagement. One, add focused, strategic Arctic issues to the established U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,

a longer-term approach. Second, and potentially effective in the near-term, leverage the opportunity to strengthen our relationship with China on Arctic affairs while the U.S. is Arctic Council chair. Third, hold enhanced dialogue on Arctic issues between the two national delegations at meetings of the International Maritime Organization, World Meteorological Organization, and International Hydrographic Organization, among other institutions. the wide gap in Arctic marine infrastructure identified in the Arctic Council's Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009) demands critical attention by the major maritime states. China-U.S. cooperation on infrastructure can identify potential public-private

partnerships, discuss strategies for much-needed Arctic observing systems, and study port and maritime communications requirements. The U.S. can also foster China's engagement within the Arctic Council on matters related to Arctic search and rescue, and Arctic oil spill preparedness and response, as it is plausible Chinese-flagged commercial ships will sail in Arctic waters. China and the U.S. have an obligation and opportunity to work together on a range of cooperative issues to maintain the Arctic's future as a peaceful, safe and secure region, as that new frontier opens. Both nations must be proactive in Arctic matters within their already existing dialogue and in international organizations including the Arctic Council.

Northern routes decrease transportation time and fuel costs – stimulates economy.ANWTF 2012 (Congressional Joint Committee overseeing the development and maintenance of infrastructure in the Northern waters of Alaska. (Alaska Northern Waters Task Force, “Findings and Recommendations 2012 Marine Transportation,” 30 January 2012, housemajority.org) JTE

Within the next ten to twenty years, the loss of perennial sea ice is expected to open Arctic waters for a part of each year to new shipping routes. Maritime powers have been searching for a shorter route from the Atlantic to Asia for centuries. The melting Arctic raises the possibility of two such routes: The Northern Sea Route runs along Russia’s northern border from Murmansk to Providenya and could be used for trade between northeast Asia and northern Europe. The Northwest Passage runs through the Canadian Arctic Islands and the Alaskan Arctic Ocean and could be used for trade between northeast Asia and North America. The economic benefits of these new routes could be significant. Of the two sea lanes, the Northern Sea Route holds particular promise due to superior depth, summers freer of ice, and comparatively direct routing. Therefore, it is anticipated that this will be the preferred Arctic sea lane in the near future. Ships sailing between East Asia and Western Europe could save more than 40% in transportation time and fuel costs by navigating this route instead of the Suez Canal. Currently, most Arctic marine traffic is destinational, delivering goods and supplies to the Arctic or transporting

minerals out of the region. In 2006, it was estimated that some 6,000 vessels operated in or transited the Arctic in tourism, minerals mining, oil and gas exploration, military operations, and other activities. Today this number has reached more than 7,000, and many nations are actively building more ships designed to operate in Arctic waters.

US-Sino cooperation is essential to maintaining peace, and further cooperation with other nations. This solves for Russian aggression. Garrett and Fingar 2013 (Banning Garrett is strategic foresight senior fellow for innovation and global trends at the Atlantic Council. Thomas Fingar is an Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. (US News and World Report, “The World is Counting on the U.S. and China” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/09/18/the-us-and-china-must-work-together-to-ensure-global-peace-and-prospertity, 9/18/13, Accessed: 6/20/16) JTE

It is difficult to find a path to a hopeful world that does not include U.S.-China cooperation on global challenges. This is the conclusion of an unprecedented joint assessment entitled "China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future," authored by a working group of Chinese and American experts. Such cooperation would not constitute a G-2 dominating the world, but rather is a sine qua non of effective global cooperation. Put another way, a number of trends and possible scenarios in U.S.-China relations could imperil the prospects for cooperation, as the narrative about the inevitability of U.S.-China conflict has become popular on both sides of the Pacific. If the United States and

China cannot cooperate on major challenges, effective cooperative solutions to global problems is unlikely — and the challenges faced cannot be solved by individual nations on their own . So, the fates of the United States and China are inextricably intertwined in an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world. As participants in a China-U.S. Working Group convened by the Atlantic Council and the China Institute of International Studies, we assessed the implications for China and the United States that were outlined in the US National Intelligence Council's "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds and its Global Trends to 2030 and the Prospects for China-US Relations" report prepared under the direction of the China Institute of International Studies and Peking University's School of International Studies. Discussions with our Chinese colleagues confirmed that our assessments of global trends and uncertainties were largely similar and that we shared concerns about their implications. We developed scenarios incorporating different characterizations of the U.S.-China relationship, including whether the relationship was primarily competitive or cooperative. Different assumptions about the nature of U.S.-China relations produced very different results when we assessed the likely consequences of looming global challenges. Our joint assessment concluded that the unprecedented peace, prosperity and interdependence of today's world.— and further progress — are threatened by a host of looming challenges that cannot be met over the long-term without sustained cooperation among many nations, and that such cooperation would have little efficacy without cooperation between the United States and China . Areas of needed

cooperation include rethinking global institutions; strengthening and rebalancing the global economy; ensuring resource security; and cooperating on climate change mitigation, adaptation and consequence management. The Sunnylands summit demonstrated that top leaders understand they are in the same strategic boat, need to avoid becoming strategic competitors and must build a cooperative relationship. The lower levels of each government, though, tend to see the other country as an adversary and to focus on differences and threats posed by the other. The top leadership of each country needs to adopt a new framework that prioritizes cooperation on common

challenges and threats and instructs its bureaucracy to explore opportunities to collaborate with the other side. Without such guidance, there is a danger that the militaries and intelligence services of each side will increasingly view the other country as an enemy and act in ways that will create a self-fulfilling prophecy, wasting valuable resources, further exacerbating strategic mistrust and creating unacceptable opportunity costs when measured against the need to secure our common fate in the face of very grave global challenges over the next few decades. We strongly recommend the formation of a nongovernmental "Vision Group" that could provide long-term strategic assessments and concrete proposals for the leadership of both countries to complement government-to-government dialogues such as the S&ED. Moreover, the Vision Group can start to focus on building a "new type of major power relationship," not just on bilateral accommodation and mutual understanding, but on the world's two most consequential powers acting together as joint responsible stakeholders to address the world's key challenges. The Vision Group comprising experts from both countries could work together to provide a strategic foresight document to guide China-U.S. relations looking toward 2030 and to evaluate progress toward achieving that vision on an ongoing basis. It could identify, clarify and explain opportunities for government-to-government and nongovernmental cooperation on complex and consequential global developments. Over time, this group could be expanded to include representatives of other nations and organizations to give a more global reach to the Vision Group and its work. There are serious differences and dangers of growing strategic mistrust between our countries. But resolving these differences and building trust should not be prerequisites to cooperation on common challenges and strategic threats. Moreover, such cooperation is not a

favor that either power bestows on the other; it should not be viewed or used as a "bargaining chip" to gain leverage on bilateral issues. The United States and China need to act together to protect and advance their own economic and security interests.

AFF Extensions

Inherency Extensions

The US lacks the capacity in the squo to pursue Arctic Ocean market expansionOstreng ’13 (Willy Ostreng, senior researcher and chairman of the research institute Ocean Futures in Oslo and affiliated faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was scientific director/professor at the Centre for Advanced Study at the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters from 2003-2009, director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute Norway from 1978-2003, and adjunct professor of political science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim from 1994-2004, was special advisor to the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1998-99, member of the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and letters, and of the International Academy of Regional Development and Cooperation in Russia, vice-president of the Norwegian Academy of Polar Research, “Shipping in Arctic Waters: A comparison of the Northeast, Northwest and Trans Polar Passages”, pg 48-49) JTE

Throughout history, the Arctic Ocean has remained off the beaten track of large-scale world shipping operations. It has been the operational backyard of a few Soviet/Russian ships. In the West, the general tendency has been to play down the geopolitical aspects of the Arctic Ocean and emphasize the climatic, hydrological and bathymetric

restrictions of the NSR and NWP. On the whole, the conclusion has been that these routes are of no interest for market-based economies. Lack of regular sailing schedules, limited length of sailing sea- sons, costs of icebreaker assistance, high insurance premiums, limited sailing speeds and cargo capacity, and cost of building ice-reinforced freighters are just a few of the numerous cost factors invoked when disregarding the Arctic Ocean as an alternative transportation medium between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Even the NSR- the most developed of these transportation corridors (see Chapter 7) – has been regarded as nothing but a misbegotten product of communist command economy rather than as a legitimate offspring of market forces. In most Western quarters, the Arctic routes have never been seen as viable and realistic alternatives to the Suez and Panama Canals. Their fleets are mostly fitted and designed for blue water operation, and have

never been built with Arctic operational capabilities in mind. To a large extent, this is still the case. Lasserre and Pelletier show that, in spite of the increasing focus on Arctic transit shipping in media and elsewhere in recent years, “there is no explosion (in the orders to shipyards) of Arctic-plying ships.”24 As of February 2011, most of the ice class ships ordered or built worldwide – 120 in total – were directed at the Baltic and Northwest Atlantic, and only 24% were built for the Arctic Ocean, in particular the Barents Sea and the NSR. The building of ice class ships peaked in 2005 with 234 vessels. Since then it has decreased and, again, most of those ships were not designed for deployment in the Arctic Ocean, but in the Baltic Sea and northern Pacific.25 By and large, Western shipowners still lack the capacity to undertake shipping assignments in the Arctic Ocean. No wonder the majority of them signal a lack of interest to take on the challenge . Their lack of capability directs their interest towards blue waters. The blanket rejection by Western shipping companies to engage in Arctic operations and their lack of capability to undertake them have failed to take into consideration the fact that there are several feasible uses apart from all-year transit sailings, among them destination Arctic-applied transport.26 The Kara Sea Route is the most prominent example of this (see Chapter 1). As stated by the former President of the Norwegian Shipping Association, Rolf Saether, in 1999: “To study the possibilities facing sea transportation [in these waters] was a task too complex for individual companies. This [called] for international cooperation. When the INSROP programme27 was presented, we decided to follow it closely. The pro- gramme seemed well organized and the most outstanding experts worldwide were invited to cooperate in INSROP. Our purpose for joining in was that the research programme could reveal the potential of the northern sea route to commerce and shipping both economically and technically. We expected the programme to answer the questions we had about the ice and weather conditions along the route. Further, we expected to learn about the environ- mental challenges along the Northern Sea Route, and how these challenges could be met. We knew that the natural resources in the northern regions were very rich, but we needed more accurate information about oil and gas, minerals, forests and other resources. Finally, we hoped the INSROP would indicate the type of know-how a shipping company would need to be a quality operator in the area.”28’’

There is currently a lack of funding for infrastructure in the Arctic Region. Council on Foreign Relations 2014 (Council of Foreign Relations, The Emerging Arctic 2014

http://www.cfr.org/polar-regions/emerging-arctic/p32620#!/?cid=otr_marketing_use-arctic_Infoguide) JTE

A general lack of infrastructure on both sea and land is perhaps the largest barrier to development in the Arctic, although some states, like Russia, are investing more money in the challenge than others. Maritime experts say that more public and private funding is needed for significant improvements to ship navigation and charting, radio and satellite communication, icebreaker capacity, and port facilities. For instance, many believe Alaska needs a deep-water port to accommodate rising

traffic along the Bering Sea.¶ Parallel investments are also needed on land in new roads, railways, airfields, and pipelines. But funds will also be required to stabilize existing infrastructure in areas where permafrost is melting. Perennially frozen ground could shrink markedly in several countries by midcentury, saddling governments, businesses, and residents with substantial costs. According to some estimates, sinking soil could cost Canada’s North

hundreds of millions of dollars in renovation expenses. Policy experts encourage communities facing these challenges to share construction technologies and other best practices.

Russia Advantage

Russia Uniqueness Extensions

Militaristic Russia expansionism into the Arctic now—US policy and support from other nations key to prevent escalatory conflictMitchell 14 (Jon Mitchell, pursuing Masters degree in public policy, with a concentration in international affairs “Russia’s Territorial Ambition and Increased Military Presence in the Arctic” April 23, 2014, Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/23/russias-territorial-ambition-and-increased-military-presence-in-the-arctic/) JTE

As the U.S. and E.U. keep a very close eye on the situation with Russia and Ukraine, Russia is also increasing its presence and influence elsewhere: the Arctic—a melting region that is opening up prime shipping lanes and real estate with an estimated $1 trillion in hydrocarbons.[1] With the opening of two major shipping routes, the North Sea route and the Northwest Passage, the potential for economic competition is fierce, especially among the eight members of the Arctic council: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the United States.

[2] President Putin made statements this week concerning Russia’s national interests in the Arctic region: chiefly, militarization and the preparation of support elements for commercial shipping routes .[3] The Russian President called for full government funding for “socio-economic development” from 2017-2020,

including a system of Russian naval bases that would be home to ships and submarines allocated specifically for the defense of national interests that involve the protection of Russian oil and gas facilities in the Arctic.[4] Russia is also attempting to accelerate the construction of more icebreakers to take part in its Arctic strategy.[5] The Russian Federation recently staked a territorial claim in the Sea of Okhotsk for 52,000 square kilometers,[6] and is currently preparing an Arctic water claim for 1.2 million square kilometers.[7] The energy giant owns 43 of the approximate 60 hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic Circle.[8] With Russian energy companies already developing hydrocarbon deposits and expanding border patrols on its Arctic sea shelf (in place by July 1, 2014),[9] Putin is actively pursuing a strong approach to the Arctic region. Russian oil fields, which significantly contribute to the country’s revenue, are in decline—forcing Russian oil companies to actively explore the Arctic region.[10] While the U.S. Defense Secretary called for a peaceful and stable Arctic region with international cooperation, the Arctic has created increased militarization efforts, particularly by Russia. Already the Arctic has seen powerful warships of Russia’s Northern Fleet, strategic bomber patrols, and airborne troop exercises.[11] In fact, Russian military forces have been permanently stationed in the Arctic since summer 2013.[12] According to a source in the Russian

General Staff, a new military command titled Northern Fleet—Joint Strategic Command, will be created and tasked to protect Russian interests in its Arctic territories; a strategy that was approved in 2009 .[13] Furthermore, weapons developers are being tasked with creating products that can face the harsh Arctic environment. According to an RT report, “Putin ordered the head of the Russian arms industry, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, to concentrate the efforts on creation of Arctic infrastructure for the soonest deployment of troops. Rogozin reported that all Russian weapons systems can be produced with special features needed in the extreme North and the weapons companies were ready to supply such arms to the Defense Ministry.”[14] The “Arctic infrastructure” that Rogozin refers to will include Navy and Border Guard Service bases.[15] These bases are part of Putin’s aim to strengthen Russian energy companies and military positions in the Arctic region. In 2013, a formerly closed down base was reopened in the Novosibirsk Islands and is now home to 10 military ships and four icebreakers—a move that Reuters called “a demonstration of force.”[16] The Defense Ministry is also planning on bringing seven airstrips in the Arctic back to life.[17] Russia’s militarization in the Arctic region is only a part of its increasing activity throughout the globe. Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said, “It’s crucially important for us to set goals for our national interests in this region. If we don’t do that, we will lose the battle for resources which means we’ll also lose in a big battle for the right to have sovereignty and independence.”[18] On the contrary, Aleksandr Gorban, a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry is quoted saying that a “war for resources”[19] in the Arctic will never happen. But what was once a more hands-off region of the world that provided international cooperation and stability is now turning into a race for sovereignty and resources claims—as evidenced not only by Russia’s increasing military presence, but also Canada and the United States. Canada is now allocating part of its defense budget towards armed ships that will patrol its part of the Arctic Circle,[20] while the United States has planned a strategy of its own. In addition to conducting military exercises with other Arctic nation members, the U.S. Navy has proposed a strategy titled The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030 that was released in February 2014. The 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, cited in the Arctic Roadmap, provides the Navy’s two specific objectives for the Arctic: 1) advance United States’ security interests; and 2) strengthen international cooperation.[21] According to the strategy, the Navy’s role will primarily be in support of search and rescue, law enforcement, and civil support operations.[22] However, this may grow to a more militarized strategy depending on the U.S. government’s view of Russia’s increased military activity in the Arctic region over the next few years. In either case, the U.S. is falling behind in Arctic preparation. It has very few operational icebreakers for the Arctic region where its only primary presence is seen through nuclear submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles, according to an RT article.[23] Until 2020, the Navy will primarily use its submarines and limited air assets in the Arctic, while its mid-term and far-term strategy emphasizes personnel, surface ships, submarines, and air assets that will be

prepared for Arctic conditions and operations.[24] Despite its mid and long-term strategy, the U.S. will already be lagging in establishing a military presence to compete with Russia’s, who already has strategies in motion until 2020 and later. Last month, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a united Canadian-U.S. counterbalance to Russia’s Arctic presence, pointing out “they have been aggressively reopening military bases.”[25] While the U.S. cannot legitimately criticize Putin for opening military bases and simultaneously avoid blatant hypocrisy, it is worth noting that Russia is developing a strong military presence in a potentially competitive region. Russia’s plans to reopen bases and create an Arctic military command fosters the conclusion that Russia wants to be the first established dominant force in a new region that will host economic competition and primary shipping lanes, albeit in a harsh environment that makes it difficult to extract resources. Nicholas Cunningham aptly stated “both Russia and the West fear losing out to the other in the far north, despite what appears to be a small prize.”[26] Although the Arctic holds a mass of the world’s oil and gas deposits, the extreme environment and remote location makes it difficult to produce energy quickly and efficiently. Despite this, the Russian Federation is focused on developing disputed hydrocarbon areas that it claims are part of the country’s continental shelf. In addition, Russia is allocating funds and forces to the Arctic to protect its interests. While the U.S. is currently lacking in natural resource development and exploitation in the Arctic Circle, it desires to display a show of strength in the cold region to compete with potential Russian domination and influence. But because the Defense Department faces constant budget cuts, preparing an Arctic naval force will be slow and difficult. For now, the United States can only show strength through nuclear submarines and drone technology. Putin and the Russian Federation are laying disputed claims to territories both inside and outside the Arctic while creating the foundation for a potential military buildup in the Arctic—provided that the U.S. and Canada can even allocate sufficient budgets for Arctic military expansion. One thing is sure: if the Arctic region continues to melt and open up vital shipping lanes, there must be international cooperation to provide security and rescue elements for commercial shipping. Since Russia has significant territorial claims and the most coastlines in the Arctic Circle, it would be natural for the Russian Federation to have a wide security presence in the region, but this must be coupled with international cooperation in commercial shipping lanes and by providing support elements, such as search and rescue. The United States will not be able to fully compete with a country that is heavily investing in the Arctic region—particularly due to budget constraints and lack of Arctic-prepared vessels. If the U.S. desires to limit Russian influence and territorial claims, it must do so by partnering with other members of the Arctic council—not by entering into a military buildup simply to dominate Russia in the Arctic.

Russia is aggressively increasing presence in the Arctic – wants access to energy resources and shipping routesAnishchuk 2014 [Alexei Anishchuck, “Russia's Putin wants beefed-up presence in Arctic,” Correspondent, April 22nd, 2014 Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-russia-putin-arctic-idUSBREA3L1BN20140422] JTE

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia should step up its presence in the Arctic and challenge other nations in exploring the world's largest untapped natural reserves, days after it started shipping its

first oil from the region. Russia's ambitions in the Arctic have for some time been raising eyebrows among other states vying for a presence there, but the Kremlin's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula is likely to put its Arctic plans under greater

scrutiny. Russia has staked its future economic growth on developing the Arctic's vast energy resources and reviving a Soviet-era shipping route through the ice. The United States, Denmark and Norway are also pressing for access to what

they consider their fair share of the Arctic's massive oil and natural gas reserves. Russia loaded its first crude tanker from an oil platform in the Pechora Sea last week. "Over decades, step by step, Russia has built up, strengthened its positions in the Arctic," Putin told a meeting of his Security Council in the Kremlin. "And our goal is not only to regain them, but also to qualitatively strengthen them." Moscow and the West are in the middle of their worst standoff since the Cold War. The row centers on Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Last year Putin ordered the reopening of a Soviet-era Arctic military base in the Novosibirsk Islands, two decades after abandoning it, and Moscow has sent 10 warships and four nuclear-powered ice breakers there in a demonstration of force. "More often the interests of the Arctic powers, and not only them, cross here - countries that are far away from this region are also expressing interest (in

the Arctic)," he said. "In these conditions we must take additional measures not to fall behind our partners, to keep our influence in the region and in some aspects be ahead of our partners." Russia, Canada and Denmark all say an underwater mountain range, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches 1,800 km (1,120 miles) across the pole under the Arctic Sea, is part of their own landmass. China, the world's No 2 economy, has expressed interest in the Arctic shipping route. Last week Russia loaded its first oil tanker at the Prirazlomnaya platform in the Arctic. The area is seen by Moscow as a source of fuel that can gradually

replace output from its depleting West Siberian fields.

Russia is accelerating its Arctic development – oil and military operationsBender and Kelley 2014 [Jeremy Bender and Michael Kelley, “Militaries Know That The Arctic Is Melting -- Here's How They're Taking Advantage,” June 4th, 2014 Business Insider, BA, Middle East Studies, Rutgers University and Military and Defense Reporter, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-competition-for-arctic-resources-2014-6 ) JTE

As the Arctic ice melts, the area is predicted to become a center of strategic competition and economic activity. Last year, China signed a free trade agreement with Iceland and sent an icebreaker to the region despite having no viable claims in

the Arctic. Wildly rich The region is stocked with valuable oil, gas, mineral, and fishery reserves. The U.S. estimates

that a significant proportion of the Earth’s untapped petroleum — including about 15% of the world’s rem aining oil, up to 30% of its natural gas deposits, and about 20% of its liquefied natural gas — are stored in the Arctic seabed. And in terms of preparation, America is lagging behind its potential competitors. In front is Russia, which symbolically placed a Russian flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole in 2007. The country, one-fifth of which lies within the Arctic Circle, has by far the most amount of developed oil fields in the region. Russia’s increasing advantage CFR notes that many observers “consider Russia, which is investing tens of billions of dollars in its northern infrastructure, the most dominant player in the Arctic.” Shipping throughout the Arctic will also take on unprecedented importance as the ice recedes — and the Kremlin has a plan for taking advantage of this changing

geography. Russia wants the Northern Sea Route, where traffic jumped from four vessels in 2010 to 71 in 2013, to eventually

rival the Suez Canal as a passage between Europe and Asia. And it could: The Northern Sea Route from Europe to Asia takes only 35 days, compared to a 48-day journey between the continents via the Suez Canal. Arctic Ocean Changing Routes ‘A new Cold War’ Because of the Arctic’s potential resources and trade impact, countries are stepping up military development in the region. For years, Norway has been conducting “Operation Cold Response.” This year, the military exercise brought in more than 16,000 troops from 15 participating NATO members. A U.S. Arctic Roadmap promotes naval security, the development of operational experience in an Arctic environment, and the bolstering of naval readiness and capability. The Navy has accelerated its plan after noting that it is “inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic.” USS AnnapolisThe US Navy attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009. Russia, meanwhile, has reinvigorated its process of building its naval operations on its northern coast.

“Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets,” the CFR presentation explains. “In late 2013, President

Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed ‘every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there.’ He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014.” CFR notes that while most experts dismiss the

prospects for armed aggression in the Arctic, “some defence analysts and academics assert that territorial disputes and

a competition for resources have primed the Arctic for a new Cold War.”

Russia is encroaching on the Arctic—resource consumptionRiddle 2014 (Kevin Riddle, master’s student at the Joint Forces Staff College, U.S. NATIONAL ARCTIC STRATEGY: PREPARING DEFENSIVE LINES OF EFFORT FOR THE ARCTIC, April 1st 2014 Commander, U.S. Coast Guard http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a600206.pdf) JTE

Of the five Arctic nations, Russia arguably has more at stake in the Arctic than any other nation. With approximately 3,500 miles of Arctic coastline and almost two million people living within Russia’s Arctic territories, Russia accounts for 34 percent of the Arctic landmasses and 49 percent of the Arctic population.22 Thawing of the Arctic ice has led Russia to look at the Arctic as “a vast marine area more open for use, and, potentially, integrated with the world economy.”23 Accordingly, Russian Arctic policy specifically identifies the Northern Sea Route as a national interest and, in March 2010, Russia announced it was creating a federal agency to regulate and collect fees for use of the Northern Sea Route by shipping companies. 24

Furthermore, Russia intends to solidify its influence in Arctic shipping by developing “infrastructure, including ports, customs facilities and marine checkpoints, along its 17,500 kilometre Arctic coastline.” 25

From a strategic viewpoint, any nation that develops the means to curtail freedom of navigation through “marine checkpoints” is creating an inherent threat to global trade routes. Should the Northern Sea Route become a viable trade route and regional instability threaten the Suez or Panama canals, Russia’s exclusive control of the route could upset the energy security of nations, including the United States. This scenario would be a direct national security threat to all of the Arctic nations (and potentially China as well), which could lead to conflict. As the prospect of an ice-free Arctic increased over the last decade, Russia developed its national Arctic policy. The Foundations of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Arctic Until 2020 and Beyond was released in March 2009. Analysis of this policy indicates Russia is placing a heavy emphasis on economic development in the Arctic and, due to limited abilities and financial resources to exploit the resources, international cooperation. Russia’s Arctic priorities are listed as: • Usage of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation as a strategic resource base, allowing for the solution of problems of socio economic development; • Safeguarding the Arctic as a zone of peace and cooperation • Conservation of the Arctic’s unique ecosystems • Usage of the Northern Sea Route as a national integrated transport communication system of the Russian Federation in the Arctic.26 Russia’s Arctic policy asserts a move to bolster its military presence in the region with “an armed forces contingent and other general-purpose military units .”27 This militarization of the

Arctic was subsequently reinforced a few months later when President Medvedev signed Russia’s security strategy, National Security

of the Russian Federation Through 2020, in May 2009. This new strategy states “The attention of international politics in the long-term will be concentrated on controlling the sources of energy resources in the Middle East, on the shelf of

the Barents Sea and other parts of the Arctic.”28 More alarming to national security interests is the policy’s strong stance on using military means to protect its claim to energy resources: “In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be changed.”29 This declaration is significant in that it contradicts parts of Russia’s Arctic Policy, which states, “Russia’s strategic national interests are served by preserving the Arctic as a zone of peace and cooperation.”30 Furthermore, it contradicts President Putin’s claim to seek peaceful solutions to the division of Arctic territory.31 Russia’s current diplomacy efforts do indicate it seeks peaceful cooperation in the Arctic. However, Russia most recently demonstrated its resolve to protect its national interests using military force in the Ukraine and, as laid out in its national security and Arctic policies, Russia also appears willing to use military options to protect its claim to Arctic resources. More disturbing than this increased militarization is Russia’s warning in its national security strategy that “within a decade nations could be at war over resources in the Arctic Ocean” and those resources will become the “critical point for the world military balance.”46 It further proclaims, “In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might.”47 Furthermore, in December 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “The U.S. navy’s capability in the Arctic is a key reason for Russia to beef up its presence in the region.”48 Although Putin has stated Russia must cooperate with other countries and the United States, he added “But the [U.S.] submarines are there, and they do carry missiles.”49 Sergey Shoigu, Russia’s Defense Minister, followed up President Putin’s decree stating, “There are plans to create a group of troops and forces to ensure military security and protection of the Russian Federation’s national interests in the Arctic in 2014.”50 This rhetoric coming from Russia’s national leadership should be a clear warning to Western powers that Russia will not shy away from resorting to military options to protect its claim to Arctic resources. If there is any doubt, Russia clearly demonstrated its resolve to protect national interests with military force in the Ukraine .

Russia is increasing military use of the arctic for accesses to resources and geopolitical posturing—US policy is current passive SLD 2014 (Second Line of Defense, “THE RUSSIAN DYNAMIC IN THE ARCTIC: STRATEGIC POSITIONING” 2014-06-05, http://www.sldinfo.com/the-russian-dynamic-in-the-arctic-strategic-positioning/) JTE

Although Norway and Canada are very engaged in the Arctic area, the policy stage is still set by the Cold War

superpowers Russia and the United States. Russia has a proactive policy; the United States has a reluctant policy. In

2008 after Canada, the United States, and Denmark criticized Russia’s territorial claims to the continental plateau of the Arctic, Russia set out training plans for military units that could be engaged in Arctic combat mission, extended the

“operational radius” of its northern naval forces, and reinforced its army’s combat readiness along the Arctic coast— just in case of a potential conflict. In its new national security strategy, Russia raised the prospect of war in the Arctic Ocean if Russia’s interests and border security were threatened by neighboring nations,

likely considering the current circumstances of pending border agreements and disagreements between Russia and those nations. To secure and guarantee its overall energy and security interests, Russia stated that “in a competition for resources it cannot be ruled out that military force could be used to resolve emerging problems that would destroy the balance of forces near the borders of Russia and her allies.” 1 According to authoritative Russian sources, Russia is willing— and able— to use the entire spectrum of instruments to settle legal status problems in disputed regions such as the Arctic, Caspian, and South China seas. Russia’s 2007– 15 rearmament program plans to rebuild the submarine force, recommending building several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates, and five Project 20380 corvettes. With the end of the Cold War, the United States steadily closed some northern military bases, including the naval base on Adak and Fort Greely. These developments reflected the United States’ perception that a significant military presence is— since Soviet Union submarine force collapsed— no longer needed in the Arctic. Although the collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to make the challenges easier to resolve, the challenges in the Arctic facing now U.S. policy makers are much more complicated than expected in 1991 . Threats are much more nebulous, long term, and complex. Given the importance that Putin assigns to maintaining control of Russia’s energy resources, it is unsurprising that he has already outlined ambitious goals to develop Arctic hydrocarbon resources in coming years. Indeed, the Arctic can be seen as to be part of the overall expansion of Russia’s role in providing global energy and shaping its influence via these means .

The Russians have issued several key policies on the evolution of their Arctic policies. For example, on January 14,

2011, the Russian newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta published an interview with Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Russian Security Council, on what he called an issue of “an enormous strategic and economic significance.” Patrushev stated that the council had directed that the government approve a long-term program to extract the mineral resources, especially oil and natural gas, located on Russia’s Arctic shelf by the end of 2011. 2 That same day, two of the world’s giant oil companies, Russia’s Rosneft and BP, announced an unprecedented partnership that will see them exchange shares and expand their joint ventures, including launching a new Arctic oil-drilling project. Both companies bring important assets to their new alliance, but the deal has alarmed foreign governments and environments due to its potential commercial, security, and ecological implications. The deal also raises interesting questions related to the Russian government’s economic modernization program. In terms of Arctic and energy security issues, the new partnership could mark the commencement of a major Russian government drive to develop the energy resources that fall within the boundaries of Moscow’s territorial claims in the Arctic. In recent years, the Russian government has set forth ambitious territorial claims in the Arctic

reinforced through recent scientific research expeditions and military measures . Despite losing considerable

territory with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation still has the world’s longest Arctic border at over

17,500 kilometers, which amount to one-third of the entire length of Russia’s national frontiers. The Russian Federation also possesses several Arctic archipelagoes, including Franz Josef Land and Wrangel Island. Furthermore, the Russian government claims its continental shelf extends up to the North Pole— and is taking steps to strengthen and enforce this claim in the face of opposition from Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States. For example, the Russian government believes that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, which lies on the North Pole’s seabed, along with the Mendeleev Ridge and Alpha Ridge, are part of Russia’s continental shelf. As with the case with Canada and the Northwest Passage, Russia also seeks to exercise exclusive control over a burgeoning shipping lane of the Northern Sea Route (NSR ). The NSR is a system of sea-lanes from the straits between the Barents and Kara seas (south of Russia’s Novaya Zemlya nuclear test site) to the Bering Strait, a distance of approximately 5,000 kilometers. This route connects Asia and Europe and when navigable saves transportation time and costs as compared with using the Suez Canal. Russia’s Arctic policy defines the NSR as a core national interest. In contrast, the U.S. government considers the NSR as an international shipping route. In an effort to bolster its claims of ownership over the NSR, the Russian Ministry of Transport announced on March 18, 2010, that it is drafting legislation to define the route’s precise dimensions and to create a federal agency that would regulate and collect fees from foreign vessels using the NSR. During the Cold War, the Arctic region was a place of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both operated nuclear vessels,

long-range bombers, and tactical aircraft in the region. Following the USSR’s collapse in 1991, Russian government interest in the Arctic decreased considerably. During the 1990s, Moscow’s concerns were maintaining the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation in the face of secessionist threats in the North Caucasus and elsewhere. During the 1990s, Russian military overflights and naval patrols in the Arctic declined significantly as the Russian military faced drastic funding and fuel shortages. The Russian army withdrew from many Arctic bases. The inward concentration of the Russian government’s attention and resources hampered the development of a comprehensive policy toward the Arctic. Furthermore, the economic problems that Russia confronted in the 1990s also made it difficult for Russians to conceive of resource-intensive plans to exploit the Arctic region’s mineral wealth. But the rise in world oil and gas prices that began in the late 1990s simultaneously provided the Russian government with increased revenue and renewed Russian interest in developing the increasing valuable energy resources in the Arctic region. The renewed attention was evident on September 18, 2008, when the Russian government issued a “Framework for the Arctic to the Year 2020 and Subsequent Perspectives.” More recently, the “Russian National Security Strategy for 2020” illustrates the growing importance that Russian strategists attribute to exerting control over the maritime domains

around Russia, especially the resource-rich Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, and Caspian Sea. After a series of incidents in the late 1990s, in which several foreign research ships allegedly trespassed into Russian territorial waters, the Russian government began taking steps to secure its northern border. In recent years, Russia has taken more concrete measures than any other country to assert its Arctic claims. Russian warships and warplanes have increased their military activities in the region. The Russian government also began sending more scientific research expeditions to the Arctic. In the past, Russia relied heavily on

military personnel and equipment in its Arctic expeditions, but now is using primarily civilian technologies since these can be more readily detailed to the United Nations and other international bodies to justify Russia’s Arctic claims. Russia’s earlier submission to the UN regarding its territorial claim to the Lomonosov Ridge was rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence, which Moscow declined to provide for fear of revealing military secrets. The 2007 Arktika expedition represented a dramatic, high-profile assertion of Russian interest in the region. In August the research expedition climaxed when ship Akademik Fedorov and icebreaker Rossiya sent two specially designed submersible vessels, Mir-1 and Mir-2, 4,300 meters deep to the North Pole seabed. After collecting soil samples and further mapping the Lomonsov Ridge, the expedition planted a Russian flag made of titanium on its floor. Reacting to foreign criticism of the flag ceremony, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “The aim of this expedition is not to stake Russia’s claim but to show that our shelf reaches to the North Pole.” Russian government claims and actions regarding the Arctic stem not only from economic and domestic political considerations but also from offensive and defensive strategic considerations that encourage a greater Russian military presence in the Arctic. The Eurasian landmass of Russia is effectively “walled in” by

Siberia and the Pacific to the east, Asia and the Middle East to the south, and Europe to the west. The Arctic has for centuries served as the “fourth wall,” restricting Russian maritime activity to areas largely controlled by other powers. As the Arctic climate changes to open more waters to navigation and exploration , the Russian

Federation can extend the range of its military operations. Russia’s Northern Fleet, the largest element of the Russian navy, is based in the port city Severomorsk on the Barents Sea. Although the Northern Fleet maintains year-round access to the north and south Atlantic, its mobility could be strictly limited to the Barents Sea by a Western naval power in the event of unrestricted warfare. An ice-free Arctic would negate this advantage but also present new strategic challenges to Russia. The opening of the Arctic Ocean makes vulnerable Russia’s northern ports, particularly those in the Kola Peninsula that house the majority of Russia’s ballistic-missile submarine fleet. Furthermore, the opening of the NSR could serve as a maritime link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through which warships could pass. At present warships in the NSR are susceptible to structural damage from floating ice, weather conditions, and icing. These conditions will become less severe on a seasonal basis as climate change progresses. Russia is partly able to address the issue of Arctic maritime conditions by maintaining a fleet of icebreakers. There are 18 icebreakers of various sizes in Russia’s military fleet. Seven of these are equipped with nuclear reactors, rather than conventional diesel engines, allowing them to break through ice twice as thick as can be breached by standard icebreakers. The most capable Russian icebreakers are operated not by the Russian navy but by privately owned mining giant Norilsk Nickel. Its icebreakers can penetrate ice up to 1.5 meters thick. But Russia needs to rebuild its icebreaker fleet since all the existing ships except one are scheduled for decommissioning in the next decade. Russia’s economic troubles have delayed the construction of new, third-generation icebreaking vessels. Russia must acquire at least three new vessels of this type in the next several years in order to maintain adequate icebreaking capabilities. Russia must also expand its coastal border guard to better accommodate increased commercial and military traffic. In addition to Arctic regions, the coastal border guard patrols the Baltic, Black, and Caspian seas as well as Russia’s Pacific coast. Changing Arctic conditions could double this area of responsibility. The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 includes provisions to strengthen and upgrade the coastal border guard. In 2009 border guard units based on the Barents Sea began patrolling the NSR for the first time since the Soviet era. Russia is also expanding its military presence in the Arctic region. The Russian Presidential Security Council has called for establishing a military force and several new bases in the Arctic , while the Federal Security

Service will use its coast guard ships to collect maritime intelligence in the region. The Russian government is moving swiftly to expand its sea, ground, and air presence in the Arctic. Russia has resumed air patrols over the Arctic , and

in June 2008, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that it would increase submarine operations if Russian national interests in the Arctic were ever threatened. In October 2010, Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said that

Russian naval ships and submarines had already conducted about a dozen military patrols in the Arctic during the first three quarters of that year. Vysotsky explained that “in accordance with the Russian Armed Forces’ plan of

strategic deterrence we take measures aimed to demonstrate military presence in the Arctic.” Russia’s strategic ballistic missile

launching submarines use the North Pole region because the ice helps shield them from U.S. space satellites and other overhead sensors. In addition, launching a missile from the Arctic can reduce the flight time to U.S. targets. In July 2009, the Russian navy boasted that it had succeeded in launching two long-range ballistic missiles from under the Arctic Ocean without the Pentagon detecting their preparations .

Supposedly, Russian attack submarines prevented U.S. surveillance ships from learning of the arrival of two Russian strategic submarines before the missile launches. The state-run RIA Novosti news agency quoted a high-ranking navy source as saying that the successful drill disproved skeptics in Russia and elsewhere that the Russian navy had lost its combat effectiveness: “We slapped these skeptics in the face, proving that Russian submarines are not only capable of moving stealthily under ice, but can also break it to accomplish combat tasks.” Russian officials have sought to downplay the prospects of military conflict in the Arctic region. In late 2010, the special representative of President Medvedev, Anton Vasilyev, stated that “Russia does not plan to create ‘special Arctic forces’ or take any steps that would lead to the militarization of the Arctic,” which contradicts provisions stated in Moscow’s security doctrine. 3 In his year-in-review press conference, Foreign Minister Lavrov said that all Arctic border disputes could be settled through negotiations and that “ rumors that a war will break out over the resources in the North are a provocation.” In 2012, after 40 years of negotiations, Russia and Norway signed a deal to delimitate their maritime border. The two countries have been disputing the 175,000 square kilometer area in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean since 1970. The disputed maritime border has resulted in both parties seizing fishing vessels in the area. Then President Medvedev and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg signed an agreement dividing the contested area into two equal parts. Meanwhile, while Russia still contests ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge with Canada, both countries have agreed that the United Nations would be the final arbiter of who owns title to the ridge. And as part of improving Norwegian-Russian cooperation in the Arctic, the Russians have moved two motorized infantry brigades to the region. Moving a Polar Spetsnaz to the Norwegian border is apparently in the Russian perspective part of a broader cooperative Arctic strategy: By 2020, Russia will have increased the number of brigades from today’s 70 to 109 ,

said General Colonel Aleksander Postnikov at a meeting in the Federation Council’s Committee for Defense and Security yesterday. One of the new brigades is to be located in the settlement of Pechenga, some 10 kilometers from the Russian-Norwegian border and 50 kilometers from the Norwegian town of Kirkenes, Nezavisimaya Gazeta writes. This brigade will be specially equipped for military warfare in Arctic conditions. It will be set up with DT-30P Vityaz tracked vehicles, in addition to multi-service army equipment, other armored vehicles and tanks. 4 One analyst has underscored that the Arctic opening could well see the emergence of an anomaly in Russian history— Russia as a maritime power. According to a perceptive article by Caitlyn Antrim: Russian geopolitics of the 21st century will be different from the days of empire and conflict of the nineteenth and twentieth. The increased accessibility of the Arctic, with its energy and mineral resources, new fisheries, shortened sea routes and shipping along the rivers between the Arctic coast and the Eurasian heartland, is both enabling and propelling Russia to become a major maritime state. 5 This means as well augmenting the role of

the Russian navy, coast guard, and various air assets over time. The augmentation of the maritime reach of Russia— through

ships, submarines, C2, ISR, and air means— can be anticipated.

Russia increasing influence in the arctic now—Navy fleet build up Smith 2014 (Rich Smith, staff writer,“Russia Builds a New Navy to Dominate the Arctic Ocean” January 19, 2014,

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/russia-builds-a-new-navy-to-dominate-the-arctic-oc.aspx) JTE

The mightiest force on the high seas, the United States Navy boasts a fleet 283 warships strong. In comparison, Russia's navy, once America's archrival, has only 208 warships -- but Russia is closing the gap, and quickly. Just last week, in an interview with RIA Novosti, deputy commander of the Russian Navy Rear Adm. Viktor Bursuk confirmed plans to add 40 new vessels to the Russian fleet this year alone -- taking the fleet to within just 35 ships of U.S. fleet strength. Surface warships will make up the bulk of the additions, but a Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine and a Varshavyanka-class diesel-electric submarine are both on order as well. An advanced search-and-rescue ship, the Igor Belousov, will further backstop Russia's submarine forces by extending the country's ability to assist submarines in distress. Building a nuclear navy Nor is this the end of Russia's expansion plans. Bursuk told RIA that

Russia is working quickly to upgrade the "mothballed" Kirov-class nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, and refurbishing three nuclear-powered attack submarines . Plans may even include the addition of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier -- Russia's first. Russia's only active aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. Source: Wikimedia Commons Why the sudden spate of shipbuilding? President Vladimir Putin gave us a hint last year. In a statement delivered to the Russian Defense Ministry in December, Putin averred that one of Russia's "top defense priorities" going forward is to increase Russia's influence at the North Pole. And for good reason. The Cold War is

over. Now we're talking global warming Global warming has opened up 1 million square miles of new navigable

waters in the Arctic Ocean. Already commercial shipping companies are beginning to exploit new routes. More crucially to Russia are the mineral resources made accessible by a shrinking ice cap . Already, 95% of Russia's probable natural gas reserves are located in the Arctic, with sizable deposits found in Russia's adjacent Barents and Kara Seas. 60% of the country's believed oil reserves are located in the Arctic as well. Local oil and gas giants Rosneft and Gazprom (NASDAQOTH: OGZPY ) , therefore, have a vested interest in defending these deposits...

and searching for new ones. Earlier this month, Russia announced plans to up the tempo of air patrols in the Arctic "significantly," flying Tu-142 and Il-38 reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft. The country also intends to reopen upwards of a half dozen Arctic airfields and ports, shuttered since the days of the Cold War.

According to reports, many of Russia's new warships may be tasked for Arctic duty to defend these interests . And

if Russia actually does build itself a nuclear aircraft carrier, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, former Commander of the

Russian Northern Fleet, thinks it should be sent to the Arctic to support the country's nuclear submarines. America responds... sort of America isn't standing entirely still in the face of this Arctic military buildup. Last week, word began filtering out about a new Navy report advocating a program to "harden" U.S. warships to enable them to operate in an Arctic environment -- at a cost of up to $8.4 billion. Talk of a project to build up to 10 new Arctic icebreakers, at a further cost of $7.8 billion, has also begun. If these projects get under way, it could mean billions of dollars of new revenues for America's three main military shipbuilders: Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) , General Dynamics (NYSE: GD ) , and Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII ) . But while America talks, Russia is forging ahead at flank speed -- and building a new Arctic Navy.

Russia is increasing its military presence in the Arctic—escalation risk is highTrent 2011 (Trent Packard, master’s student at the Naval Postgrad School, approved by Harold A. Trinkunas, PhD Chair, Department of National Security Affairs NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited AN EVALUATION OF THE ARCTIC—WILL IT BECOME AN AREA OF COOPERATION OR CONFLICT?) JTE

Russia “Russia is the most determined and assertive player in the Arctic.”238 Russia’s behavior with regards to the Arctic can be viewed as aggressive and unpredictable. “Russia’s approach to Arctic affairs has been of two minds

and thus sometimes confusing and difficult to interpret. Self-assertive and occasionally aggressive rhetoric has alternated with more conciliatory signals and practical compliance with international law.”239 For example, in August 2007, a Russian submersible on a research expedition deposited a Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole as a symbolic act.240

However, the leader of the expedition, Artur Chilingarov, thought that it was more than a symbolic act by stating, "I don't give a damn what all these foreign politicians there are saying about this. If someone doesn't like this, let them go down

themselves…and then try to put something there. Russia must win. Russia has what it takes to win. The Arctic has always been Russian."241 At the same time, Russia is abiding by international law, settling decade’s long disputes, and participating in

the Ilulissat Declaration with the other Arctic nations. Russia’s Security Strategy for the Arctic, National Security Strategy of the

Russian Federation until 2020, emphasizes cooperation but the policy also stresses the importance of a continued military presence, the need to “maintain a ‘necessary combat potential’ in the North and reveals plans to establish special Arctic military formations to protect the country’s national interests ‘in various military and political situations.’”242 The policy considers the use of military force to resolve competition for energy near Russia’s borders or those of its

allies: “in case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be

changed.”243 The struggle for resources is not the only area of the policy that identifies a threat: The National Security Strategy also asserts that the Northeast Passage is a national transportation route under Russian jurisdiction and that any nation’s efforts to change that legal status will be seen as a threat to Russia’s national security.

Russia perceives this shipping channel as potentially developing into the central link in a maritime network connecting Europe and Asia giving it significant authority and control over a major transport artery.244 Russia has many plans to build their combat capability in the Arctic and among them is to modernize its Northern Fleet

with a major naval build up. Russia has the largest and most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world, with 24 icebreakers,245 and plans to build three to four third generation icebreakers246 with the first being built by 2015.247 Of the 24 icebreakers, sev en are nuclear powered, including the world’s largest icebreaker , the 50 Years of Victory. In recent years, the Russian icebreakers have begun to regularly patrol the Arctic, and the icebreaker fleet is a key to the region’s economic development. 248

Moscow has plans to build eight Borei class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), one of which, the Yury Dolgoruky, has been completed, but is not yet in service. It took approximately 12 years to complete the Yury Dolgoruky and the ambitious plan is to have all eight completed by 2015.249 These submarines will be armed with 16 to 20 launch tubes for submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) Bulava and six torpedo tubes .250 An even more ambitious plan for the Russian government is to build five to six aircraft carrier battle groups to be based in the Northern and Pacific fleets by 2030;251 build 20 Steregushchy class multipurpose corvettes, two of which are currently in service,

armed with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles along with torpedoes; and build 20 Admiral S. Gorshkov class frigates, the first is

expected to be in service by the end of 2011, armed with anti-air and anti-ship missiles along with torpedoes.252 They will also build new strategic bombers, and increase overall military activity in the Arctic. “A new TU strategic bomber to replace the Tu-95MC Bear,

Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M3 Backfire should be designed by 2017 with production beginning in 2020.”253 Furthermore, the Russians plan to establish special Arctic military formations to protect Russian national interests . They will form an Arctic Spetsnaz (special purpose force) to support the northern policy and secure the region.254 In addition to the plans to build a more combat capable force, Russia has expanded its military activities in the Arctic since 2007.255 This activity has not gone unnoticed by the other Arctic nations. For example, in 2007, Russia resumed long range strategic bomber flights over the Arctic for the first time since the Cold War. “During 2007 alone, Russia penetrated Alaska’s 12 mile air defense zone 18 times.”256 Russia does not give any advanced notice to these flights257 and, since they began, the U.S. and Canadian aircraft have shadowed Russian bombers as they approach Canadian and U.S. soil until they turn around and head back toward Russia.258 In addition, soon after planting the Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole in 2007, Russia conducted an air force exercise in which it launched cruise missiles over the Arctic.259 Russia’s policy emphasizes the importance of cooperation yet Russia maintains an aggressive posture in the Arctic. Conley and Kraut argue that Russia is implementing a two-track approach in respect of the Arctic. On the one hand, Russia’s increased military activity in the polar regions coupled with its stated objectives of a major naval buildup to operate in the Arctic suggest that it will be a potentially unpredictable and provocative player. On the other hand, Russia has demonstrated that it will play by the rules of international law (UNCLOS) as it submits its claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, participates actively in the Arctic Council, and has signed the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration to maximize its economic benefits from a stable region.260 As mentioned, Russia is implementing the measures necessary in order to reap the benefits the Arctic has to offer by being aggressive and unpredictable, and will do whatever it takes to be the powerhouse of the Arctic. In order to be competitive with Russia, the other Arctic nations are increasing their military capabilities and assets.

Tensions over the arctic would escalate—Russia needs the resourcesAerandir 2012 (Mate Wesley Aerandir Lieutenant United States Navy B.A., “BREAKING THE ICE: POTENTIAL U.S.-RUSSIAN MARITIME CONFLICT IN THE ARCTIC” December 2012, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573497.pdf) JTE

2. Indications of Intent to Use Force If actions alone are not enough evidence to support an assessment of an intention to use force, however, then it is necessary to examine the political rhetoric and strategic communications, as well as the motivations behind them, to better understand the intent of Russia to defend its diplomatic

claims with military might if necessary. a. Russia’s Motivation The resources in the Arctic are of much more vital importance to the Russian government than the fishing grounds in the Pacific. While estimates vary widely, they generally indicate that 35 to 50 percent of the Russian federal budget derives directly from hydrocarbon export taxes and sales.128 Whereas many economists regarded “the rapid growth in virtually every sector of the Russian economy” during President Putin’s first two terms in office (2000–2008) as a proof that the economy was diversifying away from a dependence on oil, Clifford Gaddy and Barry Ickes demonstrate quite vividly how “the abrupt collapse of oil prices in the summer of 2008 made it hard to ignore how dependent these other sectors had been on the high oil prices” of the previous eight years.129 This reliance on natural resources is probably a key reason that, in the latest Russian Arctic Strategy, they were described as a strategic resource for national security.130 In order to protect Russia’s interests in the Arctic, therefore, the Russian National Security Strategy calls for increasing the role of the military in the region and even states, “In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might .” 131 With the largest Arctic fleet in the world, both in terms of military assets and icebreaking support vessels, Russia is well-positioned to back up its policy with action. A broader look reveals that in addition to bolstering their maritime presence in the Arctic, the Russians have also increased their air and ground presence in the region—further increasing NATO’s uneasiness that Moscow is re-militarizing the Arctic. In addition to Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov’s

announcement of the creation of two Arctic brigades “to protect its valuable Arctic resources ,” then-Prime

Minister Vladimir Putin stated, “As [far as] our own geo-political interests [in the Arctic] are concerned, we shall be

protecting them firmly and consistently.” 132 In July 2012, Vladimir Putin, in his capacity as president, clarified that “the navy is an instrument to protect national economic interests, including in such regions as the Arctic,” and that he expected to increase Russia’s naval order of battle by 51 units by 2020.133 Finally, while the Russian Foreign Minister stated in 2008 that “Russia strictly abides by the norms and principles of international law and is firmly determined to act within existing international agreements and mechanisms,” 134 it is important to remember that the country has repeatedly, before, during, and after this statement, violated international agreements and failed to utilize conflict resolution mechanisms to settle disputes in other parts of the world.135

Russia Internal Link Extensions

Tensions make Arctic war increasingly likely—jurisdiction disputes, lack of trust, and oil stakesÅtland 2014 [Dr. Kristian Åtland, holds a PhD in political science from the University of Tromsø and a MA degree in Russian studies from the University of Oslo. Russian-Western Relations in the Arctic: Perceptions, Policies, and Prospects March 25th, 2014 http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/russian-western-relations-in-the-arctic-perceptions-policies-and-prospects_1280.html] JTE

Six years ago, Russia adopted an ambitious national strategy for the Arctic region. The strategy was aimed at turning the region into a strategic resource base for the Russian Federation by 2020, and at preserving the country’s role as a leading Arctic power. The implementation of the strategy has been accompanied by a gradual increase in Russia’s military activity in the Arctic. Russia’s naval presence in the northern waters is higher today than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s, on the surface as well as under water, and Russia has since August 2007 conducted numerous long-range bomber flights in the international airspace over the Barents Sea, the Greenland Sea, and other parts of the Arctic. In Russia, this activity is largely seen as a “response” to measures taken by the other Arctic coastal states, all four of which happen to be

NATO members.¶ The four other Arctic coastal states – Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norway – are following developments in the Russian Arctic with a heightened sense of awareness. Like Russia, the four attach considerable importance to their economic and national security interests in the region, as reflected in their Arctic/Northern/High North strategies, adopted in 2006–2011. Some are concerned that the growing industrial and commercial activity in the Arctic (ship traffic, petroleum activities, fisheries,

cruise tourism etc.) may have adverse impacts on the environment, particularly in the event of a large oil spill. Others are concerned that disagreements over borders and jurisdiction may lead to a deterioration of interstate relationships in the region. Still others are concerned that the renewed international interest in Arctic affairs, among Arctic as well as non-Arctic states, will lead to an incremental militarization of the region, and that this may eventually undermine the political and military stability that currently characterizes the circumpolar Arctic.¶ As of

today, Russia and the other Arctic coastal states do not seem to have a proper forum where they can discuss military security issues and concerns related to the Arctic. Russia is neither a NATO member nor part of the Western security community. The NATO-Russia Council has so far not been able to serve as an arena for NATO-Russia dialogue on Arctic security. The same goes for the Arctic Council, which is not seen by either party as a forum in which “hard” (military) security issues can or

should be discussed. Russian-Western relations in the Arctic are still marked by a largely lacking sense of trust and confidence. On top of that, recent developments in Ukraine’s Crimea region are likely to have a negative impact on Russia’s relations with the EU and NATO, at least for some time.¶ Russian policymakers and

media have in recent years had a tendency to portray any foreign military activity in the Arctic as hostile and provocative, even when such activity takes place well outside the country ’s territorial waters or airspace and does not infringe on recognized Russian rights. The Russians are concerned that foreign state or non-state actors may try to take control of

natural resources and/or shipping lanes rightfully belonging to the Russian Federation. According to a recent statement by Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council, the United States, Norway, Denmark, and Canada are pursuing “a common and coordinated policy aimed at denying Russia access to the riches of the Arctic continental shelf”. In a somewhat similar manner, Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has stated on several occasions that his country faces “increasingly aggressive Russian actions”, necessitating adequate defensive measures.¶ Obviously, statements such as the ones cited above are often intended for domestic audiences and should not necessarily be taken at face value. At the same time, there are many

indications that the security concerns are genuine, and that fear is a factor in Arctic politics also in 2014. Many Arctic states are concerned that their neighbors or outside actors may attempt to infringe on their rights and interests, including the access to natural resources or shipping lanes of considerable value to their national economies. None of the states that surround the Arctic Ocean exclude the possibility of interstate disputes in the region, and none of them are willing to rely on anyone except themselves to protect their northern maritime borders, sovereignty, and sovereign rights.¶

For Russia as well as for other Arctic rim states, the stakes are undoubtedly high. It is estimated that

some 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered reserves of natural gas, and 13 per cent of the undiscovered reserves of oil, are located north of the Arctic Circle. Among the areas specified for future development are Russia’s Yamal Peninsula in northwestern Siberia and the continental shelf in the Barents and Kara Seas. In a more distant future, petroleum

operations in areas further north and east may become a reality. Russia will soon claim ownership to a shelf area of 1.2 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) between the outer limits of the country’s current 200-nautical-mile economic zone and the North Pole. Efforts are also taken to facilitate an increase in ship traffic along the northern coast of the Eurasian continent. The annual number of passages along this northern waterway is still fairly modest (71 in 2013), but cargo volumes are growing year by year.¶ The Arctic coastal states’ security concerns on the northern frontier are shaped not only by the region’s emerging role as an arena for economic and industrial activity, but also by the region’s place in the nuclear deterrence strategies of

Russia and the United States. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States developed long-range nuclear weapons that could be launched across the Arctic Ocean, either from locations on land, from the sea, or from the air. The number of deployed warheads has been reduced significantly since then, but all elements of the nuclear triads are still in operation

and thus relevant to the security situation in the region. The weapons have also become more sophisticated, most notably with the development of land- and sea-based anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, particularly after the collapse of the ABM Treaty regime in the early 2000s. The latter development is likely to remain a source of contention between the United States and Russia, which sees sea-based ABM systems as a potential threat to its nuclear deterrent in the Arctic. When developing strategies to cope with future threats that might arise, security analysts have a tendency to “assume the worst”, that is, scenarios that do not necessarily reflect the current state of affairs. Not knowing the (future) intentions of their neighbors or outside actors, they are afraid to risk shortfalls in military capability, and may therefore chose to “play it safe”. Based on their own interpretation of other actors’ intentions and military potential, they may advocate measures to strengthen domestic military capabilities. Once implemented, these measures may be perceived by other states as potentially threatening, and lead to military or other counter-measures. In the International Relations literature, this phenomenon is often referred to as “the security dilemma”.¶ To the extent that there is a nascent security dilemma in the Arctic, it is not unmanageable. It may not be overcome in the short run, but its negative effects may hopefully be ameliorated through various confidence-building measures, NATO-Russia dialogue on Arctic security, strengthening of the Arctic governance system, and the settlement of jurisdiction issues. The Norwegian-Russian Treaty on Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, signed in April 2010, may perhaps serve as a model for the settlement of other boundary and jurisdiction disputes in the Arctic. The conclusion of an Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, signed in May 2011 by all of the Arctic Council’s eight member states, is another promising development. Through enhanced cooperation and transparency at the regional level, the states that surround the Arctic Ocean can build mutual trust and lay the foundations for a genuine security community in the northern part of the globe.

Russia threatens to turn the arctic conflict nuclear, cooperation is the only way to solve. Bluitt 2013 [Rebecca Bluitt, Reporter for CBS and correspondent to Russian-US relations, December 5th, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cold-cold-war-putin-talks-tough-us-artic/story?id=21110178] JTE

Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that U.S. military capabilities in the Arctic Circle leave his government little choice but to maintain a strong foothold in the frigid north , where tensions between the former Cold War adversaries in recent years have heated up as the polar ice thawed . During a meeting

with students in Moscow on Tuesday, Putin was asked whether Russia and other countries might loosen their grip on Arctic territory for military exercises and exploitation of natural resources in favor of environmental preservation . The Russian leader replied that the United States hasn't slipped off the ice shelf and implied that his country's national defense priorities will continue to outweigh conservation efforts .

"Experts know quite well that it takes U.S. missiles 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from the Barents Sea," Putin said , according to the Associated Press. His comments came on the heels of a recent renewal of U.S. attention to the Arctic. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out the Pentagon's revised Arctic Strategy at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia last month. The U .S. policy blueprint calls for "building trust through

transparency about the intent of our military activities and participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises and other engagements that facilitate information-sharing." But the Russian president's statement suggested suspicion of American intentions in the region, and possible wariness that the U.S. is not being as forthcoming as it

has pledged to be. A Hagel aide said that Russia should adopt a cooperative policy. "The Department of Defense Arctic Strategy recognizes that changes in the Arctic landscape create an opportunity for nations to work together through coalitions of common interest," said Pentagon spokesman Carl Woog. "We will work together with Arctic nations to ensure that the region remains peaceful and free of conflict." Over the last several years both nations have increased their respective military presence in the Arctic , including U.S. naval and

Russian air force operations. Putin's recent comments indicate uneasiness with U.S. military activity so close to Russian borders.

Putin's mistrust of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines' proximity to Russian borders is fueling Russia's professed need for a strong military presence in the Arctic, Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told ABC News. But Kristensen discounted the likelihood

that Navy subs operating outside of the Barents Sea would have any real impact on any hypothetical use of U.S. nuclear power . "Such a

launch is technically possible but U.S. missile subs are thought to operate further back in the Atlantic, " Kristensen said. "Putin's use of such a scenario to keep Arctic territories is flawed because they would not prevent such a launch, which would most likely (to) take place in international waters." With many experts saying that global warming is expediting the melting of the Arctic icecaps , newly created water routes have opened up a

possible treasure trove of commercial wealth to northern nations in the form of oil, mineral, and natural gases. There has been competition among countries for Arctic usage rights since the 1950s, but the accelerated melting of Arctic glaciers in recent years has resulted in the resurgence of a Cold War-like scramble reminiscent of the United States-Russia moon landing rivalry. Both the United States and Russia have insisted that there will be no direct conflict between the two nations regarding the Arctic region . But Putin's worst-case missile scenario suggests indirect conflict over Arctic occupation reminiscent of a bygone competition .

Russia Impact Extensions

US-Russian Arctic conflict goes nuclearCohen 2010 [Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies] “From Russian Competition to Natural Resources Access: Recasting U.S. Arctic Policy” The Heritage Foundation 6/15/10 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/from-russian-competition-to-natural-resources-access-recasting-us-arctic-policy) JTE

To advance its position, Russia has undertaken a three-year mission to map the Arctic.[26] The Kremlin is also moving rapidly to establish a comprehensive sea, ground, and air presence. Under Putin, Russia focused on the Arctic as a major natural resources base. The Russian

national leadership insists that the state, not the private sector, must take the lead in developing the vast region. The Kremlin published its Arctic doctrine in March 2009.[27] The main goal is to transform the Arctic into Russia’s strategic resource base and make Russia a leading Arctic power by 2020. Russian Militarization of the Arctic. The military is an important dimension of Moscow’s Arctic push. The policy calls for creating “general purpose military formations drawn from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” as well as “other troops and military formations [most importantly, border units] in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, capable of ensuring security under various military and political circumstances.”[28] These formations will be drawn from the armed forces and from the “power ministries” (e.g., the Federal Security Service, Border Guard Service, and Internal Ministry). Above all, the policy calls for a coast guard to patrol Russia’s Arctic waters and estuaries. Russia views the High North as a major staging area for a potential nuclear confrontation with the U nited States and has steadily expanded its military presence in the Arctic since 2007. This has included resuming air patrols over the Arctic, including strategic bomber flights.[29] During 2007 alone,

Russian bombers penetrated Alaska’s 12-mile air defense zone 18 times.[30] The Russian Navy is expanding its presence in the Arctic for the first time since the end of the Cold War, increasing the operational radius of the Northern Fleet’s

submarines. Russia is also reorienting its military strategy to meet threats to the country’s interests in the Arctic, particularly with regard to its continental shelf.[31] Russia is also modernizing its Northern Fleet. During 2008 and 2009, Russian icebreakers regularly patrolled in the Arctic. Russia has the world’s largest polar-capable icebreaker flotilla, with 24 icebreakers. Seven are nuclear, including the 50 Years of Victory, the largest icebreaker in the world.[32] Russia plans to build new nuclear-powered icebreakers starting in 2015.[33] Moscow clearly views a strong icebreaker fleet as a key to the region’s economic development. Russia ’s Commercial Presence. Russia’s energy rush to the Arctic continues apace. On May 12, 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev approved Russia’s security strategy.[34] This document views Russia’s natural resources in the Arctic as a base for both economic development and geopolitical influence. Paragraph 11 identifies potential battlegrounds where conflicts over energy may occur: “The attention of international politics in the long-term will be concentrated on controlling the sources of energy resources in the Middle East, on the shelf of the Barents Sea and other parts of the Arctic, in the Caspian Basin and in Central Asia.” The document seriously considers the use of military force to resolve competition for energy near Russia’s borders or those of its allies: “In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces on the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies can be changed.”[35] In August 2008, Medvedev signed a law that allows “the government to allocate strategic oil and gas deposits on the continental shelf without auctions.” The law restricts participation to companies with five years’ experience in a region’s continental shelf and in which the government controls at least a 50 percent stake. This effectively allows only state-controlled Gazprom and Rosneft to participate.[36] However, when the global financial crisis ensued, Russia backtracked and began to seek foreign investors for Arctic gas development.

Arctic war is imminentSalbuchi 2013 [Adrian Salbuchi, Adrian is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina, reporter and analyst on foreign affairs, Global Arctic Wars Already Started, December 19th, 2013 http://rt.com/op-edge/global-arctic-war-syria-488/] JTE

Today’s globalized geopolitical grand chessboard often plays out in interestingly complex and roundabout ways. Such is the case of the on-going tug of war between the US , UK and EU on the one hand, and Russia and its allies on the other. Pieces are moved; sometimes a pawn from one square to the next, at other times a rook or bishop

straight across the chessboard; even a knight in its more crooked way… Such is the game of the looming “Arctic War” which is starting to unfold, in which seemingly unconnected events begin to make sense when we start joining the right dots

correctly. Round one in Syria: Putin: 1 / Obama: 0 Last September, US President Barack Obama suffered a crushing diplomatic and political defeat at the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian crisis with its tragic civil war that is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives . Together with Iraq, Libya and Iran, Syria forms part of the staunch Anti-Zionist front of Muslim countries in the Middle East (and further afield, if we include Malaysia). Allowing itself to be

dragged (yet again!) by Israel’s own selfish national interests and powerful Israeli lobbying at home led by AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – the White House got itself into a dangerous diplomatic row with Russia and its allies , this time over Syria. In 2013 this was reflected by Obama’s “all-options-are-on-the-table” sabre rattling on behalf of America’s increasingly embarrassing Israeli ally, which forced him to stick his head too far out the window; particularly when the so-called “Syrian Freedom Fighters” showed their extreme brutality, mass-murder tactics, terrorist Al-Qaeda links, and suspect use of Saudi-Israeli chemical weapons against civilian populations in Damascus. When things were on the verge of getting badly out of hand during September’s G20 meeting in Russia (of all places!), reality finally forced the US to stand down. That was when Russia’s and Putin’s prestige peaked and Obama dropped one further notch into becoming another lame-duck US president. Round two: Setting up a trap against Russia? So, when right smack in the middle of the Syrian affair and with the US declaring defeat at the G20 Summit, how timely it was for the “environmental NGO” Greenpeace’s vessel Arctic Sunrise show to “just happen” to take place… in Russia! The crew of that Greenpeace ship, led by its US-born captain Peter Willcox, staged the irksome storming of the “Priraslomnaja” oil and gas rig owned and operated by Russia’s giant state-controlled Gazprom company, just off Russia’s Arctic coast inside its exclusive economic zone. Video images of half a dozen of its 30-odd “environmental warrior” crew from 18 different nations hanging like a SWAT team from the Russian oil rig hit the global media headlines big time. Given that Greenpeace is no innocent environmental organization but rather an NGO that systematically cosies up to UK (and by extension, US) geopolitical interests, one is tempted to insert many of its actions into the “grand chessboard” logic. Greenpeace also kept thunderously silent when London’s “The Guardian” newspaper reported in December 2003 that the UK Ministry of Defence “refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board (British war ship) HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the Falklands/Malvinas War” by Argentine forces during its 1982 war against Britain. So whilst suspiciously quiet regarding US and UK polluters, Greenpeace has a history of very noisy militancy when it involves countries whose leaders do things counter to UK/US global geopolitical interests. The world remembers, for example, how the Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” tried to stop French nuclear tests in the Pacific Mururoa Atoll in 1985. They failed after France’s General Foreign Security Directorate covertly sank that ship before it could interfere with the French military. And, - oh surprise! – US Captain Peter Willcox was also at the helm of the “Rainbow Warrior” as its skipper. Are we seeing a pattern here? Russia, however, contrary to the French in 1985, kept a very cool head last September. Instead, they arrested the “Arctic Sunrise”, forcibly towed it to Murmansk Port in the Arctic, and promptly threw its environmentally inspired crew in jail for a couple of months. Now, think what a media circus would have been staged by the US-UK if Russia, following France’s bad example, had ordered the sinking of Greenpeace’s intruder as the French did back then… Oh, what a hullabaloo! One can almost imagine the headlines: “Authoritarian and environmentally incorrect Russia ignores basic human rights of a group of nice peaceful Greenpeace environmentalists from 18 countries”. The Western media would have relished in giving Putin one great big “Zero” to tarnish growing Russian prestige. But, no: Russia just ordered vessel and crew arrested for piracy on the high seas. Again, US/UK: 0 / Russia: 1. Ever since, Greenpeace has been licking its wounds with outright lies. For instance, since two of the“Arctic Sunrise” crew were Argentine nationals – Camila Speziale and Miguel Pérez Orsi – Argentina has been simply plastered with a very costly propaganda campaign which includes TV ads and giant posters showing these two young adults’ faces with the legend, “Prison for trying to avoid an oil spill? Outrageous!”. The truth, however, is that there was no imminent oil spill; there was no danger of pollution. Again, shouldn’t Canadian-founded, Holland-based. US/UK-funded Greenpeace look more at their own dirty and filthy polluting oil companies at home rather than poking their noses in the Arctic? Round Three: Run to the Pole? No, I’m not talking about NATO’s Anti-Russian Missile “defence” installations authorized by the Poles in their native Poland. I mean, the North Pole! For in recently months, the cat’s been scratching and biting its way out of the proverbial bag, ever since simply huge oil and gas resources have been discovered under the Arctic Ocean. Estimates run as high as 90 billion barrels of oil (20% of global reserves; 13% of world supply), 1.67 trillion cubic meters of natural gas (30% of world reserves), plus 30% of natural gas, plus platinum, gold, tin, plus… One of the most aggressive countries claiming territorial sovereignty over all this wealth is Canada, which more than an actual country is but an offshoot of the British Crown and an American beachhead into the Arctic. One can clearly sense Uncle Sam’s breathe behind Canada’s forceful. A Russian NTV channel grab taken 03 August 2007 shows a manipulator of the Mir-1 mini-submarine as it places a Russian state flag at the seabed of Arctic ocean at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,980 feet), 02 August 2007. (AFP Photo / NTV) Then there’s also NATO-ally Denmark filing its claims through Greenland territorial projection, weak ally Norway and, of course, there’s Superpower Russia which in 2007 actually planted its flag on the Arctic sea bed right on the North Pole. Canada too claims that the North Pole is hers. Alas! Poor Santa Claus, let’s just hope he’s not evicted before Christmas… As history has shown time and again, the only language that the US-UK Alliance really understands is the language of force or the threat thereof. So President Putin has very prudently ordered his military starting 2014 to beef up Russia’s presence and defence over its entire huge Arctic sphere of interest: a “top government priority to protect its security and national interest” in his own words. In recent months, Russia has started creating new Arctic military units, reinstating its military bases in the Novosibirsk Archipelago and Franz Josef Land that had been abandoned after the demise of the former Soviet Union, and began restoring key airfields in the region including those on Kotelny Island which includes making ready the towns of Tiksi, Naryan-Mar, and Anadyr for increased military personnel and logistical needs. 10 Russian warships and nuclear powered icebreakers are now operative in that region overseeing key shipping lanes joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, including ports like Murmansk (where the “Arctic Sunrise” lies peacefully anchored). Clearly, the Arctic is very much on the global grand chessboard’s radar screen.

What happens there over the next few years will have immense significance considering that the manoeuvring and relative positioning achieved by the powers in conflict will also help to consolidate their respective presences in the region and worldwide. For when it comes to oil and gas, the US and UK have clearly decided to militarize oil exploration, exploitation and shipping lanes. Just as they have done in the South Atlantic with the UK’s Falkland/Malvinas nuclear military base and the US’s powerful Fourth South Atlantic Fleet with its rosary of military bases discretely spread into Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and other countries in the region. For there lies another even vaster and richer region: the Antarctic which is not just a sea but an entire continent centred on the South Pole. Indeed, in our complex world what happens in the scorched deserts of Arabia, Libya and Iraq; in the infinite steppes of Asia; in the steaming jungles of Africa; or in the windswept pampas of South America has an impact – albeit, indirect - on this new front which we could described as the coming polar wars. Wars involving superpower nations, their allied

countries, environmental NGO’s fronting for the global power elites, oil, gas and mining giants, and of course the bankers pulling the strings from above; way above 10 Downing, way above the White House, the Palais D’Elysee and Greenpeace’s HQ in Amsterdam.

Risk of Arctic conflict high---most recent evidenceTassinari 2012 Fabrizio Tassinari is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and the Head of Foreign Policy and EU Studies at the Danish Institute for International Studies, September 7, 2012, “Avoiding a Scramble for the High North”, http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/09/07/avoiding-a-scramble-for-the-high-north/

The geopolitics of the Arctic are stuck in a paradox: The more regional players restate the importance of international cooperation, the more some pundits and policymakers seem to conclude that the Arctic risks descending into competition and even conflict.¶ The world is awakening to the growing strategic importance of the High North. As the Arctic ice melts due to global warming, it opens up new opportunities, from shorter shipping lanes to newly accessible oil and gas reserves; respectively, about 13 percent and 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered resources are in the Arctic, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. These discoveries are usually followed by declarations of the littoral nations to the effect that any

potential disagreements over them will be resolved peacefully. However, beneath expressions of goodwill, the Arctic debate is often characterized by a sense of urgency, and even forms of alarmism .¶ In recent years,

instances of growing securitization of the Arctic have abounded. Back in 2008, a paper by Javier Solana, then the EU’s foreign policy’s chief, and the European Commission warned about “potential conflict over resources in Polar regions” as they become exploitable due to melting ice. In 2010, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Adm. James Stavridis, argued that “for now, the disputes in the North have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium.” Then there are actions that speak louder than prepared speeches — from the famous August 2007 expedition that planted a Russian flag on the North Pole’s seabed to the annual summer military exercises carried out by Canada to assert its sovereignty in the North. Although the Russian stunt was most likely aimed at nationalist domestic audiences, some observers view these exercises as the expressions of competing national interests. As the scholar Scott Borgerson ominously put it: “The Arctic powers are fast approaching diplomatic gridlock, and that could eventually lead to the sort of armed brinkmanship that plagues other territories .”¶ The geopolitical constellation in and around the region provides a ready justification for such an assessment . While no-one really imagines the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark fighting over the Arctic, some of their politicians have occasionally framed rhetoric in more peppered terms than one might expect. Russia, the fifth Arctic littoral nation, typically treads a fine line between declarations of cooperation and an innate instinct for great-power competition . Add to that the EU, which is seeking to carve its own role, and Asia’s giants, above all China, for which the opening of the Northeast passage may reduce

sailing distance with Europe by some 40 percent, and it is not hard to conjure up the prospect of an Arctic race building up.

Goes nuclearWallace and Staples 2010 (Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia; Steven Staples is President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, March 2010, “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons A Task Long Overdue”, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf)

The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military

practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of

nuclear weapons.” Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low –

for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non- Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.”

The Arctic will be the next area of great power conflict---oil production results in investments that prevent escalationTalmadge 2012 (Eric – AP, Huffington Post, “Arctic Climate Change Opening Region To New Military Activity’, 4/16, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/arctic-climate-change-military-activity_n_1427565.html)

To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts . By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with

military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead. Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain. The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland — gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional security issues. None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival claims. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil

and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year. What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving

ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue. Russia, Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the U nited States has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months

underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none. Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower. Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity. He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic. "We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are

mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time goes on." Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict. "We want to maintain our edge up there,"

said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines

and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It remains very important." But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War

College. A summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications. "The findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources." He added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.

Russia Will Cooperate Extensions

Arctic is the last possible flashpoint for Russian relations - commercial coop k2 reverse the hostilityPonars 2014 [The Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (PONARS Eurasia) is a network of over 100 academics, mainly from North America and post-Soviet Eurasia, who advance new policy approaches to research and security in Russia and Eurasia, Laruelle: Arctic is one of the last places for US-Russia cooperation, May 23rd, 2014 http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/laruelle-arctic-one-last-places-us-russia-cooperation] JTE

¶ Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.¶ “I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis,” Marlene Laruelle said.¶ “US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation on security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis,” she specified, “but there are several other elements that are still open for discussion.”¶ Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department official Heather Conley.¶ However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia

is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers.¶ “The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly not an issue of military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue ,” Laruelle said.¶ Concerning Russia’s delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said “Russia is playing by the rules.” The demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council, but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage.¶ There are hopes that increased trade will take place through Arctic routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.

Cooperation is key to Arctic expansion—Russia will be willing to cooperateDonald 2014 [Ros Donald, the Deputy Editor and covers energy and politics. She holds an MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the London School of Oriental and African Studies, specializing in global energy and climate policy. She has five years' experience as a competition law journalist and analyst. America in the Arctic: Melting ice and soft security, The carbon brief, February 11th, 2014 http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/02/arctic-melting-ice-and-soft-security/) JTE

If you want an indication that US ambition in the Arctic has been limited, you could turn to the size of its icebreaker fleet. Russia, which sees exploiting the Arctic as vital to its national interest, has 20 icebreakers. At present, America has just three. To the frustration of many, the US has never placed the region near the top of its list of priorities. But with the Arctic sea ice in long term retreat, and new economic possibilities opening in the region, that mindset may now be changing.

Retreating sea ice creates new possibilities for resource extraction, tourism and fishing in the Arctic, as well as the prospect of a new trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific. Last year, the US Department of

Defense published its Arctic Strategy, followed just recently by an implementation plan. It marks a new level of US ambition in the region - the newly-published document defines US aims for the region thus: "[A] secure and stable region where US national interests are safeguarded, the

US homeland is protected, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges".Some commentators were almost begging the US to step in before control of the region was wrested from it by more aggressive parties such as Russia and Canada - both of whom see the Arctic as a vital source of new resources. Yet, there appears to have been a shift in relations. As Arctic expert Scott Borgerson wrote in Foreign Affairs, "a funny thing happened on the way to Arctic anarchy. [...] A shared interest in profit has trumped the instinct to compete over territory". Even Russia's prized northern naval fleet is receiving less funding than it used to, signalling that

the country no longer sees America and the Nato countries as the threats it once did. Duncan Depledge, research analyst on environment and security at the Royal United Services Institute says: "Russia needs international cooperation - such as investment from Asia and technology from Europe and North America - if it's going to exploit its Arctic resources. And every country needs the help of others when it comes to cleaning up transboundary environmental threats like oil spills or conducting search and rescue missions." The Arctic strategy also offers the US an opportunity to

craft its image beyond Arctic relations. Secretary of State John Kerry sees America's stint at the head of the Arctic Council, starting next year, as

an opportunity to showcase the country's commitment to tackling climate change - both in the Arctic and on the international stage. In contrast to the current chair Canada, which strongly emphasises economic development in the region, Kerry has vowed to make climate change the

priority - a move that reflects his desire to lead on reaching an internationally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reduction at negotiations next year. The new document shows the military sees that preserving this right is of national interest to the US. It is also ready to

"challenge excessive maritime claims" from other Arctic nations. Future tensions may indeed arise if maritime traffic increases. For instance while Canada sees the northwest passage off its coast as its sovereign territory, the US has other ideas The Arctic has become a place where preconceived notions and roles are challenged. Despite diplomatic deadlock on many other issues in international politics, Arctic nations manage to coexist relatively harmoniously - at least for the

moment.

Russia wants Arctic cooperationArctic Info 2014 (May 19th, 2014¶ http://www.arctic-info.com/News/Page/chilingarov--russia-is-for-international-cooperation-in-the-arctic) JTE

A unique project in the Russian media market, giving the reader the opportunity to learn about all the most important, what is happening in the Russian Arctic and circumpolar countries. Central agency office is located in Moscow, bureaus operate in the Arctic regions of Russia. The project is implemented as a multi-language: English, Russian, Chinese version. Authoritative source with a growing citation index. Newsline broadcast in leading news aggregators ("Yandex. News", "Google News", "Rambler.Media"), in the largest specialized database - online libraries ("Medialogia", "Integrum", "Public.Ru") . Every day for the materials published on the portal "Arctic-info" link dozens of online resources - both Russian and English-speaking. Portal audience: three-quarters - Russian Internet users. This Russian national / regional media, national / regional governance structures; decision-makers in the management / policy / business; specialists of different professions and residents of northern regions. Quarter resource users - readers and colleagues from foreign countries and the CIS countries. On the eve of Polar Explorer day, the President of the Polar Explorers' Association, special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for international cooperation in the Arctic and Antarctic, Artur Chilingarov, congratulated everyone who lives and works in the high northern latitudes, on their new professional holiday. "A year has passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on the celebration of Polar Explorer day. This is an important event for those working in the Arctic. A polar explorer is not just someone who engaged in ice science, but everyone who lives in the far north of the Arctic Circle: doctors, pilots, sailors, geologists, and oil workers. These people have a common task, set by Russia's administration, of developing the Arctic expanses," Chilingarov noted. He added that attention to the Arctic region in Russia is growing. "One of the oldest organizations uniting all researchers North and South poles of the world,the Polar Explorers Association, is actively developing. And that's good," said the scientist. According to Chilingarov, it is very important to cultivate interest in the extreme north from childhood. "Now the Polar Explorers Association is reviving the young polar explorers clubs, which are aimed at the development of youth tourism, so high school students participate in scientific research work at northern latitudes. For future polar expeditions 'general clearing' of Arctic territories is also being carried out," he said. "I want to stress that Russia is the largest Arctic state- and it supports international cooperation in the Arctic region. Despite today's difficult political situation, the Arctic should become a place for close cooperation and partnership of all states," the famous polar explorer concluded.

US Leadership promotes cooperation which checks Russian AggressionO’Sullivan 2014 (Conor O’Sullivan, 2015 M.S. Candidate at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, “Opinion: Arctic Development Could Ignite Next Great-Game Competition” Breaking Energy, April 28, 2014, http://breakingenergy.com/2014/04/28/opinion-arctic-development-could-ignite-next-great-game-competition/) JTE

The development of Arctic energy resources poses the potential for an energy security competition between the Great Powers and Arctic stakeholders that will alter the geopolitical climate. The hydrocarbon reserves—25% of world deposits- available under the melting ice caps, and undiscovered oil and gas will see states shifting their economic and foreign policy priorities. New shipping lanes could alter the world economy as trade routes become faster and safer, but will also become a source of conflict. As world populations and energy consumption increases and supplies decrease, states will seek to maximize interests out of Arctic exploration. The U nited S tates and other Arctic Council members must check the exploration and production ambitions of Russia and China to prevent a great power game developing. A cohesive policy between member states and international institutions will be vital in preventing a resource competition that could have severe economic, political, military and

environmental implications. The flag planting by a Russian submarine in August 2007 underneath the Arctic seabed symbolized

Russia’s intentions to use Arctic exploration as a means of securing its desired imperial status—pursuing a zero-sum game. The Kremlin plans to establish a new international order in which it becomes a regional hegemon . It is my

opinion that Russia intends to end its role as an isolated entity in international affairs, becoming closely integrated with the global economy and dictating policy. Russian officials view the Arctic as securing its energy security ambitions for the next century. Dwindling Russian gas and energy reserves, in the underdeveloped Siberian

fields, and over-reliance on European imports of its natural gas has led to a push towards the Arctic. Russia’s jurisdictional claim over the Arctic seabed will challenge the existing international law criteria, the UNCLOS, which specifies jurisdictional authority over international waters. Arctic stakeholders must be wary of Russian intentions over Arctic development, considering the nationalistic rhetoric of the current government in power. Russia’s nationalized energy companies maintain an influence in formulating Arctic Policy and influencing the Russian government to their advantage. Russia will also use its energy security policy in the Arctic to become a naval superpower as new shipping lanes for trade and energy production will run along its extensive northern coastline. Russia’s actions in Crimea and the Ukraine emphasize their willingness to revert to military action over issues of territorial sovereignty and that the U.S. requires an assertive foreign policy with Russia. Ensuing competition over Arctic energy resources and shipping lanes will increase geopolitical competition among the Great Powers. The Bering Sea provides the U.S. with access to Arctic shipping lanes and can act as a strategic counterbalance to Russia. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13% and 30% of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas respectively lies under the Arctic seabed. I believe that Arctic Council members, the Nordic States and Canada, will align with the U.S. to impose strict restrictions over extraction and production in the Arctic Ocean. International law and conventions can only be implemented if supported by U.S. diplomacy in international institutions. Domestic and multi-national energy companies must continue their innovation in technology to finance exploration in competition with foreign NOCs. Regional competition with its East Asian neighbors, South Korea and Japan, for energy security will lead to an assertive foreign policy from China to lead Asian exploration in the Arctic. China’s pursuance of energy resources in the Arctic and use of new shipping lanes along Russia’s coast line will increase tensions between the two states as they strive to become naval superpowers. The Chinese government has maintained that they have no clear agenda regarding its Arctic Policy. However, China still harbors ambitions of becoming a regional hegemon and for energy diversification away from fossil fuels to satisfy its population and production demands. China’s application for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council signifies their intention to influence Arctic Policy despite their inferior geographic location. Access to the Arctic shipping lanes will significantly reduce risks and costs for Chinese trade to the West via the Northern Sea Route. The U.S’s relatively superior military and economic resources and growing energy self-sufficiency means it must implement policies that will satisfy world energy security demands through Arctic development. The United States must use its clout within the Arctic Council to check the imperial ambitions of Russia and the vast energy demands of China through effective State and Energy Department mandates. In my opinion, an inability to do this will threaten a return to Cold War geopolitics, increasing the risk of energy security competition and Great Power military conflict.

Commerce Advantage

Commerce Uniqueness Extensions

Arctic marine infrastructure is undeveloped now and will be crippled by future shipping.AMSA 09 (Executive Summary from University of Alaska, Fairbanks (Institute of Northern Engineering, “Arctic Marine Infrastructure” 4/29/09; < http://ine.uaf.edu/accap/documents/AMSAArcticMarineInfrastructure.pdf>) JTE

When compared with marine infrastructure in the world’s other oceans, the Arctic is significantly lacking throughout most of the circumpolar north. The current increase in human activity in the Arctic is placing new demands on Arctic infrastructure needed to support safe marine shipping, protect the environment and respond to emergencies. Anticipated increases in Arctic marine shipping during the coming decades will place additional demands on infrastructure and require innovative, cooperative solutions that best use the limited resources available in this remote region. The findings contained in this section are the result of extensive input received from across a wide spectrum of interests from those experienced in the Arctic maritime operations, including representatives from the Arctic states. The analysis of current Arctic infrastructure included surveys based on information from the Arctic states regarding Arctic ports, capabilities for handling larger vessels, search and rescue assets and icebreaker capacity. In addition, an international workshop was held at the University of New Hampshire in March 2008 to consider infrastructure needs and gaps associated with emergency response to Arctic incidents. Workshop participants represented a broad spectrum of expertise including governmental agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations and indigenous people from the Arctic nations. The workshop, “Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters and Framing Solutions,” considered five realistic emergency scenarios in diverse locations throughout the Arctic. Incidents envisioned involved vessels caught in ice or in a collision, oil spills, search and rescue, environmental damage and disruption of indigenous communities. The workshop report provides a qualitative analysis of risk factors in Arctic marine incidents likely to happen as shipping, tourism, exploration, and development of natural resource such as oil, gas, and minerals increase with the retreating ice cover (See page 176). Major Arctic infrastructure themes emerged and are reflected throughout this section and its findings. Currently, vast areas of the Arctic have insufficient infrastructure to support safe marine shipping and respond to marine incidents in the Arctic . This includes such critical infrastructure components as the accuracy and availability of timely information needed for safe navigation; availability of search and rescue assets, pollution response assets and supporting shoreside infrastructure to respond appropriately to marine incidents; port reception facilities for ship-generated waste, and availability of deepwater ports, places of refuge and salvage resources for vessels in distress. While there are notable exceptions, where infrastructure is more developed, they are the exception rather than the rule. To assist with ship navigation, locating refuges, pollution response and other activities, adequate weather forecasting and warning capabilities are essential and necessitate adequate observations, models and forecasts.

Lack of infrastructure prevents arctic shipping developmentCNAS 2014 [Center for a New American Security, The Arctic’s Changing Landscape, March, www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_Arctic’sChangingLandscape_policybrief.pdf] JTE

Despite all of this, operators and government agencies are challenged with inadequate physical infrastructure in the Arctic, which greatly limits the full and comprehensive knowledge of activities throughout the region. Effective Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) – the understanding and awareness of waterborne activities that impact safety, security, economy and the environment – is paramount as Arctic maritime activity increases.14 Arctic shipping lanes greatly reduce the time and distance between certain seaports – particularly between Europe, Asia and North America – and will become more frequently transited as sea ice diminishes.15 (See Figure 2.) As oil and offshore gas extraction grows in areas adjacent to shipping lanes, MDA will become increasingly important to reduce the risk of vessel accidents, oil and chemical spills, illegal fishing and other adverse effects on the environment.16 With limited communication infrastructure and physical presence in the Arctic, the U.S. government is not adequately equipped to achieve comprehensive MDA. For safety at sea, modern ships are generally outfitted with digital satellite communication equipment. In most cases, satellite and marine-based communication systems for the lower Arctic latitudes are considered sufficient. In the higher Arctic latitudes and in remote areas, voice and data transmissions at sea for military and commercial vessels are nonexistent.17 The unreliability or lack of satellite signal across much of the region hinders the ability of the U.S. Coast Guard to detect and deter illicit activities, prevent accidents, coordinate response operations, ensure safety at sea and ultimately communicate. This unavailability of satellite signals also impedes electronic charting and navigation safety systems that identify hazards to ships traveling throughout the region. Navigation charts – paper or electronic – depict accurate shorelines and provide commercial, recreational and military vessels current information on water depth, aids to navigation and locations of hazards.

Without reliable, updated charts and timely navigation safety bulletins, vessels face a greater risk of grounding or incurring hull damage from contact with fixed or underwater obstructions. In addition, there are almost no visual aids to navigation in the Arctic Ocean, such as buoys or fixed structures, which mark shipping channels and underwater

obstructions. Mariners must rely solely on charts and local knowledge to navigate the region safely . Although National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) underwater surveys and charting are being conducted and planned at least through 2018, the absence of reliable satellite communications to obtain the most updated nautical charts and navigation safety bulletins leads to a higher probability of maritime accidents, which could cause a catastrophic oil spill or hazardous material release.18

Melting ice is opening three trade passages in the Arctic. Guoqiang 2013 (]Tang Guoqiang is Chairman of China National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation, former Ambassador of China to the Czech Republic, to the United Nation’s Office in Vienna and to the Kingdom of Norway successively. Arctic Issues and China's Stance China International Studies, Vol.38, Jan/Feb 2013. http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2013-03/04/content_5772842_2.htm) JTE

The accelerated melting of the Arctic ice advances the possibility of commercial use of three major sea routes in Arctic.¶ At present, there are three passages: the Northwest Passage which connects the Atlantic and the Pacific by crossing the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, the Northern Sea Route which connects the Atlantic and the Pacific vie the Russian waters in the Arctic, and the Arctic Bridge which links Canada’s Cape Churchill to Russia’s Murmansk. The first two of the three routes are navigable in summer time, and the section from Northern Europe to Northwest Russia is navigable throughout the year.¶ With the continued warming of the global climate, it is estimated that the Northern Sea Route will be navigable throughout the year in 50 years time. By that time the voyage from Northeast Asia to Europe or to the east coast of America via the Arctic routes will be 40% shorter than that via the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal, and the transportation costs will be reduced by 20-30%. In 2012, there were 45 transits through the Northern Sea Route, compared to four transits in 2010. DNV, the Norwegian classification institution, has estimated that there will be 430 transits through this route in 2030. This will have a significant impact on global shipping and trade. However, some experts believe that since the climate change is uncertain, the use of the routes is difficult to predict and maybe not so fast to be navigable.

Shipping traffic in the Northwest Passage is increasing, easily will transition into new shipping hotspot. Council on Foreign Relations 2014 (Council of Foreign Relations, The Emerging Arctic 2014

http://www.cfr.org/polar-regions/emerging-arctic/p32620#!/?cid=otr_marketing_use-arctic_Infoguide)

As Arctic sea ice retreats, shipping lanes are opening that many trading nations hope could compete with or complement conventional routes during summer months. The Northeast Passage—a roughly three-thousand-mile shipping lane across the top of Eurasia connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific—first became ice-free for a short period in the summer of 2007, and gained international attention as a seasonal shipping route between the two oceans. Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR), which runs from the Kara Gate to the Bering Strait, was also open for the same period.¶ For instance, a voyage from Shanghai to Hamburg via the NSR shaves roughly 30 percent of the distance off a similar trip via the Suez Canal and avoids the heavily pirated Strait of Malacca and waters off the Horn of Africa. Operators can either arrive at their destinations earlier or use the extra time for super-slow sailing, reducing fuel costs and emissions. Most NSR journeys are destinational (carrying natural resources out of the Arctic to global markets) and point-to-point

(cabotage) trips in the Russian Arctic, but trans-Arctic shipping is slowly growing. However, these distance savings on Arctic voyages are only possible if there is minimal or no sea ice. Only five cargo vessels transited the route in 2009, but this number jumped to seventy-one in 2013. That is tiny traffic compared to the seventeen thousand ships that pass through the Suez Canal annually, but with countries like Russia investing tens of

billions of dollars in their northern infrastructure, including the construction of new ports of call and nuclear-powered icebreakers,

some planners hope the region will emerge as a “Suez of the north.” There is also modest anticipation for an uptick in shipping along the Northwest Passage, the legendary sea route atop North America that runs some nine hundred miles from Alaska through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The pathway can cut several days off a traditional voyage through the Panama Canal if there is minimal or no sea ice present. The Danish-operated Nordic Orion became the first bulk carrier to traverse the Northwest Passage in September 2013, reportedly saving about $80,000 in fue l. But experts believe the commercial potential of

the seasonal shortcut is much less than that of the NSR. Lastly, the 2,100-mile mid-ocean corridor stretching across the North Pole, known as the Transpolar Sea Route, could provide the most direct shipping lanes for some maritime traffic and supplement other Arctic routes. However, sea ice remains a considerable challenge for most of the season, and analysts believe its commercial viability is likely decades away.

Commerce Internal Link ExtensionsThe arctic key to economic growth.Bringham 2010 (THE FAST-CHANGING MARITIME ARCTIC Brigham, Lawson W. United States Naval Institute. Proceedings136. 5 (May 2010): 54-59.) JTE

Finding substantial oil or gas at one or both of the lease sites will generate significant international interest and potential Arctic investment. In addition to offshore drilling, experimental voyages along Russia's Northern Sea Route will continue during summer 2010. Beluga Shipping from Germany may again operate one of its heavy-lift ships along the Northern Sea Route, to link Asian manufacturing suppliers to the Russian Arctic. Sovcomflot, Russia's largest shipping company, also indicated plans in late 2009 to conduct an experimental voyage of an oil tanker sailing from the Varendey offshore terminal east along the Northern Sea Route to Japan.10 One of Sovcomflot's 70,000-deadweight-ton shuttle tankers normally carrying oil to Murmansk will be used for this international

voyage.11 There have been discussions of a future trial voyage of a liquefied-natural-gas ship from western Siberia to Asia. The technical and operational challenges posed by these voyages have been known for some time and largely overcome in recent years. However, what remains unclear is the overall economic viability of such Arctic voyages, given the costs of icebreaker escort, whether necessary for passage or not, as well as other service

fees along the route. These voyages are primary examples of future linkages of Russian Arctic natural resources to global markets. Further, this flurry of marine activity is indicative of continued investment in Arctic marine operations despite the current global economic situation. Globalization, climate change, and geopolitics continue to shape the future of the maritime Arctic. International bodies such as the Arctic Council and International Maritime Organization have awakened to the urgent need to protect Arctic people and the marine environment. They must also address the key issue of inadequate marine infrastructure in much of the region . Many wildcard issues remain to play out, such as the future of Greenland, strategic interests of new stakeholders, future oil and gas discoveries, the plausible loss of multiyear Arctic sea ice, emerging seasonal shipping routes, and much more. Nevertheless, one thing is certain: The Arctic Ocean will be a busier and more complex place.

Shipping key to stable food prices, trade, and world economic stabilityMitropolous 2005 (Efthimios Mitropolous, Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations, World Maritime Day Parallel Event, 11/15, International Maritime Organization, http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1028&doc_id=5415) JTE

We hoped to kick-start moves towards creating a far broader awareness that a healthy and successful shipping industry has ramifications that reach far beyond the industry itself. Global economic prosperity is dependent on trade and trade, in turn, is dependent on a safe and secure transport network. Shipping is the most important part of that global network, although it is rarely acknowledged as such, and seldom given the credit it deserves. Indeed, I have long come to the sad conclusion that the contribution made by the shipping industry - and, in particular, by those who work hard, both on board ships and ashore, to make it safer and more environmentally friendly - is greatly undervalued by the public at large. You may have noticed that I used the word "sad" to brand my conclusion. I am sorry to say that there is another word I might suggest as more fitting to characterize the situation and that is the word "unfair" - in capital letters! I think it is worth pausing for a moment to consider just how vital the contribution of ships and shipping actually is. More than 90 per cent of global trade is reportedly carried by sea; over the last four decades, total seaborne trade estimates have nearly quadrupled, from less than 6 thousand billion tonne-miles in 1965 to 25 thousand billion tonne-miles in 2003; and, according to UN figures, the operation of merchant ships in the same year contributed about US$380 billion in freight rates within the global economy, equivalent to about 5 per cent of total world trade. This year, the shipping industry is expected to transport 6.6 billion tonnes of cargo. If you consider this figure vis-à-vis the 6.4 billion population of the world, you will realize that this works out at more than one tonne of cargo for every man, woman and child on the face of the planet - even more for the richer nations. As seaborne trade continues to expand, it also brings benefits for consumers throughout the world. The transport cost element in the price of consumer goods varies from product to product and is estimated to account for around 2 per cent of the shelf price of a television set and only around 1.2 per cent of a kilo of coffee. Thanks to the growing efficiency of shipping as a mode of transport and to increased economic liberalization, the prospects for the industry's further growth continue to be strong. Shipping is truly the lynchpin of the global economy. Without shipping, intercontinental trade, the bulk transport of raw materials and the import and export of affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not be possible. Shipping makes

the world go round and, so, let us be in no doubt about its broader significance. To put it in simple terms, as I have done before on a number of occasions during the campaign initiated at IMO to encourage all those involved in shipping to pay more attention to its public perception, without international shipping half the world would starve and the other half would freeze .

Trade prevents war, contains war, and checks escalation—solves all other impactsGRISWOLD 2011 (Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and author of Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization. “Free Trade and the Global Middle Class,” Hayek Society Journal Vol. 9 http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/Hayek-Society-Journal-Griswold.pdf) JTE

Our more globalized world has also yielded a “peace dividend.” It may not be obvious when our daily news cycles are dominated by horrific images from the Gaza Strip, Afghanistan and Libya, but our more globalized world has somehow become a more peaceful world. The number of civil and international wars has dropped sharply in the past 15 years, along with battle deaths. The reasons behind the retreat of war are complex, but again the spread of trade and globalization have played a key role. Trade has been seen as a friend of peace for centuries. In the 19th century, British statesman Richard Cobden pursued free trade as a way not only to bring more affordable bread to English workers but also to promote peace with Britain’s neighbors. He negotiated the Cobden-Chevalier free trade agreement with France in 1860 that helped to cement an enduring alliance between two countries that had been bitter enemies for centuries. In the 20th century, President Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of state, Cordell Hull, championed lower trade barriers as a way to promote peaceful commerce and reduce international tensions. Hull had witnessed first-hand the economic nationalism and retribution after World War I. Hull believed that “unhampered trade dovetail[s] with peace; high tariffs, trade barriers and unfair economic competition, with war .” Hull was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Peace, in part

because of his work to promote global trade. Free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend towards democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by raising the cost of war. As national economies become more intertwined, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means the loss of human lives and tax dollars, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. Trade and economic integration has helped to keep the

peace in Europe for more than 60 years. More recently, deepening economic ties between Mainland China and Taiwan are drawing those two governments closer together and helping to keep the peace. Leaders on both sides of the

Taiwan Straight seem to understand that reckless nationalism would jeopardize the dramatic economic progress that region has enjoyed. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it has reduced the spoils of war.

Trade allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and

human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in high-tech, service economies. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by freely trading what they can produce best at home. The world today is harvesting the peaceful fruit of expanding trade. The first half

of the 20th century was marred by two devastating wars among the great powers of Europe. In the ashes of World War II, the United States helped found the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, the precursor to the WTO that helped to spur trade between the United States and its major trading partners. As a condition to Marshall Plan aid, the U.S. government also insisted that the continental European powers, France, Germany, and Italy, eliminate trade barriers between themselves in what was to become the European Common Market. One purpose of the common market was to spur economic development, of course, but just as importantly, it was meant to tie the Europeans together economically. With six decades of hindsight, the plan must be considered a spectacular success. The notion of another major war between France, Germany and another Western European powers is unimaginable. Compared to

past eras, our time is one of relative world peace. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the number of armed conflicts around the world has dropped sharply in the past two decades. Virtually all the conflicts

today are civil and guerilla wars. The spectacle of two governments sending armies off to fight in the battlefield has become rare. In the decade from 1998 through 2007, only three actual wars were fought between states : Eritrea-Ethopia in 1998-2000, India-Pakistan in 1998-2003, and the United States-Iraq in 2003. From 2004 through 2007, no two nations were at war with one another. Civil wars have ended or at least ebbed in Aceh (in Indonesia), Angola, Burundi, Congo, Liberia, Nepal, Timor-Leste and Sierra

Leone. Coming to the same conclusion is the Human Security Centre at the University of British Colombia in Canada. In a 2005 report,

it documented a sharp decline in the number of armed conflicts, genocides and refugee numbers in the

past 20 years. The average number of deaths per conflict has fallen from 38,000 in 1950 to 600 in 2002 .

Most armed conflicts in the world now take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the only form of political violence that has worsened in recent years is international terrorism . Many causes lie behind the good news – the end

of the Cold War, the spread of democracy, and peacekeeping efforts by major powers among them – but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. In a chapter from the 2005 Economic

Freedom of the World Report, Dr. Erik Gartzke of Columbia University compared the propensity of countries to engage in wars to their level of economic freedom. He came to the conclusion that economic freedom, including the freedom to

trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, “Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. A 2006 study for the institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany, found the same pacific effect of trade and globalization. Authors Solomon Polachek and Carlos Seiglie found that “tra ding nations cooperate more and fight less.” In fact, a doubling of trade reduces the probability that a country will be involved in a conflict by 20 percent. Trade was the most important channel for peace, they found, but investment flows also had a positive effect. A democratic form of government also proved to be a force for peace, but primarily because democracies trade more. All this helps explain why the world’s two most conflict-prone regions – the Arab Middle East and Sub-

Saharan Africa – are also the world’s two least globally and economically integrated regions . Terrorism does not spring from poverty, but from ideological fervor and political and economic frustration . If we want to blunt the appeal of radical ideology to the next generation of Muslim children coming of age, we can help create more economic opportunity in those societies by encouraging more trade and investment ties with the West . The U.S. initiative to enact free trade agreements with certain Muslim countries, such as Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman, represent small steps in the right direction. An even more effective policy would be to unilaterally open Western markets to products made and grown in Muslim countries. A young man or woman with a real job at an export-oriented factory making overcoats in Jordan or shorts in Egypt is less vulnerable to the appeal of an Al-Qaida recruiter. Of course, free trade and globalization do not guarantee peace or inoculation against terrorism, anymore than they guarantee democracy and civil liberty. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. Any relationship involving human beings will be messy and non-linear. There will always be exceptions and outliers in such complex relationships involving economies and governments. But deeper trade and investment ties among nations have made it more likely that democracy and civil liberties will take root, and less likely those gains will be destroyed by civil conflict and war.

Maritime transportation is a key internal link into the united states economy Sea Power 2007 ( MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Sea Power 50. 1 (Jan 2007): 156-159. Jan 2007 http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/235997141?accountid=14667) JTE

The marine transportation industry supports and contributes to this robust economy. Waterborne cargo and associated activities contributed more than $742 billion annually to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. America's network of waterways moves 2.2 billion tons of domestic and foreign commerce each year, and the top 50 ports in the U.S. account for about 84 percent of all waterborne domestic and international cargo tonnage. America's maritime infrastructure will only grow in importance. Conservative

estimates project that U.S. trade and freight volumes at American ports will double by 2020 . The marine transportation industries that carry this trade are going to be essential to the nation's economic future.

Continued investment in the nation's maritime infrastructure and assets, including personnel, is essential to keep the transportation network from becoming a chokepoint for the economy. America faces a vast transportation challenge - congestion - that threatens to overwhelm its ports and its distribution network and erase any efficiencies gained from improved vessel and cargo handling designs. Transportation facilitation is linked to the challenges posed by congestion, but also about developing better approaches to moving cargo and people by and dirough seaports. The maritime industry is complicated, involving ports, carriers and snippers, different modes of transportation, and numerous levels and subdivisions of government. It also involves passengers and different commodities that can either be carried in containers or considered break bulk, liquid bulk, dry bulk and RO/RO cargoes. It involves individuals and companies with operations that span from the Alaska North Slope to the Great Lakes and inland waterways to the offshore energy industry and coastwise and international deep-sea carriers. It is international in scope in practically every way.

Arctic commerce is critical to the global economy.Brigham 2007 – (Dr. Lawson Brigham, Ph.D. Professor of Geography & Arctic Policy at University of Alaska Fairbanks and Senior Fellow at Institute of the North in Anchorage; “Thinking about the Arctic’s Future: Scenarios for 2040”, September-October 2007; < http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/arctic_spill_summit/arctic_scenarios_09_07.pdf>) JTE

The Arctic is also understood to be a large storehouse of yet-untapped natural resources, a situation that is

changing rapidly as exploration and development accelerate in places like the Russian Arctic. The combination of these two major forces—intense climate change and increasing natural-resource development— can transform this once remote area into a new region of importance to the global economy. To evaluate the potential impacts of such rapid changes, we turn to the scenario-development process, the creation of plausible futures to enhance a dialogue among a multitude of stakeholders and decision makers.

Suez Canal Scenario Developed arctic shipping routes divert LNG shipping from the Suez canalRaza 2013 (Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [“A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping”, Masters thesis, Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tønsberg, Norway, November 2013, Page 20-25, http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf] JTE

As described earlier in the first chapter that currently the trade between Europe and Asia is carried through the Suez Canal route . This section intends to provide a comparative overview of the existing Suez Canal route and the emerging alternate the Northern Sea Route. Suez Canal is a 119 miles long artificial waterway that has served the global trade over the last one and half century. The canal connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez providing navigational access to Far East Asian countries. Today about 50% of the total traffic of the canal is covered by container vessels whereas the LNG ships count approximately 6% of the entire traffic volume. The Suez Canal can handle up to 25000 ships per year and the current traffic is on average 20000 vessels per year, which is 15 percent of the entire maritime trade (SCA, 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2009). As discussed in the previous section that because of ice melt a new route is emerged namely the Northern Sea Route of NSR. The NSR is the seaway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and follows the northern coast of Russia. It is necessary to mention here that northern sea route is not a specific or fixed shipping lane rather it is an arrangement of several different shipping routes. The passage is spread over around 2200 to 2900 nautical miles of icy water and traverse different straits and seas such as the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and the Chukchi Sea (Østreng As compared to Suez Canal the NSR is particularly characterized with considerable distance saving of nearly 40% between

Rotterdam and Yokohama (Liu & Kronbak, 2010). The sailing on the route demands the mandatory assistance of icebreakers. An LNG tanker navigating through the NSR curtails substantial benefits over the traditional route of Suez canal such as fuel saving, increased number of voyages results in multiple gas deliveries, saving from LNG evaporation and lower amount of CO2 emissions et cetera (Gazprom, 2012). The following table shows the distance to some of the ports located in Asia and Europe using the NSR in relation to the Suez Canal. Figures derived from different sources vividly depict that NSR is the most attractive option on the trade route between Europe and Asia. The researcher of this study had a chance to interview Willy Ostreng about the comparative scope of the NSR and Suez Canal. Willy Ostreng headed the International Northern Sea Route program (INSROP) and currently is serving as a senior researcher and the president of Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research. The interview held in down town Oslo in October 2013. During the interview, some interesting points were unveiled about the Northern Sea Route and Suez Canal. A transcript of this interview with Willy Ostreng related to this section is presented here to deliver a professional viewpoint to the readers and to form a theoretical base for the research questions of this study. For the details of the interview questions and the concerning answers (See Appendix). What would you say about the potential of the Northern Sea route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, for the LNG shipping? ´´That’s is a big question, but in the light of accelerating sea ice melting there is no doubt that between northern European , northern Asia and northern American countries the northern sea route or the north east passage has a huge potential because its shortcut between the most economically developed parts of the world. Thus in that respect, if the sea ice is removed by global warming as it is, and even this is accelerating, and if the sea ice that is left

is weekend then of course the potential of the suit is enormous. If you go London to Yokohama in Japan, you save 40 % of the trade distance in comparison with going through the Suez Canal that is 6 600 nautical miles through the NSR and 11 400 nm through the Suez Canal. It goes around same, when you have set a saving in distance it can be transformed in to savings in sailing days and we know that there are multiple examples that 15 up to 18 days can be saved by using the northern sea route instead of the Suez Canal. So in general the very fact this is the shortcut geographically speaking and the fact that the ice both retreating throughout the north pole and the marginal seas are getting ice free and the remaining ice getting weaker, then of course you can use the passage with existing shipping technology. What you will have to do is all the investments to build up a fleet that can cope with ice-infested waters because even if it is free there will always be icebergs and drifting in the sailing lanes of the ship. Consequently, you will need to have ice-strengthened hull on the freighters and there would need to have icebreakers assistance. So that’s the general answer to this question and when it comes to LNG of course there is need for LNG in multiple Asian countries, such as Japan the biggest LNG consumer in the world, China, South Korea their needs are really important in this respect. Not least, they have all the experience that going through the traditional sea routes in southern waters means that they are subjective to piracy, political conflicts in the Suez Canal, in the Panama Canal. Consequently, in order to really have secure deliveries of LNG which

then support the idea of going north which is the only place with no piracy and I would argue that where there are no political risks of deliveries being stoppe d . So as seen from a broader perspective, mean in political and criminal perspective the northern sea route or the Northeast Passage. Because there is difference between NSR and North East Passage, the Northern Sea Route extends from Novaya Zemlya to the Bering Strait whereas the North East Passage also includes the Barents Sea that makes the North East Passage a two state passage. We usually think that North East Passage is Russian route, to a large extent it is, but little

Norway also has to say in this respect. I would say in general that this route has a huge potential to compensate for some of the problems such as political problems we face in southern latitudes. In the post-world war periods Suez canal was closed for several months twice and forcing international shipping to go around Africa which adds extremely to the costs of energy and of course the poor countries, the developing countries are suffering the most in that respect. So again, going north has a huge potential if ice melting will continue, so that

ice is getting weaker and ice is disappearing. The NSR is a kind of alternative to compensate for political problems in the Middle East, for political problems outside of Somalia. Political problems in the South China Sea you will avoid all these problems by using the NSR. There is huge momentum or motto for those who are in the need of LNG to

develop a shipping fleet that can operate in ice-infested waters. When I say ice infested waters it’s because the ocean will freeze out in winter but of course then ice is weak and its thinner and it can be combated by the existing ice breaking technology, so even if you have ice this ocean has a huge potential given the melting ´´ (Østreng, 2013). Similarly, Henrik Faclk who is maritime professional in a Norway based arctic shipping company, during the personal interview that held in his office located in the outskirts of Oslo on 1 st October 2013, he commented as following on the question about the potential scope of NSR; The scope of Northern Sea Route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, in particular for LNG transportation: ‘‘The Northern Sea Route can open for new LNG projects in the far North, previously it was like finding a gold mine on the moon it did not help because

the transportation will kill everything but today the transportation can be very competitive with alternative sources of supply. The distance from Mostar, Bergen to Yokohama is same as the distance from Arabian Gulf to Yokohama. Of course when you go

from Arabian Gulf to Japan you are not crossing any canal, you do not pay any, and you need not to have any ice class vessel etc. Going through the NSR from Melkøya to Tobatta is exactly fifty percent quicker than sailing through the Suez Canal. It opens up a completely new market but what is particular for the LNG trade is that the investments are so huge that nobody starts an LNG plant unless they have the long-term contracts and Melkøya was established before the NSR was finished. Therefore, everything is sold out but of course they have already done two or three trips through this passage and they are saving 8 million dollars on one trip. In Sabeta, where the Russian company Novatek plans to establish an LNG plant for them the advantage is more better because they are five days close to the Far East market’’ ‘‘It will only be of relevance for those who are contemplating to produce LNG up north, for the LNG coming out from the US in future it has absolutely no relevance. I think it is a game primarily for Russia. I often say that the freight will no longer kill the deal because of the northern sea route. Previously if you have LNG up north you were too far away from the consumption market but now you are very close to the market. So that’s why investing a huge amount in LNG plant of Yamal, with the 20 percent share of Chinese National Oil company (CNOC) at the Sabeta port’’ (Falck, 2013) Summing up from the above, we can say that the NSR is comparatively more efficient in terms of sailing distance and it compensates for the problems lie in the Suez Canal today. The NSR has a huge potential for the LNG shipment primarily from the northern hemisphere.

Terrorists want to attack LNG tankers in the Suez nowStarr 2014 (Stephen Starr is a journalist and author who has been based in the Middle East for six years. He lived in Syria from 2007 until 2012 and published the book Revolt in Syria: Eye-Witness to the Uprising (Oxford University Press), 2014 [“Attacks in the Suez: Security of the Canal at Risk?”, CTC Sentinel (Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point), The CTC Sentinel harnesses the Center’s global network of scholars and practitioners to understand and confront contemporary threats posed by terrorism and other forms of political violence, 2014 Vol 7 Issue 1, p 1-4, https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/attacks-in-the-suez-security-of-the-canal-at-risk] JTE

Egypt’s suez canal is one of the world’s busiest petroleum shipping channels.1 An estimated 2.2 million barrels of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Persian Gulf pass through the Suez Canal every day bound for markets in Europe and North America.2 In addition, more than 1,500 container ships, headed to Europe and Asia, traversed the canal in the second quarter of 2013.3 With Egypt mired in political instability, however, a terrorist group sharing al-Qa`ida’s ideology—the Furqan Brigades—attacked vessels traversing the canal in 2013, and have vowed to conduct similar attacks in the future .4 In the wake of these

attacks, there is concern that militants could successfully disrupt shipments through the Suez Canal, such as by sinking a large vessel and blocking the canal for a period of time . This article provides background on the Suez Canal,

discusses the emerging terrorist threat to vessels using the 120- mile waterway, warns of growing unrest in the Sinai Peninsula, and identifies some of the challenges faced by shipping companies in the Suez region. It finds that while security in the bordering Sinai Peninsula remains transient and the Egyptian state appears unable to stamp out militant

activity in the Sinai, terrorist groups would have to employ new tactics to sink vessels if their goal was to block the canal for any

period of time. Yet such tactics are not beyond their reach , and previous incidents of maritime terrorism could serve as their guide. Background Linking the Red and Mediterranean Seas, 7% of the world’s oil and 12% of global LNG traffic pass through the Suez Canal, making it vital to the world energy trade .5 It has been closed only five times in its 144-year history.6 It is maintained and owned by the Suez Canal Authority, which is in turn operated by the Egyptian government.7 The canal generates around $5 billion per year for Egypt and is an important source of foreign currency due to an ailing tourism trade.8 In 2012, 17,225 vessels passed through the canal coming from the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the Gulf of Suez in the south, often with just minutes of headway between each ship." Shipping companies using the Suez waterway include Maersk Line, COSCO, Hapag-Lloyd and the French- owned CMA CGM. For North American markets, the Suez is used by container vessels departing Houston, Charleston, Norfolk, and Newark bound for, among other countries, the United Arab Emirates, India and Pakistan.'° Moreover, in April 2013, the world's biggest shipping company, Maersk Line, replaced the Panama Canal with the Suez route for its Asia-East Coast America shipping as a result of increasing toll charges at Panama and the deployment of 18,000 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) vessels, further increasing the importance of the Suez route to international trade." Threat to the Canal: The Furqan Brigades The security of the Suez Canal was threatened on July 29 and August 31, 2013, when militants attacked two ships in the waterway with rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). In both instances, there was only slight damage to the vessels. The Furqan Brigades, a group based out of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, claimed credit for the attacks.12 The Furqan Brigades, which support al-

Qa`ida’s ideology but may not be directly linked to the terrorist group,13 promised further attacks on maritime traffic, saying that the canal is an important trade route and has also “become the safe way for the Crusader aircraft carriers to cross in to assault Muslims.”14 Little is known about the Furqan Brigades’ leadership, and it only rose to prominence when the two attacks in the Suez Canal were made public.15 It may number less than a few dozen militants, although it has now claimed responsibility for a handful of attacks in Egypt. Details about the July 29 attack are limited, but a video purportedly released by the groupshowed a Furqan Brigades militant launching what appeared to be a rocket at a ship, under the cover of darkness.16 Egyptian authorities played down the significance of the July 29 incident,17 but maritime experts said that the speed with which the Suez Canal Authority apportioned blame to “terrorists” for the second attack on August 31 suggested they had prior knowledge that the two incidents were connected.18 In the second attack on August 31, a video released by the Furqan Brigades showed two men moving

toward a ship, the COSCO Asia, before each fired an RPG into the port (left) hull of the vessel in broad daylight .19 Brigades in September said, After becoming fed up with criminal practices such as sieges of mosques, killing and displacement of Muslims, detentions of Muslim scholars, and the vicious attack by Egypt’s Crusaders on Islam and its people and mosques, the Furqan Brigades declare their responsibility for targeting the international waterway of the Suez Canal which is the artery of the commerce of the nations of disbelief and tyranny. By the graces of God, it was carried out with two RPG rounds [on August 31] amid their weak guards.20 [lfhe language employed by the group in its statements is typical of al-Qa'ida- linked, anti-Western extremist groups. ['We know they aren't suicide martyrs, [we know they are technologically savvy, End we know they have the capability as they proved it twice ," said Kevin Qoherty, president of Nexus Consulting, E security firm that monitors maritime threats. "They seem to be a more sophisticated group and yet are keeping a very low profile and WWW [internet] footprint."21 Egyptian authorities said they arrested three people on September 1 who, according to an army source, opened fired on the COSCO Asia vessel with “machine guns,” even though video released by the group clearly showed an attack with rockets.22 More recently, the Furqan Brigades claimed responsibility for an attack on a satellite communications facility in Maadi, Cairo, in October 2013.23 In that attack, video showed several militants, under the cover of darkness, launching an RPG at the facility.24 The explosion reportedly caused a one meter hole in one of the satellite dishes.25 The group has also claimed responsibility for a number of assassinations targeting Egyptian military personnel.26 Growing Unrest in the Sinai Peninsula and Suez Region The Furqan Brigades are not the only threat to the stability of shipping in the Suez Canal. The canal divides Egypt proper from the 23,000-square-mile Sinai Peninsula.

Bordering the Gaza Strip, the peninsula's northern areas have for years been home to militant activity , chiefly involving Palestinian smugglers and militants attempting to move goods and weapons into the Gaza Strip. Since this activity primarily targets Israel and not Egypt, and because of the wider political turmoil in Egypt, the state's security forces have concentrated resources elsewhere, which has allowed militant groups such as the Furqan Brigades to grow and prosper. In August 2012, the Egyptian military launched a massive operation in the Sinai following the killing of 15 Egyptian border guards on the Sinai- Israeli border." Egyptian forces deployed troops, tanks and warplanes, the latter for the first time in the Sinai since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The following summer, in 2013, Egypt moved two infantry battalions to the Sinai to battle militants.28 Throughout September and the following months, Egyptian authorities conducted more operations.29 The aggressive operations left homes and villages in rubble,30 and the Egyptian military said it captured hundreds of militants, including Palestinians.31 Despite the Egyptian security operations, militants have since carried out several attacks in the Sinai. On October 7, 2013, unidentified militants attacked a government army convoy close to the Suez Canal, killing six soldiers." The same day, a suicide bomber drove a Vehicle into a security building in the Sinai Peninsula." In addition to the Furqan Brigades, other terrorist groups are operating in the area, including Ansar Bayt al- Maqdis. This group, which has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on Egyptian security forces in

the Sinai, is thought to comprise local Bedouins as well as some foreign fighters." The civil and political unrest that has rocked

Egypt since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 has affected every major population center. In Suez, a port city of 500,000 people situated at the southern mouth of the canal in Egypt proper, civil unrest has erupted sporadically over the past three years. In July, street fighting between pro- and anti-Muslim Brotherhood groups resulted in injuries to

more than 100 people.35 Elsewhere in the Suez region, police found explosives planted on a railway line in September 2013,36 while fighting following the fallout of the Port Said stadium killings in 2012,37 in which more than 70 died, has added to a sense of instability and drawn the army to the area.38 Problems for Shipping Companies The threat of terrorist attacks and the growing unrest in the Sinai Peninsula have raised obvious concerns about the stability of shipments through the Suez Canal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, closure of the Suez Canal “would add an estimated 2,700 miles of transit from Saudi Arabia to the United States around the Cape of Good Hope via tanker.”39 Nevertheless, major shipping companies do not, at least publicly, appear overly worried about the threat of further attacks. Mikkel Elbek Linnet of Maersk Line, for example, said the company was not planning to alter future plans because of emanating threats.40 experts argue that RPG attacks are unlikely to sink a major Vessel and thus close the canal," and that only an attack launched by an explosives- laden smaller boat could achieve that outcome." The fact that the Furqan Brigades have not yet succeeded in carrying out bombings on board ships, nor have resorted to suicide attacks on Vessels, suggests that, at least as a new organization, such capabilities may not yet exist.43 Analysts, however, believe that the Furqan Brigades could gain the skills necessary to launch waterborne attacks on cargo Vessels if they should choose to do so .44

There are a number of groups operating in the Sinai with proven bomb-making experience that share the same ideological outlook as the Furqan Brigades, and cross training between groups is a possibility.45 The Furqan

Brigades are not the first group to plot attacks on ships transiting the Suez Canal. In July 2009, Egyptian authorities said that they

arrested 25 militants with suspected links to al- Qa'ida for plotting to use explosives fitted with mobile phone-activated

detonators against ships in the canal." Other plots have been foiled as well." Securing the Suez Canal is problematic. Locals keep small fishing boats along the Waterway and its lakes, while numerous towns, Villages and farms dot its western shoreline.48 In March 2008, a ship contracted to the U.S. Navy fired at a group of boats in the canal, killing one man, after the latter failed to heed warnings from the Navy vessel to keep the required distance.49 According to one expert, there are numerous points along the canal where security is absent or lacking: There are ferries that go east to west, locations where people sit along and watch the ships go by, there are bridges that overpass the canal of which things can be dropped from or people can gain access from, even fishermen and sales folks selling DVDs and such inside the canal waterways.50 In the case of the Furqan Brigades’ attack on the COSCO Asia container ship on August 31, the militants reportedly fired at the ship in an area where dense shrubs divided the road from the canal, obscuring the jihadists from view of the authorities or other observers.51 An attack on any large transport vessel that resulted in its sinking would “effectively shut the entire canal” for days, even weeks.52 Even if militants failed to sink a major vessel, a waterborne suicide bomb attack on an LNG or oil tanker, or cruise or container ship transiting the Suez Canal—a tactic used against the USS Cole in 2000 and the M/V M. Star in 2010—would have immediate effects on the use of the Suez as a major shipping route. Conclusion Egypt’s military recognizes the threat it faces over securing the Suez Canal,

although it has not done enough to mitigate the risk of attacks, instead favoring reactive military campaigns against militant groups and individuals operating from the Sinai Peninsula. Yet the threat of serious attacks by militants—operations that could sink a major vessel and thus block the canal— is a real one.53 The military, a cornerstone of the Egyptian state, has been on the wane in recent years as popular protests increasingly dominate the political sphere.54 Furthermore, the loyalty of the security forces and police was called into question in

Port Said early in 2013 when police took part in strikes and protests after being blamed for crackdowns on demonstrators.55 The military appears increasingly incapable of preventing the sporadic attacks such as those being launched by the and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis . As a result, the Sinai Peninsula remains a hotbed of militant activity, and ships in the Suez Canal risk future attacks.

LNG is uniquely attractive as a terrorist targetHurst 2008 [Cindy Hurst, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve, Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?, 2008 http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529] JTE

There reportedly have been indications of terrorists planning to hit LNG tankers. In November 2002, the capture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda’s operational commander in the Gulf region, brought to light the idea that terrorists were already planning to go after such targets. Nashiri, allegedly a specialist in maritime operations, had already played a key role in the attack on the USS Cole and the Limburg. According to a Western counterterrorism official during an interrogation, Nashiri indicated that al-Qaeda had information on the vulnerability of supertankers to suicide attacks and the economic impacts they would

have. The official informed The Daily Star that al-Qaeda had a naval manual describing “the best places on the vessels to hit, how to employ limpet mines, fire rockets or rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft, and [how to] turn LNG tankers into floating bombs. They (terrorists) are also shown how to use fast craft packed with explosives, and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and detonated beside bigger ships, or in ports where petroleum or gas storage areas could go up as well. They (manuals) even talk of using underwater scooters for suicide attacks.” According to Dan Verton in his book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyberterrorism (2003), “al-Qaeda cells now operate with the assistance of large databases containing details of potential targets in the U.S. They use the Internet to collect intelligence on those targets, especially critical economic nodes, and modern software enables them to study structural weaknesses in facilities as well as predict the cascading failure effect of attacking certain systems.” Al-Qaeda is a “goal-driven organization.” This means that they take action toward an end goal of affecting the “future state of the world.” Al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to establish “an Islamic caliphate,” which will ultimately extend across the global Islamic community. The biggest obstacle to accomplishing this is the U.S. Therefore, in order to try to achieve this goal, al-Qaeda must first bring down the U.S. With America’s growing appetite for natural gas, LNG could potentially become one of al-Qaeda’s targets. The 2007 Rand study, entitled Exploring Terrorist Targeting Preferences, not unexpectedly, lists capability and motive as the two variables that can best predict the probability of al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates selecting a particular target. It would be impossible for an attack to occur with only one variable. In other words, al-Qaeda must first have a motive. Once a motive is established, the group must then possess the capability to carry out its selected mission. Without capability, the attack cannot occur, at least not successfully. Capability includes financial backing, technology, flexibility in movement, physical access to target or target area, ability to penetrate security of a target or target area, ability to conduct reconnaissance and planning, external links to sources of information/weapons/technology, and sophistication of media. The Rand study broke down al-Qaeda’s motivational factors into four plausible groups. These four factors are coerce, damage, rally, and franchise operations. Coerce: Al-Qaeda’s desire is to “coerce” the U.S. and its Western allies toward a specific goal by causing pain, most likely through casualties. A successful attack on LNG has the potential to be deadly. Damage: Al-Qaeda’s desire is to reduce the ability of the U.S. to intervene in the Islamic world. This would likely be accomplished by somehow damaging the economy. Under the damage hypothesis, al-Qaeda has already repeatedly demonstrated the desire to try to cripple the U.S. economy through both its propagations (i.e.: its call to attack oil and gas sources to “strangle the U.S. economy”) and through a pattern of historical terrorist acts, both successful and unsuccessful, many of which affected the economy to some degree. While the bombing of the World Trade Center was clearly motivated by a desire to take as many lives as possible, it also had a strong impact on the economy. An attack on LNG would also have an impact on the economy. The extent of that impact would depend upon the extent of the damage, coupled with the human-emotion factor. Rally: Al-Qaeda’s desire is to rally support in the Muslim world. Under the rally hypothesis, hard targets symbolize U.S. strength and are the most difficult targets to penetrate. Three of the 14 terrorist attacks analyzed by Rand were hard targets. “By striking and destroying them, al-Qaeda has been able to underscore its credentials as a meaningful force, establishing a benchmark of power that it has then used to build morale among existing members and attract new recruits.” Indeed, al-Qaeda tends to hit soft targets more frequently than hard targets. However, it has already proven it is willing to hit hard targets. With the numerous security measures implemented in every LNG shipment, LNG terminals and tankers are extremely hard targets. The added publicity surrounding LNG terminals in the U.S. could potentially draw increased appeal to them as targets for terrorist groups hoping to send out a strong message on their strength and potential, which could lure more support. Franchise: Al-Qaeda might not possess the means or capability to carry out a particular terrorist act and, therefore, a like-minded terrorist group might assume the task instead. Under the franchise hypothesis, since 9/11 and the global war on terrorism (GWOT), the U.S. has managed to destroy much of al-Qaeda’s infrastructure in Afghanistan. However, some analysts believe

that rather than destroying bin Laden’s movement, the GWOT has actually “given rise to new, less predictable organizations composed of dozens of like-minded extremists.” If al-Qaeda is unable to execute an attack on LNG, perhaps a lesser known extremist group would step in unexpectedly . The Rand study found that the majority of terrorist acts committed fell under at least two categories of the above hypotheses. For example, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, in which a car bomb was detonated in the underground parking garage, killing six people, and injuring 1,042, falls under the categories of coercion and damage. This attack was meant to cause mass casualties while also impacting the economy. September11 falls under three categories – coerce, damage, and rally. It caused mass casualties, impacted the economy, and rallied support in the Muslim world. A well-executed attack on the U.S. LNG infrastructure would fall under three categories, or potentially under all four categories. The most controversial LNG terminal in the U.S. is the Suez Energy North America’s Everett LNG terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. The location of this terminal makes it an ideal candidate for a terrorist attack under the coerce hypothesis. Almost weekly, LNG tankers have to pass within several hundred yards of the crowded Boston waterfront, past the end of the Logan International Airport runway, and under a busy bridge. Immediately after 9/11, Richard Clarke, who was then the White House counterterrorism chief, prompted the U.S. Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor to all LNG tankers. LNG shipments resumed several weeks later after a federal judge ruled there was no evidence of a credible threat. However, these LNG operations started back up under much heavier security. The rest of the world does not seem to share the same security and safety concerns as Americans regarding LNG. This could be a potential problem .

Acting on these concerns, the U.S. has strict security measures in place. Meanwhile, in other areas of the world security is severely lacking, leaving massive tankers floating as easy targets. An attack could occur anywhere . One key location would be in Southeast Asia. Since 9/11, analysts have often pointed to the vulnerabilities of the Strait of Malacca. The Strait of Malacca is approximately 600 miles long, but only 1.5 miles across at its narrowest point. Furthermore, it is the busiest chokepoint in the world. In 2006,

more than 65,600 ships passed through it. An attack on an LNG tanker in the narrowest part of the strait would put a serious delay on the traffic traversing through. This could have a significant impact on the world’s economy, which is heavily dependent on commerce traversing the strait. At least a dozen LNG tankers pass through the Strait every day. Catherine Zara Raymond, of the Jamestown Foundation, described a number of potential scenarios that could occur in Southeast Asia involving maritime terrorism. Citing concern by Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo in a speech to the ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2005, Raymond suggested that terrorists could highjack an LNG tanker and blow it up in Singapore harbor.

An LNG tanker attack is equivalent to large-scale nuclear warLovins and Lovins 2001 [Amory Lovins has received ten honorary doctorates and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1984, of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1988, and of the World Business Academy in 2001. He has received the World Technology Award, the Right Livelihood Award, the Blue Planet Prize, Volvo Environment Prize, the 4th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment in 1998,[17] and the National Design (Design Mind), Jean Meyer, and Lindbergh Awards. Lovins shared a 1982 Mitchell Prize for an essay on reallocating utility capital, a 1983 Right Livelihood Award (often called the "alternative Nobel Prize"), a 1993 Nissan Award for an article on Hypercars, the 1999 Lindbergh Award for Environment and Technology, and several honorary doctorates. In 2000, she was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine, and received the Loyola Law School Award for Outstanding Community Service.[2] In 2001, she received the Leadership in Business Award and shared the Shingo Prize for Manufacturing Research. In 2005 she received the Distinguished Alumni Award of Pitzer College. “Brittle Power”, 2001 http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Energy/BrittlePower.pdf] JTE

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 percent 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.

And, an attack on the Suez would collapse the economyScarano 2011 (Donato Scarano writer for The Peak Effect, JANUARY 29, 2011 [“Suez Canal Oil Choke Point”, The Peak Effect, http://www.thepeakeffect.com/2011/01/suez-canal-oil-choke-point.html]JTE

Why the recent developments in Egypt can send the world in recession or worst. Egypt can seem a Middle East or North African problem catching our headlines for few days and then disappearing but in reality depending on how this revolution will develop can practically bring the entire world in recession. Why Egypt is vital to the global economy is due to the Suez Canal, even if not that important today as it used to be it still represents one of the main oil choke-points in the world. Petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) accounted for 16 percent of Suez cargos, measured by cargo tonnage, in 2009. An estimated 1.0 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed northbound through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea in 2009, while 0.8 million bbl/d travelled southbound into the Red Sea. With only 1,000 feet at its narrowest point, the Canal is unable to handle the VLCC (Very Large Crude Carriers) and ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carriers) class crude oil tankers. The 200-mile long SUMED Pipeline, or Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal for those cargos too large to transit the Canal. The pipeline moves crude oil northbound from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and is owned by Arab Petroleum Pipeline Co., a joint venture between the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC), Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC, and Kuwaiti companies. Closure of the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline would divert tankers around the southern tip of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, adding 6,000 miles to transit. Even a temporary blockade of the flow of oil would cause oil prices to spiral upwards, yesterday as news from Egypt were coming through the price of oil went above $100 immediately. A longer disruption could caase an already weak economy to down spiral in recession .

Currently the most worrisome scenario is in Europe since it is more affected by a possible blockade of the Suez Canal.

The question is, if this happen what Europe will do about it, it will start a military intervention as in the Suez Crisis in 1956 to re-establish transit and vital energy supplies, any alternative route or source is not viable at the moment in the short and medium term and waiting too much to re-establish supplies would cause devastating damage to an already feeble economy.

Commerce Impact ExtensionsEconomic collapse causes escalating global wars Kemp 2010 (Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4)

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further

enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.

Oil Spill Advantage

Oil Spill Uniqueness Extensions

Drilling makes arctic Oil Spills inevitableAbrams 2014 [Lindsay Abrams, assistant editor at Salon, “The U.S. is completely unprepared for the inevitable Arctic oil spill”, Salon, April 24th, 2014 http://www.salon.com/2014/04/24/the_u_s_is_completely_unprepared_for_the_inevitable_arctic_oil_spill/] JTE

Let’s face it: if we start drilling in the Arctic, or even just as ship traffic picks up in its melting waters, what happens everywhere else is more likely than not to happen there, too. That’s right, there are going to be oil spills — and

according to a panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC), the U.S. is totally unprepared to deal with that inevitability. In a 198-page report commissioned by the U.S. Coast Guard, the American Petroleum Institute and various other agencies, the

NRC spells out the likely disastrous outcome of a large spill. “It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel,” it reads. And yet “there is presently no funding mechanism to provide for development, deployment, and maintenance of temporary and permanent infrastructure.” What the U .S. needs , the report continues, is “a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program” in order to properly prepare. Easier said than done, as Science reports: Cleaning up oil in the Arctic is particularly tricky for a number of reasons, the committee notes. The extreme weather conditions are one problem. The lack of many kinds of data—high-resolution topography and bathymetry along the coasts;

measurements of ice cover and thickness; distributions in space and time of the region’s fish, birds, and marine mammals—is another. And if an emergency happens, there’s no infrastructure in place—no consistent U.S. Coast

Guard presence and no reliable supply chains to support a rapid response. On top of that, there is little real-world information about how the Arctic’s own oil (rather than an amalgam from an oil pipeline, as is now tested) will behave in

the Arctic’s heavily stratified water column, which could prevent deep spills from reaching the surface. Then there’s the lingering question of how effective chemical dispersants or oil-munching microbes are in the frigid Arctic environment. And virtually nothing is known about how oil and sea ice will interact. “Ice really changes

everything,” Myers says. Some oil might make its way into the ice, only to later become liquid again when the ice melts; some might remain trapped beneath it, moving with the ice—or possibly not. “We have very few observations of the under-ice environment,” he says. The barriers, as Chris Krenz, a Juneau-based senior scientist with the conservation group Oceana, points out, make disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez look simple in comparison — and we all know how well we were able to handle those…

Status-quo infrastructure hinders emergency responseArctic Council 2009-(“arctic marine shipping assessment report”, March 09, http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desports/assets/pdf/arctic_marine_shipping_assessment.pdf)JTE

Th ere is a general lack of marine infrastructure in the Arctic , except for areas along the Norwegian coast and northwest

Russia, compared with other marine regions of the world with high concentrations of ship traffic. Gaps in

hydrographic data exist for significant portions of primary shipping routes important to support safe navigation. In addition, for safe operations in the Arctic there is a need for the same suite of meteorological and oceanographic data ,

products and services as in other oceans, plus comprehensive information on sea ice and icebergs. Except in limited areas of the Arctic, there is a lack of emergency response capacity for saving lives and for pollution mitigation . There are serious limitations to radio and satellite communications and few systems to monitor and control the movement of ships in ice-covered waters. The current lack of marine infrastructure in all but a limited number of areas, coupled with the vastness and harshness of the environment, makes conduct of emergency response significantly more difficult in the Arctic.

Oil spill in Northern Alaska likely now - emergency response is obstructed in status-quo.Kroh et al. 12 [Kiley Kroh, Michael Conathan, Emma Huvos, "Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling", February 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/arcticreport.pdf]JTE

Though the refrain “never again” was echoed time and again in the wake of the BP oil catastrophe, we are now facing a new oil spill threat. After spending over five years and $4 billion on the process, the Royal Dutch Shell Group is on the cusp of receiving the green light to begin exploratory drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas this summer.1 Though Shell emphasizes it would drill exploratory wells in shallow water rather than establishing

deep-water production wells like Macondo, the fundamental characteristics of the vastly unexplored and uninhabited Arctic coastline may increase the likelihood of a spill and will certainly hamper emergency response capability.2 The decision to move forward with drilling in some of the most extreme conditions on Earth has deeply divided Alaska Native communities, drawn stark criticism from environmental groups, and caused other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to raise concerns about the glaring absence of sound science in the region. This is highlighted in a recent letter to the Obama administration, signed by nearly 600 scientists from around the world, calling on the president and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to follow through on their commitment to science and enact recommendations made by the U.S. Geological Survey before approving any drilling activity in the Arctic.3 In addition to the lack of a scientific foundation, the Arctic has inadequate infrastructure to deal with an oil spill, and response technologies in such extreme environmental conditions remain untested. As we detail in this report, the resources and existing infrastructure that facilitated a grand-scale response to the BP disaster differ immensely from what could be brought to bear in a similar situation off Alaska’s North Slope. Even the well-developed infrastructure and abundance of trained personnel in the Gulf of Mexico didn’t prevent the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Our Arctic response capabilities pale by comparison. There are no U.S. Coast Guard stations north of the Arctic Circle, and we currently operate just one functional icebreaking vessel. Alaska’s tiny ports and airports are incapable of supporting an extensive and sustained airlift effort. The region even lacks such basics as paved roads and railroads. This dearth of infrastructure would severely hamper the ability to transport the supplies and personnel required for any large-scale emergency response effort. Furthermore, the extreme and unpredictable weather conditions complicate transportation, preparedness, and cleanup of spilled oil to an even greater degree. Much of the Arctic region quite simply remains a mystery, largely untouched by human activity. Yet other Arctic countries are moving forward with oil and gas exploration—Russia signed a $7.9 billion exploration deal with BP last year and Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. are both expected to drill off Greenland over the next few years.4, 5 Last year Norway rejected plans to drill in some areas north of the Arctic Circle, but has indicated it intends to ramp up production in the Barents Sea, a region it shares with neighboring Russia.6, 7 Due to the need for specially designed equipment, long supply lines, and limited transportation, a recent analysis from the nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration found that “studies on the economics of onshore oil and natural gas projects in Arctic Alaska estimate costs to develop reserves in the region can be 50 to 100 percent more than similar projects undertaken in Texas.”8 Despite these hurdles, some in the United States are eager to keep pace with other Arctic nations by tapping into the “great opportunity” for economic gain they believe lies beneath the pristine Arctic waters. Drilling for oil in this fragile region, however, should not be pursued without adequate safeguards in place. If we’ve

learned anything from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, it’s that the importance of preparedness cannot be overstated. That is why we strongly recommend specific actions be taken by the federal government, by Congress, and by Shell and other companies before beginning exploratory drilling in the Arctic. For Shell: • Develop a credible worst-case scenario and have a well-designed and vetted emergency plan in place that includes proof of the ability to respond to a worst- case blowout/oil spill • Demonstrate that a blowout can be contained, including the required installation of redundant emergency shut-off systems • Ensure adequate response capabilities are in place before drilling operations commence For the federal government: • Require and oversee oil spill response drills in the Arctic that prove the assertions made in company drilling plans prior to plan approval • Improve weather and ocean prediction and monitoring capabilities to ensure a safe and effective oil spill response • Engage other Arctic nations in developing an international oil spill response agreement that includes an Arctic Ocean drilling management plan For Congress: • Appropriate adequate funds for the Coast Guard to carry out its mission in the Arctic, including increasing our icebreaking capability • Significantly increase the liability cap (currently $75 million) for oil companies in violation of drilling safety rules • Appropriate additional funds for NOAA research and development to increase oil spill response capacity in the Arctic Certainly, meeting our nation’s energy needs in the near term means maintaining access to domestic offshore oil and gas resources, but it is imperative that we do so in the most prudent, responsible, and environmentally safe manner. And while we applaud the critical reforms implemented

by the Obama administration in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, more must be done. Until the oil and gas industry

and its federal partners meet the recommendations we lay out in this report and demonstrate the ability to identify and immediately respond to a blowout or oil spill, the Arctic region of the United States should remain off-limits to exploration and drilling.

Oil Spill Impact Extensions

Oil spills cause ecosystems to fail – multiple waysKennedy No Date [Jennifer Kennedy, a scientist, educator and naturalist with a lifelong passion for the ocean and its inhabitant, “Effects of Oil Spills on Marine Life”, about.com, http://marinelife.about.com/od/conservation/tp/effectsofoilspills.htm] JTE

Many people became familiar with the disastrous effects of oil spills in 1989 after the Exxon Valdez incident in Prince William Sound, Alaska. That spill is considered the worst oil spill in U.S. history -- although the 2010 BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico could prove to be even worse. Overall, the effects of an oil spill depend on a variety of factors, including the weather and other environmental conditions, the composition of the oil and how close it gets to shore. But here are some ways an oil spill can impact marine life, including

seabirds, pinnipeds and sea turtles. Hypothermia Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) coated in oil, Alaska, USA Natalie Fobes/The Image

Bank/Getty Images Oil, a product that we often use to keep warm, can cause hypothermia in marine animals. As oil mixes with water, it forms a substance called "mousse," which sticks to feathers and fur. A bird's feathers are filled with air spaces that act as insulation and keeps the bird warm. When a bird gets coated with oil, the feathers lose their insulating ability and the bird could die of hypothermia.

Similarly, oil coats a pinniped's fur. When this happens, the fur gets matted with oil and loses its natural ability to insulate the animal's

body, and it can die of hypothermia. Young animals like seal pups are particularly vulnerable. Poisoning and Internal Damage Animals can be poisoned or suffer internal damage from ingesting oil. Effects include ulcers and damage to red blood cells, kidneys, liver and to the immune system. Oil vapors can injure to eyes and lungs, and can be particularly hazardous while new oil is still coming to the surface and vapors are evaporating. If vapors are severe enough, marine

mammals may become "sleepy" and drown. Oil can also cause effects 'up' the food chain, such as when an organism higher on

the food chain eat a number of oil-infected animals. For example, reproduction in bald eagles decreased after the eagles ate animals

infected by oil after the Exxon Valdez spill. Increased Predation Oil can weigh down feathers and fur, making it difficult for birds and pinnipeds to escape from predators. If they are covered with enough oil, birds or

pinnipeds may actually drown. Decreased Reproduction Oil spills can effect the eggs of marine life such as fish and sea turtles, both when the spill happens and later on. Fisheries were impacted years after the Exxon Valdez spill due to the destruction of herring and salmon eggs when the spill occurred. Oil can also cause disruption of reproductive hormones and behavioral changes that lead to reduced reproduction rates or affect the care of young. Fouling of Habitat Cleanup of Taean oil spill / U.S. Army

Environmental Command, Flickr U.S. Army, Flickr Oil spills in the can effect ocean habitat, both offshore and onshore. Before an oil spill reaches shore, the oil can poison plankton and other pelagic marine life. On shore, it can cover rocks, marine algae and marine invertebrates. The Exxon Valdez spill coated 1,300 miles of coastline, initiating a massive cleanup effort. Once the cleanup of surface areas has occurred, oil that has seeped into the ground can hurt marine life for decades . For example, oil can drip into the ground, causing issues for burrowing animals such as crabs.

Arctic is key to global biodiversity – the impact is extinctionGill 9 (Michael Gill, Chair of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, “ABSTRACT: BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES”, March, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/csi/LINKS/monaco-abstracts/Gill_abstract_MonacoUNESCOarctic.pdf)

Arctic ecosystems and the biodiversity they support are experiencing growing pressure from climate change and resource development while established research and monitoring programs remain largely uncoordinated, lacking the

ability to effectively monitor, understand and report on biodiversity trends at the circumpolar scale. The maintenance of healthy Arctic ecosystems is a global imperative as the Arctic plays a critical role in the Earth’s physical, chemical and biological balance. A coordinated and comprehensive effort for monitoring Arctic ecosystems is needed to facilitate effective and timely conservation and adaptation actions . The Arctic’s size and complexity represents a significant challenge towards detecting and attributing important biodiversity trends. This demands a scaled, pan-Arctic, ecosystem-based approach that not only identifies trends in biodiversity, but also identifies

underlying causes. It is critical that this information be made available to generate effective strategies for adapting to changes now taking place in the Arctic - a process that ultimately depends on rigorous, integrated, and efficient monitoring programmes that have the power to detect change within a ‘management’ time frame. Biodiversity is a popular way of describing the diversity of life on earth: it includes all life forms and the ecosystems of which they are a part. World Food Day — the anniversary of FAO's

founding on 16 October 1945 — celebrates, in particular, that part of biodiversity that nurtures people and contributes to long-term food security for all. Biodiversity forms the foundation for sustainable development. It is the basis for the environmental health of our planet and the source of economic and ecological security for future generations. In the developing world, biodiversity provides the assurance of food, countless raw materials such as fibre for clothing, materials for shelter, fertilizer, fuel and medicines, as well as a source of work energy in the form of animal traction. The rural poor depend upon biological resources for an estimated 90 percent of their needs. In the industrialized world access to diverse biological resources is necessary to support a vast array of industrial products. In the continuing drive to develop efficient and sustainable agriculture for many different conditions, these resources provide raw material for plant and animal breeding as well as the new biotechnologies. In addition, biodiversity maintains the ecological balance necessary for planetary and human survival.

Kills Arctic marine life.O’Rourke 2012 – (Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress”, 6/15/12; < http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf>)JTE

No oil spill is entirely benign. Even a relatively minor spill, depending on the timing and location, can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire populations. Regarding aquatic spills, marine mammals, birds, bottom-dwelling and intertidal species, and organisms in early developmental stages—eggs or larvae—are especially vulnerable. However, the effects of oil spills can vary greatly. Oil spills can cause impacts over a

range of time scales, from only a few days to several years, or even decades in some cases. Conditions in the Arctic may have implications for toxicological effects that are not yet understood . For example, oil spills on permafrost may persist in an ecosystem for relatively long periods of time, potentially harming plant life through their root systems. Moreover, little is known about the effects of oil spills on species that are unique to the Arctic, particularly, species’ abilities

to thrive in a cold environment and the effect temperature has on toxicity.94 The effects of oil spills in high latitude, cold ocean environments may last longer and cause greater damage than expected. Some recent studies have found

that oil spills in lower latitudes have persisted for longer than initially expected, thus raising the concern that the persistence of oil in the Arctic may be understated. In terms of wildlife, population recovery may take longer in the Arctic because many of the species have longer life spans and reproduce at a slower rate .95

Biodiversity is key to life on earth.Science Daily 2011 (ScienceDaily, online science newsletter, 8/11/12 “Biodivserity Key to Earth’s Life-Support Functions in a Changing World” < http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm>)JTE

The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing

ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.

Arctic species key to life and genetic diversity on Earth.CAFF 1998 – Biodiversity Working group of the Arctic Council (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, “Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity”, September 1998; < http://arcticportal.org/uploads/RX/zN/RXzNc4KU8QKfhN_KDw_oQQ/The-StrategicPlanforTheConservofArcticBiolDiv.pdf>)JTE

The species of the Arctic are important for their own sake and for their value, directly or indirectly, to other parts of their ecosystems, including humans. Of particular concern for conservation are rare and endangered species. CAFF’s inventories have identified 39 species and subspecies of rare and endangered birds and mammals and 96 species of rare endemic vascular plants (i.e., those with root systems) in the Arctic. In addition, several shared species, such as murres (guillemots) and eiders, have been targeted for co-operative action as species

of common conservation concern. While these species may not be considered rare or endangered at a global level, some populations may be seriously threatened at the local level in parts of the Arctic . Out of the approximately 360 bird species that

breed regularly in the Arctic region as defined by CAFF, 279 migrate out of the region and spend the winter in a non-Arctic country. In addition, many Arctic plant species are also found elsewhere, which may affect their overall genetic diversity. The conservation of these species may require co-operative efforts with non-Arctic countries.

Arctic ecology is key to global biodiversity.Hohn and Jaakkola 1997 – US. Department of Interior and Counselor Finnish Ministry of Environment (Janet Hohn and Esko Jaakola, “Arctic Biodiversity: Introduction”, 4/17/97; < http://abt.arcticportal.org/images/stories/report/pdf/Introduction.pdf>)

The Arctic plays host to a vast array of biodiversity, including many globally significant populations [1].

Included among these are more than half of the world’s shorebird species [2], 80% of the global goose populations [3], several million reindeer and caribou, and many unique mammals, such as the polar bear . During the short summer breeding season, 279 species of birds arrive from as far away as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and South America to take advantage of the long days and intense period of productivity. Several species of marine mammals, including grey and humpback whales, and harp and hooded seals, also migrate annually to the Arctic (Figure I).

Alaskan Port Advantage

1ACInterest in new Alaskan ports now, but the project isn’t adequately funded.Alaska DoT 2011 – (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, “State of Alaska Capital Project Summary: Arctic Ports Study”, 07/01/2011 < www.alaskapublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Arctic-Ports-Study-Funding-Request.pdf>)JTE

This is a new capital request to fund the study and mapping of potential arctic deepwater port sites, in

conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A deepwater arctic port would be a long-term vital asset to national security and to the State's economy. . It would provide a new, northernmost port for the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to protect and patrol the State's arctic waters. USCG icebreakers and other vessels require a minimum of -35 feet. Additional funding to complete the study would be required in FY2013 and FY2014. This project is focused on studying and mapping the Arctic coast in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers for a deepwater port site. A separate statewide digital mapping project has received prior capital funding: DNR: $6,000,000 GF total, $7,000,000 federal receipts. DMVA also received $11.4 million in federal receipts in FY06 for this project under what was known as the Alaska Aviation Safety Program. The Arctic coast is approximately 927 miles long or 1,492 kilometers, and a high priority for the State of Alaska and all federal agencies. It is in our interest to learn as much as we can about the region and its potential deepwater (-35 feet or greater) port sites by working with the Army Corps of Engineers conducting a combination of research and mapping in order to develop a list of potential port sites on the State's arctic coastline. An arctic port in Alaska would serve as a major infrastructure asset as the State, nation, and world continue to evolve. In the short term, this would serve as the northernmost port for the USCG, the US Navy (USN), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in order for them to protect and patrol this region, and to develop a greater understanding of the factors involved in the potential economic development of the region. In the long term, a potential arctic port could be expanded upon to allow for greater utilization to the state. It could help further diversify the state's economy in many ways. Including: The possibility of an arctic port becoming a direct shipping

point for resources developed in the western and northern regions of Alaska. A major strategic American commercial and military port along the Arctic Coast as vessel traffic increases. A major infrastructure asset to any future potential endeavors to produce oil and gas from deepwater reserves in the Arctic Ocean. Vital information that could potentially be gathered through digital mapping and studies in collaboration with the USACE includes, but is not limited to: depth of water, size and number of vessels, security requirements, hydrographic surveys, ice thickness and movement, operational needs, maintenance requirements, social, economic, and environmental impacts, potential arctic infrastructure development, coastal erosion, storm surge analysis, tsunami inundation analysis, sea rise, disaster preparedness, mitigation and recovery, climate change research, and an understanding of the capabilities of other arctic nations. Attached are two digital mapping charts, one illustrating existing legacy IFSAR elevation data while the other illustrates the 2010 elevation collection. The legacy data is sporadic (i.e. mountain passes and etc.) and with exception of the northern oil and gas regions, the digital data is old and inadequate. Accurate elevation data supports all types of resource, infrastructure and economic development through the streamlining of permitting and construction of supporting networks. This is accomplished through a thorough understanding of the terrain and how the terrain will impact engineering, construction and supply. It also impacts the mitigation of spills, contamination and cleanup.

Ports are key to the oil and gas industry – Alaska’s single most important industrial sectorBond 2011 – (Alexus Bond, background in shipping and transportation, with experience working in ports on the West coast. Alexus holds a Masters degree in Global Finance, Trade and Economic Integration from the University of Denver, and an undergraduate degree from Tulane University in New Orleans, (Alexus, “Planning for Alaska’s Regional Ports and Harbors” (Northern Economics, Inc. ) Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, January 2011, http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desports/assets/pdf/regionalports_finalreport0111.pdf)JTE

The oil and gas industry is by far Alaska’s single most important industrial sector. It generates more than a quarter of the state’s gross state product and supports about one-third of all the jobs held by Alaska residents (Fried 2008; Goldsmith 2008). Oil revenue makes up 88 percent of the state general fund’s unrestricted revenue (Fried 2008). The oil and gas industry is a high-margin business and in Alaska the returns on investment are great enough that the industry and its related contractors have built most of the infrastructure that is required, with a few notable exceptions such as the Dalton Highway and the Deadhorse airport. BP Alaska operates the West Dock at Prudhoe Bay, while ConocoPhillips operates the East Dock in the same area. In both cases, these firms operate the facilities on behalf of all operators that have an investment in the Prudhoe Bay unit. In some cases, an oil and gas industry contractor will step forward to fill the need for marine infrastructure, such as Crowley did in building the

Rig Tender dock in Cook Inlet when offshore oil and gas activity began there . Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain, commonly referred to as the North Slope, is where the state’s oil production is concentrated. With the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1967 and the ongoing drilling programs on the North Slope, tugs and barges have delivered living quarters, power stations, and service buildings of modular construction Strategic Trends Analysis 28 Final (Haglund 1983). 34 Table 5 Most North Slope crude oil is transported by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to the Port of Valdez, where it is loaded onto crude oil tankers (vessels designed to transport crude oil in bulk) for shipment to U.S. West Coast refineries ( ). 35 Table 5 Valdez is the state’s leading port in terms of tonnage, with outbound shipments of petroleum products accounting for nearly all freight traffic at the port (Fried and Keith 2005). The port includes storage facilities with a total capacity of 9.18 million barrels (Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 2010). As shown in , crude oil shipments from the Port of Valdez have steadily declined. This decline is the result of decreasing oil production on the North Slope . After years of pumping, North Slope fields are drawing less oil from the ground (although the North Slope Prudhoe Bay field still pumps more oil than any other site in the United States). Other ports in Alaska also handle petroleum products. Bulk petroleum, delivered to the Port of Anchorage either by rail or pipeline, comprises the port’s primary outbound cargo (Table 6). An extensive tank farm on Alaska Railroad Corporation land adjacent to the port stores liquid fuels that are transported by rail tankers generally originating from refineries near Fairbanks that process North Slope crude oil (VZM/TranSystems–Tryck Nyman Hayes Inc. 1999). Tonnage of petroleum products shipped overseas through the Port of Anchorage is down since 2006 because the refinery, Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC in North Pole stopped exporting naptha to Asian and South American markets (Demer 2008; Port of Anchorage 2009).

Northern Alaskan Infrastructure key to US economy – jobs and payroll proves Northern Economics 2011 (Institute of Social and Economic Research, Economic Report Overview: Potential National-Level Benefits of Oil and Gas Development in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea,” 1/20/11, http://www.northerneconomics.com/pdfs/ShellOCS/National%20Effects%202-page%20brochure%20FINAL.pdf) JTE

A new study on potential national-level benefits of Alaska Arctic OCS development, by Northern Economics and the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research, builds on a previous study of potential state-level benefits using the same methodology and assumptions. Both reports are available for

download from www.northerneconomics.com. Development of new oil and gas fields in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas resulting in production of nearly 10 billion barrels of oil and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 50 years could create significant economic effects nationwide. An estimated annual average of 54,700 new jobs that would be created by OCS-related development are sustained for 50 years. The total ramps up to 68,600 during production and 91,500 at peak employment. These direct and indirect jobs would be created both in Alaska and the rest of the United States. An estimated $63 billion in payroll would be paid to employees in Alaska as a result of OCS oil and gas development and another $82 billion in payroll would be paid to employees in the rest of the United States. The sustained job creation increases income and further stimulates domestic economic activity. Federal, state, and local governments would all realize substantial revenue from OCS oil and gas development, with the base case totaling $193 billion: $193 Billion Government Revenue • $167 billion to the federal government • $15 billion to the State of Alaska • $4 billion to local Alaska governments • $7 billion to other state governments

Econ decline triggers great power war.Austin 2009 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

Conversely, global policymakers do not seem to have grasped the downside risks to the global economy posed by a deteriorating domestic and international political environment. If the past is any guide, the souring of the political environment must be expected to fan the corrosive protectionist tendencies and nationalistic economic policy responses that are already all too much in evidence. After spending much of 2008 cheerleading the global economy, the International Monetary Fund now concedes that output in the world's advanced economies is expected to contract by as much as 2% in 2009. This would be the first time in the post-war

period that output contracted in all of the world's major economies. The IMF is also now expecting only a very gradual

global economic recovery in 2010, which will keep global unemployment at a high level. Sadly, the erstwhile rapidly growing emerging-

market economies will not be spared by the ravages of the global recession. Output is already declining

precipitously across Eastern and Central Europe as well as in a number of key Asian economies, like South Korea and Thailand. A number of important emerging-market countries like Ukraine seem to be headed for debt default, while a highly

oil-dependent Russia seems to be on the cusp of a full-blown currency crisis. Perhaps of even greater concern is the virtual grinding to a halt of economic growth in China. The IMF now expects that China's growth rate will approximately halve to 6% in

2009. Such a growth rate would fall far short of what is needed to absorb the 20 million Chinese workers who migrate each year from the countryside to the towns in search of a better life. As a barometer of the political and social tensions that this grim world economic outlook portends, one needs look no further than the recent employment forecast of the International Labor Organization. The ILO believes that the global financial crisis will wipe out 30 million jobs worldwide in 2009, while in a worst case scenario as many as 50 million jobs could be lost. What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression

showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe,

from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia , an oil state completely

dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been

predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small

explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

Extensions

New Alaskan ports spur economic growth and development.Burke, 2010 –( Citing Mead Treadwell, Lt. Governor of Alaska and chairman of U.S. Arctic Research Commission, which facilitates

cooperation between the federal government and northern nations with respect to basic and applied research and development. (Jill Burke,

“Melting ice could mean new riches,” 1 March 2010, alaskadispatch.com)

Treadwell made the remarks during a moderated panel discussion, "Will the Bering Strait become the Panama Canal of the North?" hosted by

the Council on Foreign Relations at Alaska House New York. (Alaska House is a nonprofit organization founded by Alaska Dispatch publisher

Alice Rogoff to promote education about Alaska and its Native culture and foster economic development within the state.) The day's discussion,

which pulled together Alaska's congressional delegates, regional leaders and industry representatives, centered on the sense of urgency

seemingly missing both in the state and nationwide for developing the infrastructure -- like deep water ports and international rules -- that will

be needed to tap into a new hustling, bustling Bering Strait. Two of the world's largest mining operations are above the Arctic Circle, including the Red Dog zinc mine in Alaska off the coast of Kivalina, according to Treadwell -- and the Arctic is poised to deliver even more resources. Minerals, fishing, oil and gas, exploration and science, and tourism all have northern footholds. Capturing opportunities related to those activities with the prospect of shorter shipping routes as ice recedes is something Americans need to be thinking about now , Treadwell said. The challenge is building the infrastructure. Deep water ports are needed to accommodate large container ships and provide an anchor for the military presence that will need to increase to keep pace with a rise in offshore activity near the United States' northern coast. Participants, including Rogoff, suggested that developing port infrastructure for Alaska's western coast, from Adak to Barrow, could be an economic boom as important to the state as the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, particularly when even a handful of new port jobs has the potential to pull villages teetering on the brink of economic failure into sustainability. Alaska Sens.

Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat, attended the event and told participants they are aware of the critical role Alaska

is poised to play in a changing Arctic environment. Murkowski is pushing for a Department of Defense and Homeland Security feasibility study

for a deep water port off Alaska's shores. "This study will determine whether it is in the strategic interest of the United States, as I believe it is,

to build a port and where it might be located. A deep water port would not only serve our military and Coast Guard needs, but as we develop our offshore oil and gas reserves and see more shipping, tourism and vessel traffic in the Arctic, a deep water port could provide valuable support ," Murkowski said.

Port solves econ.Luther 2012 (Paula Luther, - staff writer for Alaska Business Monthly “Arctic Deep Water Port”, Alaska Business Monthly, January 2012, http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/January-2012/Arctic-Deep-Water-Port/)JTE

The only state in the Arctic region, Alaska bears a lot of the responsibility for meeting this mandate . At the

USACE/DOT &PF intense planning session last May, Young acknowledged there has been significant interest in the Arctic by the U.S. as well as

other Arctic nations. “The U.S. is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, and Alaska will provide the gateway to our nation’s future,” Young said. “We have the opportunity now to address the prospects of industry years down the road and how we

can use changing Arctic conditions to our advantage. Now is the time to be investing in our infrastructure and laying the groundwork. “ Beyond national security and resource development on the national scale, Alaska stands to benefit greatly from the construction of one or more deep water ports along Alaska’s coastline. This major infrastructure asset would provide a direct shipping point for resources developed in western and northern regions and could support future oil and gas development in the Arctic. Mark

Luiken, commissioner of DOT&PF stated in a press release, “A deep draft port would be a long-term national asset. It is vital to project U.S.

presence, to open up opportunities for economic growth, aid in mineral research and development, and to support continued scientific

studies.” The State of Alaska has defined the purpose for the future port as: “To promote economic development, employment, job training and education in the state of Alaska, including areas of rural Alaska was historically high rates of unemployment, through the development and construction of an Arctic port that will attract new industry, expand international trade opportunities, and broaden and diversify the economic base in Alaska in a safe, reasonable and efficient manner.”

Ports/Harbors needed in Alaska now Herron and Joule 2012 (Bob Herron and Reggie Joule, staff to Alaska Dispatch, “Four Necessary Arctic Planning and Infrastructure Investments in Alaska,” April 9th, 2012 http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/four-necessary-arctic-planning-and-infrastructure-investments-alaska?page=0,1) JTE

Studies by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the Arctic Council, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities all identify the need to develop ports and harbors in Arctic Alaska. Given the long lead times for such construction, ports must be among the highest priorities for Arctic infrastructure. Building on the findings of the 2008 and 2011 state/federal Alaska Regional Ports

workshops and the 2011 Arctic Ports Charette Study, the state of Alaska and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should continue analyzing options for deep- and medium-draft port and safe harbor construction in Alaska's Arctic. It would be valuable for the state to convene an industry-focused Alaska Arctic Ports Workshop to assess the pros and cons of alternative locations and types of ports, address environmental conditions and engineering approaches, and explore funding alternatives.

Substantial oil and gas reserves make ports uniquely lucrativePapp 2012 (THE EMERGING ARCTIC FRONTIER Pap, Robert J, Jr United States Naval Institute. Proceedings, March 2nd, 2012 http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/925801539?accountid=14667 2012-03-02)JTE

The economic promise of oil and gas production in the Arctic is increasingly attractive as supply of energy resources from traditional sources will struggle to meet demand without significant price increases . The Arctic today holds potentially 90 billion barrels of oil, 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, 84 percent of which is expected to be found in offshore areas. This is estimated to be 15 percent of the world's undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of natural gas reserves. Oil companies are bidding hundreds of millions of dollars to lease U.S. mineral rights in these waters and continue to invest in developing commercial infrastructure in preparation for exploration and production, and readiness to respond to potential oil spills or other emergencies.3 In August, the Department of the Interior granted Royal Dutch Shell conditional approval to begin drilling exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska starting next summer. ConocoPhillips may begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea in the next few years. Also, Russia has announced plans for two oil giants to begin drilling as early as 2015, and Canada has granted exploration permits for Arctic drilling.4 The fisheries and seafood industry in the southern Arctic region (the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska) sustains thousands of jobs and annually produces approximately 1.8 million metric tons' worth of catch valued at more than $1.3 billion.5 Although subsistence-hunting has occurred in the higher latitudes for centuries, as waters warm, fish and other commercial stocks may migrate north, luring the commercial fishing industry with them. As the Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly navigable it will offer new routes for global maritime trade from Russia and Europe to Asia and the Americas, saving substantial transit time and fuel costs from traditional trade routes. In summer 2011, two Neste oil tankers transited the Northeast Passage from Murmansk to the Pacific Ocean and onward to South Korea, and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin pledged to turn it into an important shipping route.6

Alaska’s economy strongly relies on waterborne transportation.Bond 2011 - background in shipping and transportation, with experience working in ports on the West coast. Alexus Bond holds a Masters degree in Global Finance, Trade and Economic Integration from the University of Denver, and an undergraduate degree from Tulane University in New Orleans, (Alexus, “Planning for Alaska’s Regional Ports and Harbors” (Northern Economics, Inc. ) Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, January 2011, http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desports/assets/pdf/regionalports_finalreport0111.pdf) JTE

No other state in the continental U.S. depends on water transportation to the extent Alaska does. Access to water was a critical factor in the development of the state and often dictated the location of communities. Today, Alaska‘s ports and harbors remain an essential element of the state‘s economy. They are critical for the import and export of goods as well as bulk commodities. Alaska waterways provide the transportation corridors for the movement of the majority of the cargo delivered to Alaska, as well as the majority of exports, including all of the state’s oil and gas exports and much of the seafood and minerals. Alaska’s dependence on waterborne commerce is the result of its geography and isolation from the rest of the nation. Alaska’s 33,900 miles of coastline is far greater than that of the entire Lower 48. Commercial shippers serve this extensive coastline as far north as Prudhoe Bay. The Yukon, Tanana, and Kuskokwim rivers and some of their tributaries are also important shipping routes for communities along these drainages (Fried and Keith 2005). There are approximately 476 ports and harbors in Alaska, with 240 in Southeast Alaska and 236 in Southwest and Western Alaska combined (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2008). 31 Of the 123 public ports and harbors in Alaska, 28 are owned by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public facilities, and 95 are owned by local governments (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2008). 32 In contrast, other transportation modes exist on a modest scale in Alaska. The state is connected to the rest of the nation via the Alaska Highway and the Taylor Highway farther to the north, but it does not have any direct connections to the Lower 48’s interstate highway system except through Canada. With only 1,082 miles of highway, most of which form the triangle between Fairbanks, Anchorage and Tok (an area that represents one-fifth the size of the state), the largest state in the nation ranks 47th in terms of highway mileage (Fried and Keith 2005; Inboundlogistics.com 2004). 33 31 This does not include barge landing and boat haul out facilities along the riverine communities of the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. Alaska’s one year-round rail system operates along the 470-mile Seward–Anchorage–Fairbanks corridor with no outside connection. The Alaska Railroad Corporation is the sole rail freight carrier operating in Alaska. The airports of many Alaska communities lack terminal facilities, paved runways, and runways long enough for jet service, thus restricting the type of air service that is available. Generally, propeller operated aircraft service is the only option, and passenger and cargo space is limited on these aircraft. In short, Alaska’s reliance on waterborne commerce is largely out of necessityother transportation modes do not have the capability of exporting or importing the full range of goods upon which the state’s economy depends.

Solvency Extensions

Arctic cooperation is critical to revitalize Arctic leadership and reframe the US as an Arctic nationEbinger et al 2014 (Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic) JTE

Effective articulation of what U.S. policy should be can be found in speeches given on the occasion of the Arctic

Council’s Ministerial Meeting on May 15, 2013, by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking minority

member on the Senate Energy Committee. ¶ Secretary Kerry noted that the crux of President Obama’s policy is a “secure and well-managed Arctic marked by international cooperation and an absence of conflict.” While he acknowledged that many details of the policy still have to be worked out, he noted the dramatic impact that climate change is having on the region and the need now more than ever for collaborative scientific research. He also recognized the need for responsible economic development that respects the rights of all

native people.80 Sen. Murkowski remarked that it is imperative for offshore oil and gas development, when it finally occurs in

the American Arctic and expands elsewhere, to have in place collaborative and col lective agreements governing these activities. She noted, “This is no longer an area that is locked in ice and snow, an area where we are not able to transit, an area where there is no human activi ty …we are seeing a level of activity that is unprecedented. It is truly the last

frontier.”81 The senator echoed Sec. Kerry’s remarks calling for the need to impress upon the American people that we are an “Arctic nation” and that we must work with other members of the Arctic Council on matters of mutual interest.82 ¶ These two speeches capture the essence of the challenges confronting the U.S. Government

as it takes up the gavel as Chair of the Arctic Council in 2015. In this role, how can the U.S. elevate the Arctic as a priority national interest, and how can it lead in strengthening offshore oil and gas governance in the Arctic region? To better address these questions, it is important to first understand the current governance framework at the global level.

Plan’s bilateral approach spills over to multilateral Arctic conflict resolution- non-binding standards don’t fill inEbinger et al 2014 (Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic) JTE

Regional and bilateral instruments are an impor tant component of the overall governance ap proach since they can be customized to specific, local marine conditions, and involve fewer actors to establish and implement. These cooperative in struments can then feed into the development of more broadly applicable standards and best prac tices and be used to compare with other regional or national efforts as well. However, they cover only parts of the Arctic, such as OSPAR. ¶ Recommended standards, guidelines, and best practices, such as those developed by trade associations, industry, NGOs, or standards organizations also contribute to strengthening governance. Yet given their voluntary nature, these instruments are feared by some to be too general, lack sufficient detail, and often reflect the lowest agreeable standard (least common denominator) of a consensus-based process.

China and the United States have agreed to work together for commerce in the arctic. Peterson 2016 (Peterson, Trude. "American-Chinese Cooperation on Northern Sea Route." The Independent Barents Observer. N.p., 3 Feb. 2016. Web. 28 June 2016. http://thebarentsobserver.com/arctic/2016/02/american-chinese-cooperation-northern-sea-route) JTE

The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) on Tuesday signed an agreement to cooperate on trans-Arctic voyages through the Northeast Passage, or the Northern Sea Route, as the shortcut between Europe and Asia is known as.¶ Using the Northern Sea Route for a voyage between the principal Asian and European ports reduces the distance by more than 6400 kilometers compared to the traditional route through the Suez Canal.¶ The agreement includes development of specialized ice-class vessel types able to navigate the Arctic sea route, under a cooperative initiative on Arctic Shipping Technology Development, ABS says in a press release .¶ “ABS is

excited to work with COSCO to develop this pioneering trading route,” said Eric Kleess, president and coo of ABS Greater China Division, at the signing ceremony in Shanghai. “Combining ABS’ technical experience with COSCO’s successful use of the Northeast Passage with the first Chinese merchant ship, Yongsheng , navigating this route creates a solid foundation for jointly promoting the development of sustainable shipping in Arctic waters.”

Arctic engagement necessary to maintain US Leadership in the region. Hoff 2016 (Rachel Hoff served as the Director of Government Relations & External Affairs at the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank she helped found in 2009. "A Weak Arctic Posture Threatens America's Ability to Lead - AAF." AAF. N.p., 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 14 June 2016. http://www.americanactionforum.org/research/a-weak-arctic-posture-threatens-americas-ability-to-lead/) JTE

With over 1,000 miles of Alaska’s Arctic coastline, the United States stands to benefit from the region’s increasingly accessible natural resource deposits and commercial maritime transit routes. However, many Americans do not understand the significance of this relatively unexplored frontier. With the exception of the Cold War, the United States has invested very few resources in order to secure its position as a global leader in Arctic affairs. By failing to properly develop the region’s defense and commercial infrastructure, America will lose the ability to assert itself in this increasingly important area of geopolitical concern. Doing so will cede leadership to other nations – namely Russia – and continue a dangerous trend of reactive, rather than proactive engagement on the part of the American political and military establishment. At current standing, the United States lacks both the capabilities and political will to lead in the Arctic operating environment. The American political and military establishment must therefore reevaluate its northern posture so as to foster greater stability and economic prosperity in the region. Failing to do so could ultimately threaten U.S. national security objectives, prompting reactive and potentially hostile engagement in the future. Both Congress and the administration must uphold their responsibility to provide for the common defense by ensuring that the nation is prepared to lead wherever American interests are at stake. Doing so will require an intensive and immediate development of America’s Arctic defense infrastructure coupled with sustained promotion of democratic norms through both multilateral organizations and bilateral agreements.

Artic Coop key to broader relationsCCS 2013 [The center for Climate and Security, The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), a nonprofit policy institute with a distinguished Advisory Board of senior retired military leaders and security professionals, The United States and Russia in a Changing Arctic, 2013/08/16, http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/08/16/the-united-states-and-russia-in-a-changing-arctic/] JTE

It is important to pay close attention to the Russian point of view on the Arctic as ice melts, and sea lanes open up. The United States will assume the presidency of the Arctic Council in 2015, and though that seems far away, serious preparations for how to deal with the changing Arctic landscape will need to happen now. That includes being prepared to deal with claims issues, sea lane problems, policing questions, and possible strains on cooperation emerging from both the economic and climatic landscape.¶ For example, both the United States and Russia face a greater need for ice breakers, as the navigable area of the Arctic increases, leading to an increase in traffic, a greater need for policing, and a possible increase in search and rescue (or SAR) operations. But in a climate of fiscal austerity, finding the funds for such expensive ships is very difficult. A lack of such capacities for the U.S and Russia in the Arctic could lead to a largely unregulated Arctic space, and a greater likelihood of human and environmental disasters occurring.¶ Though such issues are not at all likely to lead to open conflict between Arctic nations, being prepared to keep cooperation between them on track, in the face of rapid changes, could go a long way, and not just in keeping the Arctic safe. The need for closer cooperation in a melting north might also lead to improvements in other areas of diplomacy, such as over Syria, Egypt, humanitarian intervention, international climate negotiations, and many others. U.S. ratification of the the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which is supported by a broad consensus of stakeholders i ncluding the U.S. military, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of major U.S. oil companies, has still not materialized. If it did, the scope of productive cooperation between the U.S. and Russia could expand significantly, in the Arctic and beyond.¶ The United

States and Russia have a rocky relationship, to say the least. A rapidly-changing Arctic complicates that. However, with adequate investments of political will and financial resources, the Arctic can continue to be a relatively safe and cooperative space. Hopefully, that cooperation can help lay the foundation for progress on pressing security, humanitarian and human rights questions across the globe.¶

The Arctic Council encourages cooperation in the arctic. Guoqiang 2013 (]Tang Guoqiang is Chairman of China National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation, former Ambassador of China to the Czech Republic, to the United Nation’s Office in Vienna and to the Kingdom of Norway successively. Arctic Issues and China's Stance China International Studies, Vol.38, Jan/Feb 2013. http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2013-03/04/content_5772842_2.htm) JTE

On Arctic affairs, the Arctic countries are cooperative and competitive to each other while taking acceptable as well as

cautious attitudes to non-Arctic countries’ participation.¶ The Arctic countries attach great importance to the Arctic affairs, and they have formulated, one after another, their Arctic strategies and policies. They emphasize regional cooperation, and in particular the cooperation in Arctic scientific research, environmental protection and sustainable development, which are coordinated by the Arctic Council. For instance, eight Arctic countries reached the Arctic Air and Sea Search and Rescue Cooperation Agreement in the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in 2011; decided to set up a permanent secretariat of the Council in Tromso, north of Norway; and is formulating Arctic oil spill response agreement. It can be seen that the cooperation mechanism among the Council members is strengthened and their sense for further cooperation is increased. However, due to different situation and position, there are also different emphases in their respective Arctic strategies.

Cooperation in the arctic is necessary to combat the challenges in the region. Collins et al 2015 (James F. Collins, Ambassador (ret.) is Diplomat in Residence and Senior Associate of the Russia and Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Michael Sfraga is Vice Chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Ross A. Virginia is Director and Myers Family Professor at the Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth. Kenneth S. Yalowitz, Ambassador (ret.) is a Global Fellow at the Kennan Institute, Wilson Center. "How America Can Step Up Its Leadership Role in the Arctic." The National Interest. N.p., 21 Apr. 2015. Web. 18 June 2016. ¶ http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-america-can-step-its-leadership-role-the-arctic-12689) JTE

Arctic issues are beyond the scientific understanding and management capacity of any single country, and cooperation is essential in the face of enormous challenges there. This will take political will and commitment on all sides in the current environment. The United States must make clear that it is prepared to continue Arctic cooperation and welcomes constructive Russian activity in the region. Only time will tell, but the

Arctic remains one of the few promising pathways, despite the major downturn in Western relations with Russia. According to the report of an international group of leading experts, cooperation can be maintained, provided all Arctic countries continue to address Arctic issues on their own merits and manage competing national interests within a framework of international cooperation that has shielded this region since the end of the Cold War. The task of the United States will be to provide the leadership and political vision to keep the Arctic Council and the Arctic on a positive path.

Bilateral agreements are the best solvency mechanism for Arctic development Wilson Center 2014, (Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf) JTE

Cooperation among Arctic littoral states can ensure greater responsibility and adherence to best practices at the local level. Collaboration among Arctic countries on best practices, environmental standards, and technology transfer can introduce an additional layer of accountability to ensure safe and responsible Arctic development. Norway and Russia have recently been very active, reflecting the benefits of formal cooperation. The July 2011 maritime border agreement in the Barents Sea has enabled Russia and Norway to explore the resource potential in the region. Statoil and Rosneft have agreed to jointly explore offshore deposits in the region. Norway and Russia are also exploring the possibility of joint naval exercises in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. As climate change makes larger

portions of the Arctic accessible, cooperation on bilateral energy exploration and maritime capabilities could benefit other nations as well (for example, among Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, and the United States in the

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas). When possible, bilateral dispute settlements and cooperation between countries in contiguous Arctic regions can ensure that best practices are employed as operators expand oil and gas exploration and production activities. Bilateral agreements can be more comprehensive and quicker to achieve than multilateral efforts. Canada and Russia have had a long- standing debate over rights to the Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Rise; Russia submitted a claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2001 providing its recommendations on how the shared border should be delineated. However, with 51 sea claims currently before the UN Commission and only three examined each year, a timely resolution is unlikely. Bilateral agreements can resolve border disputes more quickly and avoid inefficiencies and delays.

Investment is key to ensure viable Arctic commerce.ANWTF, 2012 (Alaska Northern Waters Task Force (“Marine Transportation”, ANWTF Findings and Recommendation, 2012, http://housemajority.org/joule/pdfs/27/hjr0034_anwtf_recommendations.pdf) JTE

Immediate investment in Arctic infrastructure is a foremost priority for Alaska and the entire United States. Alaska will need to explore ways to attract substantial sources of capital investment in addition to

state and federal funding. Action Is needed to enable the responsible development of resources; facilitate, secure, and benefit from new global transportation routes; and safeguard Arctic residents and ecosystems. This investment will improve the safety, security, and reliability of transportation in the region—a goal established by the U.S. Arctic Policy signed by President Bush in 2009. As interest and activity in the Arctic continues to rise, America's preparedness in the region becomes ever more important to national security. Increased human activity related to shipping, oil and gas development, commercial fishing, and tourism will require, at a minimum, new ports and safe harbors, equipment and facilities for oil spill response, additional Polar Class icebreakers for the U.S. fleet, and improved charting and mapping. The U. S. Coast Guard's needs in these areas well illustrate the magnitude of infrastructure investment necessary in the Arctic . The Search & Rescue (SAR) agreement recently negotiated by the eight Arctic Nations through the Arctic Council commits the United States to search and rescue response in regions of the Arctic. Domestically. the National Contingency Plan requires the U.S. Coast Guard to oversee oil spill planning and preparedness in coastal waters and to supervise any oil spill response. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard's mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation's ports and water-ways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required for national security.1 At present, the Coast Guard has very limited Arctic emergency response capabilities and no permanent bases on Alaska's North Slope to support its operations. Basic needs there include communications, housing, and support facilities. It is especially notable that the Coast Guard has only one operational Polar Class icebreaker, the USCG Cutter Healy. Clearly. the Coast Guard does not have the assets required to carry out its expanding mission in the Arctic. With transformation in the Arctic calling for a broad spectrum of new facilities on such a large scale, the state of Alaska must take an active role in regional planning efforts with communities and their stakeholders. This will help communities develop local strategies and ensure that the state is get-ting the most return on

investment for local projects. Some communities may not have the resources to adequately prepare for the future, and the state should take this opportunity to help increase local capacity for the benefit of all Alaskans.

Infrastructure key to Arctic emergency response.Northern Economics 2011 Largest professional economics consulting firm in Alaska; report prepared for Army Corps of Engineers and Alaska Department of Transportation (“Alaska Regional Ports: Planning for Alaska’s Regional Ports and Harbors: Final Report” January 2011; < http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desports/assets/pdf/regionalports_finalreport0111.pdf>)JTE

Ports and harbors play an important role in maritime safety and pollution prevention . The lack of places of refuge and emergency response resources on Alaska’s North Slope and northwest regions may

become a particular area of concern if the anticipated increase in the number of freighters, cruise ships, oil and gas tankers, dry bulk cargo vessels, and resupply barges passing through the Bering Strait and plying the waters of the Arctic Ocean occurs. In coming years, the provision of Arctic port facilities or harbors suitable for refuge for medium to deep draft vessels may become both a national and international imperative. National defense and emergency response needs may result in ports being developed even though the benefits may be limited due to small resident populations, seasonality, and modest levels of vessel traffic.

China Will Cooperate

China is looking to cooperate in the Arctic region.Hoff 2016 (Rachel Hoff served as the Director of Government Relations & External Affairs at the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank she helped found in 2009. "A Weak Arctic Posture Threatens America's Ability to Lead - AAF." AAF. N.p., 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 14 June 2016. http://www.americanactionforum.org/research/a-weak-arctic-posture-threatens-americas-ability-to-lead/)JTE

As a rising geopolitical power and the world’s largest energy consumer, China sees the Arctic as a critical source for gaining access to natural resources and economical shipping routes . Having previously taken a

more aggressive tone against notions of Arctic sovereignty, the country now advocates for peaceful cooperation with Arctic nations. China is currently conducting a five-year assessment of polar resources and governance in order to advance its cooperative agenda. Through its Arctic Research Center in Shanghai, China collaborates with Nordic nations on scientific research. It also works with international partners at the Chinese Arctic Yellow River Station in Norway. China further cooperates with Arctic nations by participating in both bilateral and multilateral scientific missions. It currently operates the Xuelong (Snow Dragon) light research icebreaker, which conducted a trans-Arctic voyage from Shanghai to Iceland in August 2012, and is building a second, more advanced research icebreaker that is expected to enter into service in 2016. China claims these assets will primarily be used for Arctic scientific research. China is also a member or observer of numerous Arctic-related regional associations and multilateral organizations. Most recently, it was admitted to the Arctic Council (which the United States currently chairs) as an observer nation. The Chinese are expected to continue advocating for their status as a self-described “near-Arctic” nation in these multilateral forums, despite being nearly 1,000 miles away from the Arctic Circle at its closest border.

China is cooperating in the Arctic Taylor 2014 (Joanna Yu Taylor is the Director of the China and the Pacific program at the Center for the National Interest, and an Adjunct Senior Policy Analyst at RAND. "Chinese Behavior in the Arctic vs. the South China Sea." Banyan Analytics Brief. N.p., 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 June 2016. http://www.anser.org/babrief_arcticscs)JTE

Imagine this scene: China, wanting to be more involved in the political and economic goings-on surrounding a large body of water claimed by many states, actively seeks participation in the multilateral forum that allows for peaceful exploration and cooperative endeavors. Furthermore, although China voices dissatisfaction with the

existing regime, it nonetheless acts by the established rules and norms and is overall a contributing member. Moreover, China champions the notion that the body of water is part of the global commons and that members of the international community have a right to participate in the discussion of its future, and China advocates the inclusion of players, rather than their exclusion. Science fiction or something out of a perfect world? Not so: China is already doing these things in the Arctic. As a net energy importer, China has an interest in Arctic affairs: 30 percent of the

world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves are in the Arctic.[i] However, Arctic affairs have traditionally been the purview of the Arctic Council—a small community of Arctic states that reach decisions by consensus. As a way to be involved in Arctic affairs, China has sought to engage the Arctic states bilaterally through economic investments, trade deals, and high-profile diplomatic visits. In 2007, it

also applied for Observer status in the Council. In 2013, the Council accepted China as a Permanent Observer (along

with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, and Italy). As an Observer, China has been an active member and participates in many of the Council’s working groups. At the same time, bilateral ties with individual Arctic states continue.

China is actively cooperating the Arctic. Taylor 2014 (Joanna Yu Taylor is the Director of the China and the Pacific program at the Center for the National Interest, and an Adjunct Senior Policy Analyst at RAND. "Chinese Behavior in the Arctic vs. the South China Sea." Banyan Analytics Brief. N.p., 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 June 2016. http://www.anser.org/babrief_arcticscs) JTE

China is a savvy player in international relations, and it tailors its policy depending on the environment in which it operates. China has an unapologetically hierarchical view of international relations, and it will choose to work cooperatively or act aggressively depending on a power calculus.¶ In China’s mind , Russia, the United States, and the European Union are “major countries” with which China should “bring about sound interaction and win-win cooperation.” It is a “strategic choice” China makes based on “a correct reading of the trend of the times” and “inevitable demand for [China’s] overall strategy of peaceful development.”[xv] Put another way, China is a cooperative player in the Arctic Council because the Council members are “major countries” with views and attitudes that China must manage with grace and restraint. Chinese actions in the Arctic and with the Arctic Council amply illustrate that it can show proper respect to multilateral efforts, abide by international norms of behavior even though it complains it had no hand in shaping them, and understand the concept of global commons and how it intersects with sovereignty. China should apply the same grace and restraint it exhibits in the Arctic to the South China Sea.

China is cooperating in the Arctic, prefer our evidence, they don’t warrant why China will want unilateral engagement. MacDonald 2016 (Adam P MacDonald is a Canadian academic specializing in geopolitical developments in the Arctic and East Asia. Receiving his M.A. in Political Science from the University of Victoria, Adam is an independent scholar who has been published in both Canadian and international journals. Adam has articles appearing in The Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, The Canadian Naval Review and the East Asia Forum. Investigating the consequences of a naval turn to the Asia-Pacific region for Canada; the 'militarization' of the Arctic; and Chinese naval developments are Adam's current academic foci. "Is China's Arctic Strategy Really That Chilling?" East Asia Forum. N.p., 16 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 June 2016. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/03/16/is-chinas-arctic-strategy-really-that-chilling/)JTE

China does not have an official Arctic policy, as the region is still of low importance within their broader foreign policy strategy. But the Arctic is an area of long-term interest to China, and Chinese leaders have begun to formulate a regional strategy. Chinese academia, media and the military have also become more vocal and engaged in

this debate.¶ As Beijing slowly but noticeably begins to strengthen its relationship with the region, there is a growing narrative that China is ‘playing the long game’. In this view, China is seeking to emphasise its legitimacy as a stakeholder to establish a foothold in regional governance arrangements in order to eventually challenge the pre-eminent role of the Arctic states and their sovereign rights. China’s desire to secure access to regional shipping lanes and resources is currently manifested through political and economic maneuvering. But some commentators believe that China may become more brazen in its endeavours in the future, including possible military deployments in the North. Much of these commentaries are speculative at best. They largely ignore the pathways and processes through which China’s Arctic endeavours have evolved. These arguments do not specify how and why China constitutes a threat to the region. They instead derive from the overly simplistic ‘assertive China’ narratives that have become dominant in Western analyses of Chinese foreign policy.

China’s cooperative policy in the Arctic aligns with their foreign policy interests. MacDonald 2016 (Adam P MacDonald is a Canadian academic specializing in geopolitical developments in the Arctic and East Asia. Receiving his M.A. in Political Science from the University of Victoria, Adam is an independent scholar who has been published in both Canadian and international journals. Adam has articles appearing in The Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, The Canadian Naval Review and the East Asia Forum. Investigating the consequences of a naval turn to the Asia-Pacific region for Canada; the 'militarization' of the Arctic; and Chinese naval developments are Adam's current academic foci. "Is China's Arctic Strategy Really That Chilling?" East Asia Forum. N.p., 16 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 June 2016. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/03/16/is-chinas-arctic-strategy-really-that-chilling/)JTE

Despite some concerns, China’s ability and willingness to invest significantly in the region, despite the possibility that it will be decades before development generates profitable returns, is perhaps the most important factor motivating Arctic stakeholders to engage with Beijing.¶ China has also been energetic in gaining entry into regional governance arrangements and seeking acceptance as a legitimate and nonthreatening stakeholder . After two failed attempts, in 2013 China (along with a number of other Asian countries)

was accepted as a Permanent Observer by the Arctic Council.¶ One of the major conditions China (and other applicants)

had to meet was acceptance of the Nuuk Criteria. This includes acknowledging the pre-eminent role and responsibility of Arctic states in regional affairs; their sovereignty and sovereign rights; and recognising the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the legal regime governing regional matters. This helped alleviate concerns associated with a more active Chinese presence in the region. Ultimately, China’s interests in the Arctic align with their broader foreign policy goals of diversifying energy and resources suppliers, securing trade routes with unobstructed access and movement to commercial traffic, and becoming more active in global and regional governance.

China needs to prioritize the Arctic in their foreign policy, and maintain a cooperative mindset in its approach. Guoqiang 2013 (]Tang Guoqiang is Chairman of China National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation, former Ambassador of China to the Czech Republic, to the United Nation’s Office in Vienna and to the Kingdom of Norway successively. Arctic Issues and China's Stance China International Studies, Vol.38, Jan/Feb 2013. http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2013-03/04/content_5772842_2.htm) JTE

In conclusion, China’s Arctic policy should be a component part of China’s foreign policy. Its basic elements should be: in the spirit of peaceful development of the Arctic for the benefit of mankind and on the basis of mutual respects and enhanced understanding and trusts, China will develop a normal relationship of win-win cooperation with the Arctic countries and the international community in the common endeavor to maintain and promote peace, stability and sustainable development in the Arctic, so as to make the Arctic part of the harmonious world.

China co-op solves econ collapse, terror, and prolifWenzhong, 2004 (zhou wenzhong, prc ministry of foreign affairs, 2/07, “Vigorously Pushing Forward the Constructive and Cooperative Relationship Between China and the United States,” http://china-japan21.org/eng/zxxx/t64286.htm) JTE

China's development needs a peaceful international environment, particularly in its periphery. We will continue to play a constructive role in global and regional affairs and sincerely look forward to amicable coexistence and friendly cooperation with all other countries, the United States included. We will continue to push for good-neighborliness, friendship and partnership and dedicate ourselves to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Thus China's development will also mean stronger prospect of peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large. China and the US should, and can, work together for peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Given the highly complementary nature of the two economies, China's reform, opening up and rising economic size have opened broad horizon for sustained China-US trade and economic cooperation. By deepening our commercial partnership, which has already delivered tangible benefits to the two peoples, we can do still more and also make greater contribution to global economic stability and prosperity. Terrorism, cross-boundary crime, proliferation of advanced

weapons, and spread of deadly diseases pose a common threat to mankind. China and the US have extensive shared stake and common responsibility for meeting these challenges, maintaining world peace and security and addressing other major issues bearing on human survival and development. China is ready to keep up its coordination and cooperation in these areas with the US and the rest of the international community .

AFF Answers

Answers to Mapping Prevents Shipping

China is mapping the arctic now. Arctic Deeply 2016 ("Executive Summary for April 22, 2016." Arctic Deeply. N.p., 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 18 June 2016. https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/executive-summaries/2016/04/22) JTE

China has issued a shipping guide to the Northwest Passage , reports the state-run newspaper China Daily. Earlier this month, China’s maritime safety administration published the Arctic Navigation Guide (Northwest Passage), a 365-page handbook of nautical charts and sea-ice descriptions that lays the groundwork for ships flying the Chinese flag to travel through the passageway.¶ Using the route will lower transportation costs for China, a senior official at the maritime administration told China Daily. By using the Arctic route, ships travelling from Shanghai to Hamburg could shave off 2,800 nautical miles from their journey, Reuters reported.

Answers to Politics/Elections

Increased Arctic research is popular with the publicKahn and Lubchenco, 2012 (Reporter for Climate.gov AND NOAA Administrator (Brian and Jane, “Talking about the Arctic with NOAA Administrator Lubchenco”, December 6, Climate, http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/aggregator/sources/14) JTE

How can the Arctic Report Card help inform policymakers and the public? A key role of science is to inform our

understanding of what’s happening to the world around us and what the consequences of different choices we make might be. The reason there’s a big push for research in the Arctic is it’s changing so rapidly and it has such huge consequences for the rest of world; yet we don’t understand a lot of it. Getting a better handle on Arctic science and the ways it’s changing has an immediate benefit by informing decision-making. I believe Arctic science should be accessible, relevant, and understandable to citizens as well as policymakers since the Arctic is such a special place; and it’s important for scientists to help share that information in ways that are just that.

Plan expands Arctic presence—that’s bipartisanBergh 2012, “The Arctic Policies of Canada and the United States: Domestic Motives and International Context,” SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security, July 2012, books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1201.pdf)JTE

US foreign policy on the Arctic region is set out in a presidential directive from 9 January 2009.4 This document, the final

presidential directive issued by US President George W. Bush, has largely been accepted by the succeeding administration of

President Barack Obama and is considered largely biparti san. The US policy emphasizes issues of national security in the changing and increasingly accessible Arctic region. Other issues highlighted in the document include

the environment, economic development, governance, indigenous communities and science. Canada’s domestic policy for the Arctic, the Northern Strategy, was presented in 2009.5 It was published under the authority of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (who is also Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians) and focuses on four priority areas: (a) sovereignty; (b) social and economic development; (c) the environment; and (d) improved governance for the people of the north. Canada’s Arctic foreign policy, presented in a statement in August 2010, focuses on the international dimensions of the same four pillars, with an emphasis on Arctic sovereignty.6 Security Both the Canadian and US policies place heavy emphasis on sovereignty and security in the Arctic region. The US directive states that the USA ‘has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region’, while Canada’s policy states that ‘exercising sovereignty over Canada’s North . . . is our number one Arctic foreign policy priority’.7 Both countries acknowledge that increasing accessibility will lead to more human activity in the region, with positive and negative consequences. While the USA mentions concerns about terrorist activities and maritime law enforcement, Canada identifies concerns about organized crime and trafficking of drugs and people. The USA names several military challenges with implications for the

Arctic, including ‘missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence,

maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight’.8 Canada’s foreign policy strategy is less clear on the issue of military threats in the region. While acknowledging that ‘sovereignty is the foundation for realizing the full potential of Canada’s North’, it also states that ‘Canada does not anticipate any military challenges in the Arctic’.9 For both Canada and the USA the issue of sovereignty is closely related to the prospect of new resource discoveries in the Arctic region,

and the extended continental shelf and boundary issues that may affect their access to these resources. The USA recognizes that several disputed areas in the Arctic may contain resources critical to its energy security, including in the Beaufort Sea, where Canada and the USA disagree on the maritime boundary. Canada regards this and other disputes as ‘discrete boundary issues’that neither pose defence challenges nor have an impact on its ability to cooperate with other Arctic states. Another point of disagreement between Canada and the USA is the Northwest Passage, which the USA views as an inter national strait through which any ship has the right of free passage . Numerous US

Government agencies acknowledge the status of both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route as having implications for strategic straits anywhere in the world. Canada, in contrast, claims that it ‘controls all maritime navigation in its waters’ which, according to its own definition, includes the Northwest Passage.10

Plan is popular—GOP supportMarex, 2014 (Maritime Executive (Marex, “GAO: U.S. Can Do Better on Arctic Policy”, 2014, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/GAO-US-Can-Do-Better-on-Arctic-Policy-2014-05-19) JTE

The U.S. needs a better strategy to coordinate and prioritize its policies related to the Arctic region ,

according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study out today that was released by Reps. Rick Larsen (WA-

02), Tim Bishop (NY-01), John Garamendi (CA-03) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK). The GAO study focused on U.S. participation in the Arctic Council, a voluntary body started in 1996 that includes the eight Arctic nations—Canada, Denmark,

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S., as well as indigenous groups and other stakeholders. The State Department leads participation for the U.S. The U.S. has not prioritized its commitments to the Arctic Council and is limited in its ability to respond to emergencies in the Arctic region, the report found. As sea ice melts, making way for

increased commercial activity, the report recommends a stronger strategy for U.S. participation in the Arctic Council and better process to track progress toward achieving Council goals. Larsen introduced a bill with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) last month to establish a U.S. Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs and has strongly supported additional investments in icebreakers. “The Arctic is the Northwest Passage of the 21st century, but today’s GAO report is another sign that the U.S. is falling behind in Arctic policy. With next year’s chairmanship of

the Arctic Council, it’s time we appointed an ambassador to this important body. We also need to make investments in infrastructure like icebreakers to maintain a strong presence in this increasingly important region . Our country has major commercial, environmental and security interests in the region and we should start prioritizing them,” Congressman Larsen said. “If the United States hopes to maintain its presence in the Arctic, it is time to get serious about the region. The GAO report clearly points out that there is much more we could be doing to protect our interests, both economic and security-related. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to explore how we can better prioritize our Arctic policies,” Congressman Bishop said. “A warming climate that is opening up the Arctic to commercial shipping, the intense global competition for energy resources, and the absence of a comprehensive and binding international Arctic management regime are threatening to turn this emerging region into the Wild West. It is imperative that we avoid that scenario. Accordingly, the United States should demonstrate purposeful leadership within the Arctic Council to advance U.S. interests and obligations. We should also ensure that federal agencies involved in the Arctic, especially the United States Coast Guard, have a coordinated game plan and sufficient resources to meet these challenges,” Congressman Garamendi said. “This GAO report underlines and highlights the core threat to America’s future as an Arctic nation: we’re late in carrying out a needed path ahead and we need our agencies to work together as we move forward. This is one of the reasons we need an Arctic Ambassador with the authority to make decisions, and coordinate and oversee projects as we’re at this crucial juncture. The United States will be chairing the Arctic Council starting next year, which will either be an opportunity to highlight our leadership, or undermine it depending on our government’s approach,” Senator Murkowski said.

Pol cap is a myth – alternative explanations exist for any scenario where “pol cap” workedMoraes 2013 (Frank Moraes, PhD in Atmospheric Physics, writer of political commentary and novels, “Political capital is a myth”, Tufts Roundtable Commons, 1-18-2013, http://www.trcommons.org/2013/01/political-capital-is-a-myth/)JTE

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: “Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever.” He can’t understand this nomination given that (1) Hagel will be a hard sell and (2) Obama doesn’t much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting speculation, but I wouldn’t have even thought about it had he not written, “Why waste political capital picking a fight that isn’t essential to any policy goals?”¶ This brought to mind something that has been on my mind for a while, as in posts like “Bipartisan Consensus Can

Bite Me.” I’m afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of God, “Political Capital” is a myth . I think it is just an idea that Villagers find comforting. It is a neat narrative in which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just bullshit.¶ Let’s go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said, “I earned capital in the political campaign and I intend to spend it.” What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually said that

political capital is some kind of mandate from the masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the poor and kill

the gays. But he used his political capital to privatize Social Security . One could say that this proves the point, but does anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have succeeded any better? The truth was that Bush’s political capital didn’t exist.¶ Let’s look at

more recent events: the Fiscal Cliff. Obama didn’t win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won it because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president . Tax rates were going up. Boehner took the Fiscal Cliff deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He didn’t fold because of some magic political capital that Obama could wave over him .¶ There is no doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians

act. Even politicians in small safe districts have to worry that larger political trends may end up making them look stupid, out of touch, or just cruel. But beyond that, they really don’t care. If they did, then everyone in the House would now be a Democrat: after all, Obama won a mandate and the associated political capital. But they don’t, because presidential elections have consequences — for who’s in the White House. They don’t have much consequence for the representative from the Third District of California.

Answers to Privatization CP

The United States federal government is key to get the private industry to invest in the arctic Bert 2009 ( The Arctic in Transition-A Call to Action Bert, MelissaView Profile; Chaddic, JohnView Profile; Perry, Brian D, USA. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce40. 4 (Oct 2009): 481-509. JTE

Rule of law and uniform safety standards increase predictability and lower risks. Our recommendations will promote stability and ease tensions among Arctic stakeholders at reduced cost and expenditure of political capital. They are practical measures that will increase the transparency of human activity and provide a safer operating environment in the Arctic for all stakeholders. Unless the United States collaborates to leverage international governance structures to reduce risk, private industry is far less likely to invest the capital necessary to develop and sustain the Arctic. Longterm capital investment is critical for U.S. policy objectives and the mutual benefit of all stakeholders .

NEGATIVE

Ratifying LOST is a prereq

LOST is preventing the United States from gaining leverage in arctic policy recommendations. Collin et al 2015 (James F. Collins, Ambassador (ret.) is Diplomat in Residence and Senior Associate of the Russia and Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Michael Sfraga is Vice Chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Ross A. Virginia is Director and Myers Family Professor at the Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth. Kenneth S. Yalowitz, Ambassador (ret.) is a Global Fellow at the Kennan Institute, Wilson Center. "How America Can Step Up Its Leadership Role in the Arctic." The National Interest. N.p., 21 Apr. 2015. Web. 18 June 2016. ¶ http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-america-can-step-its-leadership-role-the-arctic-12689)JTE

Since October, 2014, a group of approximately fifty international experts, government officials and representatives of leading NGO’s convened by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dartmouth, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the University of the Arctic has been meeting to discuss prospects for the Arctic and prepare policy recommendations for the U.S. Arctic Council chairmanship program. Meeting on February 23 in Washington, the group unanimously concluded that the Arctic must and, with adequate political will, can remain an area for peaceful cooperation, scientific research and sustainable economic development, and should be kept apart from the current complex geopolitical environment.¶ All agreed that U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS continues to weaken the American voice in the Arctic and that ratification would enhance U.S. authority on Arctic issues, as well as underscore its commitment to peaceful development of the Arctic and avoidance of border conflict. As is well known, the Arctic is experiencing significant change due to global warming, resulting in the rapid melting of sea ice, potential increases in Arctic shipping and planning for the development of energy and natural resources.

The US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS and thus can’t develop the Arctic Ocean.Alaska Dispatch 2011 ("Failure to Ratify U.N. Arctic Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty." Alaska Dispatch. 6 October 11. Web. 14 July

2014. http://www.adn.com/article/failure-ratify-un-arctic-treaty-threatens-us-sovereignty)JTE

The melting of Arctic ice as a result of global warming has set off a race to capitalize on the polar region’s suddenly accessible resources and expanding navigable waterways. Yet even as Canada, Russia and others stake their claims to this potential bounty of economic and trade opportunities, the U.S. is choosing to sit on the sidelines. Why? Because it won’t sign on to the rules of the game: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The opponents justify their obduracy by citing a nonexistent threat to national sovereignty. The greater threat to the U.S. lies in its continued failure to ensure it will have a central role on this new frontier.

Mapping Prevents Arctic Activity

Lack of maps means ice conditions are too unpredictable – prevents shippingO’Rourke 2014 [Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs for the Congressional Research Service, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, June 5th, 2014 http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf] JTE

The unpredictability of ice conditions is a major hindrance for trans-Arctic shipping in general, but can be more of a concern for some types of ships than it is for others. For instance, it would be less of a concern for cruise ships, which may have the objective of merely visiting the Arctic rather than passing through and could change their route and itinerary depending on ice conditions. On the other hand, unpredictability is of the utmost concern for container ships that carry thousands of containers from hundreds of different customers, all of whom expect to unload or load their cargo upon the ship’s arrival at various ports as

indicated on the ship’s advertised schedule. The presence of even small blocks-of ice or icebergs from a melting Greenland ice

sheet requires slow sailing and could play havoc with schedules. Ships carrying a single commodity in bulk from one port to another for

just one customer have more flexibility in terms of delivery windows, but would not likely risk an Arctic passage under prevailing conditions. Ice is not the sole impediment to Arctic shipping. The region frequently experiences adverse weather, including not only severe storms, but also intense cold, which can impair deck machinery. During the summer months when sea lanes are open, heavy fog is common in the Arctic. Commercial ships would face higher operating costs on Arctic routes than elsewhere. Ship size is an important factor in reducing freight costs. Many ships currently used in other waters would require two icebreakers to break a path wide enough for them to sail through; ship owners could reduce that cost by using smaller vessels in the Arctic, but this would raise the cost per container or per ton of freight.71 Also, icebreakers or ice-class cargo vessels burn more fuel than ships designed for more temperate waters and would have to sail at slower speeds. The shipping season in the Arctic only lasts for a few weeks, so icebreakers and other special required equipment would sit idle the remainder of the year. None of these impediments by themselves may be enough to discourage Arctic passage but they do raise costs, perhaps enough to negate the savings of a shorter route. Thus, from the perspective of a shipper or a ship owner, shorter via the Arctic does not necessarily mean cheaper and faster.72 Basic Navigation Infrastructure Is Lacking

Considerable investment in navigation-related infrastructure would be required if trans-Arctic shipping were to become a reality. Channel marking buoys and other floating visual aids are not possible in Arctic waters because moving ice sheets will continuously shift their positions. Therefore, vessel captains would need to rely on marine surveys and ice charts. For some areas in the Arctic, however, these surveys and charts are out of date and not sufficiently accurate.73 To remedy this problem, aviation reconnaissance of ice conditions and satellite images would need to become readily available for ship operators.74 Ship-to-shore communication

infrastructure would need to be installed where possible. Refueling stations may be needed, as well as, perhaps, transshipment ports where cargo could be transferred to and from ice-capable vessels at both ends of Arctic routes. Shipping lines would need to develop a larger pool of mariners with ice navigation experience. Marine insurers would need to calculate the proper level of risk premium for polar routes, which would require more detailed information about Arctic accidents and incidents in the past.

Lack of adequate mapping prevents shipping in the status quoKendrick 2014 [Lyle Kendrick, Reporter for the Barents Observer, “Map Shortcomings Could Hinder Northern Sea Route Growth”, Barents Observer, June 28th, 2014 http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/06/map-shortcomings-could-hinder-northern-sea-route-growth-28-06#] JTE

Weak satellites in the Northern Sea Route area and poor sea maps are among the bottlenecks preventing a massive Arctic transit system. Sea ice and depth mapping deficits still exist near the Northern Sea Route that could

temper international excitement about the prospect of extensive Arctic shipping. Melting ice allowed the region to open up shipping routes in Arctic waters that are mostly under Russian control and cut significant transit time between Europe and Asia. Use of the route has steadily grown since ships began using it in 2010. According to data from the Northern Sea Route Administration, four vessels used the route in 2010, 34 used it in 2011, 46 used it in 2012 and 71 used it last year. China will be releasing a guide to Arctic shipping in July for ships sailing through the Northern Sea Route to Europe. But the current weak satellites in the area and poor sea maps are like bottlenecks preventing the kind of massive Arctic transit speculated by some, said Jan-Gunnar-Winther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, to the BarentsObserver. Satellite communication with ships in the High North is weak which means ship operators cannot adequately take real-time high-resolution images for other vessels to use , Winther said. These kinds of images give information about sea conditions which allow efficient and safe maneuvering in water that is partly covered in ice, he said. The area is particularly dangerous to navigate without sufficient mapping data because there is

limited infrastructure for search and rescue operations. Vessels are safest on the route when following icebreakers which can help navigate frozen Arctic patches and be a first line of support in a search and rescue operation, said Gunnar Sander, an Arctic sea ice researcher with the Norwegian Polar Institute, to the BarentsObserver. Icebreakers are expensive but without them, vessels face much higher risks, he said. A 138-meter tanker was stranded for several days after it struck ice during September while sailing in the Matisen Strait of the Northern Sea Route without an icebreaker escort. The Northern Sea Route Administration had granted the tanker a permit to sail in the Kara Sea and the Laptev Sea in light ice conditions with an icebreaker escort. “As far as I can judge now, the Russians have quite a good system as long as you follow the icebreakers,” Sander said. In addition to ice on the water, depth data is also lacking in many parts of the Arctic Ocean, according to a January report on the Arctic by the World Economic Forum nonprofit

organization in Switzerland. Bathymetric mapping, or depth mapping, is critical for monitoring ocean currents and the development of shipping lanes in the shallow waters near Russia’s Arctic coast, according to that report. The Northern Sea Route passes through some straits which are less than 10 meters deep, according to a 2013 report for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by a panel of Arctic researchers. Large ships now mostly follow a route north of the New Siberian Islands which is at least 18 meters deep. Many of the mapping deficits that could create a bottleneck effect for shipping in the area are being addressed through both widespread charting and legal measures . Russia is increasing its hydrographic work in the Arctic and the country has commissioned surveys for the white spots on maps that lack depth data in 2015 and 2016, said Vitaly Klyuev, the deputy director of the Department of State Policy for Maritime and River Transport of Russia, in a 2012 announcement. Russia is also planning to have ten Arctic search and rescue centers by next year. The International Maritime Organization is developing a mandatory international safety code for ships in polar waters called the Polar Code. Mapping and charting issues will be included in the code. The responsibility for how the Polar Code would be implemented would lie with the states themselves, which would give them broad discretion, said Tore Henriksen, a professor and director of the sea law center at the University of Tromsø, to the BarentsObserver. Despite ice melting in the Arctic region, it is still a serious danger for shippers in the area and expensive icebreakers are the best option for safe travel, Sander said. “It’s completely misleading to talk about an ice-free Arctic Ocean,” Sander said. While the number of ships in the region and along the route is growing, it still sees nowhere near the number of vessels as routes like the Suez Canal, which had more than 17,000 vessels last year.

Plan can’t resolve Mapping which is critical to US’ Arctic Maritime Domain AwarenessPerry and Andersen 2012 (Charles Perry and Bobby Anderson, vice president and director of studies at the IFPA, research analyst at IFPA, 2012, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, “NEW STRATEGIC DYNAMICS in the ARCTIC REGION, Implications for National Security and International Collaboration,” http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf/) JTE

One key capability gap that will likely continue to hamper Arctic operations in the coming decades is in maritime domain awareness in the polar region. MDA – the effective ability of U.S. forces to locate, identify, and track vessels or any other activity in the maritime domain that could affect national secu- rity interests – remains extremely limited, largely¶ because of the remoteness of the region, inadequate Arctic Ocean and weather data, lack of communication and nav- igation infrastructure, insufficient intelligence informa- tion, and the lack of a consistent U.S. government presence in the High North.327 Given the very limited sensor cover- age of the area, great distances from main bases, and harsh, rapidly changing atmospheric conditions, even collecting and maintaining a basic awareness of other ships, subma- rines, and aircraft in the Arctic becomes a nearly impos- sible task.328 Not long after the start of the Coast Guard’s 2008 summer deployment in the polar region, for instance, District 17 officials based in Alaska complained of a wor- rying lack of Arctic domain awareness that severely con- strained the service’s ability to fully understand the risks of operating in or monitoring the icy waters around Alaska and beyond. As a senior U.S. Coast Guard official pointed out after the agency’s 2008 operations, “We had almost no idea, no maritime domain awareness, of what was actual- ly happening on the waters of the Arctic.”329¶ A major impediment to achieving better domain aware- ness in the High North is the current lack of accurate data or Arctic navigation, including nautical charts for areas previously covered by ice,

shoreline mapping, tides, water levels, currents, sea-ice conditions, and meteorological information. Experts agree that there is still very little knowledge about the Arctic’s unique and ever-changing ocean patterns , especially since only less than

5 percent of the polar area has been mapped to current standards.330 Nautical charts of the Alaska region, for example, are of low resolution and mostly based on soundings from the 1940s or 1950s, showing vast areas that have not been surveyed using modern instrumentation or have never been surveyed at all.331 The problem of producing reli- able nautical charts for the Arctic is further compounded by America’s insufficient number of hydrographic sur- vey vessels and their limited capability when it comes to operating in and around the ice.332 The lack of real-time information on weather, ocean conditions, and ice char- acterization (for example, depth or thickness) has had a particularly negative effect on the Coast Guard’s ability to conduct routine and emergency missions in the polar region, as smaller pieces of sea ice are frequently missed by current technology, posing a significant threat to most ships observed in the area, including the Coast Guard’s fleet of non-icebreaking boats. For their part, icebreakers attempting to operate in the deeper reaches of the Arctic Ocean are themselves extremely vulnerable to so-called sea-ice pressure ridges, formed when massive sheets of ice collide with one another, and in the absence of

reliable data, even experienced mariners may be unable to suf- ficiently assess the “deceptive appearance of sea

ice,” as illustrated by Coast Guard cutter Healy’s experience dur- ing its summer 2008 operations off Barrow, Alaska, when it struck what to the crew appeared to be thin, first-year ice only to discover that it was a fifteen-foot thick ice- berg of multi-year ice, well beyond the ship’s icebreaking capabilities.333

Russia Advantage

Russia Won’t Cooperate

Strategic cooperation is a trap - advocates only promote co-op because Russia seems threateningKramer and Shevtsova 2013 (David Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Lilia Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013 “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/) JTE

Like the movie Groundhog Day, this is happening all over again. We are falling for the same Kremlin trap. The demise of the reset policy has begotten another campaign to forge yet another new era in Russian-American relations, this time under the banner of “strategic cooperation.” Those advocating this approach

present nothing new but simply repeat the same old warnings against ignoring Russia and downgrading relations. Proponents of this approach address only Washington and Western policymakers; for some reason, they never seem to prod Putin

and his circle, even though Putin’s actions and behavior have made the development of relations and cooperation increasingly difficult. None of these “strategists” maintains that Russia deserves to be treated differently because it could become an engine of social and economic progress; rather, they believe Russia cannot be ignored because it could act as a spoiler, causing massive problems for the West.

Russia’s political structure makes cooperation impossibleKramer and Shevtsova 2013 (David Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Lilia Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013 “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/) JTE

As for the popular ideas of joint pivot to the Asia-Pacific and Arctic cooperation, these are more of a passing fad. Russia has already “turned” to the Pacific by hosting the APEC summit in Vladivostok, which ended up costing $22 billion. The summit demonstrated Russia’s ability to construct Potemkin villages (a performance it will repeat for next February’s Winter Olympics in Sochi, whose cost has already reached $50 billion). This turn to the Pacific benefited those who pocketed the money that was appropriated for running the summit, while the consequences of the turn to Asia remain unclear. What can Russia offer to the region aside from raw materials and weapons exports? Is Russia ready to become a raw materials appendage to Asia? This is what the turn to Asia might bring them. Does that make the turn strategic? And is it strategic for the state, or for society?¶ Provided Russia’s corrupt state is preserved, the Arctic is another opportunity for the Kremlin elite to funnel money out of the country—or, plainly speaking, steal it. How can the West help Russia develop its Siberia and Pacific provinces when the country’s elite cares only about providing for corrupt interests? Russia has to transform itself first , and this is Russian society’s main goal. Only then can we talk to the United States and Europe about assistance in developing Siberia and the Far East.

Ignore their cooperation defense—Russians are intentionally hiding their belligerence to encourage complacency in the USHuebert 2010 (Rob Huebert, PhD and Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, “The Newly Emerging Arctic Security Environment,” http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf) JTE

It should be clear that the Russians have been according a growing importance to the Arctic region . They continually issue statements affirming their commitment to peaceful cooperation in the Arctic, which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders and in their primary documents. These same leaders are also very quick to condemn the actions of the other Arctic states as being aggressive and a threat to international peace and security in the region whenever they engage in any form of military related activity. It is clear, however, that the Russians have embarked on a much more assertive use of military force in the region by taking various action – the missile test launches near the pole, the sudden and substantial resumption of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages of their surface units into the disputed zones – which exceeds that of any of the other Arctic states . Furthermore, the Russians’ proposed rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any other Arctic state. Thus, the Russians have excelled at portraying themselves as cooperative while taking increasingly assertive action . The question remains as to why? Are they merely reasserting themselves as a global power, or, does this new action point to an increasingly assertive Russia? This is not known

No US-Russia cooperation—geopolitical tensions and sanctionsFox News 2014 (Fox News and the Associated Press, 7/17/2014, “Russia slams latest US sanctions over Ukraine as 'bullying'”, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/17/russia-slams-latest-us-sanctions-over-ukraine-as-bullying)

Russia reacted strongly Thursday to new unilateral sanctions announced the day before by President Barack Obama, with a spokesman for the country's Foreign Ministry decrying what it claimed were "bullying" tactics by Washington. "We consider the new round of American sanctions against Russia as a primitive attempt to take vengeance for the fact that events in Ukraine are not playing out to the tune of the script of Washington," the Ministry said in a statement. Earlier Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in televised comments

that the sanctions are "driving into a corner" relations between the two nations as well as the interests of American companies and "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and people." Putin warned Washington that the sanctions will backfire against American companies working in Russia . Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in televised remarks said the sanctions are throwing Russia's relations with the West "back to the 1980s" and added that Russia "will have to pay more attention to military and security spending." The penalties announced by Obama Wednesday targeted target two major Russian energy firms, Novatek and Rosneft, and a pair of leading Russian financial institutions, Gazprombank and VEB, restricting their ability to access U.S. capital markets. Eight Russian arms firms responsible for the production of small arms, mortar shells and tanks also were hit with sanctions. Included on the sanctions list were four individuals: Putin adviser Igor Shchegolev, Russian State Duma Deputy Speaker Sergei Neverov, Ukrainian separatist leader Aleksandr Borodai and Sergey Beseda, an official with Russia's Federal Security Service, the intelligence agency that replaced the KGB after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. penalties, however, stopped short of the most stringent actions the West has threatened, which would fully cut off key sectors of Russia's oil-dependent economy. But officials said those steps were still on the table if Russia fails to abide by the West's demands to stop its support for the pro-Russia insurgents who have destabilized eastern Ukraine. Russia's benchmark MICEX index was down 2.6 percent in early afternoon trading Thursday, with Rosneft down nearly 5 percent. Moscow-based investment bank Sberbank-CIB said in a note to investors that Russian companies cannot replace long-term loans from the U.S. immediately. "While Asian and Middle Eastern money can step in to fill the gap, we expect that this will take time," the note said, adding that borrowing will also cost more. Rosneft has a multibillion-dollar deal with ExxonMobil, which among other things allowed Exxon to develop lucrative oil fields in Russia. "We gave this American company the right to work on the shelf," Putin said in Brazil, referring to Exxon's potential exploration on the Russian Arctic shelf. "So, what, the United States does not want it to work there now?" Putin made no mention of the additional sanctions levied Wednesday by the 28-nation European Union, which urged the European Investment Bank to sign no new financing agreements with Moscow and was suspending operations in Russia financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. European nations have much closer energy and other economic ties with Russia and have not imposed as tough sanctions as the United States. But the foreign ministry did lash out at the EU's new sanctions, accusing Europe of "giving in to the bullying of the U.S. administration." Igor Sechin, Rosneft's CEO and a close confidante of Putin, dismissed the U.S. sanctions as "unfounded, subjective and unlawful," adding that his company "had no role in the events in Ukraine."

No US-Russian ConflictNo Arctic conflict – low military presence and MAD checks – the aff only makes escalation more likelyBailes 2013 (Alyson Bailes, Visiting Professor at U. of Iceland “Arctic: new conflict theatre between Russia and the West, or model of peace?,” European Leadership Network, 12/16/13, http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/arctic-new-conflict-theatre-between-russia-and-the-west-or-model-of-peace_1099.html) JTE

To be sure, some commentators on the Arctic have other worries than just a disorderly 'race for oil'. They note signs of increased military spending on assets designed for the polar seas, together with support facilities; and they warn that an 'incident' could escalate into an international clash . What of these

complications? First, all Arctic states except Russia are cutting military expenditure generally and their Arctic plans are modest, involving mainly higher-tech replacements for old assets and a small growth in numbers. Russia's plans in the Arctic are not more grandiose than elsewhere and actual construction has made a slow start.

New bases like Denmark's in East Greenland, and Russia's being built in the New Siberian Islands (far to the East), are designed mainly to get closer to the High Northern seas for purposes of patrolling and policing, climate monitoring, and response to accidents. A study in 2012 by the respected pro-peace institute SIPRI concluded: "Conventional military forces specially adapted to the harsh Arctic environment are projected to remain small scale, especially given the size of the Arctic region, and will remain in some cases considerably below cold war levels."[ i] One must also remember that Russia and the West remain in a state of uneasy strategic balance overall, despite all the progress made since the Cold War. Russia's northern coast is now its only real major 'break-out' area, and its forces there are also supposed to offset US and Western power in general. But recalling this also highlights something many analysts miss. The nuclear and naval stand-off between the USA and the Soviet Union or Russia has always taken place over the North Pole. Albeit by a deadly and costly logic, it has kept the peace since the 1950s. Why should either side think they could use military force against the other, in this very area, without the terrible dangers of escalation? Can one really imagine Russia fighting any of the other countries around the Arctic, all full NATO members, without fear of NATO retaliation? So long as Moscow's own Arctic assets are secure and the key sea route firmly under its grip, why would it take that risk here more than anywhere else? Arguably, in fact, the Arctic interaction of Russia and the West is less tense, less subject to out-of-control incidents, than anywhere else their strategic peripheries touch. Since Cold-War times both sides have cooperated on Arctic exploration and environmental management. Since 1996 the Arctic Council has formalized and extended this cooperation, inter alia reaching two legally binding agreements (among the five Nordics, Russia, USA and Canada) on cooperation in Search and Rescue, and major oil-spill response, respectively. Under these agreements all sides have pledged to use their naval and air assets and other security expertise to help each other when something goes wrong. Add the way that Russia has opened up for Western investment in its own Arctic resource exploitation, and

there seems rather less to worry about here than in the Caucasus or even the Eastern Baltic . Of course, governments are not the only potential conflict players, as seen in the recent clash between the Russian authorities and Greenpeace. But that example also suggested how high the odds are against other states getting drawn in by a non-state incident in this region. The Arctic does not have 'weak states' or civil conflicts, and the most violent non-state actors likely to surface there - smugglers and opportunistic terrorists - would be the enemies of all. The real threats of a changing Arctic are the non-military ones of violent nature, accidents, infrastructure failure, pollution, business miscalculations, destabilizing migration, other social disruption and new disease - all things that states can profit most from tackling together. And if some commentators are still worried about a random military clash, why are they not deluging us with proposals for arms control and confidence-building measures to help avert it? Interestingly, the only considered and specific ideas of that kind so far have come from a Russian think-tank.

Zero risk of US-Russian warGraham 2007 (Thomas Graham, senior advisor on Russia in the US National Security Council staff 2002-2007, 2007, "Russia in Global Affairs” The Dialectics of Strength and Weakness http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1129.html) JTE

An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that “Russia has at different times been demonized or divinized by Western opinion less because of her real role in Europe than because of the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations, generated within European society by its own domestic problems.” Such is the case today. To be sure, mounting Western concerns about Russia are a

consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are also a reflection of declining confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia

come at a time when Russia is arguably less threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has been at any time since the end of the Second World War. Russia does not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our destruction, its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal – while still capable of annihilating the

United States – is under more reliable control than it has been in the past fifteen years and the threat of a strategic strike approaches zero probability. Political gridlock in key Western countries, however, precludes the creativity, risk-taking, and subtlety needed to advance our interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia while laying the basis for more constructive long-term relations with Russia.

No US-Russia crisis – everything is fine nowGudev 2014 (Petar Gudev, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, March 19th, 2014http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/arctic-cooperation/?id_4=1053) JTE

In the last years, we have witnessed a deep evolution in the understanding of the Arctic issues among both American and Russian experts. We have understood that we are allies rather than enemies and that we have shared interests in the Arctic. At the time being, all countries are willing to cooperate in the Arctic. This willingness remains in spite of the crisis in Ukraine or in any other sphere. The Arctic has been and will be a very fruitful field of cooperation between Russia and the U.S., Norway, and Canada. I don’t think there will be any problems

Zero chance of Arctic war---expertsMahony 2013 (Honor Mahoney, EU Observer, "Fear of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'", March 19th, 2013, euobserver.com/foreign/119479)JTE

The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the resource-rich region is overblown, say experts. For long a mystery because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry. Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil. The interest is reflected in the growing list of those wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region. While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada form the council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status. "The Arctic has become a new meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by far in the last years." He points to its red-carpet treatment of politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means greater shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in 2012. For a ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is connected to shipping. Russia is also keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways. According to Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there." And he believes the biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. "The biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said. This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that

much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict .

But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert . Most resources have an owner

"There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there first. That is completely false," he said. He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region," with international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles off their coast . On top of

that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every value in the water and under the seabed." "Up to 97 percent of energy resources is actually belonging to someone already," says

Wang. He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment, which requires stable politics and security.

No armed conflict in the ArcticNavy 2014 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf) JTE

Since the end of the Cold War, the military threat environment in the Arctic Region has diminished significantly and the risk of armed conflict in the Arctic Region is projected to remain low for the foreseeable future.26 As opposed to combat-related missions, Navy forces are far more likely to be employed in the Arctic Region in support of Coast Guard search and rescue, disaster relief, law enforcement, and other civil emergency/civil support operations.27 There is a willingness among Arctic Region nations to manage differences through established international mechanisms. The Arctic Council consists of representatives from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden,

the Russian Federation, and the United States. It serves as a useful forum for promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction. Arctic nations have a strong economic incentive to preserve this historically stable, non-contentious environment for commercial development. Though the United States has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United States has long considered its provisions related to traditional ocean uses as reflecting customary international law. It serves as the legal framework for important rights and obligations in the Arctic Ocean including the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, protection of the marine environment, freedom of navigation, military survey, and marine scientific research for the region. In May 2008, the states bordering the Arctic Ocean (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and the Russian

Federation) signed the Ilulissat Declaration which concluded that the Convention was the appropriate legal framework for international cooperation and peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in the Arctic.28 In May 2011, the Arctic Council signed the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement29 and in May 2013, the Council states signed an Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, 30 demonstrating cooperative behavior to improve safety and environmental procedures in the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, the number of nations and other organizations requesting observer status on the Arctic Council is increasing, showing a growing international

The Arctic is a conflict-free zone – empirics and status quo cooperationNavy 2014 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf) JTE

The United States’ overarching strategic national security objective for the Arctic Region is a stable and secure region where the national interests of the United States are safeguarded and the homeland is protected.5 The Navy’s primary goal in support of National and Department of Defense aims is to contribute to a peaceful, stable, and conflict-free Arctic Region. The Arctic Ocean comprises a roughly circular basin and covers an area of about 5.4 million square miles, almost 1.5 times the size of the United States. Today, much of the Arctic Region is ice covered, limiting human access to particular times of the year. The expected continued reduction of multi-year6 Arctic sea ice over the coming decades will result in increased human activity in the Arctic Ocean. How much of an increase, and in what types of activities, remains to be seen. The rate of opening of the geography, the short commercial shipping season, the environmental complexities and limitations of operating in the Arctic Ocean, and present geopolitical trends in the

Arctic Region lead intelligence assessments to predict it is unlikely the Region will be the site of state-on-state armed conflict. Disputes between Arctic Region nations can be resolved peacefully and without military force, as demonstrated by the Russia-Norway Barents Sea agreement.7 While the Arctic Region is expected to remain an area of low threat, the United States does have standing security interests in the Region, including threat early warning systems; freedom of navigation and overflight through the region; preventing terrorist attacks against the homeland; combined security obligations with Canada; and deployment of sea and air forces as required for deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations. As the Arctic Ocean opens, the Bering Strait will have increased strategic importance. This 51- mile wide strait between Russia and the United States, with a depth varying between 98 to 160 feet, represents an important chokepoint for surface and subsurface vessels entering or departing the Arctic Ocean. The Bering Strait and access to and through the Arctic Ocean will become a more important security planning consideration as maritime activity continues to increase. Partnership building opportunities exist for the United States to cooperate with maritime nations as economic activity increases north of the Bering Strait. The Strait has special significance for Russia since it allows Russia to connect her Asian and European naval forces. As the Pacific gateway for Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Bering Strait will become increasingly important for seaborne trade between Europe and Asia. The anticipated increase in traffic through the Strait provides opportunity for the United States to strengthen ties with Russia, promoting maritime security and safety in the region.8 For decades, Canada and the United States have been partners in the defense of North America, cooperating within the framework of such instruments as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Homeland defense and homeland security are top priorities for the governments of Canada and the United States . The Navy will work with the Royal Canadian Navy to ensure common Arctic Region interests are addressed in a complementary manner. The Navy will continue to support NORAD's missions for aerospace warning and control, and maritime warning for threats against the United States and Canada . This unique and enduring partnership between the United States and Canada in defense cooperation is important to our mutual security interests in the Arctic Region. The Navy and Coast Guard have a decades-long history of cooperation and collaboration. The two services have worked together in close partnership during times of war and peace to protect our Nation’s ports and waterways and to promote our maritime security interests overseas . The history of this collaboration between the two sea services acknowledges the distinctive missions, competencies, and cultures of each service. The combined efforts of the Navy and the Coast Guard in the Arctic Ocean will reflect this historic relationship. The Coast Guard and Navy are committed to ensuring safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in Arctic Ocean waters and to promoting our other national interests in the Region

No Russia War – three reasonsAron 2007 (Leon Aron, , Resident scholar and the director of Russian Studies at AEI, June 29th, 2007 The United States and Russia, http://aei.org/publications/pubID.24606,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) JTE

Yet the probability of a frontal confrontation and a new Cold War remains very remote for at least three reasons. First,

despite the erosion, the countries’ geopolitical assets are still very weighty, as the bedrock issues of anti-terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and energy will continue to force them to seek common ground and at least limited

partnership.[17] Second, the “restorationist” foreign policy notwithstanding, the three basic elements of the 1992-1993 national consensus

on the foreign policy and defense doctrine remain largely the same. Russia is to stay a nuclear superpower and the regional superpower, but

it seems to have settled for the role of one of the world’s great states, rather than a global superpower engaged in a worldwide competition with the United States. While these desiderata will continue to cause occasional sparring with the United States, they are no longer dedicated to the attainment of goals inimical to the vital interests of the United States and are not likely to ignite a relentless antagonistic struggle to the bitter end. Lastly, despite the muscular rhetoric emanating of late from the

Kremlin, unlike the Soviet Union twenty years ago and China today, Russia is not a “revisionist” power. It does not seek radically to

reshape the geopolitical “balance of forces” in its favor. Moscow may rail at the score, but it is unlikely to endeavor to change the rules of the game. For that, one needs a different ideology and, as a result, a different set of priorities. Yet even in today’s Russia flush with petrodollars, the share of GDP devoted to defense (around 3 percent) is not only at least ten times smaller than in the Soviet Union, but also below the 1992-1997 average in a Russia that inherited an empty treasury from the Soviet Union and that was, like every revolutionary government, unable to collect taxes. Calculated in purchasing power parity, Russia’s defense expenditures in 2005 ($47.77 billion) were less than one-eleventh of what the U.S. spent ($522 billion).[18]

Our nuclear deterrent checks conflict.Lieber and Press 2006 (Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, from Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html) JTE

For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide. [LEIBER AND PRESS CONTINUE – PARAGRAPH LATER] This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's

policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the

world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

US-Russia war doesn’t go nuclear. Nuclear weapons prevents conventional conflict and miscalculationMadison 2006 (Peter N Madison, US Navy Lieutenant, “THE SKY IS NOT FALLING: REGIONAL REACTION TO A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN”, March 1st, 2006” Naval Postgraduate School Thesis, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA445779)JTE

Owing to the vast destruction nuclear weapons can generate, they have ironically guaranteed security for the nations that possess them. Any attack against a nuclear state carries the risk of provoking a devastating response. Consequently, the benefits and dangers of nuclear weapon proliferation have been debated for decades. Perhaps the most debatable point is whether more nuclear states advance or weaken world security. Naturally, this issue remains moot. Yet, one must concede that the world has judiciously avoided the use of nuclear weapons for sixty years, suggesting the avoidance is attributable to more than luck. Professor Jan Breemer of the Navy War College asserts that at some point, luck loses its random nature and reflects skill .10 / 1. Nuclear Optimists: “More May Be Better”11 / Nuclear Optimists advocate

a gradual increase in the number of nuclear states . They argue that a cautious increase does not correspond to an increased likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used. They further contend that this gradual spread is far better than if it were rapid or nonexistent.12 Supporters point to over sixty years in which deterrence helped prevent nuclear

conflict. According to Professor Kenneth Waltz of the University of California at Berkeley, “The world has enjoyed more years of peace since 1945 than had been known in modern history.” 13 Indeed, there has been no general war in this period , in spite of a variety of confrontations that could lead to rapid escalation and conflict.14 Instead nuclear weapons made nuclear war an unlikely possibility .15 / Professor

Waltz argues that if deterrence produces the ideal, then the opposite must be correct: not having a clear balance of terror preventing a misstep leads to uncertainty of action by a state . He states that defeated countries like Germany following World War II, which fought conventionally, will at the very worst survive with limited suffering. Nuclear deterrence assures a totality of defeat; therefore, no rational actor will risk destruction.16 Instead of instability and uncertainty, nuclear weapons increase stability and certainty,

making “miscalculation difficult and politically pertinent predictions easy.”17

Russia needs Western technology to exploit Arctic Oil – ensures Arctic peace.Pate 2010 (Chad Pate, US Air Force Major, Master of Arts in Security Studies “Easing the Arctic Tension: An Economic Solution”, writing for Naval Postgraduate School, December 2010; http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=11038) JTE

With the United States emerging from a recession, there is little chance that that the military buildup outlined in NSPD-66 and the Navy Arctic Roadmap will come to fruition. Businesses in the United States stand to gain from investment overseas, yet Russia has traditionally made such investment difficult and unpredictable.49 A key issue with Arctic oil and natural gas exploration is that Russian industry technology lags at least 10 years behind its Western counterparts .50 Because of this lag, Russia has in the past allowed Western corporations to share in its energy resources in exchange for technological assistance only to mistreat the investors later on and force them out. As will be explained in Chapter III, Russia’s energy

resources are dwindling so it is essential that the state bring new production locations on line as soon as possible. Because of this need, the Russian leadership may consider reducing the barriers to investment and accept that the nation will reap fewer rewards as Western corporations share their technology. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the

potential for establishing a capitalist peace between Russia and its Arctic neighbors against the backdrop of Russia’s declining hydrocarbon extraction capabilities. The work’s hypothesis is that there is little potential for conflict in the Arctic due to Russia’s inability to harvest the newly uncovered hydrocarbons on its own .

With Western corporations possessing the necessary technology, Russian aggression in the North would likely block the inflow of FDI and harm the state’s long-term economic viability. If economic interconnectedness is established, the resultant capitalist peace would likely ease tensions in the region and the United States may not be forced to increase significantly its military presence in the North, thereby allaying realist concerns regarding the imbalance of Arctic military power . Intentional or accidental encroachment by the enlarged Russian military into sensitive U.S. areas would be less likely to escalate beyond diplomatic exchanges with the nations linked by economic bonds . Without the ability to counter the Russian military directly should tensions escalate, relying on globalized production platforms—what Brooks argues is a “reserve stabilizer”— may offer an alternative means of maintaining the security of the United States’ northernmost border.51 48

Russia won’t go to war with the US – it would kill their industry.Pate 2010 (Chad Pate, US Air Force Major, Master of Arts in Security Studies “Easing the Arctic Tension: An Economic Solution”, writing for Naval Postgraduate School, December 2010; http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=11038) JTE

In sum, interstate relationships based on economic bonds have proven to be effective deterrents to fatal conflict initiation. The strongest deterrent force occurs between dyads that experience high levels of FDI with one another. Still significant, however, is how the desire to attract FDI prevents potentially aggressive states from initiating conflict even outside of the FDI-sending and receiving relationship. The destabilizing effect of war makes investment risky, thereby causing states not directly involved in the conflict to be reluctant to invest in such an environment . Russia’s stock market, for example, dropped to its lowest level in two years as a result of Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia.47 If significant FDI is established between Russia and the United States, the potential for the nations to engage in a military dispute may be reduced. If such investment cannot be established, Russia may still be reluctant to initiate conflict with the United States because doing so might deter other states from investing in Russia’s industry.

Binding legal agreements prevent Arctic conflict – their evidence is based on a flawed assumption of Russian hostility.Holtsmark 2009 (Sven G. Holtsmark, is the Deputy Director at the Norwegian Institute for Defense studies “Towards cooperation or confrontation: Security in the High North,” Research Paper, Research Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – No. 45, February 2009) JTE

Moreover, Western policy makers should set for themselves the ambitious goal of developing the area into a source of stability, community of interest and cooperation between Russia and the West. A recent analysis of NATO-Russia relations noted that, in order to cooperate, the two sides must shift their focus from "tactical differences" � to "broader strategic aims and first-order issues.” Their first-order ambition should be to agree on "a desired end state" � reflecting commonly identified shared objectives. The Arctic Ocean area, where numerous arenas for comprehensive cooperation are still open, represents a chance to put these guidelines into practice. The shared objectives in the High North must include final and permanent solutions to unresolved issues of territorial delimitation and natural resources management and exploitation. There are, in fact, several factors that contradict the often repeated pessimistic scenarios for the Arctic Ocean. As mentioned above, some of the most promising potential petroleum reserves are in areas of undisputed national jurisdiction . Even

where this is not the case, there is agreement among the littoral states, including Russia, about the need for multilateral solutions to regional challenges. This includes support for UNCLOS as the overarching legal framework. The Ilulissat

declaration points exactly in this direction. The long history of successful regional cooperation on resources management in the region, even between cold war foes, gives cause for optimism . Apart from defining the framework for the resolution of delimitational disputes, this approach calls for the further development of robust regimes for the handling of issues such as ecological safety and living resources management , the challenges of opening and operating new SLOCs, and the handling of security threats emanating from outside the Arctic Ocean region. The list of challenges that can only be handled through cooperation between all the Arctic states can easily be expanded. In most cases, framework regimes are already in place, so there is no need start from a "blank sheet" �. Alarmist scenarios are often linked to pessimistic predictions of Russian behavior, and certain aspects of Russian rhetoric and action give legitimate reasons for concern. So does the fundamental weakness of the Russian regime in terms of domestic legitimacy, and the ability and will to withstand pressures towards authoritarian solutions. Up until now, however, Russian foreign policy statements and strategy

documents regularly emphasize the primary role of international law and multilateralism in international relations. Despite the harsh tone, this message was at the core of then President Putin's much-discussed Munich speech in February 2007," and less confrontationally in President Medvedev's proposal in the summer of 2008 of new European security architecture." Such statements should not be routinely dismissed as simple expressions of a fundamentally anti-American and anti-Western agenda. It may well be that Russian policy makers realize that adherence to international law and collective solutions are in fact in Russia's own vital interest. If so, this would be in line with the traditional behavior of middle-sized powers or powers with limited power projection capabilities." � Even the military operation against Georgia in August 2008 does not necessarily contradict this interpretation of Russia's fundamental foreign and security policies. However controversial and possibly misguided, legal arguments have been at the forefront of Russian justifications of their actions towards Georgia. The preferred Russian comparison between Kosovo and South Ossetia is not altogether without relevance. Stating this does not imply any sympathy with Russia's instrumental use of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts, or the behavior of Russian troops in the field. However, given that the Russian interpretation of the events leading up to and following NATO's (1999) and Russia's (2008) interventions diverge substantially from the dominant Western view, and not merely for instrumental reasons, it is important to remind oneself of the importance of sometimes elusive perceptions as a key factor in state actors' policies. This being said, lingering uncertainties about the future Russian posture is one reason why there is more to High North security than creating frameworks for regional cooperation.

Commerce Advantage

Arctic Shipping Not Competitive

Networking hub requirements restrict the Arctic shipping route from ever being economically beneficial Carmel 2013 (Stephen Carmel, U.S. Naval Institute, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)JTE

Containerships operate in networks with “strings” (routes) of many ports serviced by multiple ships on a steady schedule. For example, a U.S. East Coast to Southwest Asia route of 42 days round trip serviced by six ships means regular weekly service out of the ports on that route. Routes frequently intersect at key transshipment ports such as Singapore or Algeciras, Spain. Network economics are a considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture in a container service . Transit across the Arctic, while shorter for certain port pairs,

may not be shorter for a network that services a number of ports on both sides or call at a major transshipment hub. A requirement to call at Singapore for example, means the Northern Sea Route would not be shorter. Were the service to be restricted to just those ports where the distance is shorter, then all the economic advantages of network economics are lost. At the very most, the Arctic is serviceable just three to four months a year, and no one is predicting an ice-diminished Arctic in the winter. Developing routes that would increase the

attractiveness of Arctic paths from a network perspective is not economically feasible as long as they are useful only a third of the year or less.¶

Arctic Shipping cannot support large economies like the US or RussiaCarmel 2013 (Stephen Carmel, U.S. Naval Institute, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)JTE

Perhaps the biggest issue making Arctic shipping unacceptable from a container-shipping perspective is economies of scale. While conventional wisdom would focus on total voyage cost, it is actually the cost per container that matters. Because both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are draft-constrained (41-foot

and 33-foot controlling drafts, respectively) the largest ship likely to be able to use the Northern Sea route would be one with a cargo capacity of just 2,500 TEU—and even smaller for the Northwest passage . TEU, or twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity based on a standard 20-foot container length. A 40-foot container would be 2 TEU, for example. The Northern Sea Route also has a beam restriction of 30 meters, as transiting ships cannot be wider than the icebreakers employed to support them. For the Asia-to-Europe trade on the other hand, containerships can be as large as 15,000 TEU with a beam exceeding 164 feet ; 6,000 to 8,000 TEU ships are common

Even if the route is shorter, Arctic shipping is still much more expensive and time consuming than the Suez or Panama routesCarmel 2013 (Stephen Carmel, U.S. Naval Institute, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)JTE

In predicting increased traffic through the Arctic it is often noted that routes across the top are up to 40 percent shorter than the more traditional routes between Asia and Europe (via the Suez Canal) or the East Coast of the United

States (via the Panama Canal). 4 The assumption is that shorter equals faster and cheaper. But in the Arctic, the shortest distance is normally neither faster nor cheaper for the type of transit shipping usually associated with global commerce, particularly that involving containerships.¶ Container shipping is considerably different from bulk shipping, making the economics of the Arctic as a transit route unappealing. There are

many things, such as construction standards, outfitting, and crew training for example, that make Arctic-capable ships more expensive to build and operate. In addition, those more expensive construction features are useful only during the short ice season but represent a cost the ship carries throughout the year .

Other issues also make the Arctic a much more expensive place to operate, such as the need for icebreakers, lack of support infrastructure, and pending IMO requirements on fuel. 5 But to keep the discussion at a manageable level it is important to focus on a few key issues.

Arctic shipping will never replace the Suez, not a question of actorMorello 2014 (Lauren Morello, senior writer for Climate Central, “US Navy’s Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes”, February 25th, 2014 online: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/us-navys-arctic-strategy-forecasts-ice-free-shipping-routes.html)JTE

Arctic sea lanes such as the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage “are not going to replace the Suez or Panama canals any time soon as primary shipping routes,” says Rear Admiral Bill McQuilkin, director of the US

Navy’s strategy and policy division. Even in ice-free waters, ships may be hampered by drifting ice or incomplete nautical charts, creating an unacceptable level of risk for many industries.

Arctic Circle won’t be accessible for commercial or military useHolmes 2012 (James Holmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12 “The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century.” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas) JTE

Admittedly, an accessible Arctic Ocean probably won't rearrange the physical and mental map of the world to the same degree as the Suez or Panama canals. Even Admiral Titley's forecast indicates that northern waters will remain off-limits to shipping around eleven months of the year, as the icecap expands and contracts.

Consequently, there will be a rhythm to polar seafaring not found in temperate seas. And that seasonal rhythm could be erratic. The icepack's advance and retreat will presumably vary from year to year with temperature

fluctuations. Navigable routes will prove unpredictable -- limiting the scope of commercial and military endeavors.

Arctic shipping isn’t competitive Waldie 2014 (Paul Waldie has been an award-winning journalist with The Globe and Mail, (“A reality check on the Northwest Passage ‘boom’”, January 7, 2014, http://prosperitysaskatchewan.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/a-reality-check-on-the-northwest-passage-boom) JTE

There are other challenges as well. The Panama Canal is being widened, meaning larger ships will be able to pass through. And Russia has been far more assertive in staking its claims in the Arctic and developing its own passageway, the Northern Sea Route, which stretches from the Barents Sea to the Bering Strait. The Russians have five Arctic icebreakers with plans to build three nuclear-powered ones. They are also building 10 navigational and rescue centres and already have a network of ports along the route. Transit traffic along the Northern Sea Route has increased from 34 ships in 2011 to about 50 this year. China has demonstrated an interest in the Northern Sea Route and another shorter option – sending ships across the top of the world along the Transpolar Route which skirts the North Pole. By contrast Canada is building one icebreaker and a fleet of eight patrol boats. Much of the increased shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic has been from cruise ships, government vessels and barges used to resupply remote communities. The Coast Guard is also developing Northern Marine Transportation Corridors, a network of waterways through the Arctic that are most commonly used which would then be provided with marine services. But none of these Arctic routes will ever be more than of limited use, says Malte Humpert, executive director of the Washington-based Arctic Institute. Arctic shipping can’t compete with the Panama Canal, Suez Canal or Strait of Malacca near Singapore, which sees up to 60,000 ships

annually. Container ships in particular won’t travel through the Far North because these ships typically make several stops during a transit. “As a transit route I really don’t see the Arctic happening where someone says, ‘Oh we have

Japanese computer screens or cars going to Europe.’ That will never happen,” Mr. Humpert said. “It’s too unreliable, the season is just two or three months at the moment. Even if the ice melts dramatically it will never be a year-round season because the ice will always be there during winter.”

No internal link – Arctic shipping is seasonal which kills its economic valueCBC 2014 (CBC, Canadian news agency citing a report by the US Government Accountability Office; “No Benefit To Developing Arctic Shipping: U.S. Report,” 4/27/2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/27/arctic-shipping-routes-report_n_5222172.html) JTE

A new report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office suggests there's no benefit to developing shipping infrastructure in the Arctic. ¶ The organization serves as a watchdog for federal spending, and says deep-water ports, mapping and other infrastructure improvements will only go so far in attracting more ships.¶ For the container-ship companies, the report says one problem is Arctic routes would be seasonal, while that industry needs steady, year-round schedules. ¶ The report also says mainstream cruise lines aren't drawn to the Arctic because the 10-day journey, typically in Alaska, is too long, the scenery unvarying and interesting ports too scarce.

Shipping doesn’t solve – additional concernsCampbell 2012 (Caitlin Campbell USCC Policy Analyst, Foreign Affairs and Energy , (‘U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Staff Research Report, “China and the Arctic: Objectives and Obstacles”, April 13, 2012, http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China-and-the-Arctic_Apr2012.pdf) JTE

The benefits shipping companies might gain from a shortened Arctic passage could be offset, however, by logistical and technical challenges. First, shippers would have to contend with unpredictable and often violent weather conditions. These include ice storms, extreme temperatures that can impair deck machinery, and destructive and undetectable blocks of ice.29 Such obstacles can block passages in the region and cause costly delays.

Arctic routes do not and will not offer an attractive alternative to traditional maritime avenues – this evidence is the executioner: complexity and economies of scale short circuit their reductionist interpretation of shipping patternsCarmel 2013 (Stephen M. Carmel is senior vice president, Maritime Services, at Maersk Line, Limited (MLL), responsible for all technical and operating activities. Steve began his career sailing as a deck officer and master, primarily on tankers. He holds an MA in economics and an MBA from Old Dominion University. Steve is currently a PhD candidate in international studies with an emphasis in international political economy and second emphasis in conflict. He is a certified management accountant and is certified in financial management. Steve’s research and publishing interests are in maritime security, trade and conflict, and Arctic regional issues, 2013 [“The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, Proceedings Magazine, July 2013, Vol. 139/7/1,325, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07/cold-hard-realities-arctic-shipping] JTE

Maritime pundits believe a shrinking ice cap translates to a frenzy of traffic as shippers rush to exploit shorter sea routes. They’re wrong. On 16 September 2012 the Arctic reached the point at which ice stops receding and begins to form anew with the approach of winter. Last year that ice minimum set a record at 1.32 million square miles—300,000 square miles less than the previous record minimum. 1 With that news comes the predictable flood of reports about the pending increase in Arctic shipping, how woefully unprepared the United States is to deal with that onslaught of traffic, and the need for large-scale investment in Arctic capabilities. 2 Worries about the implications of a thawing Arctic have been around for some time. Conferences and seminars about the Arctic seem to have superseded even piracy as a source of income for the conference-for-profit crowd. There is no doubt that the Arctic is in fact

thawing, and there naturally will be increased activity up there. But to formulate appropriate strategy and make

intelligent investments it is important to get past the hype and: • Understand what type of activity is likely to occur • Determine the time frame in which it is likely to happen • Recognize that, at least for commercial interests, economics trumps all As the Russians found out with the failed Shtokman gas field—a €15 billion (roughly $20 billion) Arctic investment killed due to cheap U.S. shale gas—the Arctic is not melting in isolation from events in the rest of the world. 3 It is the global system, of which the Arctic

is just one part, that matters; changes across that system, including in the Arctic, interact in ways that can be unpredictable at best. It is very unlikely, then, that the Northern Sea Route across the top of Russia will become a major pathway for the global flow of commerce, and it is virtually certain the Northwest Passage across the top of Canada will never be useful for international trade. There are two types of shipping that must be considered when thinking about commercial traffic through the Arctic: destination shipping and transit

shipping. Destination shipping is that which occurs to support some activity in the Arctic—oil moving from the

Barents Sea across the Northern Sea Route to Asia, for example. That type of activity happens now and indeed will increase in volume. There are large amounts of natural resources in the Arctic, and while the economic viability of all of those discoveries is doubtful—as noted with Shtokman—many will be. Bulk shipping activity necessary to exploit those resources will increase. In

addition, the Northern Sea Route offers the Chinese at least a partial solution to their “Malacca Problem,” providing a source of oil and gas from the Barents Sea that cannot be interdicted, unlike that obtained from the Persian Gulf. This type of destination shipping by definition means that such traffic will call at ports in at least one of just five countries having an Arctic coast (the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark–via Greendland–and Norway). Using Port State Control (PSC), those littoral countries have considerable leeway and authority outside the painfully slow International Maritime Organization (IMO) process to implement the regulatory regime necessary to protect the environment and control shipping activity to an appreciable extent. Should all five of those states, perhaps through a sub-group of the Arctic Council, join to implement a coordinated PSC regime for access to Arctic ports, the bulk of commercial traffic there is de facto regulated. Such shipping by its nature is also amenable to some of the challenges Arctic shipping presents. In particular those ships do not operate in networks, are not sensitive to variation in schedule, and have less sensitivity to adverse economies of scale. They also do not represent the volume of shipping a global pathway of commerce—a northern version of the Suez

Canal, say—would represent. That sort of transit shipping, using the Arctic as a shortcut between Rotterdam and Yokohama for

example, is far more uncertain. In predicting increased traffic through the Arctic it is often noted that routes across the top are up to 40 percent shorter than the more traditional routes between Asia and Europe (via the Suez Canal) or the East Coast of

the United States (via the Panama Canal). 4 The assumption is that shorter equals faster and cheaper. But in the Arctic, the shortest distance is normally neither faster nor cheaper for the type of transit shipping usually associated with global commerce, particularly that involving containerships . Container shipping is considerably different from bulk shipping, making the economics of the Arctic as a transit route unappealing. There are many things, such as construction standards, outfitting, and crew training for example, that make Arctic-capable ships more expensive to build and operate. In addition, those more expensive construction features are useful only during the short ice season but represent a cost the ship carries throughout the year. Other issues also make the Arctic a much more expensive place to operate, such as the need for icebreakers, lack of support infrastructure, and pending IMO requirements on fuel. 5 But to keep

the discussion at a manageable level it is important to focus on a few key issues. First, speed alone is no longer the major consideration, as fuel costs have made slow-steaming the standard of operation. Where once 24 knots was routine for a

containership, it is now 13 knots or less. What is far more important than speed is reliability. Unlike the bulk shipping

discussed earlier, schedule integrity is a key service-attribute for containerships. The Arctic will always suffer from periods of poor visibility and the potential for wind-driven ice, both of which can make routes with a comparatively

low average transit time have a large variability around that average. More than half of all container cargo is now component-level goods—materials destined for factories for use in production processes operating on a just-in-time-type inventory-

management system. That makes consistency, reliability, and schedule integrity of paramount importance . The key goal of container shipping is 99 percent on-time delivery. If this is attainable at all, it will be extraordinarily expensive using Arctic transit routes. Thus the variability in transit time that may be tolerable in bulk shipping is unacceptable for container shipping. Containerships operate in networks with “strings” (routes) of many ports serviced by multiple ships on a steady schedule. For example, a U.S. East Coast to Southwest Asia route of 42 days round trip serviced by six ships means regular weekly service out of the ports on that route. Routes frequently intersect at key transshipment ports such as Singapore or Algeciras, Spain. Network economics are a considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture in a container service. Transit across the Arctic,

while shorter for certain port pairs, may not be shorter for a network that services a number of ports on both sides or call at a major transshipment hub. A requirement to call at Singapore for example, means the Northern Sea Route would not be shorter. Were the service to be restricted to just those ports where the distance is shorter, then all the economic advantages of network economics are lost. At the very most, the Arctic is serviceable just three to four months a year, and no one is predicting an ice-diminished Arctic in the winter. Developing routes that would increase the attractiveness of

Arctic paths from a network perspective is not economically feasible as long as they are useful only a third of the year or less. Perhaps the biggest issue making Arctic shipping unacceptable from a container-shipping perspective is economies of scale. While conventional wisdom would focus on total voyage cost, it is actually the cost per container that matters. Because both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are draft-

constrained (41-foot and 33-foot controlling drafts, respectively) the largest ship likely to be able to use the Northern Sea route would be one with a cargo capacity of just 2,500 TEU—and even smaller for the Northwest passage. TEU, or

twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity based on a standard 20-foot container length. A 40-foot container would be 2 TEU, for example. The Northern Sea Route also has a beam restriction of 30 meters, as transiting ships cannot

be wider than the icebreakers employed to support them. For the Asia-to-Europe trade on the other hand,

containerships can be as large as 15,000 TEU with a beam exceeding 164 feet; 6,000 to 8,000 TEU ships are common. As a back-of-the-envelope example, consider a voyage from Yokohama to Rotterdam, the common benchmark. By the traditional route it is 11,300 nautical miles (nm) with a transit time of 36 days. The Northern Sea Route is 7,600 nm and takes 26 days (relying on the rather large assumption that the voyage is unhindered by ice or visibility issues). The ship making the Arctic transit would reasonably be carrying 2,000 containers; the ship on the traditional route would be carrying 6,500. Factoring in all expenses such as fuel and daily ship-operation, the cost of the traditional route would be $3.5 million, while the Arctic route would be $2.5 million. That is as far as most analyses normally go, showing that the Arctic route is considerably cheaper. But as noted earlier, what matters is not total cost but cost-per-container—and when put in those terms it breaks down to $538 for the traditional route, but $1,250 on the Arctic route. So in fact, the Arctic route is more than twice as expensive as the traditional route, and the Arctic route looks worse when a comparison with larger ships on the traditional route is made. The Maersk Line, for example, will deploy Triple E–class ships with a nominal capacity of 18,000 TEU on the Asia-Europe trade route in the near future. It should be noted as well that the Northern Sea Route is actually a series of seas—Barents, Kara, and Laptev—connected by narrow straits and it is claimed by the Russians as an internal waterway. Fees to transit the Northern Sea Route are on par with the Suez Canal, and the Russians also impose a considerable and very formal administrative process in order to transit the route. Lastly, it is important to remember, as noted at the outset, that changes in the Arctic are not occurring in isolation from the rest of the world—it is but part of a system, and the entire system is changing. When making ice projections out to 2040, then, it should be remembered that in a similar time span (roughly three decades) the advent of the container and advances in information technology completely revolutionized shipping—allowing the development of disaggregated supply chains that are the hallmark of this age of globalization, and propelling China from a third-world backwater to global economic powerhouse. Clearly, a great deal can happen in 30 or 40 years, so it is a mistake to try to overlay a melting Arctic on today’s geo-economic situation. It is the state of the world at that future point interacting with a melted

Arctic that matters. Already, changes in the patterns of global trade have had significant implications for the utility of Arctic routes. Increasingly expensive labor in China, for example, is pushing Chinese manufacturing to be outsourced to

countries in Southeast Asia where costs are lower but Arctic routes offer no advantage. A shift to near-shoring—moving manufacturing

closer to markets—is increasing, too. Even advances such as additive manufacturing—3-D printing, for example—have large implications as local on-demand manufacturing becomes a reality. Advances in that type of disruptive technology could have a major impact on the fundamental nature of trade within the time projections of changing ice conditions in the Arctic. There is no question that the Arctic is becoming more ice-free. There will be an attendant

increase in commercial presence in the Arctic that should not be ignored. But a proper understanding of what type of activity there will be, and a realistic assessment of the volume of that activity are necessary to ensure proper policy and investments are made. For commercial shipping, and particularly the types that drive globalization today, Arctic routes do not now offer an attractive alternative to the more traditional maritime avenues, and are highly unlikely to do so in the future.

Arctic won’t replace suez for LNGRaza 2013 (Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [“A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping”, Masters thesis, Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tønsberg, Norway, November 2013, Page 94-95, http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf] JTE

Increased savings in terms of shipping cost, reduced sailing days Political turbulence in the Middle East and piracy threat in the Gulf of Aden may increase the attractiveness of the NSR for the prospective LNG shipping. The lack of icebreakers and a scanty fleet of standardized ice classed vessels may delay the early LNG transit operations across the NSR. . It was discovered

that the regional price differences of LNG in Asia, Europe, and United States would also play a remarkable role in deciding the fate of Northern Sea Route, up to a certain extent. In future, Northern Sea Route may not emerge as a huge competitor to the southern route of Suez Canal, but instead it may take away merely a part of the shipping, mainly the hydrocarbons 95 and bulk that goes through the Suez Canal today, because the Suez Canal too is a shortcut for some ports and cargo trades.

No arctic shipping or science – too much ice, small timeframes, short supply of suitable ships, nothing strong enough for scientistsCressey 2011 (Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [“Scientific challenges in the Arctic: Open water”, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478174a, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html] JTE

Eventually, shipping companies might start to use the Arctic as a short-cut for transporting goods between cities on the Pacific Rim and those bordering the Atlantic. Experimental voyages have been made along the north coast of Russia, and a smattering of ships has crossed the Northwest Passage north of Canada. But don't expect a significant rise in trans-Arctic traffic any time soon. In a 2009

assessment3, the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for issues affecting the region, projected that

most of the shipping in the region will involve bringing supplies to northern communities and exporting resources such

as oil and minerals, for at least the next decade and possibly much longer. "The notion that the Arctic Ocean will become a Panama Canal or a Suez Canal is a figment of the media," says Lawson Brigham, a geographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and chairman of the assessment. But, he adds, "there may be a short, summer 'window of opportunity' for trans-Arctic navigation". These changes are creating a sense of urgency among scientists trying to answer a string of questions about the region (see 'Top questions in Arctic research'). Researchers seeking access to the Arctic Ocean have traditionally relied on icebreakers to get

through the ice. But these ships are in short supply in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Europe, because of lack of

investment. Even ice-strengthened vessels can be difficult for researchers to secure. "Because of the retreat of the sea ice

and the oil development we have pending in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, a lot of the ice-strengthened vessels are being taken up by industry," says Jacqueline Grebmeier, an Arctic researcher at the University of Maryland in Solomons who has made several

trips through the region on the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Ice-strengthened vessels, meanwhile, are not sturdy enough to provide the kind of access that scientists most desire . "A lot of the processes that are really fundamental to the understanding of how Arctic climate, oceanography and biology work are not happening in summer time," says Lester Lembke-Jene, a marine geologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. "If you don't have the full annual observation," he says, "you have a very, very imbalanced and narrow glimpse of what's going on there."

Pollution Turn

The affirmative will drastically increase air pollutionACCESS 13 (ACCESS is the arctic climate change economy and society, L. Marelle*1 , J. L. Thomas,1, A. Roiger2 , J. C. Raut1 , K. S. Law1 , H. Schlager 2 , C. Granier 1 , L. Granier 1 , T. Onishi 1 , J. D. Fast 3 , W. I. Gustafson 3, 1UPMC Univ. Paris 06; Université Versailles St-Quentin; CNRS/INSU; UMR 8190, LATMOS-IPSL, Paris, France 2 Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany 3Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA, 2013, http://www.klimabuero-polarmeer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Pictures/activities/Gateway/gateway-poster/marelle2-gateway-poster.pdf) JTE

The Arctic is undergoing very rapid changes, such as decreasing sea-ice extent during summer. As a result, transit shipping via the Northern Sea Route, along the northern coast of Scandinavia and Russia, is already occurring. As shipping through the Arctic increases, emissions of air pollutants (aerosols, ozone, and their precursors) into the lower troposphere are likely to become more significant. In addition to shipping, emissions linked to extraction of Arctic oil/gas deposits and associated infrastructure will also increase. As part of the EU ACCESS project, we are investigating the role of current and

future anthropogenic activities in the Arctic on regional air pollution and the concentrations of short-lived climate forcing agents in the Arctic troposphere.

Air pollution causes extinction Driesen 2003 (David M., Associate Professor – Syracuse University College of Law, Fall/Spring, “Sustainable Development and Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies with Cleaner Alternatives,” 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, 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. Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the United States. This review will focus upon tropospheric ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most widespread of the remaining urban air problems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to the ground, as opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and the environment from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. By contrast, tropospheric ozone damages human health and the environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affect human health and the environment well beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain most acute in urban and suburban areas. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate cause very serious public health problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone forms in the atmosphere from a reaction between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. 10 Volatile organic compounds include a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone damages lung tissue. It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects young children and people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinations of a wide variety of pollutants. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which is associated with the most serious health problems. 13 Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual premature deaths in the United States. Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness, but it also seems to play a [*29] role in triggering heart attacks among the elderly. The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not regulate explicitly until recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with various types of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks. The same pollution problems causing current urban health problems also contribute to long lasting ecological problems.

Invasive Species Turn

New shipping routes will uniquely carry invasive species Luis 2014 (Alvarinho J. Luis Ph. D. National Centre for Antarctic ... · Polar Remote Sensing, (“Melting Arctic opens new passages for invasive species”, 5/30/2014, http://www.ncaor.gov.in/files/Science_News/arctic-news-30-05-14.pdf) JTE

Two new shipping routes have opened in the Arctic: the Northwest Passage through Canada, and the Northern Sea Route, a 4800-

km stretch along the coasts of Russia and Norway connecting the Barents and Bering seas. While new opportunities for tapping Arctic natural resources and inter-oceanic trade are high, commercial ships often inadvertently carry invasive species . Organisms from previous ports can cling to the undersides of their hulls or be pumped in the enormous tanks of ballast

water inside their hulls. Now that climate change has given ships a new, shorter way to cross between oceans, the risks of new invasions are escalating . Trans-Arctic shipping is a game changer that will play out on a global scale. The economic draw of the Arctic is enormous. Whether it's greater access to the region's rich natural resource reserves or cheaper and faster inter-ocean commercial trade, Arctic shipping will reshape world markets. If unchecked, these activities will vastly alter the exchange of invasive species, especially across the Arctic, north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans. The first commercial voyage through the Northwest Passage -- a carrier from British Columbia loaded with coal bound for Finland – took place in September 2013. Meanwhile, traffic through the Northern Sea Route has been rising rapidly since 2009. The scientists project that at the current rate, it could continue to rise 20% every year for the next quarter century, and this does not take into account ships sailing to the Arctic itself. For the past 100-plus years, shipping between oceans passed through the Panama or Suez Canals. Both contain warm, tropical water, likely to kill or severely weaken potential invaders from colder regions. In the Panama Canal, species on the hulls of ships also had to cope

with a sharp change in salinity, from marine to completely fresh water. The Arctic passages contain only cold, marine water. As long as species are able to endure cold temperatures, their odds of surviving an Arctic voyage are good. That, combined with the shorter length of the voyages, means many more species are likely to remain alive throughout the journey. Though the routes pose major risks to the north Atlantic and north Pacific coasts, the Arctic is also becoming an attractive destination. Tourism is growing, and it contains vast stores of natural resources. The Arctic holds an estimated 13% of the world's untapped oil and 30% of its natural gas. Greenland's supply of rare earth metals is estimated to be able to fill 20 to 25% of global demand for the near future. Until now the Arctic has been largely isolated from intensive shipping, shoreline development and human-induced invasions, but the scientists said that is likely to change drastically in the decades to come. The good news is that the Arctic ecosystem is still relatively intact and has had low exposure to invasions until now. This novel corridor is only just opening. Now is the time to advance effective management options that prevent a boom in invasions and minimize their ecological, economic and health impacts."

ExtinctionNSF 2010 (National Science Foundation Press Release 10 -244, What Triggers Mass Extinctions? Study Shows How Invasive Species Stop New Life, 12/29/10, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118292)

An influx of invasive species can stop the dominant natural process of new species formation and trigger mass extinction events, according to research results published today in the journal PLoS ONE. The study of the collapse of Earth's marine

life 378 to 375 million years ago suggests that the planet's current ecosystems, which are struggling with biodiversity loss, could meet a similar fate. Although Earth has experienced five major mass extinction events, the environmental crash during the Late Devonian was unlike any other in the planet's history. The actual number

of extinctions wasn't higher than the natural rate of species loss, but very few new species arose. "We refer to the Late Devonian as a mass extinction, but it was actually a biodiversity crisis," said Alycia Stigall, a scientist at Ohio University and author of the PLoS ONE paper. "This research significantly contributes to our understanding of species invasions from a deep-time perspective," said Lisa Boush, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. "The knowledge is critical to determining the cause and extent of mass extinctions through time, especially the five biggest biodiversity crises in the history of life on Earth. It provides an important perspective on our current biodiversity crises."

New invasive species also collapses our military readiness and economy Pratt 2004 (Robert Pratt, Colonel, Masters in Strategic Studies, USAWC, “Invasive Threats to the American Homeland, Parameters, Spring 2004, http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume2/april_2004/4_04_2_pf.html)JTE

One of the primary effects of a terrorist introduction of an invasive species would be economic damage. The 1999

Cornell University study estimated the cost of invasive species to be $138 billion annually in their effects and control measures in the United States.29 This equates to more than one-third of the funding allocated to the total military budget in the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office, discretionary spending for defense as a percentage of the total GDP has been decreasing from 1962 to 2001. Domestic needs compete heavily for tax dollars. Given the drastic increases forecast in spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the years ahead, expenditures for national defense will undoubtedly be constrained. If an adversary chooses the right invasive species, the additional cost to counter its effects could be dramatic. Coupled with a strained economy and a tight budget, it could become difficult to sustain the funds to fully man and equip US military forces at current levels. It might become extremely difficult to fund costly transformation forces. Therefore, the second- or third-order

effects of an invasive species attack could mean less money for discretionary spending and ultimately a weakened military. Second, military resources could also be diverted to meet an emerging crisis. Military forces could be needed to cordon off infested areas or to assist in caring for the sick from an invasive bacteria or virus. Consider an outbreak of Ebola or smallpox. National Guard forces would be diverted for homeland security missions and thus not be available for contingencies elsewhere or to support major regional wars. Military forces also would suffer direct casualties from such an attack, as the same invasive microbes or pathogens that attack the civilian population would attack military personnel. Whole Army divisions and specialized units could be rendered physically ineffective from an invasive disease. The ensuing psychological impact would be immense. Third, invasive species could diminish the industrial capability and productivity of the United States to support a war. Resources used to mobilize the nation's industrial base conceivably would be diverted to control the effects of the invasive species. Personnel needed to support industry and augment military forces could be incapacitated or be unwilling to work in areas where they would be exposed to infectious bacteria. Invasive species might directly attack timber or other natural resources used as raw material for industry, thereby forcing the United States to rely on imports or other expensive alternatives for raw materials.

Increase in shipping vastly increases the risk of invasive species – turns bioDRogers 2014 (Jillian Rogers, 6/7/14 “With increase in shipping, Arctic braces for influx of invasive species” correspondent for The Arctic Sounder. Alaska Dispatch News. http://www.adn.com/node/1592511?sp=/99/188/) JTE

There are millions of stowaways headed for a Arctic.¶ Sea-dwelling organisms that could wreak massacre on Arctic ecosystems are stealing in and on ships that increasingly are regulating shipping routes in a North.¶ A news published by Whitman Miller, an ecologist during a Marine Invasions Research Laboratory during a Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, says that invasive class are unfailing for a Arctic with a glass of vessels.¶ Melting sea ice has non-stop routes in a Arctic — a Northwest Passage and a Northern Sea Route — creation a quicker trail from one side of a universe to a other.¶ “The mercantile pull of a Arctic is enormous,” Miller wrote in a report. “Whether it’s larger entrance to a region’s abounding healthy apparatus pot or cheaper and faster inter-ocean blurb trade, Arctic shipping will reshape universe markets.¶ “If unchecked, these activities will vastly change a sell of invasive species, generally opposite a Arctic, north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans.”¶ Organisms from ports can adhere to a undersides of a ship’s carcass or seat down in a vast tanks of seawater inside a ship.¶ “Ships are relocating over a Arctic and can lift a extensive series of class in their counterbalance H2O … joining ports in a approach that

they have not been connected before,” Miller pronounced recently.¶ The risk lies in a contingency of these critters holding over their new sourroundings and murdering off local species.¶ NATIVE SPECIES AT RISK¶ Miller pronounced that for a past century or so, ships trafficked between oceans by a Panama or Suez canals. Both offering warm, pleasant water, and heat highlight mostly killed or break hangers-on.¶ “In a Panama Canal, class on a hulls of ships also had to cope with a pointy change in salinity, from sea to totally uninformed water,” a news said. “The Arctic passages enclose usually cold, sea water.”¶ If class are means to tarry cold temperatures, a contingency of flourishing in a Arctic are good.¶ Water in counterbalance tanks is used to change and stabilise ships. Ocean glass is sucked in and separate out accordingly, organisms and all, depending on a ship’s bucket and conditions.¶ “Typically this is finished in coastal waters and in ports where you’re offloading or loading cargo, and in doing so, you’re not only holding water, you’re holding all a biological and planktonic communities with that water,” Miller said.¶ “The intensity biological cocktail that we can order is flattering staggering,” Miller said.¶ Ballast tanks on vast ships can reason adult to 100,000 metric tons of water, Miller said. And once we start augmenting that by a series of vessels streamer north, a volume of H2O and vital organisms exchanged is enormous.¶ When a class arrives in a new environment, it has no determined predators ,

pronounced Gary Freitag, a sea biologist with a Marine Advisory Program in Ketchikan.¶ “They have a bent to chase on a local species, eat a food of a local class and take over medium of a local species,” he said. “And in many cases, they’re a

small some-more volatile since if they’re means to settle in an unknown habitat, they’re flattering stretchable critters.”¶ If left unchecked, invasive class widespread rapidly; they can be formidable to detect until a repairs is done.¶ “We don’t utterly know what will occur in a Arctic since we haven’t gifted invasive class unequivocally in a Arctic yet,” Freitag said.¶ A few years ago, Freitag trafficked to a North Slope to collect information from a waters off Point Barrow. The bid was stymied by a storm, he said, though he is formulation some-more work in a North.¶ A stream hazard in other tools of Alaska is a European immature crab, a audacious crustacean that can flower in a accumulation of climates.¶ Other crabs and tunicates — a many common called “rock vomit” — are also on a list of invasive class infecting Alaska waters.¶ Some of a most-wanted are found sticking to a ship’s hulls, while others float in counterbalance tanks.¶ In a year, 50 to 60 million metric tons of H2O comes to a U.S. from abroad around counterbalance water.

Alaska is particularly vulnerable to invasive species – shipping increase risks ecosystem collapseVerna 2014 (Danielle E. Verna ¶April 2014 “INFLUENCES OF POLICY AND VESSEL BEHAVIOR ON THE RISK OF BALLAST-BORNE MARINE SPECIES INVASIONS IN COASTAL ALASKA” Master of Science in Environmental Science from Alaska Pacific University. http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3317211351/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=n63AEveAdxqFeEUbS9WahtWH1YE%3D) JTE

Marine species have been transported globally since the days of sailing ships. ¶ Organisms were attached to or buried inside wooden hulls or stowed away on dry ballast ¶ such as coastal rocks, sand or gravel. As shipping evolved into a prominent means of ¶ transportation and exploration, the number, size and speed of vessels transiting the ¶ oceans rose dramatically, increasing opportunities for marine hitchhikers. The ¶ development of steam technology and steel-hulled vessels signified yet another major ¶ turning point in the transport of marine species – seawater as ballast. From a shipping ¶ standpoint, ballast water is logistically simple, efficient, and universally available. Yet for ¶ its advantages, ballast water quickly became a primary vector for the relocation of ¶ marine species (Carlton & Geller, 1993).

The introduction of alien marine species via ¶ ship ballast has had biological, economic and social consequences on ecosystems ¶ worldwide (Ruiz et al., 2000, Pimentel et al., 2005, Pysek & Richardson, 2010). ¶ Unfortunately,

although recognized as a problem for at least the past 100 years, the ¶ management of ballast water for the prevention of marine

invasive species was and ¶ continues to be a slow and reactionary process (Firestone & Corbett, 2005, Gollasch et ¶ al., 2007). ¶ In the United States, ballast water management (BWM) regulations evolved from ¶ limited and voluntary to widespread and mandatory (Figure 1.1). As global and national ¶ awareness of the hazards associated with marine invasive species rose, in addition to ¶ the risks posed by continued invasions, so did the strength and reach of BWM ¶ requirements for the shipping industry. However, exemptions to policy allowed specific ¶ vessel types and vessel transits to elude these requirements, affecting some port ¶ systems more than others. ¶ In particular the state of Alaska has seen firsthand the implications of these ¶ policy exemptions. The majority of ballast water discharged in Alaska has historically ¶ been unmanaged – compounded by young age and uneven spatial distribution of ¶ discharge locations. Ballast reporting data suggest a relationship between policy and ¶ vessel practices. However, Alaska-bound vessel traffic patterns and ballast management ¶ efforts have not been analyzed since 2004 (McGee et al., 2006). Since then, there have ¶ been significant improvements in data quality, quantity and continuity allowing for a more ¶ thorough assessment of ballast water discharge and management practices in ports and ¶ places throughout the state.]

Arctic safe from invasive species now – plan increases tanker traffic in Alaska – spreads new species which cannot be containedVerna 2014 (Danielle E. Verna ¶April 2014 “INFLUENCES OF POLICY AND VESSEL BEHAVIOR ON THE RISK OF BALLAST-BORNE MARINE SPECIES INVASIONS IN COASTAL ALASKA” Master of Science in Environmental Science from Alaska Pacific University. http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3317211351/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=n63AEveAdxqFeEUbS9WahtWH1YE%3D) JTE

¶ Marine invasive species have the potential to cause significant harm worldwide, ¶ ¶ but are a particular concern to coastal Alaska, which has remained relatively un-invaded . ¶ ¶ The management of ballast water to reduce

introductions of marine invasive species has ¶ ¶ progressed substantially since efforts first began nearly 25 years ago, but exemptions ¶ ¶

from management and reporting practices for crude oil tankers involved in coastwise ¶ ¶ trade allowed for unnecessary risk to Alaska. To effectively manage this risk we (1) ¶ ¶ reviewed the history and drivers of ballast water management policy, (2) assessed how ¶ ¶ changes to policy in turn influenced vessel behavior, and (3) analyzed how vessel ¶ ¶ behavior influenced risk of invasion. ¶ ¶ An analysis of vessel traffic patterns and ballast water management and ¶ ¶ discharge data for Alaska from 2005 through 2012 describes the tremendous impact that ¶ ¶ the Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessel General Permit had on tanker reporting ¶

¶ effort between 2008 and 2009. Refining the analysis to post-VGP data (2009 through ¶ ¶ 2012) reveals general trends of vessel types, source locations and management rates ¶ ¶ that influence the risk of species invasions to Alaska. Tankers, the dominant vessel type ¶ ¶ discharging ballast water in Alaska, tend to discharge relatively young, unmanaged ¶ ¶ ballast sourced from locations on the west coast of North America with high ballastborne invasive species richness . Bulkers, the second most dominant vessel type to ¶ ¶ discharge ballast water in Alaska, tend to discharge relatively older, managed ballast ¶ ¶ water sourced from overseas locations with relatively low invasive species richness. ¶ ¶ A specific look at the top 15 ports with the highest

ballast discharge volume of ¶ ¶ Alaska shows that ports at greatest risk of ballast-borne species invasions tend to ¶ ¶ receive a high volume of relatively young and unmanaged ballast water from source ¶ ¶ ports with similar environmental conditions known to host invasive species. Our multifactor vector based risk matrix revealed that Valdez, Drift River Terminal, Nikiski, and ¶ ¶ Dutch Harbor may be hotspots for potential invasion whereas Klawock and Tolstoi Bay ¶ ¶ have relatively low risk. Our risk assessment of coastal Alaska has identified those ports ¶ ¶ in greatest need of management attention. Compounded by expected increases in ¶ ¶ vessel traffic and potential influences of climate change, managing this risk is vital to ¶ ¶ reducing the potential impacts of marine invasive species in the state.

Warming Turn

New shipping lanes exacerbates warmingStorey 2014 (Ian Storey is a Senior Fellow at ISEAS, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, (“Will Arctic Shipping Routes Eat Singapore’s Lunch? Not Anytime Soon, and Maybe Never”, April 28, 2014, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/documents/publication/ISEAS_Perspective_2014_27-Arctic_Shipping_Routes_rev2.pdf) JTE

Will increased shipping on the NSR mitigate climate change? Not necessarily . While the NSR reduces the geographical distance between Europe and Asia, ice will always be present along the route even during the summer, and pushing through ice requires ships to burn more fuel than on the open sea. Vessels traversing Arctic waters require heating for crew members and even for certain kinds of cargo which can be damaged by low temperatures, both of which increase fuel burn. Ice-strengthened ships are heavier than other kinds of vessels and consume greater amounts of fuel . Most importantly, ocean-going vessels today burn low-quality fuels that emit a fine particulate matter known as black carbon. Deposits of black carbon in the Arctic reduces the reflectivity of ice thus increasing heat absorption and hence ice-melt .16

Until green ship technologies become widely available, therefore, increased traffic on the NSR could actually exacerbate global warming.

Shipping creates hot spots Hasselov et al 2013 (Ida-Maja Hassellöv1,*, David R. Turner2, Axel Lauer3,4 andJames J. Corbett, Ida-Maja Hassellöv received partial support from Chalmers Area of Advance Transport; Axel Lauer was supported by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), by NASA through grant NNX07AG53G, and by NOAA through grant NA09OAR4320075, which sponsor research at the International Pacific Research Center; James Corbett received partial support from the University of Delaware School of Marine Science and Policy, and from Energy and Environmental Research Associates, (“Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification”, july 18, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/337na5.pdf//) JTE

Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal ‘hot spots’ of ocean acidification , a

recent study finds. These hot spots, in ocean areas close to busy shipping lanes, could have negative effects on local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood species. Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification Oceans have become more acidic since pre-industrial times. The average global ocean pH – which decreases

with increasing acidity – has dropped by 0.1 because the seas have absorbed 30-40% of manmade CO2. However, it is not only CO2 that can acidify oceans. Shipping emissions, a significant source of atmospheric pollution, annually release around 9.5 million metric tons of sulphur and 16.2 million metric tons of nitric oxides. When

dissolved in seawater, these pollutants are converted into the strong sulphuric and nitric acids, adding to ocean acidification. Increasing acidity poses a threat to marine ecosystems, harming species such as coral and algae , as well as commercial aquaculture species, such as shellfish. The researchers used state of the art computer modelling techniques and datasets to create a high resolution simulation of global shipping emissions’ effects on ocean acidity. The simulation calculated the acidifying impacts of shipping sulphur and nitric oxide emissions on a month by month basis, over one year. In addition to shipping-related influences on acidity, the model also included many physical and environmental factors, such as ocean surface water mixing and atmospheric effects. The results agreed with previous studies of the average annual ocean acidification, but, importantly, revealed significant differences between regions and seasons. Ocean acidification was highest in the northern hemisphere, occurring in ‘hot spots’ close to coastal areas and busy shipping lanes during the summer months. These ‘hot spots’ coincide with peak activity of some biological processes, such as plankton blooms and fish hatching, where they may cause greater harm. On a local scale, the acidification – a pH drop of 0.0015-0.0020 – was equal to CO2’s global annual acidifying effects. The model did not include some coastal ocean areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as there were limitations in the oceanographic atlases used. However, acidification is likely to be high in these areas given the heavy shipping traffic from ports. International regulation is in place to reduce shipping atmospheric sulphur emissions through the International Maritime Organization’s Emission Control Areas (ECA), which are in force in four ocean areas, including the Baltic and North Seas. One technology commonly used to achieve ECA targets is ‘seawater scrubbing’, where exhaust pollutants are removed using seawater. This study drew on data from 2000 and 2002, prior to the enforcement of ECAs. However, the researchers note that seawater scrubbing, without additional steps to neutralise the acids that it produces, causes acidification in regions where biodiversity or commercial aquaculture may be most negatively

affected. These previously overlooked sources of ocean acidification and policy impacts could be used to inform future discussions of controls relating to shipping emissions or ocean acidification.

That devastates the arctic -- extinctionSolbu 2013 (Erlend Lånke Solbu works for the The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and writes for ScienceNordic, (‘Arctic waters growing alarmingly acidic”, May 11, 2013, http://sciencenordic.com/arctic-waters-growing-alarmingly-acidic//) JTE

The seas of the world are becoming increasingly acidic and the Arctic is hardest hit. Scientists think that by the year 2100 the Arctic Ocean will be twice as acidic as it is today. Particularly vulnerable The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) engaged an international group of researchers to study the acidification of the Arctic. Today, after three years of studies, the results have been presented at the AMAP International Conference on Arctic Ocean Acidification in Bergen. The main conclusions are: The oceans are becoming more acidic. Marine acidification is the result of the seas absorbing huge amounts of CO2 caused by human activities. In the past 200 years the average degree of acidity in ocean surface waters has increased 30 percent worldwide. The ocean in the Arctic region is especially vulnerable. CO2 is more readily absorbed in cold water and the increasing flow of fresh water reduces the ocean’s capabilities of neutralising acidification. In central areas of

the ocean in the Arctic the acidification is more extensive, especially because surface water in these areas is so heavily affected. As the food chains in the Arctic are relatively short and simple, marine ecosystems are succeptible to changes when external factors impact key species. “Something totally unique is happening. This is the first time we humans are actually changing the entire planet. We are acidifying the oceans. Our most optimistic prediction is that the seas will be twice as acidic within a few decades − by the end of this century,” says the marine and evolutionary biologist Sam Dupont of the University of Gothenburg in a press release. Dupont points out that this problem is accelerating in the Arctic. “So the big question is what consequences the ocean acidification will have on the arctic species, ecosystems and the functions they have.” A global problem The researcher group writes that the oceans’ ability to absorb the

greenhouse gas carbon dioxide has strongly diminished. The CO2 currently in the atmosphere and that which will be discharged in coming decades will make ocean acidification a global problem. “A lot of changes can occur in the Arctic marine ecosystems and in geochemical systems. Changes have traditionally been about warming, increases in fresh water and changes in the influx of nutrients. Now we have what we could call a ‘new kind on the block’ – ocean acidification,” says Senior Researcher Richard Bellerby at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) and the Bjerknes Centre in a press release. He explains that the sea has done us all a great service in protecting the climate the last 200 years by acting as a carbon sink, absorbing huge amounts of CO2. The sea has absorbed about half the CO2 we have discharged since the industrial revolution and still takes about 25 percent. Domino effect Ocean acidification affects marine ecosystems and the relatively short food chains in the Arctic are especially vulnerable. Only limited research has been conducted on the problem to date but the scientists behind the report say studies give grounds for concern about various organisms that can be affected by the ocean acidification – directly or indirectly. “One example is the possible extinction of types of the starfish brittle stars. If you expose their eggs to the degrees of acidification we expect in a few decades they die within a few days,” says Dupont. He points out that while we might not care about this species, other species that live on brittle stars will be impacted when they die out: “Scientists think that similar effects will occur in the Arctic and that they can be even more severe in this region.” Impacting life in the Arctic Humans will also be the losers as marine ecosystems collapse. It will affect commercial fishing in the rich northern waters and undermine the way of life

and food supplies for indigenous peoples in the Arctic. “Changes in the sea will affect human life in the Arctic in many ways, primarily economically. When fish get scarcer, those whose lives are based on fishing will be impacted. The same goes for the fishing industry,” points out Professor Rashid Sumaila of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit of University of British Columbia. “We will also notice an effect on tourism and outdoor life. People come from all over the world to experience animal life in the Arctic. This too will be affected by the changes. If there are no animals to see, nobody will come.”

Oil Spill Turn

Opening the NSR will cause an inevitable oil spill Arctic Info 2013, (“Infrastructure of the Northern Sea Route and Environmental Protection in the Arctic (Federal Media Monitoring: August 19-25, 2013”, http://www.arctic-info.com/FederalMonitoringMedia/Page/infrastructure-of-the-northern-sea-rofute-and-environmental-protection-in-the-arctic--federal-media-monitoring--august-19-25--2013-//)JTE

Another problem associated with the opening of the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic in general is the lack of an effective system to prevent oil spills and industrial disasters in the Arctic , which could have very serious consequences for the global environment . As shown by the media, the Russian authorities and oil and gas companies understand the seriousness of the problem. Last week, at a conference in Naryan-Mar, representatives from the authorities and oil and gas companies discussed how to make industrial development in the Arctic safe. During the conference a rescue centre was opened in the capital of the Nenets Autonomous District and it is thought that the opening of similar centres along the entire length of the Northern Sea Route will make industrial activity in the waters of the Arctic Ocean safer. In addition to this, Rosneft, by conducting hydrological and meteorological research in the Arctic seas, is trying to show the public that the industrial development of Arctic Shelf is based on scientific evidence on the state of the environment in the region, and therefore has a high level of environmental safety. The route is very beneficial for us, but it also creates problems. How can we effectively monitor all the possible types of environmental pollution? How can we react quickly to emergency situations? At present - and this figure also was mentioned at the Conference - the time taken for rescue equipment to reach the Arctic in the event of a disaster is, on average, 7 days. This is not just a long time; if we are talking about a fire on the rig, for example, or a burst oil pipeline, it is an eternity. What can be done? This is why the countries of the Arctic Council meet at these conferences. This is because, if there is a major disaster - and all the Arctic countries agree on this point - no one country will be able to cope on its own (Emergency Arctic, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 22.08.2013). The Arctic zone of Russia contains nuclear power stations and nuclear-powered icebreaker and warship bases, as well as chemically hazardous and explosive items and important elements of communication, which could be sources of anthropogenic disasters. The centre was opened during the international conference Problems of the Prevention and Elimination of Emergency Situations in the Arctic, including Issues of Oil Spills which took place in Naryan Mar on August 20-22. It is planned that a total of 10 emergency rescue centres will be set up in the Arctic. The main facilities will be in the major centres in Naryan-Mar, Dudinka and Pevek. EMERCOM (Emergency Ministry) bases will also appear in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Vorkuta, Nadym, Anadyr, Tiksi and the town of Providence (First Arctic EMERCOM centre opened in Naryan-Mar, Vzglyad, 20.08.2013). Rosneft has made another step towards the practical development of the Arctic Shelf. The expedition Kara-summer-2013, held jointly by the state company and the Federal State Budgetary Institution Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute has now come to an end. Over a period of 30 days, from on board the scientific expedition vessel Akademik Fedorov, the expedition team carried out extensive research of the hydrological and meteorological conditions of the Kara Sea, monitored the outlet glaciers of the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya and also performed a comprehensive analysis of ice conditions and determined the drift of icebergs and their morphometric characteristics. On the East coast of Novaya Zemlya, where for almost 20 years there have been no regular observations, freestanding meteorological stations have been set up, which now transmit data on the weather conditions in the western part of the Russian Arctic (Akademik Fedorov evaluates the ice conditions, Trud, 20.08.2013). But, as recent events have shown, international environmental organisations do not trust Rosneft’s statements, basing their scepticism on data which indicates that the state company occupies one of the top spots in terms of oil spills. One year ago, Greenpeace attacked Gazprom Neft as it was about to start production on the Prirazlomnaya platform; now it is Rosneft’s turn. After the visit to the Barents Sea, which was detailed in a previous review, the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise was going to sail to the Kara Sea, but this was stopped by the Administration of the Northern Sea Route, as it did not believe that the ship conformed to the ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean. This led to a dispute in which Greenpeace accused the Russian authorities of encouraging the environmental “irresponsibility” of the oil company, in response to which Rosneft ironically offered to give the ecologists a television set in order to receive objective information. Following this, the Greenpeace ship defied the ban by the Russian authorities and headed into the Kara Sea, which is involved in yet another scandal concerning the development of the Arctic. Foreign representatives of Greenpeace said more bluntly: "The refusal to allow the Greenpeace icebreaker access is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle peaceful protest and keep international attention away from Arctic oil exploration in Russia,” said the Coordinator of Greenpeace Arctic programme Christy Ferguson from on board the Arctic Sunrise. “The Arctic Sunrise is a fully equipped icebreaker with significant experience of operating in the Arctic Ocean, and it has a higher ice classification than many Rosneft vessels. Ferguson said the decision to ban was contrary to international law and the right to freedom of navigation. "It confirms once again the relationship between the Russian government and the oil companies," she said (Arctic not for the "greens", Gazeta.ru, 21.08.2013). Rosneft was surprised by statements from Greenpeace that the exploration of the Barents Sea is detrimental to the environment. Rosneft conducts work in compliance with all international requirements and standards, said the company’s official representative, Vladimir Tyulin, to Prime agency. "If Greenpeace employees spend all of the organisation’s money on propaganda and are unable to follow the news, Rosneft is willing to give the organisation a TV at least to give them access to objective information," he said (Rosneft wants to give Greenpeace a TV for "objective information", Kommersant, 21.08.2013). Oil spills are a regular occurence at the company’s facilities, argues Greenpeace, and the total amount is supposedly such that Rosneft occupies first place in terms of spillages among the world's largest oil companies. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen with the Arctic waters, if such careful workers set about

exploring the deposits at the bottom of the sea. By some strange coincidence, this unenviable leadership of Rosneft is barely featured on the television programme Oil on the channel Rossiya 24. At least the various successes and triumphs of Rosneft are mentioned in this programme much more often. This is probably exactly what Rosneft considers “objective information” (Rosneft covers up an Arctic disaster, Sobesednik, 23.08.2013).

ExtinctionWWF 2010 (World Wildlife Foundation funded by the NOAA, (“Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky”, 2010, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_Soon_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131%27)JTE

Planetary Keystone The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is

not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the rest of the world . With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. H eat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years. In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet. Unfortunately, some of these disruptions are happening already as climate change melts sea ice and thaws the Arctic tundra. The Arctic’s sea ice cover reflects sunlight and therefore heat. As the ice melts, that heat is absorbed by the salt water, whose temperature, salinity and density all begin to change in ways that impact global ocean circulation patterns. On land, beneath the Arctic tundra, are immense pools of frozen methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. As the tundra thaws, the risk of this methane escaping increases.4 Were this to happen, the consequences would be dire and global in scope. As we continue not just to spill but to burn the fossil fuels that cause climate change, we are nudging the Arctic toward a meltdown that will make sea levels and temperatures rise even faster, with potentially catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth—no matter where one lives it. For the sake of the planet, losing the Arctic is not an option. Mitigating the impact of climate change there ultimately depends upon our getting serious about replacing fossil fuels with non-carbon-based renewable energies. Until we demonstrate the will and good sense to do that, however, the Arctic needs to be protected from other environmental threats that, compounded by the stress of climate change, undermine its resiliency and hasten its demise. Chief among those threats is offshore drilling—especially in the absence of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. Future technological advances may give us those means, but this report argues that we do not have them yet and that we should not drill in the Arctic until we do. II. ARCTIC OIL SPILL RISKS AND IMPACTS Until the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound stood as the worst in U.S. history—one whose ecological impacts are still being felt today, more than 20 years later. There have been other spills, both on and off Alaskan shores, since then—including one in the Aleutians in 2004 and another in Prudhoe Bay in 2006. But until now, a major spill has not occurred in the Arctic. This is not due to an exemplary safety record, but to the fact that most of the Arctic has been inaccessible to offshore oil and gas exploration because of its remoteness and extreme environment . However, as rising global temperatures start to melt the sea ice that has been the Arctic’s first line of defense against an encroaching world, all this is changing. Within 20 years—perhaps sooner, according to some researchers—the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer.5 The long-sought Northwest Passage will soon be open to transoceanic shipping throughout much or even most of the year. New oceanic routes made possible by changing sea ice conditions mean more shipping, with increased probabilities of accidents and oil spills.6 Existing routes will become more congested with vessel traffic carrying oil both as cargo and fuel. New sea routes will be exposed to the risk of pollution and spills for the first time. The world’s major oil companies also are gearing up for what, if it is not carefully managed, could be the next Gold Rush—a race to mine Arctic waters for what the U.S. Geological Survey describes as possibly the “largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.”7 Indeed, the rush has already started. In 2008, its last year in office, the Bush Administration opened a vast area of the Chukchi Sea to leasing for the first time in more than a decade. Oil companies bid nearly $3.4 billion—a record amount—on 488 blocks within the nearly 30 million acres opened for drilling, in spite of the fact that little is yet known about the impacts drilling would have on the marine environment.8 Marine spills can result from any phase of oil extraction, storage or transportation: from well blowouts during subsea exploration or production, acute or slow releases from subsea pipelines, releases from on-land storage tanks or pipelines that travel to water, or accidents involving oil transportation vessels or vessels carrying large quantities of fuel oil. Dynamic ice cover, low temperatures, reduced visibility or complete darkness, high winds, and extreme storms add to the probability of an accident or error in the harsh Arctic environment.9 The sea ice may be melting, but the Arctic is, and will remain, among the harshest, coldest and most remote places on Earth. Just as the risks of a spill could be greater in the Arctic, so could the impacts. Oil persists longer in Arctic conditions, both because it

evaporates more slowly and because it can get trapped in or under ice, which makes it less accessible to bacterial degradation. Population recovery after exposure to an oil spill also may be slow because many Arctic species have relatively long life spans and slower generational turnover.10 Recently published research suggests that the long-term consequences of oil spills to temperate and subarctic coastal environments may persist well beyond initial projections.11 Similar impacts also could prevail along Arctic shorelines. Arctic wildlife particularly sensitive to oil drilling and/or pollution include seabirds, polar bears, bearded and ribbon seals, walruses, and beluga and bowhead whales. Polar bears rely on both their body fat and dense fur for insulation and will vigorously groom themselves in an attempt to clean their fur if it becomes contaminated by oil, studies have shown. Aspiration or ingestion of the oil can cause renal failure and dysfunction of red blood cell production and lead to death. The bears are also highly sensitive to disturbances during denning, with most of their dens located on sea ice plates.12 Walruses in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas spend about a third of their time hauled out on ice sheets and, like polar bears, are extremely sensitive to habitat disturbances like those that would be caused by response activities. Beluga and bowhead whales follow wind and ocean currents as they travel through the Chukchi and Beaufort seas along migration routes that, because they are likely to be coincident with the trajectory of an oil spill, can increase their exposure to toxic contamination. Whales also are highly sensitive to noise, such as that which would be produced by seismic exploration activities. Since oil trapped under ice in the fall or winter can be released with the spring melt, an Arctic oil spill can affect wildlife not only at the time of the spill itself, but seasons later.

Alaskan Port Advantage One port cannot solve and the port wont be ready for at least 16 years, too long to solve.Restino 2014 (Carey Restino, “Study on Arctic port for Alaska delayed” The Arctic Sounder. Alaska Dispatch News. http://www.adn.com/article/20140215/study-arctic-port-alaska-delayed. February 15, 2014) JTE

But those studying Alaska’s Arctic port needs quickly realized no single port was likely going to be sufficient. Instead, it was prudent to consider a combination of several ports that together would provide the needed infrastructure to serve the region, said Cordova.¶ Unfortunately, having to study multiple ports at once has slowed the process, she said. Each of those ports could have a variety of different configurations -- how deep a draft to dig, what infrastructure is added shoreside, and whether roads should connect the ports, for example, offered many variables for those studying the problem to consider.¶ “The process is not working as well as I would like,” Cordova told legislators at a recent Joint

Transportation Committee meeting. “We are now up to 23 alternatives we are looking at. Rather than narrowing it down, we have somehow managed to make it bigger.”¶ That’s going to push the planned March deadline for releasing a final recommendation back several months, she said. Now, the corps hopes to have narrowed down the possible port variations to a single recommendation by March so that they can proceed with the final pieces of their study, such as estimating real estate costs and final figures of construction estimates.¶ But Cordova did say the cost estimate is likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the project, a cost that will likely be shared between the federal government and the state. Costs for the construction of the actual ports is typically shared, with federal coffers footing 65 percent of the bill while the state pays for 35 percent. But that’s an oversimplified explanation, Cordova said, and doesn’t include the cost of infrastructure on land, such as improvements to airport landing strips, road construction or other facilities, the cost of which is generally not federally funded.¶ Legislators also asked Cordova to estimate when she could imagine the first ship pulling into this Arctic port. If everything went perfectly from here on out, the study is based on a completion date of 2020, she said. But that is unlikely.¶ “The stars would really have to be aligned for 2020 to occur,” she said. “The more pessimistic side of me would put it out at 2030.”

Alaskan infrastructure fails; massive maintenance costs, erosion, weather, lack of daylight, etc..DoD 11 (US Department of Defense (“Report to Congress on Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage” May 2011; < http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Tab_A_Arctic_Report_Public.pdf>JTE

Because of the range and severity of Arctic conditions, climatic, hydrologic, topographic, and geographic factors must all be considered in site selection for any infrastructure in this region. The environment desired

inside buildings is usually drastically different from ambient conditions, placing additional stresses on building components. Some important considerations for infrastructure in the Arctic include: condensation control, structural design ventilation, snow load, snow accumulation and drifting potential, and roof drainage, among others detailed in the Unified Facilities Criteria manuals.17 When infrastructure is sited along the coast, erosion, silting, sea ice variability, and coastal dynamics must also be considered. The ice movement means that

conventional pier construction is rarely feasible. An additional consideration is the months of almost continuous daylight in summer, followed by winter months of almost complete darkness, a variation that becomes more extreme as one goes further north. Construction in the Arctic is seasonal and skilled labor is usually in short supply; therefore, costs for both construction and maintenance are high . The need to provide room and

board at remote locations, decreased efficiency of workers and machinery in extreme environmental conditions, and the difficulties, costs, and risks in shipping materials and equipment add to the challenge. Because of the short construction season, outside work must be accomplished quickly, dictating a high degree of expensive prefabricated construction. During ice-free periods, the most economical means of transportation is by barge. During the winter, transportation over frozen rivers and lakes may be more economical than air transportation. But delays in shipping equipment due to weather can result in prolonged construction times and expensive emergency air freight costs. Construction in the Arctic costs, as a rule of thumb, three to five times more than comparable infrastructure in lower latitudes. Another challenge to bear in mind is the risk to existing infrastructure posed by thawing permafrost. As the permafrost thaws, it loses strength and volume, leading to failure of foundations and piling. The warming climate will also accelerate the erosion of shorelines and riverbanks, threatening infrastructure located on eroding shorelines.

Oil Spills Advantage

An international agreement is already in place to clean up spills if they were to happen – plan’s not necessaryBoyd 2013 (Alex Boyd, graduate of the Master of Journalism program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, Bachelor of Anthropology degree from the University of Alberta, co-recipient of the Norwegian High North Journalism Award sponsored by the Norwegian Embassy in Canada, Barents Observer “Binding oil spill agreement signed”, May 15th 2013 online: http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2013/05/binding-oil-spill-agreement-signed-15-05) JTE

The Arctic Council is an international forum for discussion and debate on important Arctic issues . Where it’s

sometimes less successful is in reaching agreement.¶ But it now has one more binding agreement to its name. The Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic—the Council’s second ever binding agreement—was signed by all eight Arctic ministers this morning.¶ In the event of an oil spill anywhere in the ecologically sensitive Arctic region, this new agreement is the tool the circumpolar countries are hoping will help them work together to clean it up. It sets out guidelines for things like communicating between countries, coordinating personnel and figuring out who needs to do what.¶ Although the product of a Arctic Council task force, the agreement was negotiated by and agreed to by all eight countries.¶ It also

means that the Arctic countries are required to notify each other should there be an oil spill—from any source—anywhere in the Arctic.¶ In a presentation after the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, Ambassador David Balton, an American marine conservation expert and the co-chair of the task force, said “the prospect of a potential oil spill event in the Arctic is very much on people’s minds.”¶ There’s no question that a changing Arctic means melting polar ice and a lot more open ocean. Which means, “we are anticipating—despite what some protesters may say—that there will be increased oil and gas development,” Balton said.¶ More oil and gas development means more tankers in Arctic waters, which means the possibility of an oil spill in the Arctic has moved beyond the hypothetical.¶ Although this is not the first agreement to attempt to sort out what happens when oil spills in international waters, Balton said it’s the first “pan-Arctic agreement” that combines duties and obligations for all the Arctic countries.¶

No spills – Drilling will be safe if it happensOssipov 2013 (Igor Ossipov. M.A. 'Distinction' Higher School of Economics / Univeristy of Kent. December 11th, 2013. The Arctic Frontier – “Armed with Cooperation”.http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/casingpoint/?id_4=868) JTE

With a series of major accidents that rocked the tabloids it can easily feel that the big oil business is all about profits with no regard for the environment. It may well be the case for some firms; however it is not the case in the Arctic. If we recall those series of major accidents, the Exxon Valdez spill of the coast of Alaska had a total cost of $5-9 billion, as about 40-72,000 tons leaked into the water in 1989. It was not too severe as the cargo was not too large nor did the oil hit ice. In 2002 the Prestige grounded near Spain costing

€5 billion as 64,000 tons of mazut hit the coast. In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon Incident broke all records as the most infamous and biggest oil spill in history. This tragic event not only took the lives of 11 people, but only a small portion of the oil was successfully removed, or burned, leaving huge pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, BP who charted the drilling platform ended up with a cleaning up and damages bill of $25 billion as well as more than $40 billion in asset losses (Business Week, 2013). As David Hayes outlined, the potential of such disaster is unthinkable for any firm in the Arctic. It would far exceed the Gulf of Mexico incident and likely wipe out even one of the global oil majors. To no surprise not many take on this region. As A. Krivorotov of Shtokman Development Company highlighted Royal Dutch Shell is the most active with investments of $4.5 billion, but most cannot enter the market due to risk or huge costs. Even the French oil supermajor Total had to exit, whereas Exxon Mobil that receives a lot of public attention in the region is highly selective. As LUKoil's Alexander Abashin outlined Russian firms are not left behind either, as his major invests 10% of their investment in selected areas towards safety and even though there is competition amongst LUKoil and Gazprom, they have a deal in place to assist each other in the event of an accident. As clear there is a change of behaviour towards the Arctic as no corporate headperson wants to attend the funeral of their firm and their likely career, but aside from majors, state governments are also doing their bit. Hayes stressed that the US is forcing firms like Shell to only enter the Arctic if they bring

their best equipment and know-how. As the Arctic is absent of infrastructure and there is no stationed tools in the case of an accident, so a major cannot just try to redirect from nearby. USA has demanded that capping-stacks are always available if drilling as well as oil well replacement parts and special collector vessels that can quickly sweep up spills if they do occur. In 2012 drilling was postponed as Shell did not have such vessels in the vicinity, as the risk of oil hitting ice is unthinkable – purely because there is no technology that can clean or collect oil back under ice. In May 2013 President Obama also launched an Integrated Arctic Management System, whereby any construction of ports or oil type installations had to be openly discussed with all the potential stakeholders as the US hopes to avoid such an event whereby investment is made that soon becomes unnecessary. In all, from an American perspective, we must be realistic that oil production will take place as at the end almost everything is ran on oil, but it must be done in the safest of ways for this region. As Hayes puts it, USA has a “managed approach”.

Oil companies won’t drill in arcticCockerman 2014 (Sean Cockerman. Sean Cockerham is a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, based in Washington, D.C. He writes for the Anchorage Daily News and the Idaho Statesman.January 30th,2014. “Shell won't drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year”. http://www.adn.com/2014/01/30/3298785/shell-abandons-plans-for-alaska.html)

WASHINGTON -- Royal Dutch Shell is abandoning hopes of drilling in the Arctic waters off Alaska this year, the latest blow to the company's effort to exploit huge potential in the petroleum-rich but sensitive region. The decision came as Shell reported a steep drop in earnings and its new CEO announced plans to restructure operations to improve

the company's cash flow. CEO Ben van Beurden cited last week's court ruling that threw offshore Arctic oil leases into question. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with environmental and Alaska Native groups that the federal government had underestimated how much oil drilling would happen when it sold the leases in 2008.

Van Beurden told investors that the ruling raised "substantial obstacles" for Shell's plans in Alaska waters. "This is a disappointing outcome, but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014," he told the investors Thursday. "We will look to relevant agencies and the court to resolve their open legal issues as quickly as possible." Van Beurden told reporters in London that, in addition to not drilling the Arctic waters in 2014, "we are reviewing our options there." Shell and others had explored offshore in the Alaska Arctic in the 1980s and early 1990s. But before Shell's recent push there had been little activity in the last two decades and none by Shell. A series of mishaps doomed its 2012 effort. Those included the grounding of a drilling rig, reports of safety and environmental violations, and fines for breaking air pollution limits. Ken Salazar, the interior secretary at the time, said Shell "screwed up" the historic Arctic effort. The Coast Guard conducted a full marine casualty investigation into the circumstances of the grounding. But its report has not yet been released. The problems led Shell to drop plans to drill last year, but it had interest in resuming this year if the federal government agreed to issue permits. Shell has spent almost $6 billion so far on its Arctic offshore effort, the company said Thursday. "We needed more certainty and didn't get it, making it impossible to justify the commitment of resources needed to explore safely in 2014," Pete Slaiby, Shell's vice president for Alaska, said in an email. It has yet to extract oil or even drill a single, complete well. While Salazar allowed Shell to start wells in both the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in 2012, the company wasn't allowed to drill into oil-rich geologic zones because its novel oil-spill containment dome failed tests. The entire drilling season was shortened because of a series of equipment problems. Environmental groups hailed Shell's decision to suspend the effort. "Shell is finally recognizing what we've been saying all along, that offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business perspective," said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana's vice president for U.S. oceans. Erik Grafe, the Earthjustice attorney who led the lease challenge, called on the Obama administration to do a new environmental study. "The Department of the Interior now needs to take a hard look at whether the Chukchi Sea should be open for oil drilling at all, beginning with a full and public environmental impact statement process that addresses the Ninth Circuit decision and does not minimize the risks of oil drilling in this vibrant but vulnerable sea," Grafe said in a statement. Greenpeace urged other companies that are considering offshore Arctic drilling to learn from Shell's experience and "conclude that this region is too remote, too hostile and too iconic to be worth exploring." "The decision by Shell's new CEO to suspend Arctic Ocean drilling in 2014 was both sensible and inevitable," Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic program

director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement. "The Arctic Ocean has proven to be logistically challenging for drilling and mobilization, and a bottomless pit for investment." Political leaders faulted the federal government and court rulings and downplayed Shell's own difficulties. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was disappointed that Shell wouldn't be going ahead this year. She said it was understandable given the uncertainty due to the federal court ruling on its leases. "Companies willing to invest billions of dollars to develop our country's resources must have confidence that the

federal agencies responsible for overseeing their efforts are competent and working in good faith. I'm not convinced that has been the case for Alaska," Murkowski said in a statement. Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich blamed "judicial overreach" for the situation. "I'll be talking with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today, and expect her agency to move quickly to address the court's questions and concerns and do everything possible to get this process back on track," Begich said in a statement. Gov. Sean Parnell said Shell's decision was understandable, given the recent court ruling. "Multiple years of federal regulatory delay, litigation delay, and one year of operational issues have created barriers to Alaskans' near-term economic prospects," Parnell said in a statement. "Still, offshore energy development will play an enormous role in Alaska's economic future, and I remain committed to responsibly developing our vast offshore resource basin." The decision came as the company told investors that its fourth-quarter profits had plummeted, in part because of expensive exploration projects around the world. Van Beurden said project delays in several countries and Nigeria's worsening security situation had contributed to a changing outlook for the Dutch oil company. He said Shell would reduce its capital spending this year by about $10 billion, increase sales of its assets and attempt to improve its operational performance. "We are making hard choices in our worldwide portfolio to improve Shell's capital efficiency," he said. Other oil companies also have reservations about developing in the harsh Arctic environment. In April, ConocoPhillips announced it was abandoning its plans to drill this year in its Devil's Paw prospect about 80 miles off the Alaska coast because of uncertainty over government requirements. Statoil, a Norweigian oil and gas company, announced in September 2012 that it was delaying exploration plans. Spanish oil company Repsol also holds leases offshore. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates there are 27 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil offshore Alaska. Daily News reporter Lisa Demer contributed to this story from Anchorage.

Arctic drilling is too expensiveKlare 2012 [Michael T. Klare. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies, Hampshire College. Why Twenty-First Century Oil Will Break the Bank -- and the Planet. 03/13/12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-

klare/obama-gas-prices_b_1342042.html?ref=green] JTE

Arctic Oil The Arctic is expected to provide a significant share of the world’s future oil supply. Until recently, production in the far north has been very limited. Other than in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska and a number of fields in Siberia, the major companies have largely shunned the region. But now, seeing few other options, they are preparing for

major forays into a melting Arctic. From any perspective, the Arctic is the last place you want to go to drill for oil. Storms are frequent, and winter temperatures plunge far below freezing. Most ordinary equipment will not operate under these conditions. Specialized (and costly) replacements are necessary. Working crews cannot live in the region for long. Most basic supplies -- food, fuel, construction materials -- must be brought in from thousands of miles away at phenomenal cost. But the Arctic has its attractions: billions of barrels of untapped oil, to be exact. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the area north of the Arctic Circle, with just 6 percent of the planet’s surface, contains an estimated 13 percent of its remaining oil (and an even larger share of its undeveloped natural gas) -- numbers no other region can match. With few other places left to go, the major energy firms are now gearing up for an energy rush to exploit the Arctic’s riches. This summer, Royal Dutch Shell is expected to begin test drilling in portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas adjacent to northern Alaska. (The Obama administration must still award final operating permits for these activities, but approval is expected.) At the same time, Statoil and other firms are planning extended drilling in the Barents Sea, north of Norway. As with all such extreme energy scenarios, increased production in the Arctic will significantly boost oil company operating costs. Shell, for example, has already spent $4 billion alone on preparations for test drilling in offshore Alaska, without producing a single barrel of oil. Full-scale development in this ecologically fragile region, fiercely opposed by environmentalists and local Native peoples, will multiply this figure many times over.

Drilling in the Arctic isn’t inevitableGAO 2014 (United States Government Accountability Office, “MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade”, Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2014) JTE

Diminishing sea ice has contributed to promising prospects for oil and gas in the U.S. Arctic17 and created growth potential for commercial shipping on trans-Arctic routes that are geographically shorter than current shipping routes through the Panama or Suez Canals. However, industry representatives we spoke with from five key industries— commercial shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining—stated that their level of commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic is expected to remain limited over the next 10 years due to a variety of contributing factors. Factors included general challenges related to operating in the Arctic such as

geography, extreme weather, and hard-to-predict sea ice movement,18 and other industry-specific factors. Table 2

provides some examples of contributing factors cited by industry representatives. Recently, oil companies have made some investments to develop offshore oil resources in the U.S. Arctic. These development efforts, however, are generally on hold and increases in oil exploration activity are expected to be limited. The impact of oil exploration activity on the levels of maritime traffic appears uncertain.

Drilling in the Arctic not inevitable in squoGAO 2014 (United States Government Accountability Office, “MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade”, Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2014) JTE

Recently, oil companies have invested in initial exploration for offshore oil resources in the U.S. Arctic.29 Three major oil companies

that hold offshore leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are in the exploration phase of their sites and may still be decades away from production, according to industry representatives.30 One company began drilling two exploratory wells in 2012, with 25 vessels supporting these drilling operations, which increased the destinational maritime traffic that season.31 However several well-publicized incidents halted operations.32 None of the three companies chose to conduct exploratory offshore drilling for the 2013 drilling season, but instead conducted site-surveying activities such as “bathymetric” mapping.

Arctic too fragile to drill in, neither US or private sector has the safety assurances to drillRitzman 2014 (Dan Ritzman is Alaska program director for the Sierra Club, February 17, 2014, “Guest: Shell, the U.S. not prepared for risks of drilling in Arctic Ocean”, http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022914154_danritzmanopedarcticdrilling18xml.html) JTE

America’s Arctic is a place like no other. Its unique conditions — extreme weather, long periods of darkness and its remoteness — make

it both harsh and fragile. It’s a place often underestimated, especially when it comes to drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean. Take Shell Oil for example. The company has spent years and billions of dollars trying to drill in America’s Arctic seas. Despite the company’s assurances of safety, it has been made clear again and again that Shell is not prepared for the risks posed by the icy waters. In 2012, the company failed to even get all of its equipment in place. Its oil-spill-containment dome failed during testing, its Kulluk drilling ship ran aground, and the company ended up owing more than $1 million in pollution fines. It drilled no oil. Apparently

learning nothing from that experience, Shell announced a plan to return to the Arctic Ocean this summer, only to have its leases invalidated by a federal court because the company vastly underestimated the environmental risks. Shell’s decision not to drill in the Arctic this year is good news, but the threat of drilling remains and we cannot

afford to downplay the risks of drilling to the Arctic environment and to our climate any longer. The reality is that drilling in the Arctic Ocean comes with a distinctive set of risks to the environment and would-be drillers. History has shown that where there is drilling, there is spilling. This year marks 25 years since the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground, and oil can still be found on Southcentral Alaska beaches. Oil spills in the Arctic would cause irreparable damage and be impossible to clean up. The risks extend beyond a devastating oil spill. Drilling in the Arctic Ocean could release enough carbon pollution to negate efforts to fight global warming and dramatically alter our climate. The pollution from oil-drilling activities would coat Arctic ice surfaces with black, heat-absorbing soot, further speeding the melting of ice in a place that is already warming at twice the rate of the Lower 48 states. The chain of reactions would continue because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the Northern Hemisphere. The effects of melting Arctic ice can already be seen in rising sea levels in coastal areas from New Orleans to Miami and in a sharp global increase in extreme weather events, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s recently released Arctic Report Card. The Obama administration needs to take advantage of Shell’s absence this year to finally do a full environmental assessment of current leases, an assessment that looks deeper than the best-case scenario to risks that are far more likely. An effective climate strategy would require the administration to cancel lease sales tentatively scheduled for 2016 and 2017. The United States must lead an effort to begin keeping fossil fuels in the ground, especially in risky, remote and fragile places like the Arctic Ocean. The U.S. should set an example for countries like Russia and China that are looking to exploit the Arctic’s dirty energy even as the world looks to combat climate change. It’s time for America to look beyond an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. I have been fortunate in my life to spend time in Arctic Alaska. I’ve watched walrus gather on ice floes, bowheads breach in ice-filled waters and polar bears prowl the ice edge. I have traveled with Alaska Natives, who have lived on these lands and waters for hundreds of generations, and I have seen the importance of these animals to their culture and subsistence. A major spill would leave oil in these waters for decades, killing wildlife and bringing to an end Alaska Natives’ ancient way of life. The Arctic is the last place we should be drilling for oil. Cleaner energy and transportation options are here now. Their capacity to help shape a better future should not be underestimated.

Environmental concerns curb oil companies arctic drilling plansKrauss 2013 (Krauss, Clifford. Journalist of The New York Times."ConocoPhillips Suspends Its Arctic Drilling Plans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 28 June 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/business/energy-environment/conocophillips-suspends-arctic-drilling-plans.html?_r=0>.) JTE

HOUSTON — ConocoPhillips announced on Wednesday that it was suspending its plans to drill in Alaskan Arctic waters in 2014 because of uncertainties over federal regulatory and permitting standards.¶ Add to Portfolio The decision had been expected after last month’s announcement by the Interior Department that Shell Oil Company would have to provide a detailed plan addressing numerous safety issues before it could resume its

drilling operations in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Shell was forced to remove its two drilling rigs from the area and send them to Asia for repairs after a series of ship groundings, weather delays and environmental and safety violations during the 2012 drilling season. Shell, which has spent more than $4.5 billion on its exploration program, also called off its drilling program for this year. “While we are confident in our own expertise and ability to safely conduct offshore Arctic operations, we believe that more time is needed to ensure that all regulatory stakeholders are aligned,” Trond-Erik Johansen, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska, said in a statement. The statement cited a recent Interior Department report calling on the oil industry and federal government to coordinate efforts to develop standards for drilling, maritime safety and emergency response systems and equipment for the Arctic region. ConocoPhillips said it welcomed working on that approach with the government before drilling. The company has 98 leases in the Chukchi Sea’s Outer Continental Shelf, a region that oil company geologists say has the potential to produce billions of barrels of oil in the coming decades. “Once those requirements are understood, we will re-evaluate our Chukchi Sea drilling plans,” Mr. Johansen said. Environmentalists have long opposed drilling in Arctic waters, arguing that it cannot be done safely because of powerful ice floes, winds and long periods of darkness, and that it would disturb the habitats of many threatened species including polar bears. “ConocoPhillips has made a good choice,” said Michael LeVine, a lawyer for the environmental group Oceana. “As we’ve learned again and again, operating in Alaskan water demands preparation, care and attention to details companies have not yet proven able to provide.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, expressed disappointment but said she understood that the decision was necessary. “Companies can’t be expected to invest billions of dollars without some assurance that federal regulators are not going to change the rules on them almost continuously,” she said. “The administration has created an unacceptable level of uncertainty when it comes to the rules of offshore exploration that must be fixed.” The Norwegian company Statoil had already announced that it was putting off its plans to drill in the Alaskan Arctic waters from 2014 to 2015. The Interior Department’s review, completed in early March, concluded that Shell had failed in a broad range of operational and safety tasks, including the towing of one of the two drilling rigs, which ran aground on an Alaskan island on New Year’s Eve. David Lawrence, the executive vice president who was in charge of the Alaska drilling program, recently left the company. The company said that the departure was “by mutual consent.”

Costs of drilling in Arctic up to 500% more expensive than land-based projectsGAO 2014 (United States Government Accountability Office, “MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade”, Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2014) JTE

Largely due to the above factors, maritime infrastructure development in the Arctic is generally considered to be more expensive than similar construction in the continental United States. During our interviews with Arctic stakeholders

with expertise in engineering and construction, we heard estimates of higher costs for Arctic maritime infrastructure components that ranged from 15 percent to 500 percent higher than for infrastructure constructed in the contiguous states. However, according to USACE officials, data do not exist to show specifically how much more expensive Arctic construction would be for different types of infrastructure projects. For an accurate civil construction cost estimate in Alaska, for example, the USACE would typically develop a customized estimate based on the infrastructure needed. This type of estimate depends on the specifics of the project’s scope, including project design, location, availability of qualified labor, time of construction, and other factors

Long-term effects of oil spills are minor.Gillis and Kaufman 2010 (Environmentalists and Contributors to the New York Times (Justin and Leslie, “After Oil Spills, Hidden Damage Can Last for Years”, 7/17/10; < http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/science/earth/18enviro.html?pagewanted=all>) JTE

Every oil spill is different, but the thread that unites these disparate scenes is a growing scientific awareness of the persistent damage that spills can do — and of just how long oil can linger in the environment, hidden in out-of-the-way spots. At the same time, scientists who have worked to survey and counteract the damage from spills say the picture in the gulf is far from hopeless. “Thoughts that this is going to kill the Gulf of Mexico are just wild overreactions,” said Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist who led some of the most important research after the Exxon Valdez spill and now works for an environmental advocacy group called Oceana. “It’s going to go away, the oil is. It’s not going to last forever.” But how long will it last? Only 20 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that oil spills did almost all their damage in the first weeks, as fresh oil loaded with toxic substances hit wildlife and marsh grasses, washed onto beaches and killed fish and turtles in the deep sea. But disasters like the Valdez in 1989, the Ixtoc 1 in

Mexico in 1979, the Amoco Cadiz in France in 1978 and two Cape Cod spills, including the Bouchard 65 barge in 1974 — all studied over decades with the improved techniques of modern chemistry and biology — have allowed scientists to paint a more complex portrait of what happens after a spill. It is still clear that the bulk of the damage happens quickly, and that nature then begins to recuperate . After a few years, a casual observer visiting a hard-hit location might see nothing amiss .

Birds and fish are likely to have rebounded, and the oil will seem to be gone . But often, as Dr. Short and his team

found in Alaska, some of it has merely gone underground, hiding in pockets where it can still do low-level damage to wildlife over many years.

Arctic ice can’t be cleaned up—extreme cold conditions make techniques ineffectiveIMARES 2014 (Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies at Wageningen University, a Netherlands research institute, 5/1/2014, “Wageningen UR studies environmental effects of oil activities in the Arctic region”, https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/newsarticle/Wageningen-UR-studies-environmental-effects-of-oil-activities-in-the-Arctic-region.htm) JTE

Oil extraction in cold conditions is complex Compared to the North Sea oil exploitation in the Arctic region is much more difficult. This has partly to do with the poor accessibility of the immense area and limited infrastructure, such as

ports and airports. In addition, conditions are often very challenging due to fog, snow, storms and prolonged darkness in winter . Moreover, the materials and techniques used in the extraction process must withstand extreme cold and ice. As a result, the risk of an oil spill in the large area around the Arctic is relatively high, the clean-up options are relatively limited and the possible consequences are long lasting for the unique flora and fauna

such as polar bears, walruses and belugas. Oil is difficult to clean in cold conditions It is not yet known how an oil spill in the Arctic region can be cleaned up. In cold conditions, oil behaves differently than in the North Sea. The viscosity of oil is higher for example. Oil spill response techniques may be less effective or not effective at all. Dispersing agent, a kind of liquid soap that is used to mix oil with water, might work less effectively with low temperatures, viscous oil and the presence of ice. And what happens to the mixture of oil, dispersant and plankton? Will it drop to the sea floor? During the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this spill response technique has been widely used. The consequence is a thick toxic layer on the seabed without any marine life. The visibility of oil in ice covered areas may be low. As a result the oil is hard to detect and to clean-up. Oil can also be transported to other locations together with the ice.

Arctic cleanup too difficult—their authors don’t assume weather conditions and offseason drillingCBC 11 (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 9/8/2011, “Arctic oil spill cleanup would be badly hindered”, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-oil-spill-cleanup-would-be-badly-hindered-1.1013220) JTE

Any response to a possible offshore oil spill in the Canadian Arctic would be severely hampered, even more so than previously thought, the World Wildlife Fund says. That’s because Arctic ice, lack of daylight, winds and temperatures make it extremely difficult to contain, burn off or disperse spilled oil , the conservation group

writes in a filing to the National Energy Board. During the potential Arctic drilling season, it would be impossible to deploy an emergency oil-spill response up to 84 per cent of the time, the WWF filing says. "We're not against drilling per se, but what we are saying is that it shouldn't be done unless it can be done safely. And what these numbers provide is a very sobering reminder of just how little capacity we have to respond if something goes wrong," WWF program director Rob Powell said Thursday. The conservation group is participating in the National Energy Board’s review of Arctic offshore drilling, undertaken in the wake of oil giant BP’s offshore drilling disaster last year in the Gulf of Mexico, the second-worst marine oil spill in history. Oil companies like BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Imperial Oil have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lease large tracts of Canada’s Arctic seabed for exploration. As part of its review, the energy board, which regulates national petroleum and electricity projects in Canada, asked a consultant to look at how difficult it would be to clean up a potential oil spill in the Arctic. The consultant’s report submitted in July found that an emergency response to a spill would be impossible between 15 and 78 per cent of the time, due to weather and other environmental conditions. Figures understate real risks: WWF But the WWF says those numbers understate the difficulties that a

possible cleanup would encounter: Oil companies acknowledge that they couldn’t contain and recover oil from an Arctic spill of more than 100 barrels, the group says, which wasn’t factored into the consultant’s report. The consultant’s numbers refer only to periods of open water during the drilling season, whereas drilling can legally continue in those months even when significant ice cover on Arctic seas would make countering

an oil spill impossible. The consultant didn’t consider the effects of wind chill . Canada hasn’t approve the use of substances called chemical herders in an Arctic oil spill, yet the consultant’s report assumes they could be used to help with cleanup. Taking those factors into account, cleanup efforts would be impossible at least 44 per cent and up to 84 per cent of the drilling season, depending on location and month, the WWF says.

Response efforts hindered by extreme weather and low visibilityEconomist 12 (The Economist, 12/1/2012, “Trouble beneath the ice”, http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21567196-energy-technology-oil-exploration-moves-arctic-new-methods-are-being) JTE

AN OIL WELL suffers a blowout, causing a fatal explosion on an offshore platform. Oil spews into the water at an estimated rate of 53,000 barrels a day. Company executives and government officials blame each other as they try to find a way to stop the flow of oil. The Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 was a tragedy in many

respects, but in one detail, BP—the operator of the well, which is now facing a bill of as much as $50 billion—was lucky. At least it could find the oil. As more and more companies venture into the oil- and gas-rich waters north of the Arctic Circle, they are being forced to imagine another oil-spill scenario, one in which the response effort is impeded by storms, fog, high winds and massive drifting ice floes; in which visibility is minimal , where the

nearest coast guard station is over 1,000 miles away and where spilled oil accumulates on, in and under the ice. Such considerations have led to the development of new technologies to detect and deal with spilled oil in remote, icy seas. In “open water” conditions such as those in the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon spill, the primary method for oil-spill detection involves satellite-mounted synthetic-aperture radar (SAR). This technology, which can see through clouds and in the dark, involves bouncing radio waves from orbiting satellites off the surface of the sea. Any oil floating on the surface has the effect of smoothing the waves made by the wind on the water. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between an oil slick and a patch of calm water. But at least clean-up teams have some idea of where to start more detailed searches. In the Arctic,

however, SAR is less useful. One problem is that floating ice looks just like oil or calm water to a SAR-equipped satellite. According to Rune Storvold of the Northern Research Institute, a Norwegian research outfit, SAR-based oil detection is only effective in conditions with less than 30% ice coverage.

Alasaka Economy TurnAlaskan oil spill spurs economic growth – empirically proven.Levine 2010 (Thomas Levine, Staff Writer for Alaska Dispatch “Economics of an Oil Spill Cleanup”, 6/27/10; < www.alaskadispatch.com/article/economics-oil-spill-cleanup>)JTE

While fishermen and shrimpers in the Gulf of Mexico worry about losing their livelihoods, others may be on the verge of a windfall. Experts talk about how the ocean and the oil and gas industry will be impacted by BP's spill, but little attention has been paid to the economics of a spill cleanup. Some jobs will no doubt be lost because of the spill, but others will be created. Workers are now being hired all over the Gulf region to lay down boom, clean up oil, provide security, and prepare for further damages. Many of these workers are finding jobs in economies that were weak. Alaska was in a similar situation when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker hit Bligh Reef in 1989. Oils prices had slumped, and the Alaska economy was suffering. More than 20,000 jobs had been lost in 1986 and 1987. The economy was sputtering back to life by 1988, but it took off with the oil spill. No year since the spill has seen a larger growth rate in the Alaska economy than occurred in 1989, according to Neal Fried at the Alaska Department of Labor. The Gulf could see a similar boost. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist on June 17 unveiled a website directing Floridians to more than 3,500 jobs associated with the cleanup, although to this point the tens of thousands of gallons gushing from BP's undersea crude oil volcano have largely missed the Sunshine State. The Deepwater site has now gushed at least 42 million gallons, almost four times the 11 million gallons with which Exxon smeared Prince William Sound. Immediately after that accident, the call went out across Alaska for workers to help clean up and contain the spill. According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council website, 10,000 workers and 1,000 boats were mobilized at a cost of $2.1 billion. Spill cleanup workers made $16.69 an hour ($29.34 today, adjusted for inflation). Spill jobs helped pull Alaska's unemployment rate down from 7.2 percent in May 1989 to 6.9 percent in September 1989, when cleanup operations ended, according to the Alaska Department of Labor.

And the amount of money spent to equip the cleanup operation created an economic wave that rippled through Alaska as fishing boats were leased, pilots hired, workers fed, equipment maintained and lawyers retained. Some lawyers had to hire additional staff to handle compensatory claims eventually totaling over $900 million. Most of

those claims were paid off over the next 10 years. The spill jobs, while temporary, gave many people the means to put a down payment on a house or purchase a car. Fried said the increase in purchasing power helped pull the economy out of what had been the worst recession in 20 years. Some economic benefits have continued for decades. Scientific grants to study the damage to Prince William Sound have continued to this day, making the spill one of the most researched in history, according to the EVOSTC. And in 2008 Exxon settled punitive claims in the case Baker vs. Exxon Valdez Shipping Co. The company was required to pay fishermen and others another $995 million over 10 years.

Indigenous Populations Turn

Arctic exploration leads to population and development of northern indigenous areas resulting in a conflict between the interests of the people and the corporation and governmentSusskind and Wanucha 2014 (Lawrence Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at MIT, director of the MIT Science Impact Collaborative, and vice chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, specializes in environmental policy and resolution of water conflicts; interviewed by Genevieve Wanucha writer for Oceans at MIT, MIT News 6/18/14 https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cold-hard-truth-about-arctic-policy) JTE

With the thinning and elimination of Arctic ice, there will be new efforts to make navigation options open to more countries, across the top of Russia. There will be more access to search for oil and gas, exploit it, and ship it. Once there is more navigation and more focus on oil and gas exploration, there will be a push to populate more of those areas for development purposes. When that happens, there will be a conflict with native cultures in Canada, the United States, Russia, Finland, and Norway that have been there for a very long time . There will be jurisdictional battles about whose rules apply to managing and protecting natural resources, including fisheries and mammalian life. Who gets to decide what routes are open to whom, where oil and gas exploration might be restricted, where base camps get built, and how the sovereignty of indigenous peoples will be protected?

The prize-seeking attitude of the plan destroys indigenous populationsSchertow 2011 (John Ahni Schertow - an internationally recognized editor and publisher, a self-taught web developer and an award winning journalist of Kanienkehaka and mixed-European descent, “OIL DRILLING THREATENS ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM; INDIGENOUS WAYS OF LIFE”, Intercontinental Cry Magazine, 8/19/2011) JTE

The final frontier. Now that Shell and BP are mere steps away from drilling exploratory wells off the Coast of Alaska and Russia, everyone’s playfully referring to the Arctic as the “final frontier” for petroleum development. The notion of the Arctic being “undeveloped” or “undiscovered” probably couldn’t be more insulting to the Inupiat, Saami and other

Indigenous Peoples whose cultures and subsistence ways of life evolved over centuries of living in the Arctic Circle. Few people seem to be considering that fact, or even including Arctic Peoples in any debate over whether or not drilling should be allowed to proceed. You can be sure that Shell and BP are glad of it, especially since their actions may be setting the stage for the destruction of the Arctic way of life. In the case of Alaska, Shell is hoping to get started in July 2012, with four exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea. The company has already spent more than $3.5 billion to acquire leases in both the Beaufort and Chukchi. It’s all worth it, says Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. After all, “There is a prize over there.” According to the Washington Post, that so-called “prize” is 26.6 billion barrels of oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the

Alaska outer continental shelf. The risks that come with the prize are even greater, despite Shell’s “unprecedented spill response and cleanup plan for the Beaufort and Chukchi operations, including having cleanup crew and gear close enough to the drilling site that it could all be deployed in less than an hour,” as the Alaska Dispatch notes

Biodiversity Impacts

Impact Defense - General

No impact to the biodiversity- functional redundancy, adaptationDoremus 2k (Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse", Winter 2000 Washington & Lee Law Review 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11 //nz)

Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust.

Nor is human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people . n215 One response to this credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse. n217 Another response drops the horrific ending and returns to a more measured discourse of the many material benefits nature provides humanity. Even these more plausible

tales, though, suffer from an important limitation. They call for nature protection only at a high level of generality. For example, human-induced increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may cause rapid changes in global temperatures in the near future, with drastic consequences for sea levels, weather patterns, and ecosystem services.

n218 Similarly, the loss of large numbers of species undoubtedly reduces the genetic library from which we might in the future draw useful resources. n219 But it is difficult to translate these insights into convincing arguments against any one of the small local decisions that contribute to the problems of global warming or biodiversity loss. n220 It is easy to argue that the material impact of any individual decision to increase carbon emissions slightly or to destroy a small amount of habitat will be small . It is difficult to identify the specific straw that will break the camel's back. Furthermore, no unilateral action at the local or even national level can solve these global problems. Local decisionmakers may feel paralyzed by the scope of the problems, or may conclude that any sacrifices they might make will go unrewarded if others do not restrain their actions. In sum, at the local level at which most decisions affecting nature are made, the material discourse provides little reason to save nature. Short of the ultimate catastrophe, the material benefits of destructive decisions frequently will exceed their identifiable material costs. n221

No impact to biodiversity Sagoff 97 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar at the Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs at University of Maryland, , “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, William and Mary Law Review, pg. 905, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=wmlr //nz)Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode

of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the

contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth . Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that " the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that

are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of

our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important,

such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe,

however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support

systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct . n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have

changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes . The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property

values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically , not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is

likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.

Scientific consensus concludes that there is no causation between diversity and stabilityMertz et al, 03 biologist and veteran freelance science writer, editor, and consultant for Science in Dispute (Leslie Science in Dispute Vol. 2, “ Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in ecosystems, Gale Virtual Library)

The hypothesis that greater species diversity begets heightened ecosystem stability may seem correct at first glance. Most people intuitively assume that the pond ecosystem has a better chance of thriving from year to year—even in adverse conditions—if it has a wider variety of species living there. That assumption, however, is supported by little scientific proof. On the other

hand, many studies provide compelling evidence that diversity does not promote stability and may even be to its detriment. Several studies also suggest that if species diversity does exist, it is based on ecosystem stability rather than vice versa. The Paramecium Studies of N. G. Hairston One of the early experiments to critically damage the greater-diversity-equals-greater-stability argument came from the N. G. Hairston research group at the University of Michigan in 1968. In this study, the group created artificial communities of bacteria, Paramecia, and/or predatory protozoa grown on nutrient agar cultures. Each community contained more than one trophic level. In other words, the communities contained both predators and prey, as do the macroscopic food webs readily visible in a pond: A fish eats a frog that ingests an insect that attacks a tadpole that scrapes a dinner of bacterial scum from a plant stem. In Hairston's case, the researchers watched the combinations of organisms in a laboratory instead of a natural setting. Several patterns emerged. In one series of experiments, the researchers combined prey bacteria, which represented the lowest link in the food chain—the first trophic level—with Paramecium. The bacteria included Aerobacter aerogenes, and "two unidentified bacilliform species isolated from a natural habitat." The Paramecium—two varieties of P. aurelia and one variety of P. caudatum—fed on the bacteria and so represented the second trophic level. As researchers increased the diversity of the bacteria, the Paramecia thrived and their numbers increased, at first suggesting that diversity caused stability. However, when the researchers looked more closely at the effects of increasing diversity on a specific trophic level, the story changed. They added a third Paramecium species to communities that already contained two species, and then watched what happened. The data showed that stability was based on which Paramecium species was introduced to which two pre-existing Paramecium species, and indicated that diversity in and of itself was not a requirement for stability. This set of experiments demonstrated that a higher number of species of one trophic level is unrelated to increased stability at that level. Page 152 | Top of Article Finally, Hairston reported the repercussions that followed the introduction of predatory protozoa—the third trophic level—to the experimental communities. The predatory species were Woodruffia metabolica and Didinium nasutum. Regardless of whether the community held two or three Paramecium species, or whether the predators numbered one species or two, all Paramecia quickly fell to the protozoa, whole systems failed, and stability plummeted. In this case, at least, diversity did not generate stability. Although the Hairston research is based on an artificial system rather than a natural one, it represents credible, empirical evidence against the assertion that greater diversity yields stability. Over the years, numerous research groups have

conducted similar laboratory experiments with the same results. May and Pimm's Conclusions about Stability Not long after the Hairston paper was published, noted population biologist Robert M. May, formerly of Princeton and now at Oxford, devoted an entire book to the subject. First published in 1973, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems provided detailed mathematical models illustrating the connection between diversity and instability in small systems, and argued that these models predict similar outcomes in larger systems. May wrote, "The central point remains that if we contrast simple few-species mathematical models with the analogously simple multi-species models, the latter are in general less stable than the former." He also noted that complexity in food webs does not confer stability within communities. A complex food web has many interacting individuals and species. The higher the number of connections in a food web, the greater the chance for individual links to become unstable and eventually affect the entire web. May readily admitted that stable natural systems often are very complex and contain many species. However, he contended that the increased diversity is reliant on the system's stability, not the opposite. Complexity is not a prerequisite for stability; instead, stability is essential for complexity . In a separate paper, May used the example of a rain forest, a complex ecosystem with vast species diversity but also a high susceptibility to human disturbance. The ecologist and evolutionary biologist Stuart Pimm, of the University of Tennessee, continued the debate in his book The Balance of Nature (1991). Pimm provided a historical view of the stability argument, along with discussions of many of the experiments conducted over the years, and arrived at several conclusions, one of which has direct bearing on the diversity-stability debate. If stability is defined as resilience, or the ability of a species to recover following some type of disturbance such as drought, flood, or species introduction, Pimm stated that shorter food chains are more stable than longer food chains. Simplicity, not complexity, imparts stability. He argued that resilience depends on how quickly all members of the food chain recover from the disturbance. Longer food chains involve more species, which present more opportunities for the delay of the restoration of the complete food chain. Pimm supported his argument with results from studies of aphids. Pimm also noted that scientists have and will face problems when taking the stability-diversity question to the field. One problem is the absence of long-term data, which would help scientists to draw conclusions about grand-scale ecological questions such as the diversity-stability connection. Pimm explained that long-term scientific research projects typically require numerous consecutive grants to fund them, and such continuous chains of grants are few and far between. Other Approaches Another difficulty with field studies is finding existing systems that can be adequately compared. If ecosystem stability is defined as the capacity of its populations to persist through, or to show resilience following, some type of disturbance, scientists must identify ecosystems that have similar physical characteristics, and which are experiencing or have experienced a disturbance. To compare the effects of diversity, one ecosystem must have high species-richness and one must have low species-richness. In the early 1980s, Thomas Zaret of the Institute for Environmental Studies and University of Washington had that opportunity. Zaret investigated the relationship between diversity and stability in freshwater fish communities in Africa and South America. First, he compared lakes and rivers. Lakes, Zaret reasoned, provide a more constant habitat than rivers. Rivers experience substantially more acute annual variation in water level, turbidity, current, and chemical content as a result of seasonal rains. Zaret then surveyed the two systems and found that the lakes contained more species than the rivers. Next, he followed the effects of a disturbance on both systems. The disturbance was a newly introduced predatory fish that had invaded a river and a lake in South America. The lake and river were similar in geographic location, and thus topography and climate, which provided an ideal opportunity for a comparison of each system's ability to rebound from a disturbance. Five years after the introduction of the predator, an examination of 17 common species that occurred in both water systems showed that 13 had disappeared from the lake, while all were still present in the river. Challenging the diversity-breeds-stability argument, Zaret's results indicated that the less-diverse river was more Page 153 | Top of Article stable. He concluded, "The data presented from freshwater fish communities support the hypothesis that diverse communities have lower stability (resilience)." Although these and other experiments indicate that diversity is not necessary for ecosystem stability, the discussion does not end there. A team of researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison determined that although diversity itself did not promote stability, the species-specific resilience of the community's residents might. Led by zoologist Anthony Ives, the team mathematically analyzed the consequences of environmental stress on various communities. After compiling the data, the team found that the characteristics of each species were more important than the number of species in conferring stability . The results showed that the most stable ecosystems—those that were both persistent and resilient—contained individual organisms that responded well to environmental stress. They did not show a correlation between stability and the sheer number of species in the ecosystem. The research team came to the conclusion that species richness alone does not generate ecosystem stability, and suggested that scientists should begin investigating the stress response of individual species rather than simply counting species. The Intermediate-Disturbance Hypothesis Several scientists took a different perspective in the discussion of diversity and

stability, and developed what is known as the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis . This hypothesis states that the

greatest species diversity appears not in the most stable systems, but in systems under periodic, nonextreme stress. In the most stable systems—defined here as those where disturbances are mild or absent—dominant species eventually outcompete their rivals, and the communities become less diverse. Diversity also declines in highly disturbed systems, because only those species that can reproduce and populate an area quickly thrive. The only areas that have high species diversity are those that experience infrequent, moderate disturbances. Joseph Connell of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara reinforced the hypothesis with his review of coral reefs and tropical forests. Connell plotted the level of disturbance against species richness and confirmed that ecosystems under infrequent, moderate stress have the greatest diversity. Specifically, he found the highest levels of diversity among reefs in the path of occasional hurricanes and tropical forests that take the brunt of infrequent storms. Seth R. Reice of the biology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, similarly noted that habitats that experience natural disturbances, including storms and fire, are almost always more diverse than more stable areas. In both cases, Connell and Reice indicate that diversity depends on stability, rather than vice versa. Another researcher, Wayne P. Sousa of the integrative biology department at the University of California, Berkeley provided validation to this principle with a study of the marine intertidal zone (at the ocean's edge). Sousa counted the number of sessile (attached) plant and animal species on rocks of various sizes. His reasoning was that waves can easily move small rocks, but not the largest rocks. The small rocks, then, are an

unstable system for the sessile residents, the largest rocks are a stable system, and the medium-sized rocks fit the requirements of a system with intermediate disturbance. His results showed an average of 1.7 species on the smallest rocks, 2.5 on the largest, and 3.7 on the medium-sized rocks. To ensure that the species distribution was based on rock movement rather than rock size, he also artificially adhered some small rocks to the substrate (the ocean floor) and determined that species distribution was indeed based on wave-induced movement. This work upheld the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis, and illustrated that the greatest diversity was not associated with the most stable system. Diversity Is No Prerequisite As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper "Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, "At present, too few experiments have been conducted to draw convincing generalizations."

No collapse – taxa substitution solvesDornelas et al 4/18 (Maria, “Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss,” Science AAS, 4/18/14, http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/science_2014_dornelas_296_9_169.pdf)

Our results suggest that local and regional assemblages are experiencing a substitution of their taxa, rather than systematic loss. This outcome may in part reflect the fact that most of the available data are from the past 40 years,

which highlights concerns over the problem of a “shifting baseline” in diversity monitoring (18). Nonetheless, we show that at these temporal and spatial scales there is no evidence of consistent or accelerating loss of a diversity. Most important, changes in species composition usually do not result in a substitution of like with like, and can lead to the development of novel ecosystems (19). For example, disturbed coral reefs can be replaced by assemblages dominated by macroalgae (20) or different coral species (21); these novel marine assemblages may not necessarily deliver the same ecosystem services (such as fisheries, tourism, and coastal production) that were provided by the original coral reef (22).

No net loss, species balance each other outBielle 4/20 - editor @ Scientific American (David, “Biodiversity Survives Extinctions for Now,” Scientific American, 4/20/14, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/biodiversity-survives-extinctions-for-now1/)

A new look at ecosystems from the poles to the tropics shows that losses in the number of species in any given place do not yet translate to large changes in the overall number of different species there . The study is in the journal Science. [Maria Dornelas et al, Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss] The researchers analyzed 100 surveys that followed more than 35,000 different species over various lengths of time. These long-term studies found that the number of different species in, say, a coral reef remains relatively constant. Because the loss of a species, either locally or entirely, is often balanced by the arrival of a new species .

The meta-analysis showed that 40 percent of places had more species present, 40 percent had less and 20 percent were unchanged. In other words, the ecosystems of the current Anthropocene era are transformed, but just as diverse—so far anyway. We are living in a world of novel ecosystems .

Biodiversity collapse doesn’t kill ecosystems - rivet metaphor is wrong - redundancy checksDavidson 00 (Carlos, conservation biologist, “Economic Growth and the Environment: Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm”, BioScience, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/5/433.full //nz)

Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the economy. A wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and Miller 1989). The decline of

biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as

suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species loss . But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed . Some studies show a positive relationship between diversity and some

aspect of ecosystem function, such as the rate of nitrogen cycling (Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown 1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994),

in which loss of some species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some species may lead to local tears.

Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems are not delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I study California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as yet unknown threat to humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same for most rare organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black toad (Bufo exsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study would be unlikely to reveal

ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves that count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.

Their argument may seem right intuitively but has ZERO scientific proof – a review of the scholarly literature provesLeslie Mertz et al (Biologist and veteran science writer) 2003 “Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in ecosystems” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124307/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1

As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, &#x0022;We conclude that there is no simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems.&#x0022; Those words still hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and

Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their

paper &#x0022;Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity,&#x0022; which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems common in nature . Although they noted that

several studies imply a relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, &#x0022;At present, too few experiments have been conducted to draw convincing generalizations.&#x0022;

BioD Collapse Inevitable

Biodiversity loss is inevitable - solutions don’t workJowit 4/29 - political correspondant for The Guardian (Juliette, “International failure to meet target to reduce biodiversity decline”, The Guardian, 4/29/14, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/29/international-failure-biodiversity-decline)

The world has failed to meet the target set by international leaders to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by this year, experts will announce next month. Instead, a coalition of 40 conservation organisations claims there have been "alarming biodiversity declines", and that pressures on the natural world from development, over-use and pollution have risen since the ambition was set in the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity. The first formal assessment of the target, published today in the journal Science, will be the basis of a formal

declaration by the CBD in Nairobi on 10 May, at which governments will be pressed to take the issues as seriously as climate change and the

economic crisis. A growing number of studies have shown that it is almost impossible to calculate the value of the "ecosystem services" from the natural world, from food, rich soil and fuel for local people, to clean air and water, and plants used for the international pharmaceutical industry . "Since 1970 we have reduced

animal populations by 30%, the area of mangroves and sea grasses by 20% and the coverage of living corals by 40%," said Professor Joseph

Alcamo, chief scientist of the United Nations Environment Programme, one of the contributing organisations. "These losses are clearly

unsustainable, since biodiversity makes a key contribution to human well-being and sustainable development."

Impossible to solve bio-d - human consumption is inevitableUN University 11(Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea, Science Daily, 7/29/11, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728123059.htm)Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food. If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable -- many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved. Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been

underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated."

Biodiversity loss inevitable – 5 warrants proveBacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, North Coast, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php //nz)The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that "protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats." "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors." This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing, habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. Ironically, even before the imposition of these largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental

shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border! A second limitation cited in the study is "underfunding." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. "Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure . Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated," according to the report. Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and Game Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens. The three other limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate • conflicts with human development.

Lots of alt-causes and any risk of an internal link is useless – species extinction inevitable- consensusKrauss et al 10 (Jochen Krauss, Riccardo Bommarco, Moisès Guardiola, Risto K Heikkinen, Aveliina Helm, Mikko Kuussaari, Regina Lindborg, Erik Öckinger, Meelis Pärtel, Joan Pino, Juha Pöyry, Katja M Raatikainen, Anu Sang, Constantí Stefanescu, Tiit Teder, Martin Zobel, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, all write for the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, “Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels,” PubMed Central, May 2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871172 //nz)Loss of biodiversity is a worldwide concern. One primary cause of species loss is habitat destruction and fragmentation (Tilman et al. 2001), but the rate of extinctions might be accelerated due to other causes such as invasion by alien species, overexploitation, climate change, habitat deterioration and extinction cascades (Diamond 1989; Thomas et al.

2004a; Brook et al. 2008; Dunn et al. 2009). Extinction processes often occur with a time delay and populations living close to their extinction threshold might survive for long time periods before they go extinct (Brooks et al.

1999; Hanski & Ovaskainen 2002; Lindborg & Eriksson 2004; Helm et al. 2006; Vellend et al. 2006). This time delay in extinction is called the ‘relaxation time’ (Diamond 1972) and the phenomenon that declining populations will eventually go extinct in fragmented

or degraded habitats has been described as an ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al. 1994; Kuussaari et al. 2009). In present-day fragmented and perturbed landscapes, populations of many species might be on a deterministic path to extinction even without any further habitat loss occurring. However, our understanding of the occurrence and ubiquity of extinction debts across ecosystems and taxonomic groups is highly incomplete and neither temporal nor spatial scales at which extinction debts occur are well known (Cousins 2009; Kuussaari et al. 2009).

Regional studies have focused on a single taxonomic group (vascular plants or vertebrates) and their results have been contradictory, with some studies reporting evidence for the existence of an extinction debt (Brooks et al. 1999; Lindborg & Eriksson

2004; Helm et al. 2006), but others not (Adriaens et al. 2006). Further, little is known about the relevance of species traits such as longevity, resource specialistation or trophic rank in the context of delayed colonizations and extinctions as a result of environmental change (Menendez et al. 2006; Kuussaari et al. 2009; Jackson & Sax 2010).

Biodiveristy is declining and has been ever since the 30’s , deforestation which is the main cause of decline isn’t even causing problemsBailey, 00, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine, testified before Congress, author of numerous books, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (Ronald, “Earth Day, Then and Now The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why.”, http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now/4)

Worries about declining biodiversity have become popular lately . On the first Earth Day, participants were concerned about saving a few particularly charismatic species such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. But even then some foresaw a coming holocaust. As Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Writing just five years after the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich and his biologist wife, Anne Ehrlich, predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it." There's only one

problem: Most species that were alive in 1970 are still around today. "Documented animal extinctions peaked in the 1930s, and the number of extinctions has been declining since then ," according to Stephen Edwards, an ecologist with the World Conservation Union, a leading international conservation organization whose members are non-governmental organizations, international agencies, and national conservation agencies. Edwards notes that a 1994 World Conservation Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species, and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were "island endemics" like the Dodo. As a result, they are

particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have gone extinct in the United States. What mostly accounts for relatively low rates of extinction? As with many

other green indicators, wealth leads the way by both creating a market for environmental values and delivering resource-efficient technology. Consider, for example, that one of the main causes of extinction is deforestation and the ensuing loss of habitat. According to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what drives most tropical deforestation is not commercial logging, but "poor farmers who have no other option for feeding their families than slashing and burning a patch of forest." By contrast, countries that practice high yield, chemically assisted agriculture have expanding forests. In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million acres, even though the number of Americans grew from 106 million in 1920 to 272 million now. Forests in Europe expanded even more dramatically, from 361 million acres to 482 million acres between 1950 and 1990. Despite continuing deforestation in tropical countries, Roger Sedjo, a senior fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, notes

that "76 percent of the tropical rain forest zone is still covered with forest ." Which is quite a far cry from being nine-

tenths gone. More good news: In its State of the World's Forests 1999, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization documents that while forests in developing countries were reduced by 9.1 percent between 1980 and 1995, the global rate of deforestation is now slowing.

Environmental destruction an exploitation is inevitable Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 180)As long as evolutionary biology is dominated by highly objective perfectionists, most attention will be directed to the new methods of storing and communicating the huge amount of data for molecular biology. This is the new industry analysing the information in DNA sequence databases. Big money will continue to be spent on making more and more of this computerised information, in the hope that mankind will be saved with more accurate medical provision and by cheaper food. Meanwhile, the darker sides of human behaviour that led to so many extinctions of other mammals just a few thousand years ago go unheeded. The evolutionary psychologists are well set along the objective approach and reject any

suggestion that the whole Earth and life system may be in control, not just one part of it. But that most threatening of all human characteristics, selfishness, rises time and again as the fundamental explanation of what we have been doing to the environment since the Industrial Revolution. The sociobiologists however talk a lot about an opposite, altruism, which some believe to be a feature that can be monitored to show evolutionary changes. They think that humans succeed because we help our fellow men. I do not share their optimism, for these wise forecasts about group behaviour ignore my sense of what the evidence is saying, that we are only really interested in ourselves and our close family. We will continue to burn natural gas to keep us warm, kerosene to fly us away for a holiday, and once there we will pump water to a swimming pool in the desert.

Collapse of the environment is inevitable Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 182)But if human behaviour cannot evolve, the response to fast changes in the environment will be very different. There will be no reprieve, no stopping the progress of mass extinction , and man surely will be a victim

within that. Our most damaging behaviour is selfishness and aggression, and unless they can change rapidly there is no hope for the ecological destruction to be halted. Our power to do damage has grown to make our aggression terminal, not just dangerous. If the Earth-life system really is in control of itself, perhaps there is nothing that we or anyone else can do to slow our abuse of the environment . On the other

hand, could it be that the system itself will see to it that the abuse stops? The damage we do to the environment causes many species to have difficulty fulfilling their own peculiar requirements for living. This means the

resulting extinctions have happened much faster than is predicted by our spindle-shaped model. Just as happened with the decline in dinosaur Families 65 million years ago, so now, Families of large mammals are becoming extinct at a very fast rate. This is instead of the slowly protracted fall in their diversity which was shown by our curve of changing mammal Families in figure 5.5.

Extinction Good

Mass extinctions are good – the system survives while simplifying the ecosystemScully 2002 (Malcolm, Editor at Large of the Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5, http://chronicle.com/article/In-the-Long-Run-or-Maybe/10663/His analyses of earlier extinctions lead him to conclude that nature is a self-organized system that, when disrupted, will correct itself. One way it does so, he writes, is through extinction. Species vanish, but the system survives. Citing Per Bak, a physicist now at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London, who first described self-organized systems in 1987, Boulter says that the best way to understand such systems is to envision a sand pile to which a steady stream of grains is added. The stream creates a cone that grows larger and steeper, and at some point collapses in an avalanche. Then the process starts again. In such systems, there are long periods of relative calm and infrequent large disruptions. "If biological evolution really is a self-organized Earth-life system, there are some very important consequences," he says. "One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet." His research provides "more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling," he says. "The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims' demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms."

Species loss is key to long-term evolutionary changeBoulter 2002(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 170)The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob May’s group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group are vociferous wailers of gloom and doom: ‘Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a pruned tree of life.’ But they go on to argue that the vast majority of groups survive this pruning, so that evolution goes on, albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed, the fossil record has taught us to expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem changes significantly. This kind of research is more evidence to support the

idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just the same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms.

This prevents total extinction of life on earthBoulter 2002 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 67)If biological evolution really is a self-organised Earth-life system there are some very important consequences. One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet.

Environmental collapse and mass extinction is good – ecosystems inevitably stabilize over the long-termBoulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 170)This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms. If humans were to fall into this vulnerable category, we too would become extinct. The effect of this would be that the abuse would stop being inflicted and peace and quiet would return. It would take several thousands of years for this to happen, and even longer for many different new ecosystems to reach a steady state of climax. Meanwhile, of course, evolution would set to work and increase the diversity of the newly selected forms, without the threat of humans and all the other species that our extinction event killed off.

Economy Impacts

Impact Defense

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdfThe final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the

disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion

they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in

2007.”38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers

Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis , the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

Economic decline doesn’t cause warBarnett 9 [senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire magazine, columnist for World Politics Review, Thomas P.M. “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” World Politics Review, 8/252009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx]When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by

China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best

include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct

shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade . In the short run, there were attempts

across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world

in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace.

Economic decline does not cause warFerguson 6 (Niall, Professor of History – Harvard University, Foreign Affairs, 85(5), September / October, Lexis)Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

No resources for war during economic declineDuedney 91 (Daniel, Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society – Princeton University, “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April)Poverty wars. In a second scenario, declining living standards first cause internal turmoil, then war. If groups at all levels of affluence protect their standard of living by pushing deprivation on other groups, class war and revolutionary upheavals could result. Faced with these pressures, liberal democracy and free market systems could increasingly be replaced by authoritarian systems capable of maintaining minimum order.9 If authoritarian regimes are more war-prone because they lack democratic control, and if revolutionary regimes are war-prone because of their ideological fervor and isolation, then the world is likely to become more violent. The record of previous depressions supports the proposition that widespread economic stagnation and unmet economic expectations contribute to international conflict. Although initially compelling, this scenario has major flaws. One is that it is arguably based on unsound economic theory. Wealth is formed not so much by the availability of cheap natural resources as by capital formation through savings and more efficient production. Many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while many countries with more extensive resources are poor. Environmental constraints require an end to economic growth based on growing use of raw materials, but not necessarily an end to growth in the production of goods and services. In addition, economic decline does not necessarily produce conflict. How societies respond to economic decline may largely depend upon the rate at which such declines occur. And as people get poorer, they may become less willing to spend scarce resources for military forces. As Bernard Brodie observed about the modern era, “The predisposing factors to military aggression are full bellies, not empty ones.” The experience of economic depressions over the last two centuries may be irrelevant, because such depressions were characterized by under-utilized production capacity and falling resource prices. In the 1930s increased military spending stimulated economies, but if economic growth is retarded by environmental constraints, military spending will exacerbate the problem.

Economic Interdependence Checks ConflictAndrew Kuchins, Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Institution, 2002 http://sdli.Stanford.edu/101/lectures/notes20.html

Economic Interdependence Argument: Major war would be too economically devastating for a great power to consider it in its interests. Economic globalization does not affect all countries and regions equally.

Institutional Arguments: Regional and global institutions are becoming increasingly more powerful, and they encourage and facilitate cooperation and dispute resolution between nation states in a peaceful manner.

No major violence empirically results from economic crashes Naím, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, 10[Moisés, January/February, Foreign Policy, “It Didn’t Happen,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happen?wp_login_redirect=0, accessed 7-13-13, UR]

Just a few months ago, the consensus among influential thinkers was that the economic crisis would unleash a wave of geopolitical plagues. Xenophobic outbursts, civil wars, collapsing currencies, protectionism, international conflicts, and street riots were only some of the dire consequences expected by the experts.¶ It didn't happen. Although the crash did cause severe economic damage and widespread human suffering, and though the world did change in important ways for the worse -- the International Monetary Fund, for example, estimates that the global economy's new and permanent trajectory is a 10 percent lower rate of GDP growth than before the crisis -- the scary predictions for the most part failed to materialize.¶ Sadly, the same experts who failed to foresee the economic crisis were also blindsided by the speed of the recovery . More than a year into the crisis, we now know just how off they were. From telling us about the imminent collapse of the international financial system to prophecies of a 10-year recession, here are six of the most common predictions about the crisis that have been proven wrong:¶ The international financial system will collapse. It didn't. As Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crashed, as Citigroup and many other pillars of the financial system teetered on the brink, and as stock markets everywhere entered into free fall, the wise men predicted a total system meltdown. The economy has "fallen off a cliff," warned investment guru Warren Buffett. Fellow financial wizard George Soros agreed, noting the world economy was on "life support," calling the turbulence more severe than during the Great Depression, and comparing the situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.¶ The natural corollary of such doomsday scenarios was the possibility that depositors would lose access to the funds in their bank accounts. From there to visions of martial law imposed to control street protests and the looting of bank offices was just an easy step for thousands of Internet-fueled conspiracy theorists. Even today, the financial system is still frail, banks are still failing, credit is scarce, and risks abound. But the financial system is working, and the perception that it is too unsafe to use or that it can suddenly crash out of existence has largely dissipated.

Economic shocks have no effect on global peace – your authors assume biased studiesBazzi, UC San Diego Department of Economics PhD, and Blattman, Yale Departments of Political Science and Econ Assistant Professor, 11[Samuel and Christopher, December 1, Center for Global Development, “Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices,” http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1425755_file_Bazzi_Blattman_price_shocks_FINAL.pdf, accessed 7-13-13, UR]

Ultimately, however, the fact that commodity price shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict onsets, but

some effect on ongoing conflict, suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to income or temporary shocks than generally be- lieved. One possibility is that successfully mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with

considerable risk, costs, and coordination challenges.¶ Another possibility is that the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of one type or another are ubiquitous. If a nation is so fragile that a change in prices could lead to war, then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The same argument has been made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing

nations in the 1980s.19¶ B. A general problem of publication bias?¶ More generally, these findings should heighten our concern with publication bias in the con- flict literature. Our results run against a number of published results on

commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of select samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to model assump- tions, and, most importantly, alternative measures of instability.¶ Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005) demonstrates that a published find- ing is less likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested rela- tionships; there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more teams are involved in the chase of statistical significance. The cross-national study of con- flict is an extreme case of all these. Most worryingly, almost no paper looks at alternative de- pendent variables or publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of published

conflict results are fragile, though they focus on time- invariant regressors and not the time-varying shocks that have grown in popularity.¶ We are also concerned there is a “file drawer problem” (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this deci- sion rule: scholars that discover robust results that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about problems with the data or em- pirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces a robust re- sult, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer.

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic

Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the

disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38

Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers

Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis , the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

Global economic governance institutions guarantee resiliency Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdfPrior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global economic governance. Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring that we live in a “G-Zero” world. This paper takes a closer look at

the global response to the financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic picture . Despite initial shocks that

were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance structures responded quickly and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, g lobal e conomic g overnance has displayed surprising resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions performed well in crisis situations to reinforce open economic policies, especially in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas where

governance has either faltered or failed, on the whole, the system has worked. Misperceptions about global economic governance persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies – and because the efficiency of past periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system has worked better than expected remains an open question. The rest of this paper explores the possible role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international regimes, and the resilience of economic ideas might have played.

No empirical support for diversionary theory Tir, 2010 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2, April 2010, Pp. 413–425, Chetan]According to the diversionary theory of war, the cause of some militarized conflicts is not a clash of salient interests

between countries, but rather problematic domestic circumstances. Under conditions such as economic adversity or political

unrest, the country’s leader may attempt to generate a foreign policy crisis in order both to divert domestic discontent and bolster their political fortunes through a rally around the flag effect (Russett

1990). Yet, despite the wide-ranging popularity of this idea and some evidence of U.S. diversionary behavior (e.g., DeRouen 1995, 2000; Fordham 1998a, 1998b; Hess and Orphanides 1995; James and Hristolouas 1994; James and Oneal 1991; Ostrom and Job 1986), after five decades of research broader empirical support for the theory remains elusive (e.g., Gelpi 1997; Gowa; 1998; Leeds and Davis 1997; Levy 1998; Lian and Oneal 1993; Meernik and Waterman 1996). This has prompted one scholar to conclude that ‘‘seldom has so much common sense in theory found so little support in practice’’ (James 1987, 22), a view reflected in the more recent research (e.g., Chiozza and Goemans 2003, 2004; Meernick 2004; Moore and Lanoue 2003; Oneal and Tir 2006). I argue that this puzzling lack of support could be addressed by considering the possibility that the embattled leader may anticipate achieving their diversionary aims specifically through the initiation of territorial conflict2—a phenomenon I call territorial diversion.

No escalationRobert Jervis 11, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe

that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars.

Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become

discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by

war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a

sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that

even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make war thinkable .

Current capitalist system fails—economies are unstable—Iceland provesCato 09 (Molly Scott Cato, PhD from University of Wales, green economist and member of Green Party of England and Wales, Professor Strategy and Sustainability at the University of Roehampton and Convenor of Roehampton Business School’s Responsible Capitalism research center, “An Object Lesson,” General Science Full Text, Vol. 39, Issue 2, Ebsco Host, March 2009)

The world has watched the vertiginous collapse of the Icelandic economy in recent months with a mixture of fascination and horror. The Victorians popularised the concept of the 'object lesson', when an item, often from nature, was brought into the classroom and used as a didactic illustration of a general moral lesson. Iceland is providing an object lesson in what is wrong with the organisation of the global economy. Its first mistake was to focus on finance and ignore resources of real value. With a population barely larger than Bristol's and few resources other than hot water and fish, it could not

sustain the sorts of huge investment deals its 'Viking raider' entrepreneurs were engaging in. Overstretched, they brought the banks down with them; then the currency; then the whole economy. ¶ But there is nothing unusual about this strategy: 95 per cent of the transactions taking place in the global economy have no contact with real goods. We have an economy that feels it can cut loose of the planet and generate profits through financial engineering. The problem is that this disembedding of economy from environment means there is no longer any awareness of how much the Earth can sustain. Its resources are depleted, its energy drained.

We are killing our own support system.¶ The dislocation between economic activity and natural systems also has consequences for ourselves. We have created an unstable and ungrounded economy : we become

similarly unstable and ungrounded if we spend all our lives at work-stations rather than engaged in creative and collaborative work. When our shoes and even our food are produced on the other sides of the globe, it is all-too-easy to forget that all are resources are provided by nature.¶ Iceland is also demonstrating the insecurity bequeathed by globalisation . An immediate consequence of the crisis was a clearing of supermarket shelves in a country that has low-quality land and a poor climate, hence most fresh food arrives in tins. In spite of our lush landscapes, the UK is also running a huge food deficit--the same size as China's, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization--and as the value of sterling declines, the cost of imported food rises. This global supermarket approach is also damaging the human spirit, depriving us of local meaning and real nourishment.¶ The lessons Iceland has to show us in terms of social cohesion are perhaps the most disturbing , and also the most promising.

Following the implosion of the banks there were numerous violent protests in Reykjavik, and calls for the resignation of prime minister Geir Haarde led to the collapse of his government in January. In November, Iceland had signed a deal with the IMF, which will lend £10 billion to support the economy, but only on condition that it introduces the sorts of policies of cutting expenditure and squeezing living standards that poor countries of the south have been subject to. This has led to disillusionment with the conventional

economic model and support for the green-left party by around a third of the electorate.¶ What can we learn from the Iceland ic object

lesson? It demonstrates the unsustainable nature of the globalised capitalist system that has come to dominate

provisioning and trade over the past 40 years. The most important lesson is to cut your coat according to your cloth. Once you strip away the financial fluff, an economy is worth what it has in terms of resources: its people and its land. Losing sight of this basic fact has created overinflated currencies and excessive asset prices; the other side of the coin has been

the devaluing of the resources that really matter: people and planet. Creating green jobs is all very well, but until we tackle the economic

system's underlying destructive logic, sustainability will always be out of reach .

Multiple factors make collapse inevitable, but we only have to win one—Interconnectedness means any crisis goes globalTaylor 8 [Graeme Taylor is a social activist committed to constructive global transformation and the coordinator of BEST Futures, a project supporting sustainable solutions through researching how societies change and evolve, Evolution's Edge: The Coming Collapse and Transformation of Our World, Pomegranate Press, 2008, ISBN: 9781550923810, EBrary, pg. 108-9]

It is easier for societies to manage Problems that are temporary and/or local in nature than problems that are sustained and/ or generalized. For example, it is easier for a society to manage a single failed harvest than long-term

climate change, a work stoppage in one factory than a national strike, a border dispute than all-out warfare. The work of Jack Goldstone, a sociologist at George Mason University, indicates that societies are more likely to break down when they face multiple converging stresses. He wrote,"Massive state breakdown is likely to occur only when there are simultaneously high levels of distress and conflict at several levels of society _ in the state, among elites, and in the populace? While converging stresses can result from disparate developments {e.g. a harvest failure occurring at the same time as invasion, they are often caused by cascading crises {e.g. a harvest failure causes famine which then triggers a rebellion). As crises interact with each the problems multiply and become more difficult to manage. The large number of interacting problems facing humanity in the coming decades increases the probability of major crises. Enormous threats are posed by climate change, energy shortages, water scarcity, food shortages, loss of biodiversity, growing economic inequality. increasing global financial instability and conflicts over scarce resources. Other growing threats also exist, such as pandemic; and the proliferation of nuclear weapons? While any of these

issues will be extremely difficult to manage by itself in combination they will be unmanageable . For example, until recently UN food estimates have assumed that both the weather and energy prices will remain relatively stable for the foreseeable Future. But what will happen to agricultural production if the costs of irrigation, fertilizers and transportation continue to rise clue to declining oil supplies? \Vl1 at will happen if this problem is compounded by other Factors such as climate change? And what will be the political consequences in China, India and other countries ii' these interacting crises produce a deadly combination: a global depression, inflation, increasing food shortages and growing unemployment? Scenarios such as these are the recipe For the type of perfect storm that could cause the catastrophic collapse of the world system .`9' Global crises could start almost anywhere. Since societal systems have complex and chaotic dynamics, it is not possible to make precise predictions about the Future. Nevertheless, it is possible to define system parameters - the operating conditions and resources that 11 society must have to survive. The biological law of the Minimum (Liebig's Law] states that the population of any species is limited by the necessity [water food, suitable climate] in least supply. This means that it will only take a shortage of one irreplaceable global resource to trigger a global crisis. Although we are not yet in a position to predict which resource will run out when. we do know that resource shortages are inevitable because the industrial system requires constantly increasing quantities of energy; water, metals, fiber, grains and other critical resources in order to function. We also know that the availability of many resources is declining due to overexploitation, pollution and climate change. Many experts believe that oil production will peak and begin to decline sometime between 2008 and 2015. While the Hrs: 150 years of industrialization were powered by wood and coal, the rapid expansion of the industrial system alter 19(1) closely corresponds with the rapid expansion of oil production. Since oil is the most important source of energy on the planet today, when production begins to decline, the global economy is likely to go into a severe depression. This chart indicates how vulnerable our industrial civilization is to resource shortages. we could create similar charts to show how rapidly other essential resources such as groundwater, topsoil, wood, fish, natural gas, lead, zinc or copper are being depleted, and how rapidly the planets air, earth and water are being polluted. In terms of the long existence of humans on earth, the industrial Age is only a brief passing phenomena. Non-renewable fossil fuels made mechanization possible. Mechanization has allowed our species to expand and consume both renewable and non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate. Now the resources are almost running out, major ecosystems are failing, and industrial civilization is about to collapse.

Growth Bad Growth spurs conflict- military spending and willingness to go to warBoehmer 2007 (Charles, Ph.D in Political Science from Penn State, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/boehmer.html, Domestic Crisis and Interstate Conflict: The Impact of Economic Crisis, Domestic Discord, and State Efficacy on the Decision to Initiate Interstate Conflict)

Another body of literature disagrees with the diversionary conflict thesis and contends that higher rates of economic growth should lead to more frequent (or more severe) interstate conflict. Some of these studies are posed on the systemic level of analysis (Kondratieff 1926; Goldstein 1988; Mansfield 1988; Pollins 1996; Pollins and Murrin 1999) while others are focused on the national level of analysis (MacFie 1938; Blainey 1988; Choucri and North 1975; Doran 1983, 1985; Pollins and

Schweller 1999). Economic growth is said to have two effects that increase the probability of conflict . First,

economic growth could allow for increases in military spending that could increase war-making capacity

(war-chest theme) or, second, that growth provides a greater social willingness to allow leaders to opt to participate in interstate conflict. Fewer domestic constraints should give leaders a freer hand to initiate or join conflicts

Economic growth makes conflict escalation more likely—Increases resolve of leaders. Boehmer, ‘10 (Charles Ph.D. in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University, “Economic Growth and Violent International Conflict: 1875-1999,” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242690903568801#tabModule)

The theory set forth earlier theorizes that economic growth increases perceptions of state strength, increasing the likelihood of violent interstate conflicts. Economic growth appears to increase the resolve of leaders to stand against challenges and the willingness to escalate disputes. A non-random pattern exists where higher rates of GDP growth over multiple years are positively and significantly related to the most severe international conflicts, whereas this is not true for overall conflict initiations. Moreover, growth of mililary expenditures, as a measure of the war chest proposition, does not offer any explanation for violent interstate conflicts. This is not to say lhat growth of military expenditures never has any effect on the occurrence of war, although such a link is not generally true in the aggregate using a large sample of states. In comparison, higher rates of economic growth are significantly related to violent interstate conflicts in the aggregate. States with growing economies are more apt to reciprocate military challenges by other states and become involved in violent interstate conflicts. The results also show that theories from the Crisis-Scarcity perspective lack explanatory power linking GDP growth rates to war at the state level of analysis. This is not to say thai such

theories completely lack explanatory power in general, but more particularly that they cannot directly link economic growth rates to state behavior in violent interstate conflicts. In contrast, theories of diversionary conflict may well

hold some explanatory power, although not regarding GDP growth in a general test of states from all regions of the world across time. Perhaps diversionary theory better explains state behaviors short of war, where the costs of externalizing domestic tensions do not become too costly, or in relation to the foreign policies

of particular countries. In many circumstances, engaging in a war to divert attention away from domestic conditions would seemingly exacerbate domestic crisis conditions unless the chances of victory were practically assured. Nonetheless, this study does show that domestic conflict is associated with interstate conflict. If diversionary conflict theory has any traction as an economic explanation of violent interstate conflicts, it may require the study of other explan atory variables besides overall GDP growth rates , such as unemployment or inflation rales. The contribution of this

article has been to examine propositions about economic growth in a global study. Most existing studies on this topic focus on only the United States, samples of countries that are more developed on average (due to data availability in the

past), or are based on historical information and not economic GDP data. While I have shown that there is no strong

evidence linking military expenditures to violent interstate conflicts at the state level of analysis, much of the remaining Growth-as-Catalyst perspective is grounded in propositions that are not directly germane to questions about state conflict behavior, such as those linking state behavior to long-cycles, or those that remain at the systemic level. What answer remains linking economic growth to war once we eliminate military expenditures as an explanation? Considering that the concept of foreign policy mood is difficult to identify and measure, and that the bulk of the literature relies solely on the American historical experience, I do not rely on that concept. It is still possible that such moods affect some decision-makers. Instead, similar to Blainey, I find that economic growth, when sustained over a stretch of years, has its strongest effect on states once they find themselves in an international crisis . The results of this study

suggest that states such as China, which have a higher level of opportunity to become involved in violent interstate conflicts due to their capabilities, geographic location, history of conflict , and so on, should also have a higher willingness to fight after enjoying multiple years of recent economic growth. One does not have

to assume that an aggressive China will emerge from growth. If conflicts do present themselves, then China may be more likely to escalate a war given its recent national performance.

Growth causes leaders to be overly militaristic- popularityBoehmer 2007 (Charles, Ph.D in Political Science from Penn State, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/boehmer.html, Domestic Crisis and Interstate Conflict: The Impact of Economic Crisis, Domestic Discord, and State Efficacy on the Decision to Initiate Interstate Conflict)

Admittedly, theories in this category are no more developed (arguably less so) than diversionary conflict theory. However, some insights are useful that I hope to explicate below. All leaders depend on a constituency of some sort (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 1999) and

always face potential opposition to their policies (Richards et al., 1993; Hagan 1994; Miller 1995, 1999; Heldt 1999). In democratic systems, opposition parties may seek to exploit foreign policies that they will argue are not in

the best interest of the nation and executives in democracies should be more constrained than their authoritarian counterparts. But during times of economic prosperity, society is less likely to be influenced by the rhetoric of parties and factions that stand in opposition to the leader. Assuming that popularity ratings are higher than would be the case during economic recession or depression, leaders should be more apt to initiate or reciprocate military actions. Economic growth should reduce societal resistance to conflict. This may seem like a counter-intuitive proposition that people that

should be relatively better off and happy during periods of prosperity would allow leaders to opt for foreign conflicts. However, some people may become more nationalistic or xenophobic during times of prosperity and optimistic that success could be achieved in foreign conflicts. Blainey (1988) claims that anything that increases optimism and state strength should be thought of as a cause of war. However, it is most likely that this effect could heighten the risk of foreign conflict by reducing constraints placed on executives. For example, would the Clinton administration have been able to commit US troops to conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, areas where US interests were debatable, without stauncher Republican resistance in

Congress if the economy had not experienced prolonged prosperity and economic growth?

Growth is collapsing the environment and resources – causes extinction.Speth 8 – Rhodes Scholar @ Oxford University, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality for Executive Office, Founder of World Recourses Institute (Think-Tank), Led the Western Hemisphere Dialogue on Environment and Development, Administrator of United Nations Development Program, Dean of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Leader of the President’s Task Force on Global Recourses and the Environment, Holds multiple awards—National Wildlife Federation’s Recourse Defense Award and Lifetime Achievement Award of Environmental Law Institute, and Blue Planet Prize, James, “The Bridge at the Edge of the World”, pages 1-9

The remarkable charts that introduce this book reveal the story of humanity’s impact on the natural earth.' The pattern is clear: if we could speed up time, it would seem as if the global economy is crashing against the earth—the Great Collision. And like the crash of an aster- oid, the damage is enormous. For all the material blessings economic progress has provided, for all the disease and destitution avoided, for all the glories that shine in the best of our civilization, the costs to the natural world, the costs to the glories of nature, have been huge and must be counted in the balance as tragic loss. Half the world ’s tropical and temperate forests are now gone.’ The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second.’

About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone.‘ An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity.’

Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times faster than normal.’ The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared .” Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification .°

Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us . ” Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The earth’s stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon diox- ide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting climate. Everywhere earth’s ice fields are melting." Industrial processes are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to nature’s; one result is the development of more than two hundred dead zones in the oceans due to overfertilization.” Human actions already consume or destroy each year about 40 percent of nature ’s photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species." Freshwater withdrawals doubled globally between 1960 and 2000, and are now over half of accessible runoff." The following rivers no longer reach the oceans in the dry season: the Colorado, Yellow, Ganges, and Nile, among others." Societies are now traveling together in the midst of this unfolding calamity down a path that links two worlds. Behind is the world we have lost, ahead the world we are making. It is difficult to appreciate the abundance of wild nature in the world we have lost. In America we can think of the pre-Columbian world of 1491, of Lewis and Clark, and of John James Audubon. It is a world where nature is large and we are not. It is a world of majestic old-growth forests stretching from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, of oceans brimming with fish, of clear skies literally darkened by passing flocks of birds. As William MacLeish notes in T he Day befinre Amer- ica, in 1602 an Englishman wrote in his journal that the fish schooled so thickly he thought their backs were the sea bottom. Bison once roamed east to Florida. There were jaguars in the Southeast, griz- zly bear in the Midwest, and wolves, elk and mountain lions in New England.“ Audubon described the breathtaking multitudes of the passenger pi- geon migration, as well as the rapacity of their wild and human preda- tors: “Few pigeons were to be seen before sunset; but a great number of persons, with horses and wagons, guns and ammunition, had already established encampments. . . . Suddenly, there burst forth a general cry of ‘Here they come!’ The noise which they made, though yet distant, reminded me of a hard gale at sea. . . . As the birds arrived, and passed over me, I felt a current of air that surprised me. Thousands were soon knocked down by polemen. The current of birds, however, still kept increasing. . . . The pigeons, coming in by thousands, alighted every- where, one above another, until solid masses . . . were formed on every tree, in all directions. . . . The uproar continues . . . the whole night. . . . Toward the approach of day, the noise rather subsided. . . . The howlings of the wolves now reached our ears; and the foxes, lynxes, cougars, bears, raccoons, opossums, and pole-cats were seen sneaking off from the spot. Whilst eagles and hawks, of different species, accom- panied by a crowd of vultures, came to supplant them, and enjoy their share of the spoil. It was then that the authors of all this devastation began their entry amongst the dead, the dying, and the mangled. The pigeons were picked up and piled in heaps, until each had as many as he could possibly dispose of, when the hogs were let loose to feed on the remainder.”" The last passenger pigeon on earth expired in a zoo in Cincinnati in 1914. Some decades later, forester and philosopher Aldo Leopold offered these words at a ceremony on this passing: “We grieve because no living man will see again the onrushing phalanx of victorious birds, sweeping a path for spring across the March skies, chasing the defeated winter from all the woods and prairies. . . . Men still live who, in their youth, remember pigeons. Trees still live who, in their youth, were shaken by a living wind. . . . There will always be pigeons in books and in museums, but these are efligies and images, dead to all hard- ships and to all delights. Book-pigeons cannot dive out of a cloud to make the deer run for cover, or clap their wings in thunderous ap- plause of mast-laden woods. Book-pigeons cannot breakfast on new- mown wheat in Minnesota and dine on blueberries in Canada. They know no urge of seasons; they feel no kiss of sun, no lash of wind and weather.” ‘8 Human societies are moving, rapidly now, between the two worlds. The movement began slowly, but now we are hurtling toward the world directly ahead. The old world, nature’s world, continues, of course, but we are steadily closing it down, roping it off. It flourishes in our art and literature and in our imaginations. But it is disappearing. Economic historian Angus Maddison reports that in the year 1000 there were only about 270 million people on earth—fewer than today’s U.S. population. Global economic output was only about $120 billion. Eight hundred years later, the man-made world was still small. By 1820, populations had risen to about a billion people with an output of only $690 billion. Over this eight hundred years, per capita income increased by only a couple of hundred dollars a year. But shortly thereafter the take-off began. By 2000, populations had swelled by an additional five billion, and, astoundingly, economic output had grown to exceed forty trillion dollars.” The acceleration continues. The size of the world economy doubled since 1960, and then doubled again. World economic activity is projected to quadruple again by midcentury. Historian R. McNeill has stressed the phenomenal expansion of the human enterprise in the twentieth century. It was in the twentieth century, and especially since World War II, that human society truly left the moorings of its past and launched itself on the planet with unprecedented force. McNeill observes that this exponential century “shattered the constraints and rough stability of old economic, demo- graphic, and energy regimes.” “In environmental history,” he writes, “the twentieth century qualifies as a peculiar century because of the screeching acceleration of so many of the processes that bring eco- logical change.”Z° We live now in a full world, dramatically unlike the world of 1900, or even that of 1950. Physicists have a precise concept of momentum. To them momentum is mass times velocity, and velocity is not ust speed but also direction. Today the world economy has gathered tremendous momentum—it is both huge in size and growing fast. But what is its direction? I am seated in my study as I write this, looking at a stack of books about two feet high. They share a common theme, and it is not a happy one to contemplate. We can see this theme immediately in their titles.” By a conservative jurist: Richard A. Posner, Catastrophe: Risk and Response By the president of the Royal Society in the United Kingdom: Martin Rees, Our Final Hour: How Yerror, Error and Environmental Disaster Threaten Human/cind’s Future By a leading American scholar: Jared Diamond, Collapse: I-low Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed By a British scientist: James Lovelock, The Revenge ofGaia.' Why the Earth Is Fighting Bad: and How We Can Still Save

Humanity By an American expert: James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twang-first Century By a U.S. expert on conflict: Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict By an Australian diplomat and historian: Colin Mason, The 2q3o Spi/re: The Countdown to Global Catastrophe That is but a sample of the “collapse” books now on the market. Each of these authors sees the world on a path to some type of col- lapse, catastrophe, or breakdown, and they each see climate change and other environmental crises as leading ingredients of a devil’s brew that also includes such stresses as population pressures, peak oil and other energy supply problems, economic and political instabilities, ter- rorism, nuclear proliferation, the risks of various twenty-first-century technologies, and similar threats. Some think a bright future is still possible if we change our ways in time; others see a new dark ages as the likely outcome. For Sir Martin Rees, “the odds are no better than fifty-fifty that our present civilization on earth will survive to the end of the present century.””2 Personally, I cannot imagine that the risks are so great, but Rees is a thoughtful individual. In any case, it would be foolish to dismiss these authors. They provide a stark warning of what could happen. The escalating processes of climate disruption, biotic impoverish- ment, and toxification that continue despite decades of warnings and earnest effort constitute a severe indictment, but an indictment of what exactly? If we want to reverse today's destructive trends, forestall fur- ther and greater losses, and leave a bountiful world for our children and grandchildren, we must return to fundamentals and seek to understand both the underlying forces driving such destructive trends and the economic and political system that gives these forces free rein. Then we can ask what can be done to change the system. The underlying drivers of today’s environmental deterioration have been clearly identified. They range from immediate forces like the enormous growth in human population and the dominant technolo- gies deployed in the economy to deeper ones like the values that shape our behavior and determine what we consider important in life. Most basically, we know that environmental deterioration is driven by the economic activity of human beings. About half of today’s world popu- lation lives in abject poverty or close to it, with per capita incomes of less than two dollars a day. The struggle of the poor to survive cre- ates a range of environmental impacts where the poor themselves are often the primary victims—for example, the deterioration of arid and semiarid lands due to the press of increasing numbers of people who have no other option. But the much larger and more threatening impacts stem from the economic activity of those of us participating in the modern, increas- ingly prosperous world economy. This activity is consuming vast quantities of resources from the environment and returning to the en- vironment vast quantities of waste products. The damages are already huge and are on a path to be ruinous in the future. So, a fundamental question facing societies today—perhaps the fundamental question—is how can the operating instructions for the modern world economy be changed so that economic activity both protects and restores the natural world? With increasingly few exceptions, modern capitalism is the operat- ing system of the world economy. I use “modern capitalism” here in a broad sense as an actual, existing system of political economy, not as an idealized model. Capitalism as we know it today encompasses the core economic concept of private employers hiring workers to produce products and services that the employers own and then sell with the intention of making a profit. But it also includes competitive markets, the price mechanism, the modern corporation as its principal institu- tion, the consumer society and the materialistic values that sustain it, and the administrative state actively promoting economic strength and growth for a variety of reasons. Inherent in the dynamics of capitalism is a powerful drive to earn profits, invest them, innovate, and thus grow the economy, typically at exponential rates, with the result that the capitalist era has in fact been characterized by a remarkable exponential expansion of the world economy. The capitalist operating system, whatever its shortcomings, is very good at generating growth. These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive of the environment. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at almost any cost; enormous investment in technologies designed with little regard for the environment; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including profit from avoiding the environmental costs they create; markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by a worshipping of novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet—all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the planet’s ability to sustain life.

Growth and environmental sustainability are opposites and cannot exist togetherHueting, ‘08 – Roefie, Ph. D from the University of Groningen, Environmental Economist, ‘WHY ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY CAN MOST PROBABLY NOT BE ATTAINED WITH GROWING PRODUCTION’, ScienceDirect // JK

4. Arguments why environmental sustainability can most probably not be attained with growing production and without broad acceptance of de-growth The official policy of all countries in the world is that standard NI – production – must increase in order to create scope for financing environmental conservation, and thus attain sustainability. The theoretical mistake of this reasoning is shown by Hueting [20]. Of course, the future cannot be predicted.

But the plausibility of whether (a) the actual production level and (b) environmental sustainability will develop in the same direction, which is the consequence of the causal relation expressed in the political statements above, can indeed be examined. Developing in the

same direction is a minimum prerequisite for assuming a causal relation. On the grounds of the data discussed below such development is extremely unlikely. The author feels

the opposite is more plausible for the following seven reasons. (1) Theoretically, the possibility cannot be excluded that growth of

production and consumption can be combined with restoration and maintenance of environmental quality. However, such combination is highly uncertain and scarcely plausible. It would require technologies that simultaneously: (i) are sufficiently clean, (ii) do not deplete renewable natural resources, (iii) find substitutes for non-renewable resources, (iv) leave the soil intact, (v) leave sufficient space for the survival of plant and animal species and (vi) are cheaper in real terms than current available technologies, because if they are more expensive in real terms then growth will be reduced. Meeting all these six conditions is scarcely conceivable for the whole spectrum of human activities. Especially simultaneously realising both (i) through (v) and (vi), which is a prerequisite for combining production growth and conservation of the

environment, is extremely difficult. To give one example: as a rule, renewable energy is in market terms currently much more expensive than energy generated using fossil fuels . The costs of implementing renewable energy throughout society are high, and this substantially lowers production growth . Internalising the costs of eliminating the

emissions of burning fossil fuels will reduce the production level considerably. Anyhow, technologies necessary for the combination of production growth and full conservation of the functions of the environment are not yet available . Anticipating their future availability, that is stimulating NI growth in the expectation that e.g. clean, renewable, safe and cheaper energy, that does not damage vital environmental functions,

will become available in the future, conflicts with the precautionary principle, and consequently with sustainability. Giving priority to research in e.g. such energy over production growth and to bringing such energy into practice, and then to wait and see whether or not production continues to grow, is a more prudent policy if one wants to arrive at environmental sustainability. At this moment less than 1% of energy consumption consists of such energy. As explained above and in Section 2, because of the precautionary principle no future technological progress is anticipated, which is, of course, certainly not the same as forecasting or not expecting such progress.

Growth makes war inevitable and more dangerous – simplistic statistics don’t assume the changing nature of war and new transnational threats. Echevarria 03 – (Mar. 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Antulio J. Echevarria, PhD in History, Princeton University, Director of Research for the U.S. Army War College, 23 year long military career, published extensively in scholarly and professional journals on topics related to military history and theory and strategic thinking, graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army War College, “GLOBALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF WAR,” Strategic Studies Institute,http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub215.pdf ZR) Despite its apparent positive impact on the spread of democracy and free-market economies, globalization might produce a more dangerous and unpredictable world, especially if the cultural backlash it has generated thus far gathers more momentum. This world might be characterized by shifting power relationships, ad hoc security arrangements, and an ever-widening gap between the richest and poorest nations. 8 A number of new democracies—lacking strong traditions for maintaining

checks and balances—might, for example, collapse after only transitory successes. Transnational threats, such as

international crime syndicates, terrorist networks, and drug cartels, could continue to grow in strength and influence, thriving among autocratic, weak, or so-called failed states. And, ethnic rivalries, nationalism, religiousbased antagonisms,

and competition for scarce resources, including water, could go unresolved. Thus, serious crises would undoubtedly arise, especially as the world’s population continues to grow. On the other hand, globalization could give rise to a more stable world in which national interests merge into the general aim of promoting peace, stability, and economic prosperity. 9 In this world, the rule of law and the existence of pluralistic political systems would continue to spread; and the number of free-market economies would expand, distributing economic prosperity still further. Even if this “Utopia” should materialize, a number of crises—some of which

will undoubtedly require military intervention—will most likely have had to occur beforehand, since most autocratic regimes will probably not surrender power without a fight. Moreover, as the 1999 Kosovo crisis 2demonstrated, even relatively small states armed primarily with conventional weapons can pose significant security challenges to a superpower and its strategic partners. 10 The world need not devolve into a “clash of civilizations” or a “coming anarchy,” therefore, in order for military power to continue to play a significant role in the future. 11 In any case, globalization will surely continue and may even accelerate if data concerning the rate of technological change are any indication. 12 As numerous studies and strategic papers have pointed out, globalization is already changing how wars are being fought in the 21st century, making them more dangerous than in any previous era . 13 At

a minimum, the greater mobility of people, things, and ideas will mean increased mobility for nonstate actors, weapons of mass destruction, and radical fundamentalism of all types. In fact, the U.S. Department of State currently reports that more than 60 active terrorist groups exist (with some 100,000 members); and over one-third of them have the capacity for global reach. 14 Furthermore, today’s terrorists have proven very adaptive, learning from previous generations, and changing their tactics in response to new anti-terrorist measures. 15 Globalization

clearly offers them some extraordinary capabilities to communicate and coordinate their efforts. Globalization also facilitates the proliferation of destabilizing capabilities, such as weapons of mass destruction or mass effect . Eleven countries currently have nuclear weapons programs; thirteen more are actively seeking them. 16 More than 25 countries now possess ballistic missiles, and over 75,000 cruise missiles are in existence, with the number expected to rise to between 80,000 and 90,000 by 2010. 17 Also, at least 17 countries— including the so-called “Axis of Evil”—currently have active chemical and biological weapons programs, and the number is rising. 18 As the Assistant Secretary of State for Non-proliferation recently explained, despite the provisions 3of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Chemical and Biological Weapons conventions, proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosive/high yield weapons continues worldwide: “There is an intense sort of cooperation that goes on among countries that are trying to acquire such weapons.” 19 For example, China and North Korea have long contributed to the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, both for strategic leverage against the United States and for economic advantages. 20 Thus, globalization assists some powerful motives that run counter to nonproliferation efforts. Biological weapons, especially, pose a serious threat not only to human populations, but also to agriculture and livestock. Unfortunately, U.S. crops lack genetic diversity, rendering them vulnerable

to disease. Furthermore, the nation’s centralized feeding and marketing practices make livestock extremely vulnerable to a biological attack. If such an attack were to occur, a devastating ripple effect would surely spread throughout the global economy since the United States produces 30-50 percent of the world’s foodstuffs. 21 Globalization has also introduced a new form of warfare: cyber-war. More than 30 countries—including Russia, China, and

several so-called rogue states—have developed or are developing the capability to launch strategic-level cyber attacks. 22 The interconnectedness of many nations’ infrastructures means that a successful cyber attack against a single sector in one country could result in adverse effects in other sectors within the same country, or those of its neighbors. Indeed, intended (and unintended) adverse effects could well travel globally. 23 If globalization is making war more dangerous and adding new dimensions to it (such as cyber space), is it in some way changing the nature of war? What exactly is the nature of war? These questions are of more than a purely 4academic interest, since the nature of a thing tends to define how it can and cannot be used.

Growth is the root cause of war – changes national priorities and encourages violence in the name of growthTrainer, ‘02 - Ted, Ph. D of Social Sciences from the University of New South Wales, Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, ‘If you want affluence, prepare for war’, http://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html // JK

If this limits to growth analysis is at all valid the implications for the problem of global peace and conflict and security are clear and savage. If we all remain determined to increase our living standards, our level of production and consumption, in a world where resources are already scarce, where only a few have affluent living standards but another 8 billion will be wanting them too, and which we the rich are determined to get richer without any limit, then nothing is more guaranteed than that there will be increasing levels of conflict and violence. To put it another way, if we insist on remaining affluent we will need to remain heavily armed. Increased conflict in at least the following categories can be expected. Firstly the present conflict over resources between the rich elites and the poor majority in the Third World must increase , for example as "development" under globalisation takes more land, water and forests into export markets. Secondly there are conflicts between the Third World and the rich world, the major recent examples being the war between the US and Iraq over control of oil . Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US intervened, accompanied by much high-sounding rhetoric, (having found nothing unacceptable about Israel's invasions of Lebanon or the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.) As has often been

noted, had Kuwait been one of the world's leading exporter of broccoli, rather than oil, it is doubtful whether the US would have been so eager to come to its defence . At the time of writing the US is at war in Central Asia over "terrorism". Few would doubt that a "collateral" outcome will be the establishment of regimes that will give the West access to the oil wealth of Central Asia. Following are some references to the

connection many have recognised between rich world affluence and conflict. General M.D. Taylor, U.S. Army retired argued "...U.S. military priorities just be shifted towards insuring a steady flow of resources from the Third World ." Taylor referred to "...fierce competition among industrial powers for the same raw materials markets sought by the United States" and "... growing hostility displayed by have-not nations towards their affluent counterparts ."62 "Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product ; within the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and markets".63 "That more than half of the people on this planet are poorly nourished while a small percentage live in historically unparalleled luxury is a sure recipe for continued and even escalating international conflict ."64 The oil embargo placed on the US by OPEC in the early 1970s prompted the US to make it clear that it was prepared to go to war

in order to secure supplies. "President Carter last week issued a clear warning that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf would lead to war." It would "…be

regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States."65 "The US is ready to take military action if Russia threatens vital American interests in the Persian Gulf, the US Secretary of Defence, Mr. Brown, said yesterday."66 Klare's recent book Resource Wars discusses this theme in detail, stressing the coming significance of water as a source of international conflict. "Global demand for many key materials is growing at an

unsustainable rate." "…the incidence of conflict over vital materials is sure to grow." "The wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital economic goods ." "…resource wars will become, in the years ahead, the

most distinctive feature of the global security environment."67 Much of the rich world's participation in the conflicts taking place through out the world is driven by the determination to back a faction that will then look favourably on Western interests. In a report entitled, "The rich prize that is Shaba", Breeze begins, "Increasing rivalry over a share-out between France and Belgium of the mineral riches of Shaba Province lies behind the joint Franco-Belgian paratroop airlift to Zaire." "These mineral riches make the province a valuable prize and help explain the West’s extended diplomatic courtship,..."68 Then there is potential conflict between the rich nations who are after all the ones most dependent on securing large quantities of resources. "The resource and energy intensive modes of production employed in nearly all industries necessitate continuing armed coercion and competition to secure raw materials ."69 "Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of he world product, within the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and markets…"70

Growth, competition, expansion…and war. Finally, at the most abstract level, the struggle for greater wealth and power is central in the literature on the causes of war . "...warfare appears as a normal and periodic form of competition within the capitalist world economy." "...world wars regularly occur during a period of economic expansion."71 "War is an inevitable result of the struggle between economies for expansion."72 Choucri and North say their most important finding is that domestic growth is a strong determinant of national expansion and that this results in competition between nations and war .73. World Wars I and II can be seen as being largely about imperial grabbing. Germany, Italy and Japan sought to expand their territory and resource access. But Britain already held much of the world within its empire…which it had previously fought 72 wars to take! "Finite resources in a world of expanding populations and increasing per capita demands create a situation ripe for international violence."74 Ashley focuses on the significance of the quest for economic growth. "War is mainly explicable in terms of differential growth in a world of scarce and unevenly distributed resources…" "…expansion is a prime source of conflict. So long as the dynamics of differential growth remain unmanaged, it is probable that these long term processes will

sooner or later carry major powers into war."75 Security The point being made can be put in terms of security. One way to seek security is to develop greater capacity to repel attack. In the case of nations this means large expenditure of money, resources and effort on military preparedness. However there is a much better strategy; i.e., to live in ways that do not oblige you to take more than your fair share and therefore that do not give anyone any motive to attack you. But this is not possible unless there is global economic justice . If a few

insist on levels of affluence, industrialisation and economic growth that are totally impossible for all to achieve , and which

could not be possible if they were taking only their fair share of global resources, then they must remain heavily armed and their security will require readiness to use their arms to defend their unjust privileges . In other words if we want affluence we must prepare for war. If we insist on continuing to take most of the oil and other resources while many suffer intense deprivation because they cannot get access to them then we must be prepared to maintain the aircraft carriers and rapid deployment forces, and the despotic regimes, without which we cannot secure the oil fields and

plantations. Global peace is not possible without global justice, and that is not possible unless rich countries move to "The Simpler Way."