Contention 1 is Inherency – The National Ocean Policy is a failure. Budget and coordination efforts hamstring holistic strategy for exploration



Download 0.6 Mb.
Page5/13
Date03.03.2018
Size0.6 Mb.
#42027
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13

Adv – Science

No Env. Leadership

The US has lost its lead as the a green leader.


Knox, 12 (John H. Knox is the Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law at Wake Forest University. Professor Knox has taught courses on environmental law, international environmental law, human rights, international trade, and property law. His scholarship examines international environmental law, human rights law, and international economic integration, and has often focused on areas where those fields overlap or conflict, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership, blog, January 20, 2012, http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=FB9153F2-ABFE-3CF2-8053EAF1ED929DB8, A.G)

For more than a century, the United States took the lead in organizing responses to international environmental problems. The long list of environmental agreements spearheaded by the United States extends from early treaties with Canada and Mexico on boundary waters and migratory birds to global agreements restricting trade in endangered species and protecting against ozone depletion. In the last two decades, however, U.S. environmental leadership has faltered. The best-known example is the lack of an effective response to climate change, underscored by the U.S. decision not to join the Kyoto Protocol. But the attention climate change receives should not obscure the fact that the United States has also failed to join a large and growing number of treaties directed at other environmental threats, including marine pollution, the loss of biological diversity, persistent organic pollutants, and trade in toxic substances

US Should Lead - Brink

The US maintains its edge the scientific leader, but new operations are necessary to sustain this position.


Akst, 12 (Jef, master’s degree from Indiana University and news editor at The Scientist, “Slipping from the Top?” The Scientist, 3/14/12, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31845/title/Slipping-from-the-Top-/)

The United States is still a global leader in science and technology research, but the country must act now to avoid losing its edge. This was the overall consensus among two panels of experts, which included National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, assembled today (March 14) by Research!America, a nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance. “I do think America continues to be a place where boldness and innovation and creativity are encouraged,” Collins said. But there are “warning signs,” he added, such as the facts that the country is now ranked 6th in the world with regard to the proportion of its gross domestic product that is invested in research and development and that young high school students score relatively poorly in math and science compared to teens in other nations. If efforts are not taken to reverse these trends, Collins warned, “we might see America lose their commitment to supporting research at the level that it will take to maintain that competitiveness.” Research!America today released the results of a national poll that suggests the American voting public is skeptical about the country’s future in scientific research. More than half (58 percent) of those polled do not believe the United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020, and 85 percent said they were worried about decreases in federal funding for research. “The findings reveal deep concerns among likely voters about our ability to maintain world-class status,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America—something that the vast majority (91 percent) of those polled said was important, especially as other countries are increasingly investing in science.

SciDip Solves War

Science diplomacy builds coalitions, creates multilateral applications for soft power and diffuses global conflicts.


Espy, 13 (Nicole, PhD student in Biological Sciences of Public Health at Harvard University, “Science and Diplomacy,” 2/18/13, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/science-and-diplomacy/)

The daily endeavors of a scientist may seem very distinct from those of a political diplomat. The public may imagine that scientific progress is driven by the work of scientists working methodically and in isolation in laboratories around the world. In contrast, the idea of a political diplomat likely conjures a different image – one that involves groups of politicians forming alliances and guiding negotiations between multiple organizations and nations. But, science is a similarly collaborative effort that often requires coordination between different groups to improve available tools and advance knowledge. Science and diplomacy can even benefit one another. Science can provide the data and frameworks necessary to initiate and inform diplomatic talks while at the same time, diplomacy can create opportunities that improve the way we do science. Science as a topic of Diplomacy Science is at the heart of many international diplomatic discussions. For example, nuclear research has been a hot topic in international politics for the past 60 years. Nuclear research has enabled us to harness the power of nuclear fission for nuclear energy, but it has also resulted in the creation of nuclear arms that have led to a great deal of destruction. To ensure nuclear research continues in a safe and responsible manner, nations have worked together to develop a system of oversight and accountability. These diplomatic efforts have resulted in the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose early slogan was “Atoms for Peace.” This agency provides technical guidelines and assistance to countries for safe use of tools and techniques involving nuclear and radioactive materials. It also attempts to make public the development of nuclear arms programs in countries around the world so that other world leaders can take appropriate action. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a model for how scientists and policy makers can share information and work toward shared interests. Climate change is another major driver of international diplomatic negotiations. The impact of climate change on people’s lives is largely unpredictable and non-uniform across different regions. In response, national leaders similarly vary in their willingness to consent to international agreements concerning means to cut green house gas emissions. While the scientific consensus is that greenhouse-gas emissions are a major cause of global warming, the debate surrounding climate change at the global diplomatic level concerns the methods that should be employed to slow global warming and which countries should carry the brunt of the socioeconomic responsibility. The Kyoto Protocol, written in 1997, was an international agreement that required participating countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The greatest responsibility for these reductions fell on developed countries, like the United States and those in Europe, who emitted much of the greenhouse gas during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, in 2001, the United States withdrew its support of the Protocol, in objection to the quality of the Protocol’s goals, recognizing that rapidly industrializing countries like China and India now emit more greenhouse gases from fossil fuels than high-income countries. Meanwhile, low-income countries, including many island nations soon to be overcome by rising sea levels, want immediate action that will stop climate change and help these countries adapt to future changes. Last November, the United Nations held the Doha Climate Change conference, one of a series of conferences held to devise an internationally supported plan of action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The result was not a consensus on the means and measurements of reducing emissions per country. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol was extended through 2020 and participating countries discussed the right of island nations to be compensated for adaptation costs. Since all 196 countries in the world are a part of this conversation, climate change negotiations are difficult but imperative in the face of the impending effects of climate change. Ultimately, science can help provide the data – models forecasting future climate changes, predicted outcomes of different strategies – that help frame climate change discussions, but decisions on what policy to pursue will require frank and democratic deliberations that balance the needs and interests of all stakeholders. Diplomacy to improve science Sometimes diplomacy is used to make new scientific tools available and to facilitate intellectual exchange. After the Second World War, European scientists in the field of nuclear physics imagined an organization that would increase collaboration across Europe and coordinate cost sharing for the building and maintenance of the facilities this research required. This idea resulted in the formation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN. The political negotiations to manage the shared operating costs and the use of CERN facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists from many different nations and academic institutions are now carried out within the CERN framework to manage the shared operating costs and the use of the facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists. This use of diplomacy has enabled many important discoveries, including the most recent discovery of the Higgs Boson. Other organizations that are the result of global collaboration include ITER, former known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, for the development of nuclear fusion for energy production, the Square Kilometre Array for the design of the world’s largest radio telescope, and the International Space Station for space exploration. All of the above organizations have helped scientists overcome technical (and financial) challenges in their respective fields that they would not have surmounted on their own. Science to improve Diplomacy Beyond the contentious subjects of nuclear proliferation and climate change, science can be a tool to improve diplomatic relations between conflicting nations. The former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr., noted that “soft power,” such as international cultural and intellectual collaborations between international groups, helps maintain a positive global attitude between participating nations and can result in favorable political alliances. Scientific collaborations are a powerful example of soft power, since science is internationally respected as an impartial endeavor.

Science diplomacy is a vital tool in achieving growth and minimizing war.


Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)

Science diplomacy helps other countries to become more capable in science and technology. One might worry that this creates more capable competitors, but I believe that it is in the interest of technologically advanced societies like in the U.S. and Europe to encourage more knowledge-based societies worldwide that rely upon science. The only way to stay in the forefront of the scientific and technological revolution, which is where I want the U.S. to be, is to run faster and to work with the best scientists and engineers wherever they reside in the world. That is why I support more global scientific engagement by the U.S. with leading scientists and engineers around the world. The approach that I favor was captured well in the title of an article in the October 2012 issue of Scientific American: “A measure of the creativity of a nation is how well it works with those beyond its borders.” I believe that the world has a special opportunity in this decade since so many countries are focusing on improving their capabilities in science and technology and are willing to make fundamental changes in investments and policies so they can build more innovative societies. If we can minimize wars and conflicts with skillful diplomacy, the potential is there for more rapid economic growth, faster expansion of the middle class, and increased democratic governance in many countries as well as increased trade between countries. This is an optimistic scenario. A range of future scenarios, including some that are quite pessimistic, are laid out in the fascinating report Global Trends 2030, published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council in 2012.(8) I believe that we can make the hopeful scenario a reality. Science diplomacy is one of our most important tools in achieving the desired outcome.

Science diplomacy can prevent conflict and diffuse existing tensions.


Wallin, 10 (Matthew, master’s candidate at in the Public Diplomacy program and Center for Science Diplomacy intern/conference reporter, referencing the remarks of Ernest J. Wilson III, Dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the proceedings of the USC Center of Public Diplomacy’s conference on Science Diplomacy and the Prevention of Conflict, 2/4/10, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u22281/Science%20Diplomacy%20Proceedings.pdf)

In his introductory remarks, Dean Ernest Wilson pointed out that although science diplomacy can be utilized to prevent conflict, it tends to be neglected as an important aspect of diplomacy. Science diplomacy takes place at the intersection of events and trends, and so it doesn’t neatly fit into traditional analytic categories, nor does it fit into the standard and familiar organizational silos. Proposing three areas of analysis for science diplomacy, Wilson outlined the concepts of Context, Curves, and Caution. Contextually, science and technology’s ability to play a larger role in the foreign policy of states is an area that requires careful scrutiny. This field is becoming more pertinent, as can be seen from recent conflicts between Google, Inc. and the People’s Republic of China over Internet access. This example highlights technology companies’ attempts to gain political influence that they believe is commensurate with their economic weight, demonstrating the possible emergence of a new political context where science and technology (S&T) may be augmenting companies’ audiences and constituencies. To demonstrate the concept of Curves, Wilson brought up the previous night’s question about the disaggregation of science. As with science, conflict can be subdivided into different categories, many of which require different tools to achieve lasting and successful resolution. Conflict cannot be modeled as a steady state, but rather as a bell-shaped curve. On the left side, conflict is either non-existent or in a pre-conflict state. Accelerators act to raise the level of conflict to a peak or plateau, and on the right side of the curve, conflict declines. It is subsequently important to understand at which points on the curve science and technology can intervene. On the left side, S&T can help prevent conflict, whereas at the peak it can help reduce it. On the right side, the question remains of how exactly S&T can help sustain the reduction in conflict.


Science Race/Impact

The race for scientific leadership is on – innovative science is vital to solving global impacts.


Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)

In 2010 the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development released a strategic blueprint to chart the course of the next four years. In this first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, it was stated: “Science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” The significance of this observation has been emphasized repeatedly to me over the past two years in conversations with representatives of many countries about science and technology. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every country has put at the very top of its agenda the role of science and technology for supporting innovation and economic development. This observation has been true for countries at every level of development – not only for countries like Germany, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore, but also for countries like Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Czech Republic, Malaysia, and Vietnam. They are all seeking insights regarding the right policies and investments to help their societies to become more innovative and competitive to ensure a more prosperous future for their citizens. Why does nearly every country now have a “laser-like” focus on improving its capabilities in science, technology, and innovation in order to be more competitive in this globalized, interconnected world? My guess is that most countries see two trends clearly: (1) science and technology have a major impact on the economic success of leading companies and countries and (2) the scientific and technological revolution has been accelerating. If countries do not become more capable in science and technology, they will be left behind. The upside is great if they can capitalize on the transformative potential of new and emerging technologies. As one example, the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has shown the potential for developing countries to use new technologies to “leapfrog” over the development paths taken by developed countries, such as with mobile phones in Africa. Countries also recognize that almost every issue with which they are confronted on the national, regional, and global level has an important scientific and technological component. This is true whether the issue concerns health, environment, national security, homeland security, energy, communication, food, water, climate change, disaster preparedness, or education. Countries know they have smart, creative, entrepreneurial people. They believe their people can compete, even from a distance, if the right investments are made and the right policies are implemented. And they know that to become more capable in science and technology and to create innovation and knowledge-based societies, they must collaborate with the world leaders in science and technology. New and emerging technologies have also affected the trajectory of fundamental science and engineering research by creating new capabilities for exploring and understanding the natural world. We are only at the beginning of exploiting the potential of these new capabilities. This is another reason for the acceleration of the scientific and technological revolution, progressing at such an incredibly rapid pace that it is hard to imagine, much less predict, what new transformative possibilities will emerge within a decade. Scientists are not much better at predicting the future than anyone else. I am very envious of young people who will see amazing developments in their lifetimes. As renowned computer scientist Alan Kay said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

SciDip => Heg/Relations/Solves Things

Science diplomacy key to relations


Hormats 12 (Robert D., March 3, 2012, Robert D. Hormats has served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment since 2009., “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, AAAS, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-first-century-statecraft) KD

Science diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda. The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in addressing major challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global health issues, and dealing with climate change. American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security strength. Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the United States should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to advance the prosperity, health, and overall wellbeing of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our science diplomacy engagement. More than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and technology. It is estimated that America’s knowledge-based industries represent 40 percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as a strong commitment to educational excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who want the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, our innovation economy. The practice of science is increasingly expanding from individuals to groups, from single disciplines to interdisciplinary, and from a national to an international scope. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that from 1985 to 2007, the number of scientific articles published by a single author decreased by 45 percent. During that same period, the number of scientific articles published with domestic co-authorship increased by 136 percent, and those with international co-authorship increased by 409 percent. The same trend holds for patents. Science collaboration is exciting because it takes advantage of expertise that exists around the country and around the globe. American researchers, innovators, and institutions, as well as their foreign counterparts, benefit through these international collaborations. Governments that restrict the flow of scientific expertise and data will find themselves isolated, cut off from the global networks that drive scientific and economic innovation. While the scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international ties among universities and research labs, are a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—are fundamental values from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology behind the agricultural “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology community. Science diplomacy is not new. It is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its importance will continue to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that “science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” These interrelated issues are priorities for the United States and, increasingly, the world.


Download 0.6 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
general public
national oceanic