Int’l cps- brag lab- wave 1 Theory

Download 1.09 Mb.

Page	33/35
Date	03.03.2018
Size	1.09 Mb.
	#42024

1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

US Solves Best

US data is critical, provides more than half of global sensor platforms

Levy 11 (Joel Levy, NOAA Climate Program Ofﬁce, Climate Observation Division The Global Ocean Observing Component of IOOS: Implementation of the Initial Global Ocean Observing System for Climate and the Path Forward, http://www.plocan.eu/doc/MTS%20Journal_2011_Vol45-No1.pdf)

The Observational Subsystems of the In Situ Observing System NOAA is the world leader in im- plementing the in situ elements of the global ocean observing system for cli- mate. The NOAA Climate Observa- tion Division sponsors the majority of the global components of the U.S. IOOS.7 The Climate Observation Di- vision manages implementation of the global ocean observing system as a set of observational networks Of Rlbsystom Each subsystem brings unique strengths and limitations; together they build die whole system. The subsystems provide stand-alone data sets and analyses but are interdependent and function syn- ergistically, supplying the observational infrastructure that underlies national and international climate research and operational activities (see Figure 1). Currently, over 8,000 observational platforms are deployed throughout the global ocean, with plans to increase that number to bring the system into com- pliance with the initial GCOS design. NOAA sponsors nearly half of the plat- forms presently deployed in the global ocean, with over 70 other countries providing the remainder. Implementation of the U.S. obser- vational networks is accomplished by NOAA laboratories and university- based cooperative institutes, working in close partnership with each other under funding from the Climate Obser- vation Division. Satellites also provide critical contributions to global ocean observation, but operation of the satel- lites does not (all under the mandate of the Climate Observation Division.

The US has the best ocean policy – no other countries come close

Ocean Leadership 14, Ocean Leadership, nearest date given is 2014, Ocean Leadership is a company that works to inform people of the best way to solve for biodiversity issues, “Executive Summary,” http://oceanleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Ocean_blueprint.pdf, NN

America is a nation intrinsically connected to and immensely reliant on the ocean. All citizens—whether they reside in the country’s farmlands or mountains, in its cities or along the coast—affect and are affected by the sea. Our grocery stores and restaurants are stocked with seafood and our docks are bustling with seaborne cargo. Millions of visitors annually flock to the nation’s shores, creating jobs and contributing substantially to the U.S. economy through one of the country’s largest and most rapidly growing economic sectors: tourism and recreation. The offshore ocean area under U.S. jurisdiction is larger than its total land mass, providing a vast expanse for commerce, trade, energy and mineral resources, and a buffer for security. Born of the sea are clouds that bring life-sustaining water to our fields and aquifers, and drifting microscopic plants that generate much of the oxygen we breathe. Energy from beneath the seabed helps fuel our economy and sustain our high quality of life. The oceans host great biological diversity with vast medical potential and are a frontier for exciting exploration and effective education. The importance of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cannot be overstated; they are critical to the very existence and wellbeing of the nation and its people. Yet, as the 21st century dawns, it is clear that these invaluable and life-sustaining assets are vulnerable to the activities of humans. Human ingenuity and ever-improving technologies have enabled us to exploit—and significantly alter—the ocean’s bounty to meet society’s escalating needs. Pollution runs off the land, degrading coastal waters and harming marine life. Many fish populations are declining and some of our ocean’s most majestic creatures have nearly disappeared. Along our coasts, habitats that are essential to fish and wildlife and provide valuable services to humanity continue to suffer significant losses. Non-native species are being introduced, both intentionally and accidentally, into distant areas, often resulting in significant economic costs, risks to human health, and ecological consequences that we are only beginning to comprehend. Yet all is not lost. This is a moment of unprecedented opportunity. Today, as never before, we recognize the links among the land, air, oceans, and human activities. We have access to advanced technology and timely information on a wide variety of scales. We recognize the detrimental impacts wrought by human influences. The time has come for us to alter our course and set sail for a new vision for America, one in which the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are healthy and productive, and our use of their resources is both profitable and sustainable. It has been thirty-five years since this nation’s management of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes was comprehensively reviewed. In that time, significant changes have occurred in how we use marine assets and in our understanding of the consequences of our actions. This report from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy provides a blueprint for change in the 21st century, with recommendations for creation of an effective national ocean policy that ensures sustainable use and protection of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes for today and far into the future.

The US solves best for ocean policies – Obama’s new reforms and policies establish the US as lead in the field

Eilperin 14, Juliet Eilperin, 6/17/14, Eilperin is an environmental writer who primarily works for The Washington Post as part of their staff, “Obama proposes vast expansion of Pacific Ocean sanctuaries for marine life,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-propose-vast-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuary/2014/06/16/f8689972-f0c6-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html, NN

The proposal, slated to go into effect later this year after a comment period, could create the world’s largest marine sanctuary and double the area of ocean globally that is fully protected. “I’m going to use my authority to protect some of our nation’s most precious marine landscapes,” Obama said in a video to participants at a State Department conference, adding that while the ocean is being degraded, “We cannot afford to let that happen. That’s why the United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans.” The announcement — first reported earlier Tuesday by The Washington Post — is part of a broader push on maritime issues by an administration that has generally favored other environmental priorities. The oceans effort, led by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D. Podesta, is likely to spark a new political battle with Republicans over the scope of Obama’s executive powers. The president will also direct federal agencies to develop a comprehensive program aimed at combating seafood fraud and the global black-market fish trade. In addition, the administration finalized a rule last week allowing the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off U.S. coasts and in the Great Lakes. Expanding a marine monument? Obama has used his executive authority 11 times to safeguard areas on land, but scientists and activists have been pressing him to do the same for untouched underwater regions. President George W. Bush holds the record for creating U.S. marine monuments, declaring four during his second term, including the one that Obama plans to expand. Under the proposal, according to two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be expanded from almost 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles — all of it adjacent to seven islands and atolls controlled by the United States. The designation would include waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore from the territories. “It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to the pristine ocean,” said Enric Sala, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence who has researched the area’s reefs and atolls since 2005. Obama has faced criticism from a variety of groups — including cattle ranchers, law enforcement officers and ATV enthusiasts — over his expansion of protections for federal lands. The ocean area under consideration, by contrast, encompasses uninhabited islands in a remote region with sparse economic activity. Even so, the designation is expected to face objections from the U.S. tuna fleet that operates in the region. Fish caught in the area account for up to 3 percent of the annual U.S. tuna catch in the western and central Pacific, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. When Bush created the monument in 2009, he exempted sport fishing to address industry opposition. Mike Leonard, ocean resource policy director for the American Sportfishing Association, said recreational fishing enthusiasts would push to ensure their existing exemption stays in place if the protected area is expanded. “We believe in almost all instances you can still have marine conservation and marine protection, and still allow for sustainable recreational fishing activities to take place,” Leonard said, adding there’s almost no sportfishing activity in the area because “it’s a heck of a trek out there. Our concern is obviously with the precedent this might set.”

US commission on Ocean policy is best

USCOP 09, United States Commision on Ocean Policy, nearest date given is 2009, USCOP is a research organization concerned with US environmental developments in the oceans, “The US Commission on Ocean Policy,” http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/, NN

On September 20, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy fulfilled its mandate to submit recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy to the President and Congress. The Commission's final report, "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century," contains 212 recommendations addressing all aspects of ocean and coastal policy. The 16 members of the Commission call on the President and Congress to take decisive, immediate action to carry out these recommendations, which will halt the steady decline of our nation's oceans and coasts. On December 17, 2004, in response to the Commission's findings and recommendations, the President issued an executive order establishing a Committee on Ocean Policy as part of the Council on Environmental Quality and released the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Following the White House announcement of these actions, the Commission responded with a preliminary assessment of the Ocean Action Plan, calling it a promising first step toward the implementation of a comprehensive national ocean policy. To view the Commission's preliminary assessment click here. On December 19, 2004, the Commission expired, as provided under the terms of the Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-256), as amended. However, this website will continue to be available as an archive of the Commission's work. An electronic version of the full-color final report is currently available on the Documents page of this website. The full-color final report is also available in hard copy from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for $45. The NTIS package includes the final report, a CD-ROM with the seven supplementary books, a DVD with an 11-minute summary of the Commission's recommendations, and a 37-minute video recounting the work of the Commission. To order from NTIS, call 1-800-553-6847 and quote order number PB2005-101629KTF. Or order online at www.ntis.gov.

Preserving US marine ecosystems is key to avoid extinction and global biosphere collapse. CP can’t put sensors in our waters

Craig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, focusing on Environmental Law, at Indiana University School of Law, Winter 2003, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, lexis)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.¶ Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.¶ [*265] ¶ Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860¶ Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.¶ However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.¶ We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.¶ The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865¶ Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

Effective coastal conservation in the US is key to human survival

Pan 13 (Jeronimo Pan, PhD in Marine and Atmospheric Sciences from Stony Brook University; Dr. M. Alejandra Marcoval, Research Scientist at the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata in Argentina; Sergio M. Bazzini, Micaela V. Vallina, and Silvia G. De Marco, “Coastal Marine Biodiversity Challenges and Threats,” Chapter 2 in Marine Ecology in a Changing World, p. 44, google books)

Coastal areas provide critical ecological services such as nutrient cycling, flood control, shoreline stability, beach replenishment and genetic resources (Post and Lundin 1996, Scavia et al. 2002). Some estimates by Boesch (1999), mention that the ocean and coastal systems contribute 63% of the total value of Earth’s ecosystem services (worth $21 trillion year1). Population growth is a major concern for coastal areas with more than 50% of the world population concentrated within 60 km of the coast (Post and Lundin 1996); in the United States the expected tendency for the next decades is that the coastal population will increase by ~25% (Scavia et al. 2002). The continued growth of human population and of per capita consumption have resulted in unsustainable exploitation of Earth’s biological diversity, exacerbated by climate change, ocean acidification, and other anthropogenic environmental impacts. The effective conservation of biodiversity is essential for human survival and the maintenance of ecosystem processes

Links to NB

The CP links to politics – environmental policy in Europe is incredibly unpopular

Baltruks 14, Dorothea Baltruks, 5/26/14, Baltruks is a staff writer for the environmental agency Nouvelle, “The English channel : a river or an ocean?” http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/english-channel-river-or-ocean, NN

After 5 long years of recession (which included a change in Westminster from a Labour to the first coalition government since WWII of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats), dissatisfaction with politics is high, populism thrives and identity politics is ripe - not only in Scotland that may leave the UK after the referendum this summer. Britain’s political parties are divided in their positions on EU membership and the free movement of people. It is now one of the clearest cleavages between the political right and left. It is a struggle for the meaning of sovereignty and identity that we have seen in many European countries; yet its potency is particularly high on this island and may push the country out of the Union in three years’ time. Of course, the EU has always been an ambiguous topic in British politics, which is illustrated by the pick-and-mix nature of its membership. Both the Conservative Party with its social conservatism on the one hand and business-friendliness on the other, and the Labour Party, more socially progressive but concerned with protecting the interests of British workers, have always been split on the issue. Forty years ago, it was the Labour Party that advocated a withdrawal from the European Community, opposing the Conservatives’ advocacy of it. Sure, Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech in 1988 illustrates that the UK was always more outspoken than other countries about putting its self-interest first, keen on the economic benefits of the single market, suspicious of the political union that accompanied it. With Tony Blair, New Labour committed itself firmly to the EU, and decided not to impose any significant transitional arrangements on the free movement of people from the new member states that joined in 2004. A wave of immigration from these countries - especially Poland - followed. It was economically hugely beneficial, yet accompanied by a rise in xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments in the popular discourse. In a parallel development, New Labour turned the party that had traditionally defended the state and the working class, into a party that subscribed to neoliberal ideas, curtailed civic liberties, and continued the transformation from the ‘Keynesian Welfare State’ to the ‘Schumpertarian Workfare State’ that Thatcher had started. Many disappointed voters turned to the Liberal Democrats, for many a protest party on the left, which led to the historical election of 2010 in which the ‘third party’ became the kingmaker and joined a coalition with the Conservatives despite huge political differences. Four years later, the Lib Dems are now seen as having subscribed to the same neoliberal consensus given the coalition government’s record of austerity, privatisations and marketisation. Hence, many Britons feel - perhaps not unjustly - a lack of differentiation between the main parties in terms of traditional left/right cleavages. The rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and arguably the nasty political effects of the recession, have strengthened an old and a new divide: immigration and Europe. For UKIP these two ‘problems’ are connected. It is not the qualified immigrants from Asia who are targeted, but the Eastern and Southern European immigrants who are associated with ‘welfare tourism’ and ‘stealing British jobs’. Being a member of the EU is equated with ‘no control over our borders’. Hence, the logic of UKIP and many members of the Conservatives goes, the only way to ‘become a sovereign country again’ is to leave the EU. While the Prime Minister has continuously voiced his support for membership, he has attached conditions to it. He wants to reform the EU, renegotiate the UK’s membership, and then hold an ‘In/Out’ referendum in 2017. Some of the changes he demands are minor, others - especially those that require Treaty change - far fetched. In an interview a few days ago, for instance, David Cameron said that he does not want the principle of ‘ever closer union’ to apply to Britain anymore - a Treaty change that is highly unlikely to be confirmed by the other Member States. As is his demand to restrict the free movement of people, one of the founding principles of the Union. These demands exemplify Cameron’s strategy: he says Britain should stay in the EU - in an EU that will give in to his demands! He is obviously trying to create a win-win situation for himself and his party. As the EU will not give in to all of his demands, he can remain an advocate of the principles of the single market, and a critic of the EU’s “overbearing influence”. If there will be an referendum on EU membership in 2017, Cameron wants to ensure that he will be the winner - not matter what the result will be. This is a risky strategy and a weak commitment to the EU. Although Labour’s leader Ed Miliband said last year that the previous Labour government ‘got it wrong’ on immigration when not imposing transitional arrangements on the free movement of workers from the new member states, the party seems to have decided now to stand firmly behind Britain’s EU membership, yet it has been more reluctant that the other two parties on the left, the Lib Dems and the Green Party, to speak out for it. The Lib Dems, who have been stuck on an unpopularity record high since 2010, have come out in the run-up to the European Election as firmly committed to EU membership. Nick Clegg, the party’s leader, has even taken on Nigel Farage in two TV debates on the issue - and was declared the loser. Farage with his bluntness, charisma and well-rehearsed slogans has become a regular in TV discussions and news programs. Undoubtedly, the rise of UKIP is a rise of Farage - despite rather than because of the rest of his party that regularly gets into the news for racist, islamophobic and homophobic comments that Farage is busy downplaying. Farage is not Marine Le Pen, but some UKIP candidates seem to be closer to the Front National’s positions than their leader makes like them to be. Arguably more helpful for Farage is the support of the powerful right-wing populist press that spreads his messages across the country on a daily basis. So, yes, the pressure UKIP’s popularity is exerting on the Conservative Party has been a major contributor to the deepening of the left/right divide on Europe. Yet, the cleavage appears to be deeper than that. The recession has made Britain a more insecure country - insecure about its place in the world, about its identity. The younger generation - which is more likely to lean towards the left-wing parties - sits more comfortably with the thought of a globalised world order of interdependent countries that benefit more from transnational cooperation, especially when it comes to the big issues of our time: climate change, resource depletion, unreliable financial markets, etc. But this is not just a cleavage between young and old. It is a cleavage between those who are looking backwards and those who are looking ahead and accept the reality of a future Britain that is not a global player in its own right. If Scotland leaves the UK, which would result in a shift of voting weight towards the right, this preoccupation with the search for Britain’s identity may intensify further and in the worst case even push the country out of the EU - out of insecurity rather than conviction.

EU Spending Disad

UQ

The EU economy is incredibly fragile right now – further spending risks economic collapse

Yoon 14, Sangwon Yoon, 4/14/14, Yoon is a staff writer for Bloomberg, “Fragile Europe Weakens U.S. Push for Russia Sanctions,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/fragile-europe-weakens-u-s-push-for-russia-sanctions.html, NN

The U.S. readiness to impose new economic sanctions on Russia over Ukraine is offset by the European Union’s reluctance to introduce stronger measures that could threaten its already fragile economic recovery. While the Obama administration said yesterday that it’s prepared to ramp up sanctions, possibly to target specific sectors of the Russian economy such as financial services and energy, the EU limited its decision to expanding an existing list of individuals under asset freezes and travel bans. U.S. officials concede that squeezing Russia’s economy is the only realistic weapon the U.S. and its European allies have to respond to the clashes between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian authorities. Without European support, though, U.S. sanctions will have little effect on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, said Simon Mandel, vice president for emerging Europe equity sales at Auerbach Grayson & Co. Full coverage of the Crisis in Ukraine: Ukraine Deploys Military as Russia Evokes Specter of Civil War Obama Warns Putin on Ukraine After Deadly Clashes in East Opinion: Putin's Costume Drama in Ukraine “The level of trade between the U.S. and Russia directly is quite limited,” Mandel said in a phone interview. “Whatever sanctions the U.S. comes out with, unless the Chinese government or the EU are willing to support them, they will still have a minimal impact on the Russian government.” Photographer: Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images Po-Russian activists hold shields signed "Obama hands off Ukraine" and "Down with US... Read More “It will have a meaningful impact in terms of the perception, and that will, I think, come as a detriment to the market generally,” said Mandel, who’s based in New York. “But in some of the fundamental impact, I think that would be quite limited.” EU Meeting EU foreign ministers agreed yesterday in Luxembourg to add new names to a list of people facing sanctions following Putin’s annexation of Crimea last month. A wider EU blacklist may hit “other entities” deemed to be involved in destabilizing Ukraine in addition to individuals, Irish Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore said. EU leaders may meet next week to decide on new sanctions against Russia, according to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. A Snapshot of Ukraine's Past and Future The U.S. is weighing further measures under executive orders signed by U.S. President Barack Obama to “allow for all kinds of different sanctions,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in Washington yesterday before a call between the American and Russian presidents. Energy, Mining The administration is considering measures targeting individuals, as well as “certain sectors of the Russian economy such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering and defense,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said yesterday. Any meaningful sanctions by the U.S. “over the long-term would be lining up the European allies at a very fragile time for some very significant economic risk of their own,” said Sean Kay, a professor of international relations at Ohio Wesleyan University who specializes in Europe. “They have signaled strongly that they don’t want to have to go down a further road of sanctions, but if Russia were to take overt actions in eastern Ukraine, they’d be prepared to do that,” Kay said in a phone interview. Russia is vulnerable to economic pressure, data compiled by Bloomberg indicate. More than half the revenue of the 50 firms that make up the benchmark Micex stock index comes from outside Russia -- almost 56 percent, compared with slightly less than half five years ago. Lukoil’s Revenue Energy giant OAO Lukoil (LKOH), the No. 4 company on the Micex top 50 list, gets more than 81 percent of its revenue from foreign sources. The Moscow-based company produces more than 16 percent of Russia’s oil, almost 17 percent of its oil refining and paid the Russian government $39.3 billion in taxes in 2012. Even so, investors have deposited $721 million in Russia-focused exchange-traded funds since early March, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Still, doubts now may be taking root amid the continuing unrest and the threat of additional sanctions: The ruble declined to a three-week low yesterday, the Micex retreated 1.3 percent and Brent crude oil advanced to a five-week high. The EU already has blacklisted 51 Russian and Ukrainian political and military figures. Its challenge now is how to inflict stiffer punishments without harming Europe’s economy, such as by provoking Russia to cut off gas and oil deliveries. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron discussed Ukraine yesterday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the two agreed that the EU foreign ministers should discuss “how work on potential further sanctions can be accelerated,” Cameron’s spokesman, Jean-Christophe Gray, told reporters in London. EU Divided While the German government has been coordinating the next phase of sanctions behind the scenes, there’s growing dissent among EU governments about the nature of additional sanctions and when they should be imposed, said a high-ranking German official who asked not to be named, citing government policy. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius urged striking at Russia’s banking and financial system, tactics the U.S. and EU have used to isolate Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program. In the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. already has sanctioned St. Petersburg-based Bank Rossiya, owned by close associates of Putin. Linkevicius voiced frustration with the consensus-based decision-making that forces the 28-nation EU to move at the pace of its slowest member. “We shouldn’t focus too much on washing dishes when the house is on fire,” he said. Countries farther from the EU’s eastern borders are in less of a hurry than those such as Lithuania and Poland that were under Soviet domination for five decades. Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos called for diplomacy, and Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said Russia has sanctioned itself, citing the ruble’s drop and jitters among foreign investors. “The serious risk for Russia in that is that the oligarchs will feel pain, its economy would feel pain and crucially they would lose the vital gas sales they need to sustain their economy and financing of their debt,” said Kay, the Ohio Wesleyan professor.

Link

Ocean spending perceived as useless-ocean exploration are massively expensive an don’t appeal to the public

Carlyle 13( Ryan, BSChE, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 1/31/2013 @ 12:11PM , Forbes, “Why Don't We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space Exploration?”,http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/)

So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’OCes a blog entry from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we find giant* isopods: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths. We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be cheaper to build the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean because it’s expensive, difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.

Ocean Exploration is massively expensive and unjustifiable in the modern deficit

Conathan 13(Michael, director of Ocean Policy at American Progress and former staffer of ocean senate committee, “Rockets Top Submarines: Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending”, American Progress, http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/18/66956/rockets-top-submarines-space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/)

In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer Space” and everything ever mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget Cameron’s own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.” When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “SpongeBob SquarePants,” and Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s out there. We’re presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology.

Ocean Exploration costs unpredictable-can cost as much as three time original requested funding

Broad 8(Wiliam, a science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times. He shared two Pulitzer Prizes, “New Sphere in Exploring the Abyss”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26alvi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

The United States used to have several submersibles — tiny submarines that dive extraordinarily deep. Alvin is the only one left, and after more than four decades of probing the sea’s depths it is to be retired. Its replacement, costing some $50 million, is to go deeper, move faster, stay down longer, cut the dark better, carry more scientific gear and maybe — just maybe — open a new era of exploration. Its architects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod describe it as “the most capable deep-sea research vehicle in the world.” Alvin can transport a pilot and two scientists down 2.8 miles, providing access to 62 percent of the dark seabed. The new vehicle is expected to descend more than four miles, opening 99 percent of the ocean floor to inquiry. But the greater depth means that the vehicle’s personnel sphere and its many other systems will face added tons of crushing pressure. “Technologically, it’s quite challenging,” Robert S. Detrick Jr., a senior scientist and vice president for marine facilities and operations at Woods Hole, said of forging the new personnel sphere. “It’s also something that hasn’t been done for a long time in the United States.” To better resist the sea’s pressure, the wall of the new personnel sphere is to be nearly three inches thick, up from Alvin’s two inches. Deep explorers always use spheres to make crew compartments because that geometry best resists the crushing force. “We have confidence it can be done,” Dr. Detrick said in January of the sphere’s forging. “But we don’t have a lot of margin for error. If the first forging is bad, it would be quite expensive to redo it.” Just when the replacement Alvin will join the world’s small fleet of submersibles has become uncertain. Like many federal projects, it faces cost overruns and financing troubles. When first proposed in 2004, the anticipated bill ran to $21.6 million. But delays set in and the price of materials, planning and contracting ran higher than expected. Officials say titanium alone has seen a fivefold price increase. The National Science Foundation, the federal agency that sponsors the project, has too many competing needs to meet the new estimated cost of about $50 million. So officials at Woods Hole came up with a phased approach that promises to lower the immediate expense. In an Aug. 8 letter, Susan K. Avery, the president of Woods Hole, outlined the plan to Deborah Kelley, a University of Washington oceanographer and chairwoman of the Deep Submergence Science Committee, a team of researchers that advises the government on abyssal exploration. The new personnel sphere, she said, might first be fitted onto Alvin’s body, giving the old submersible a life extension and a capability boost. Alvin would also get new batteries, new electronics, better lights, cameras and video systems. But the hybrid would be limited to Alvin’s depth of 2.8 miles. The second phase, Dr. Avery said, would build a new submersible body that would let the replacement vehicle dive to the full intended depth of four miles. How soon? The original schedule of 2004 foresaw the replacement vehicle as ready in 2008. Early this year, amid growing uncertainty, the keepers of the schedule put the date at 2010. Now, the soonest the upgraded Alvin might hit the water is estimated to be 2011. And the full replacement, according to Woods Hole officials, might not materialize until 2015. “Phase 2 is about finding additional resources,” Dr. Detrick said. “It’s a matter of money.” Officials talk about a $25 million shortfall and hopes that a private donor might materialize who could close the gap and ensure the speedy debut of the new submersible and its program of deep inquiry.

Impact

Best data proves – economic collapse causes war

Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises”

Thus, the answer to the first question set out at the beginning of this section, whether economic integration and economic crises are linked, seems reasonably well-established. Substantial recent scholarship indicates a positive association between interdependence and economic crises. What then about the second question? Is there a correlation between economic crises and armed conflict? The impacts at an individual level and on a state level are intuitive and well-documented (see. e.g., Richards & Gelleny, 2006). Rodrik (1997a, 1997b), among others, argues that instability in the global economic system contributes to social disintegration and political conflict. Social unrest, regime change and even civil war have directly resulted from the vagaries of economic integration. / 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 stales. 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 (Fearon. 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. / 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.

Turns environment – kills new energy developments and causes more gasoline usage

Klare 08 (Michael T. Klare, a Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies, whose department is located at Hampshire College, defense correspondent of The Nation magazine, and author, October 20th 2008, “How the Economic Crisis Will Affect the Environment,” http://www.alternet.org/story/103808/how_the_economic_crisis_will_affect_the_environment)

But there is a downside to all this as well. Most serious is the risk that venture capitalists will refrain from pouring big bucks into innovative energy projects. At an energy forum organized by professional services firm Ernst & Young on October 9, experts warned of a sharp drop-off in alternative energy funding. "The concept of alternative energy has a lot of momentum," says Dan Pickering, head of research for Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities in Houston. "But lower oil prices make it harder to justify investment. At $50 a barrel, a lot of that investment will die." Governments could also have a hard time coming up with the funds to finance alternative energy projects. Moderators at the presidential debates repeatedly asked both John McCain and Barack Obama what programs they would cut in order to finance the massive financial-rescue packages the Bush administration has engineered in order to avert further economic distress. Both insisted that their respective energy initiatives would be spared any such belt-tightening. It is highly likely, however, that costly endeavors of this sort will be scaled back or postponed once the magnitude of the financial rescue effort becomes apparent. The same is true for Europe and Japan, who have also pledged to undertake ambitious energy initiatives in their drive to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, leaders of some European Union countries are calling for a slowdown in efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases due to the burgeoning economic crisis. Under a plan adopted by the EU in 2007, member countries pledged to reduce such emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, which is far more ambitious than the Kyoto Protocol. European leaders are scheduled to implement a detailed plan to achieve this goal by December of this year. But at a rancorous summit meeting of the EU heads of state in mid-October, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and the leaders of some Eastern European countries indicated that due to the current crisis, they were no longer able to finance the high costs of attaining the 2020 goal and so weren't prepared to adopt a detailed plan. "We don't think this is the moment to push forward on our own like Don Quixote," Berlusconi declared at the summit. "We have time." At some point, the price of gasoline will fall so low that many drivers will once again engage in the wasteful driving habits they may have given up when the price of gas soared over $3 per gallon. This may not occur right away. But with crude oil at $70 per barrel, half of what it was in August, a corresponding drop in the price of refined products will eventually follow. And that could lead people to see cheap gasoline as the one bright spot on an otherwise dismal horizon.

Economic growth is key to hegemony

Beckley 12 (Michael Beckley, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Tufts University, 2012, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure,” http://china.praguesummerschools.org/files/china/4china2012.pdf)

Wealth functions as a source of power because it insulates a state from dependence on others and provides things of value that can be used in bargaining situations. As Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye point out, economic interdependence involves relations of asymmetric vulnerability.80 Wealthy states are better equipped to wield market access and economic sanctions as tools of influence over others. They also have more capital to fund technological innovation and military modernization. All states face the dilemma of balancing short-term spending against long-term economic growth. This predicament, however, is less acute for wealthy states, which can sustain significant investments in innovation and military power with a relatively small percentage of their total resources. The ability to innovate, defined as the creation of new products and methods of production, also constitutes a source of power. Like wealthy states, innovative countries are less dependent on others and more capable of producing goods that others value. Innovation also creates wealth and tends to beget further innovation as individual discoveries spawn multiple derivative products and improvements. Innovative activity therefore tends to cluster in [End Page 56] particular places and provide certain countries with significant technological and military advantages. As Joshua Goldstein has shown, “The country creating a major cluster of innovations often finds immediate military applications and both propels itself to hegemonic status and maintains that status by that mechanism.”81 Military power is generally considered to be the “ultima ratio” of power because it functions as a decisive arbiter of disputes when it is used and shapes outcomes among states even when it is not. Military capabilities can be used to destroy, to back up coercive threats, and to provide protection and assistance. When performed well, these actions can alter the behavior of other states. Military superiority can also generate wealth by, for example, making a country a more secure and attractive place to invest, as well as provide the means to coerce other countries into making economic concessions. The RAND study found that nuclear weapons were of less importance than conventional capabilities for national influence. Thus, I do not consider them in the following analyses. The authors of the RAND study explain: “Even though nuclear weapons have become the ultima ratio regum in international politics, their relative inefficacy in most situations other than those involving national survival implies that their utility will continue to be significant but highly restricted. The ability to conduct different and sophisticated forms of conventional warfare will, therefore, remain the critical index of national power because of its undiminished utility, flexibility, responsiveness and credibility.”82 The key point is that national power is multifaceted and cannot be measured with a single or a handful of metrics. In the analyses that follow, I allot more space to economic indicators than to military indicators. This is not because economic power is necessarily more important than military power, but rather because most declinist writings argue that the United States is in economic, not military, decline. Moreover, military power is ultimately based on economic strength. International relations scholars tend to view civilian and military realms as separate entities, but militaries are embedded within economic systems. In a separate study, I show that countries that excel in producing commercial products and innovations also tend to excel in producing military force.83 Part of this advantage stems from greater surplus wealth, which allows [End Page 57] rich states to sustain large military investments. Economically developed states, however, also derive military benefits from their technological infrastructures, efficient production capacities, advanced data analysis networks, stocks of managerial expertise, and stable political environments. In short, economic indicators are, to a significant degree, measures of military capability. Focusing on the former, therefore, does not imply ignoring the latter.

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender