Oil 1 Peak Oil 21

IMPACT- CIVIL WAR

Stephen David, 1999, Professor of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University, SAVING AMERICA FROM THE COMING CIVIL WARS

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=2&sid=c2660f14-2e09-4272-87dd-a190a4504351%40sessionmgr3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=1417620

As likely as is conflict in Mexico, there is even less hope for Saudi Arabia -- and if the kingdom succumbs to civil war, the outcome will be catastrophic not just for the United States but for the world. A country built on contradictions, Saudi Arabia is extremely vulnerable to internal war. The same factors that have kept its regime in power -- the oil economy, the military, Islam, the royal family -- could now fuel an insurrection. Meanwhile, global dependence on Saudi oil will only increase in coming years, making an interruption in its flow even more dangerous. Fabulous oil wealth has been a mixed blessing for Saudi Arabia. Oil has spared the Saudi government from the need to tax its citizens; as a result, the regime has never learned to convince its subjects to sacrifice for the good of the state (nor have the citizens learned to weather privation). The timid Saudi government must constantly buy the people's loyalty with material comforts. That might not have become a problem had oil prices not begun to drop in the 1980s. Saudi Arabia's per capita GDP plunged from $17,000 early in that decade to around $7,000 today. Unemployment among high school and university graduates rose to an alarming 25 percent. Struggling to cope with these problems, the government has incurred large deficits since 1983. Meanwhile, the estimated $65 billion it spent on the Gulf War only exacerbated matters. But as long as the royal family continues to benefit from government spending by receiving lavish kickbacks from foreign contractors, there seems little hope of major cuts in expenditures. Rather than reduce its reliance on oil, in the face of increased expenses the Saudi economy has become more and more dependent on it, even as oil revenues plummet (oil export earnings are expected to shrink from $43 billion in 1997 to just over $29 billion in 1998). The government thinks that the damage done to the economy by failing to raise taxes or make major spending cuts is less dangerous than the alternative, which might alienate large portions of the population. But if the economy continues to deteriorate, the government will have to make hard choices that could rock the Saudi state.

IMPACT- ECONOMY

SAUDI OIL DECLINE IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC STABILITY

Stephen David, Professor of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University, 1999, SAVING AMERICA FROM THE COMING CIVIL WARS

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=2&sid=c2660f14-2e09-4272-87dd-a190a4504351%40sessionmgr3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=1417620

Stanching the flow of Saudi oil would devastate the United States and much of the world community. Global demand for oil (especially in Asia) will increase in the coming decades, while non-Persian Gulf supplies are expected to diminish. A crisis in the planet's largest oil producer, with reserves estimated at 25 percent of the world's total, would have a massive and protracted impact on the price and availability of oil worldwide. As the disruptions of 1973 and 1979 showed, the mere threat of diminished oil supply can cause panic buying, national hysteria, gas lines, and infighting. Prices for oil shot up 400 percent in 1973, 150 percent in 1979, and 50 percent (in just 15 days) in 1990. The oil shocks of the 1970s threw the United States into recession, causing spiraling inflation and a decline in savings rates that plagues the U.S. economy even now. Trillions of dollars were lost worldwide. And all this occurred at a time when the United States was less dependent on foreign petroleum than it is now. Cutting the Saudi pipeline today would cause a severe worldwide recession or depression. Short of physical attack, it is the gravest threat imaginable to American interests.

ECON DECLINE EXTINCTION

Economic decline causes global nuclear war

Mead 92 Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28

What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

Economic decline leads to extinction

Bearden, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000

(Tom, June 24, ttp://w\vw.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm. Accessed 9/11/03)

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it and perhaps most of the biosphere:, at least for many decades.

1NC- RELATIONS

A) US-SAUDI RELATIONS TENUOUS BUT WILL REMAIN STRONG AS LONG AS CLOSE ECONOMIC TIES ARE MAINTAINED

Saudi Arabian Business Council

7/18/08, “US Saudi Relations” http://www.us-sabc.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3362
U.S.-Saudi Arabian business relationship dates back to 1933, when King Abdulaziz granted Standard Oil exclusive rights to explore and drill for Saudi oil. The relationship was further cemented during the Second World War, when in February 1945, King Abdulaziz met with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal Zone. Since that historic meeting, the two countries have enjoyed a special partnership that has stood upon the pillars of security, energy cooperation and business ties. Business has always been at the forefront of the U.S.-Saudi relations. For the past four decades, the United States has been Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner, while the Kingdom is the largest market for American products in the Middle East. Bilateral trade between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. has increased from $160 million in 1970 to over $26 billion in 2004. Additionally, American companies are the Kingdom’s leading joint venture partners, with about 360 projects valued at more than $20 billion. These include some of the biggest names in American business, many of which are members of the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council. The U.S. is also the leading foreign direct investor in Saudi Arabia, accounting for more than 25 percent of total inward Foreign Direct Investment. The U.S.-Saudi business partnership endures because of the deep bonds of familiarity that have been established through decades of educational, cultural, economic and political cooperation and exchange. Tens of thousands of Americans have lived and worked in the Kingdom, beginning with the oil exploration teams in the 1930s, whose work led to the discovery of the world’s largest reserves of petroleum and the creation of the world’s largest oil company, Aramco. Aramco played a major role in the Kingdom’s economic development as they laid the foundations for long-term U.S.-Saudi business cooperation. Tens of thousands of Saudis have, in turn, attended education and training programs in the United States, and a great many have gone on to assume leadership positions in the Saudi Government and private sectors. As a result, the United States and Saudi Arabia know each other very well, and continue to share a common belief in free enterprise that will ensure lasting economic ties and strong bonds of friendship between the two countries far into the future.
B) Link: A shift to renewables would lead to loss of economic ties to Saudi Arabia, allowing china to fill in trade relations

Marshall January 8th, 2002 (Dr. Andrew W.; Director, Net Assessment “The Sino-Saudi Energy Rapprochement: Implications for US National Security” http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/SinoSaudiStudyFinal.pdf) Like the scenario depicted above, this too is unlikely, but it is by no means an impossible one. It is unlikely because the US government has no clear mechanism for discriminating among sources of supply, and decisions on supply are left entirely to the functioning of the market and the preferences of individual refiners. Thus, Saudi Arabia can, by itself, target whatever level of sales it wants to direct to the US market and, so long as Saudi Aramco prices its crude oil to displace other crude streams entering the US market, it can maintain its market share. However, it is not impossible to imagine shifts in US policies. Two sorts of shifts are possible. One change in policy would involve a combination of supply and demand side policies that would result in a substantial reduction rather than a growth in the US appetite for crude oil imports. In the aftermath of September 11th, it is conceivable that the US would start to pursue policies that could substantially reduce the role of the oil in the transportation sector. Raising automobile efficiency standards could reasonably reduced imports by 1 million b/d or more within seven years. Enhanced R&D in fuel cell technology and hybrid vehicle technology, combined with a federal procurement program to assure that all US government owned vehicles were fueled by these non-conventional supplies could shave another 1 mb/d from imports within seven years. Under these circumstances, the US would not only cease to be the high growth market for foreign oil. Its market would actually shrink, making it significantly less attractive for any major supplier, including Saudi Arabia. A second route that could be taken toward the same end is the adoption by the US of a discriminatory import policy. One proposal being vetted, for example, would involve a free trade area in oil for countries that allowed reciprocity in upstream investments. Those not allowing upstream investments in their oil sectors would, under the scheme, be required to store oil in the United States equivalent to 90 days or more of average imports. Such a policy would impact very few countries, among them Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Mexico. A policy shift in this direction would definitely be viewed as a hostile political act by the oil exporters affected by it. 46 There is little doubt that US action could make oil sales to the US considerably less attractive in the future than they have been in the past, and that this could impact Saudi policy and push the kingdom toward bilateral undertakings with China and potentially other oil importing countries.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 9.54 Mb.

Share with your friends: