Plan The United States Federal Government should develop and deploy space based solar power as soon as possible. 1AC Oil Advantage (First Draft)

Scenario Two is Middle East War-

America is becoming increasingly dependent on unstable, undemocratic Middle Eastern countries for oil NRDC 4 (Natural Resources Defense Council, “Reducing America's Energy Dependence”, 7-2-04, http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp#head5) OP

Reliance on such an unstable area impacts global economy, national security, and influences our politics towards the region Luft 08 (Gal, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), “Dependence on Middle East Energy and its Impact on Global Security”, 6-2-08, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=537) OP

Conventional wisdom, concerned only with smooth functioning of the market, says that ownership of oil is meaningless, that it does not matter if most of the world’s oil is owned by one regime or the other. But in the case of the Middle East, resource ownership does matter. The region is riddled with deepening ethnic and political tensions, terrorism, corruption, and authoritarianism. In addition, there are problems that have no solution in sight and that will no doubt directly affect the supply of energy from the Middle East, among them a growing rift between Sunnis and Shiites, tension between the West and an increasingly radicalized Muslim world, increasing terrorist activity against oil facilities, protectionism, lack of investment, unresolved border disputes, and the growing uncertainty about the political stability of key energy producers like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. The energy security and national security problems resulting from reliance on a single energy resource primarily located in such a volatile area are likely to be intensified as demand for oil grows. The region’s problems will no doubt impact not only the world’s economy and security but also consuming nations’ attitudes and policies toward the region’s producers, as well as toward each other.

US war in Middle East over oil inevitable in squo - Carter Doctrine forces military intervention

Klare ’09 (Michael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil. “Repudiate the Carter Doctrine” http://www.fpif.org/articles/repudiate_the_carter_doctrine. January 22, 2009) AP
Twenty-nine years ago, President Jimmy Carter adopted the radical and dangerous policy of using military force to ensure U.S. access to Middle Eastern oil. "Let our position be absolutely he clear," he said in his State of the Union address on January 23, 1980. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region [and thereby endanger the flow of oil] will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." This principle — known ever since as the Carter Doctrine — led to U.S. involvement in three major wars and now risks further military entanglement in the greater Gulf area. It's time to repudiate this doctrine and satisfy U.S. energy needs without reliance on military intervention. Focusing on the Gulf Carter enunciated his doctrine at a moment when U.S. officials were worried about the recent Islamic revolution in Iran and the concurrent Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Both actions, it was believed, threatened the U.S. ability to ensure uninterrupted access to Persian Gulf oil. "The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance," Carter said in his pivotal address. "It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil." Of particular concern: "The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow." Because the United States at that time did not possess any forces specifically earmarked for action in the Gulf, President Carter created a new military body, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), to undertake operations in the region. He also expanded the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf and acquired new basing facilities in the wider region. Carter authorized covert operations in Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out of the country. This effort eventually involved U.S. support for Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists who now seek to make war on the United States. Although successive Republican leaders condemned many Carter policies, they warmly embraced the Carter Doctrine. Every Republican president since 1980 has invoked its basic principle to initiate war in the President Gulf region. The first to do so was Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. When Iran began firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers (presumably because Kuwait had loaned money to Saddam Hussein), Reagan deemed the attacks a threat to the free flow of oil in accordance with the principles of the Carter Doctrine and ordered U.S. warships to protect the tankers. "Mark this point well," he declared on May 19, 1987. "The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians." The U.S. decision to protect Kuwaiti tankers led to clashes with Iranian gunboats and thus amounted to U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq War as a de facto ally of Saddam Hussein. Faced with U.S. and Iraqi opposition, the Iranians were forced to sue for peace in 1988. To what degree this U.S. support led Hussein to believe he could then invade Kuwait with impunity is unknown. In any case, he seems to have expected a mild U.S. response from the invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. This assumption, however, didn't take the Carter Doctrine into account. When President George H.W. Bush met with his advisers at Camp David on August 3 to consider the implications of the invasion they concluded, according to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, that the Iraqi attack constituted a threat to the safety of Saudi oil and so would have to be repelled in accordance with the Carter policy. That the basic principles of the Carter Doctrine were in the forefront of Bush's mind when he initially committed U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf War is plainly evident from the first public address he gave on the topic, on August 8, 1990: "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he said. Hence, "the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States." Bush later altered his rhetoric to emphasize weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and human rights, but oil was the starting point. As is well known, Bush Sr. chose not to invade Baghdad after driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but rather to seek Hussein's ouster through economic warfare. This led to the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq — a policy also embraced by President Bill Clinton. Although justified in terms of undermining Hussein's ability to acquire WMD and other advanced military capabilities, the sanctions' ultimate goal was to eliminate a threat to the safety of Persian Gulf oil, in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. And when these measures failed to achieve the intended objective — at least in the eyes of President Bush Jr. — the only apparent alternative was direct U.S. military intervention. Like his father in the days leading up to Operation Desert Storm, George W. Bush avoided referring to oil and spoke solely of WMD and human rights when talking of the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein. But his vice president, Dick Cheney, wasn’t so reticent. In an August 2002 speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he laid out the strategic reasons for attacking Iraq, saying: "Armed with an arsenal of [WMD] and a seat atop 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region." As such, the current war in Iraq can best be viewed as part of a series of U.S. military moves taken in accordance with Carter's January 1980 pronouncement. Obama and the Carter Doctrine It would be enormously reassuring to conclude that the Iraq War is the last in this series, that the departure of President Bush and the arrival of President Obama signifies the end of U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars over oil. But there's no reason to assume that this is in fact the case. True, Obama has spoken repeatedly of his desire to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq and to hasten the development of petroleum alternatives so as to reduce U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil. But he has not specifically repudiated the Carter Doctrine or its underlying premises. Rather, he has emphasized the need to preserve a robust U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf area and to use force when necessary to protect vital American interests there — though exactly what these interests may be, he has yet to spell out in detail. Most of the commentary on Obama's Iraq policy has focused on his pledge to remove U.S. combat troops from the region. But in his first major speech as a candidate on national security affairs, at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 23, 2007, he said that he was aware "that there are risks involved" in reducing American troop levels. "That is why," he continued, "my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region" (emphasis added). Obama hasn't spelled out what he means by such a force, but presumably it would entail a larger air and naval presence in the greater Gulf region along with additional U.S. deployments in friendly countries like Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. President Obama also warned of the threat posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons in much the same alarmist language George W. Bush used. Although he has emphasized reliance on diplomacy to achieve a peaceful outcome to this peril, Obama hasn't categorically ruled out the use of military force. Considering that the Iranians have repeatedly warned they'll respond to any American attack on their territory by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, it's obvious the U.S. dispute with Iran over WMD — no less than that with Iraq — is closely tied to the geopolitical thrust of the Carter Doctrine. Thus, while any U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be aimed in the first instance at neutralizing a potential nuclear danger, the ultimate objective would be to ensure the safety of Persian Gulf oil supplies. So long as the United States adheres to a policy that legitimates the use of military force to protect the flow of oil, we run the risk of involvement in one war after another in the ever-volatile Persian Gulf region. True, other issues and objectives have been associated with these wars, but the underlying strategic premise for every U.S. intervention in the Gulf since 1980 has been the core concept of the Carter Doctrine: to disallow a hostile power from gaining control of the region and blocking our access to its oil. This policy has done little to ensure us uninterrupted access to oil, and cost us great pain, misery, and expense. Despite the $600 billion or so we have already spent on the Iraq War (on the way to an estimated $2-$3 trillion, when all associated and follow-up costs are included), Iraq today is producing less oil today than it did when U.S. troops invaded the country six years ago. And despite the mammoth U.S. military presence in the Gulf area, Iran emerged as a major regional power amidst a rise in piracy and militant Islam. When all is said and done, conventional military force is an ineffective tool for protecting far-flung, highly vulnerable oil facilities and trade routes. There's only one way to reduce America's vulnerability to the disruption in overseas petroleum deliveries and that is to become less dependent on oil, period. We can't drill our way out of this predicament because the United States simply lacks enough domestic petroleum to satisfy our gargantuan requirements. We possess 2.5% of the world's proved oil reserves, yet consume 25% of its daily oil output. To achieve any sort of balance we have to cut our consumption substantially — and that means driving less, developing alternative fuels, converting to gas/electric hybrid and eventually all-electric cars, and otherwise transitioning away from reliance on oil. President Obama has promised to make a substantial investment in oil alternatives. Such efforts are expected to be a major component of his economic stimulus package and deserve strong public backing. But this is only half of the problem. To overcome what he calls the "tyranny of oil," he must also repudiate the Carter Doctrine and reject the use of military force to ensure access to Middle Eastern petroleum. Only in this way can we be certain that the Iraq War will be the last time U.S. soldiers shed their blood for oil.
Middle East conflict causes global nuclear war

Steinbach 2002 – Analyst, Center for Research on Globalisation , http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

SBSP can prevent Middle East dependence and conflict Morring 7 (Frank Jr., senior editor at Aviation Week, “NSSO Backs Space Solar Power”, 10-11-07, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107. xml) OP

Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively near-term possibility that could solve strategic and tactical security problems for the U.S. and its deployed forces, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) says in a report issued Oct. 10. As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife-torn Middle East and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding strategic energy vulnerability, according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web site spacesolarpower.wordpress.com.

Scenario Three is Resource Wars

Now is key- resources will be depleted Alternative Heating 11 (“The Consequences of Oil Stocks Depletion”, 1-27-11, http://www.alternative-heating.com/oil-stocks.html) OP

Any way you look at it, the depletion of oil stocks has permanent negative effects on society as a whole worldwide. The United States is the number one consumer of oil in the world, with China following closely behind, and already we are starting to see the lasting effects of dependence upon oil production and oil stocks. Prices of oil products like heating oil are shooting through the roof, especially gas. However, the United States is not the only country at fault for the rising value and falling supply of oil. Global growth has led to a peak usage of oil throughout the world. Unless something is done soon to replace oil as a major source of energy, this resource will be depleted, and pocketbooks will begin to feel the pain as the situation worsens.

Resource wars inevitable in the squo- oil production peak approaching

Heinberg ’05 (Richard Heinberg, American journalist and educator who has written extensively on ecological issues, including oil depletion. He is the author of at least ten books. “How to Avoid Oil Wars, Terrorism, and Economic Collapse”, August 2005, http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/how_to_avoid_oil_wars_terrorism_and_economic_collapse) OP
By now most well-informed people are aware that global oil production may soon reach its all-time peak, and that the consequences will likely be severe. Already many important oil-producing nations (such as the United States, Indonesia, and Iran) and some whole regions (such as the North Sea) are past their production maximums. With nearly every passing year another country reaches a production plateau or begins its terminal decline. Meanwhile global rates of oil discovery have been falling since the early 1960s, as has been confirmed by ExxonMobil. All of the 100 or so supergiant fields that are collectively responsible for about half of current world production were discovered in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, and '70s. No fields of comparable size have been found since then; instead, exploration during recent years has turned up only much smaller fields that deplete relatively quickly. The result is that today only one new barrel of oil is being discovered for every four that are extracted and used. World leaders are hampered in their ability to assess the situation by a lack of consistent data. Proven petroleum reserve figures look reassuring: the world has roughly a trillion barrels yet to produce, perhaps more; indeed, official reserves figures have never been higher. However, circumstantial evidence suggests that some of the largest producing nations have inflated their reserves figures for political reasons. Meanwhile oil companies routinely (and legitimately) report reserve growth for fields discovered decades ago. In addition, reserves figures are often muddied by the inclusion of non-conventional petroleum resources, such oil sands - which do need to be taken into account, but in a separate category, as their rates of extraction are limited by factors different from those that constrain the production of conventional crude. As a consequence of all of these practices, oil reserves data tend to give an impression of expansion and plenty, while discovery and depletion data do the opposite. This apparent conflict in the data invites dispute among experts as to when the global oil peak is likely to occur. Some analysts say that the world is virtually at its peak of production now; others contend that the event can be delayed for two decades or more through enhanced investment in exploration, the adoption of new extraction technologies, and the substitution of non-conventional petroleum sources (oil sands, natural gas condensates, and heavy oil) for conventional crude. However, there is little or no disagreement that a series of production peaks is now within sight - first, for conventional non-OPEC oil; then for conventional oil globally; and finally for all global conventional and non-conventional petroleum sources combined. Moreover, even though there may be dispute as to the timing of these events, it is becoming widely acknowledged that the world peak in all combined petroleum sources will have significant global economic consequences. Mitigation efforts will require many years of work and trillions of dollars in investment. Even if optimistic forecasts of the timing of the global production peak turn out to be accurate, the world is facing an historic change that is unprecedented in scope and depth of impact. Due to systemic dependence on oil for transportation, agriculture, and the production of plastics and chemicals, every sector of every society will be affected. Efforts will be needed to create alternative sources of energy, to reduce demand for oil through heightened energy efficiency, and to redesign entire systems (including cities) to operate with less petroleum. These efforts will be challenging enough in the context of a stable economic environment. However, if prices for oil become extremely volatile, mitigation programs could be undermined. While high but stable prices would encourage conservation and investment in alternatives, prices that repeatedly skyrocket and then plummet could devastate entire economies and discourage long-term investment. Actual shortages of oil - of which price shocks would be only a symptom - would be even more devastating. The worst impacts would be suffered by those nations, and those aspects of national economies, that could not obtain oil at any price affordable to them. Supply interruptions would likely occur with greater frequency and for increasing lengths of time as global oil production gradually waned. Efforts to plan a long-term energy transition would be frustrated, in both importing and exporting countries. Meanwhile the perception among importers that exporting nations were profiteering would foment animosities and an escalating likelihood of international conflict. In short, the global peak in oil production is likely to lead to economic chaos and extreme geopolitical tensions, raising the spectres of war, revolution, terrorism, and even famine, unless nations adopt some method of cooperatively reducing their reliance on oil.
Resource wars cause extinction

Klare 6 (Michael T. Klare Ph.D, Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire University, “The Coming Resource Wars” http://www.alternet.org/story/33243/the_coming_resource_wars, 3/10/2006)SV
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participatin9g in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.74 Mb.

Share with your friends: