6) Habitat loss risks killing keystone species, causing a chain reaction of species extinctions and the end of human life.
[Gender modification in italics]
DINER, 94
[David, Instructor in Administrative and Civil Law Division for Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?" 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161]
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind [HUMANKIND] may be edging closer to the abyss.
1AC: Cuban Ethanol Affirmative 115
Contention Three is the second Harms scenario: Economic Collapse. Oil- and corn-based fuels are causing fuel price spikes that collapse the U.S. economy.
1) The U.S. economy depends on cheap and efficient liquid fuels for automobile transportation, but petroleum gasoline is becoming more expensive and unstable.
SPECHT, 12
[Jonathan, Legal Advisor for Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis; “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” 4/24, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf]
“The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out.” 1 This dramatic quote from President Obama opens the White House’s forty-four page Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. 2 The resource referred to, oil, is indeed finite. “[T]he output of conventional oil will peak in 2020,” according to estimates from the chief economist for the International Energy Agency. 3 The transportation sector has increased its oil consumption over the past thirty years in the United States while residential, commercial, and electric utilities have decreased consumption. 4 Simply put, America’s oil problem is an automobile problem. There are a number of ways the U.S. transportation sector could reduce the amount of oil it consumes: raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards further; increasing and improving light rail and other public transportation options; building more walkable communities so daily errands could be made without using an automobile; encouraging people to live closer to where they work; and increasing the availability of electric cars. 5 Yet, even using all of these strategies comprehensively will not change a fundamental fact of our oil-based transportation system — in certain areas (like rural communities and outer suburbs) the automobile is essential for transportation, and liquid fuel is extremely convenient for automobiles. With a liquid fuel engine, a driver can “re-charge” his or her car in a few minutes with a substance that is widely available from Boston to Boise and everywhere in between. With the conveniences of oil, however, come costs. Oil is a finite resource, and its consumption pollutes the air and contributes to climate change. Furthermore, it is expensive 6 and will only get more expensive in the future. 7 However, any realistic plan for dealing with a future of reduced oil use must include liquid fuels that are similar in convenience and availability to gasoline, given the geography of the United States, the state of the current domestic transportation system, 8 and the ease of using liquid fuel for the personal automobile.
1AC: Cuban Ethanol Affirmative 116
2) Oil price fluctuations cause spillover effects in every industry that uses oil, leading to economic collapse.
GAGAN, 10
[John, Major in US Army; “THE UNITED STATES’ STRATEGIC INSECURITY-THE OIL NEXUS,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA531222]
The cost of foreign imported oil is high in terms of national economic security. “Oil price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC have cost our economy dearly--about $1.9 trillion from 2004 to 2008--and each major shock was followed by a recession” (www.fueleconomy.gov). In 2008 the U. S. imported nearly $354 billion worth of oil. In July of 2008, oil broke a record high when it was traded at $147.27 a barrel on the stock exchange. As U.S. reliance on imported oil continues to grow, so does its economic vulnerability. As mentioned previously in this chapter, the economic risk associated with loss of oil access is the most probable and most dangerous to the U.S. This problem is exacerbated by supply and demand; when global oil demand increases, global competition for that oil increases, which in turns raises the price of oil which could ultimately lead to supply disruptions. As shown, more demand with less capacity creates volatility in assuring stable access to oil.
3) Livestock and farm operations depend on lower feed prices, especially corn, to maintain profitability. Importing sugarcane ethanol will keep feed prices low and increase trade opportunities.
SPECHT, 12
[Jonathan, Legal Advisor for Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis; “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States,” 4/24, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf]
Outside of the Midwest and Florida, from a purely economic (rather than environmental and economic) perspective, the question of whether the United States should replace a portion of its gasoline with domestic corn-based ethanol or Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would appear to largely be a wash. On one hand, the U.S. trade deficit would increase to the extent that a domestically produced product was replaced by imports. On the other, opening trade relations with Cuba generally would open many opportunities for exports from the United States to that country. This could include exports of corn and other products from the Midwest. Perhaps the primary U.S. beneficiaries of replacing a portion of domestic corn-based ethanol with Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol, outside of Florida, would be livestock farmers and ranchers. The primary economic considerations for whether a given dairy, beef, pork, or chicken operation can be profitable are the costs of feed and the price of the product sold (milk, beef, pork, or chicken). By driving up the cost of corn, the domestic corn-based ethanol industry threatens the profitability of U.S. livestock operations. 183 Thus, importing sugarcane-based ethanol from Cuba could actually benefit a sector of the U.S. agricultural industry — including the portion of it in the Midwest — by lowering demand for corn and thus the price of corn.
Share with your friends: |