LeducMin - Mexico Renewables Neg - GDI 13

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg
***NEG
***Solvency***
Solvency Integration Fails 1NC

Barriers to integration environmental standards, intermittent power, certification, and economic barriers
Garrison, Environment and Climate Change Advisor for U.S. Agency for International Development, 2010
John L., April 30, Clean Energy & Climate Change Opportunities Assessment for USAID/Mexico, U.S. Agency for International Development, p. 27, EB) Existing crossborder transmission is limited with only 800 MW of transmission capacity through two 230kV lines. At present, Sempra is seeking a permit from DOE to build a cross border transmission line to carry electricity from its wind turbines at La Rumorosa to the Southwest Powerlink in Imperial County, California with a potential for 1,250 MW. The California Independent SystemOperator(CAISO) Has reportedly submitted interconnection applications for both La Rumorosa and Santa Catarina. Nevertheless, four additional transmission lines will be needed if Baja Californias wind potential is to be Fully met. For future cross border renewable energy trade to grow, however, a number of barriers must be overcome. For one, power exported from Mexico and sold to California under its RPS must show that it meets Californias environmental quality standards and that it protects the environment to the same extent as if it were located in California. 44 The RPS environmental requirements are not clear and need to be better defined. Also of concern is the potential impact that intermittent wind energy might have on CFEs and Imperial Irrigation District(IID) electrical grids even if not directly connected to them. Such impacts must be identified and addressed to CFEs satisfaction prior to its concurrence of the CREs issuance of an energy export permit. The integration of 5,000 MW of wind from Baja California, for example, may require CFEs 230kV EastWest corridor to be significantly reinforced raising the question, who will pay. CAISO is in contact with CFE and IID to study the impact that the regions ren ewable energy cluster might have on the irrespective systems. Nevertheless, remediation of potential impacts will need to be addressed between the developer and CFE and/orIID.45 Another barrier to crossborder renewable energy trade is the biennial recertification requirement. The designation of Baja California border area as an Energy Resource Area under the RETI process will also be important for future renewable energy development as will the expansion and strengthening of the transmission grid on the California side to reach highly populated areas. Given the current economic climate, the transmission expansion envisioned by RETI may not materialize.
Solvency Say No 1NC

Oil overwhelms renewable energy for Mexico- TBA proves and solved relations
The Hill 6-5-13, (Neil Brown and Carl Meacham, 6-15-13, Foreign Affairs Analysts, http://thehill.com/opinion/oped/303739-time-for-us-mexico-transboundary-agreement, accessed 7-12-13, LLM) The United States-Mexico Transboundary Agreement (TBA) would enable cooperation between our two federal governments and our companies to unlock the potential for oil and natural gas reserves that extend across our Gulf of Mexico maritime boundary. Congressional approval of the TBA would enrich U.S.-Mexico relations in the near term while laying the foundation for improved energy security and enhanced environmental protection for the Gulf Coast. Bilateral relations with Mexico have improved dramatically in recent years, yet energy cooperation has lagged. Oil holds a privileged position of national pride and constitutional protection in Mexico, historically putting it off limits for domestic reform and bilateral cooperation with the U.S. The TBA is, therefore, more than just an energy agreement. Its approval by the Mexican government is a political statement opening a window to richer relations. While the area under future jurisdiction of the TBA could provide incremental domestic oil production, a far greater prize for the U.S. oil portfolio is the prospect of more reliable oil trade with our ally Mexico. The TBA would, for the first time, allow oil majors to work in joint production arrangements with PEMEX and support the confidence building necessary to enable those arrangements more widely in Mexico. That is not only good for oil major shareholders, it is good for our nations energy security.
Solvency Say No 2NC

Mexico says no-PEMEX reform and a laundry list of tasks are higher priorities
Washington Post 5-7-13, (Nick Miroff and William Booth, Contributors, March 7th, 2013, The Americas, To power
Mexico forward, Pea Nieto looks to energy reform, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0507/world/39073749_1_energy-industry-foreign-oil-petroleos-de-mexico, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Mexico remains the third- largest source of foreign oil for the United States after Canada and Saudi Arabia. But the countrys easy-pump crude is quickly running dry, and the company lacks the technology and know-how to drill for the vast stores of tougher-to-reach deposits that are thought to exist beneath Mexicos desert s and seas. Fixing the company, formally known as Petroleos de Mexico, has become a top priority for Mexicos new president, Enrique Pea Nieto. With an overhaul plan expected by late summer, U.S. and other global energy companies are waiting to see whether Mexico will once more give outsiders a crack at the countrys hydrocarbon treasures, including the massive, virtually untapped beds of shale gas south of the Texas border. For now, though, Mexicos oil exports to the United States are falling, dropping below the million-barrel-per-day mark for the first time since 1994. For Pea Nieto, who began his sixyear term in December, opening up the energy industry is the most ambitious task on a hefty to-do list that includes fixing the education system, telecommunications and tax collection, areas viewed as major hurdles to Mexicos development into a more modern, democratic, middle-class society.
Mexico would say no- laundry list of other priorities the government is focused on
Seelke, Specialist in Latina American Affairs, 1-16-13, (Clare R., Congressional Research Service, Mexicos New
Administration: Priorities and Key Issues in U.S.-Mexican Relations, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf,p.6, accessed 7/12/13, LLM) Upon his inauguration, President Pea Nieto announced a reform agenda with specific proposals under five broad pillars: reducing violence; combating poverty; boosting economic growth; reforming education; and fostering social responsibility. Somewhat surprisingly, leaders from the conservative PAN and leftist PRD signed on to President Pea Nietos Pact for Mexico containing legislative proposals for advancing that reform agen da. While some opposition legislators have since balked at their leaders decisions to endorse the PRI-led pact, the Congress already approved an education reform bill, one of the 13 measures based on the pact that Pea Nieto had identified as short-term priorities.13 Analysts predict that despite the constraints discussed below (see: Constraints Facing the New Administration), the prospects for implementing Pea Nietos agenda are good because the PAN and the PRI in particular agree on many o f the structural reforms that need to be enacted.14
***Mexico Econ Advantage***
Mex Econ Econ High 1NC

US natural gas boom supporting Mexicos economy now
FB Industries, 7-3, (FB Industries Inc. The Unsurpassed Solution for Frac Sand Handling & Storage. 7-3-2013, U.S. natural gas revolution
helping advance Mexican economy <http://fbindustriesinc.com/2013/07/u-s-natural-gas-revolution-helping-advance-mexican-economy/> Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, the United States is in the middle of a natural gas boom. Production from shale formations is increasing around the country, and a recent report from the Energy Information Agency showed the nation has the largest recoverable reserve of shale gas in the world at 1,161 trillion cubic feet. While this increased supply is undoubtedly directly boosting the U.S. economy, studies show it is also benefiting Mexico to quite a large extent. According to OilPrice.com, Mexican imports of U.S. natural gas have grown 92 percent since 2008. Plus, the United States' export capacity is expected to increase to over 7 billion cubic feet per day, so Mexico's share of the nation's production could become even greater. In order to transport enough gas to meet demand, companies are already planning new pipelines between the United States and Mexico. For example, Pemex, the latter's state-owned oil company, is spending $3.3 billion on a new 750-mile pipeline from Los Ramones, Mexico, to Agua Dulce, Texas, Quartz reported. The boom gives Mexico a competitive edge Mexico's access to so much inexpensive natural gas is already giving the country quite a competitive edge over other emerging economies. Last year, manufacturing labor costs in China surpassed Mexico's because of the Asian country's high wage inflation rates, The Financial Times reported. Moreover, China's energy costs are much higher than Mexico's, and the proximity of the latter to the United States further reduces expenses. A recent study by global management consulting firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) determined the average total manufacturing costs in Mexico could be as much as 6 percent less than in China by 2015. In this way, Mexico is poised to have an extremely competitive, successful manufacturing industry in the near future. Reports also show it's possible the current energy situation could increase Mexico's manufacturing exports enough to bring the country $20 to $60 billion in output a year by 2017. Fortunately, such improvements can also be hugely beneficial to the United States. "Mexico is in a strong position to be a significant winner from shifts in the global economy," said Harold Sirkin, a senior partner at BCG . "That is good news not only for Mexico, which relies on exports for around one-third of its GDP. It's also good for America, since products made in Mexico contain four times as many U.S.-made parts, on average, as those made in China."
Mex Econ Econ High 2NC

Mexicos Economy is High Now
Padgett, Miami-based journalist and TIME contributor, 2013 [Padgett, March 2013, TIME Magazine,
Mexicos New Boom: Why the World Should Tone Down the Hype, http://world.time.com/2013/03/08/mexicos-newboom-why-the-world-should-tone-down-the-hype/, 7/10/13, AR]
I couldnt be happier that Mexicos
economy is rebounding. After barely 2% average annual growth between 2000 and 2010, the countrys GDP expanded almost 4% in 2011 and 2012. Investment is booming and the middle class is enlarging. Mexicos manufacturing exports lead Latin America, and its trade as a share of GDP tops Chinas. Its No. 53 spot on the World Banks easeof-doing-business rankings far outshines the No. 126 grade of its main regional rival, Brazil; it has signed more free trade agreements (44) than any other country, and its enrolling more engineering students than any south of the Rio Grande. As I noted a year ago, its a trend well worth
applauding.
Mexicos economy is the strongest among developing nations-Manufacturing costs, reforms, and energy costs
Monnin, Journalist, 6-25, (Abbey Monnin, Mexico: A Growth Story in the Global Economy 6-25-2013.
<http://beta.fool.com/monnn/2013/06/25/mexico-a-growth-story-in-the-global-economy/38504/> Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
Macro-Economic Context With Europe in a slow-motion train wreck that shows little signs of redirection, and the marked slowdown in China, the US seems likely to be the least ugly of the big babies in the global economy for the near term future. Concerns remain over the USs budget deficits, persistently high unemployment rate, political gridlock, and the Federal Reserves impending exit from its position of easy monetary policy since the financial crisis. Nevertheless, there are few signs that the US dollar will be replaced as the worlds reserve currency anytime soon, and comparatively speaking, the US seems likely to remain a primary driver of global growth among the major industrialized countries. Mexico, more than any other economy, stands to ride this macro-economic tide along with it. A Mexican Growth Story Mexico shows signs of being the next great growth story in Latin America. Although its economy hit a rough patch at the turn of 2013, it still has the lowest unemployment rate of the large Latin American countries at 5.1%, and consensus forecasts predict 3% GDP growth in 2013, as published in The Economist on June 22nd, 2013. There are good reasons to be optimistic about Mexico when viewed through the lens of the US economy. Among other dynamics, Mexico is poised to contribute to and benefit from the manufacturing resurgence in the US. Increased labor and energy costs in China are a major driver behind this dynamic. According to data from the Boston Consulting Group, as published on June 11, 2013 in The Wall St. Journal article A Change in the Cost Equation, manufacturing costs in Mexico remain at the same 11% discount to the US as a decade ago. By comparison, Chinas discount to the US has become only 7%, from 18% in 2003. There are also reduced transportation costs of US firms relocating more of their supply chains to Mexico, and added benefits from better real-time supply chain capabilities. The likelihood of real immigration reform in the US could also contribute greatly to increased integration and cooperation between the two economies. Internally in Mexico, signs of reform have been emerging. The election of Enrique Pea Nieto in 2012 appeared to represent a consolidation of the status quo, with the return to power of his PRI party, which has held the reigns for most of the past century. However, Pea Nieto and the PRI have been enacting some reforms that show promise of improving competition in the economy and shaking up institutionalized power structures. In February, the arrest for embezzlement of Elba Esther Gordillo, the president of Mexico's influential national teachers' union, shocked many in the country who believed she was untouchable, along with the powerful union. Earlier in June, Pea Nieto signed into law a broad reform of the telecommunications industries that should have the effect of increasing competition and restricting the leverage wielded by monopolists like Carlos Slim and the companies he controls, like Amrica Mvil SAB (NYSE: AMX) which controls 70% of b oth Mexicos wireless subscriber base and its fixed phone lines. Grupo Televisa SAB (NYSE: TV) itself controls 70% of the broadcast television market. A recent government survey indicated that only 26% of Mexican homes had internet access. Reforms such as these to bring its population of 112 million online and otherwise empower their increased productivity are long overdue and very welcome signs for economic growth. The reforms should help stimulate broad based growth, including for the nearly 50% of Mexicans still living below the poverty line. Enabling this population to emerge into the middle class could drive the Mexican economy for years to come. Pea Nietos administration is also pushing Congress for an end to PEMEXs 75-year monopoly this year, which would reinvigorate investment in energy industries and open up space for domestic and foreign firms to come in and innovate, and create well paying jobs. The glaring risk of dealing with the drug trafficking cartels who operate throughout the country and along the border remains a major risk however, and could continue to hold back increased economic integration with the US. Pea Nietos administration has made a marked shift
Gonzaga Debate Institute 9 Mexico Renewables Neg away from the militarized approach to the cartels used by his predecessor, Felipe Caldern, and time will tell if it is more effective.
Mexican unemployment decreasing in the status quo, bodes well

Taborda, Journalist, 6-24, (Joanna Taborda, 6-24-2013, MEXICO MAY UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOWN TO 4.93% Trading
Economics, <http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/unemployment-rate> Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
In May of 2013, Mexican unemployment rate declined to 4.93 percent, from 5.04 percent in the previous month. Compared with the same month last year, the jobless rate went up by 0.1 percentage point. The unemployment rate for men
dropped in May to 4.93 percent, from 5.17 percent in April. In contrast, the jobless rate for women increased to 4.93 percent from 4.83 percent in the previous month. Urban unemployment, based on the countrys 32 largest cities, decreased to 5.54 percent in May, from 6.42 percent in April. Compared with May of 2012, urban unemployment also declined by 0.5 percentage point. On a seasonally adjusted basis,
the jobless rate decreased to 5.07 percent in May, from 5.14 percent in April.
Mexicos manufacturing is expected to skyrocket past China by 2015 therefore growing the economy and subsequently massively boosting the US economy
BCG 6-28, (Boston Consulting Group: a global management consulting firm and the world's leading advisor on business strategy. Mexicos
Growing Cost Advantage over China, Other Economies Will Boost Its Exportsand U.S. Manufacturers June 28th 2013, <http://www.bcg.com/media/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-139022> Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
CHICAGO, June 28, 2013Within
five years, higher manufacturing exports due to a widening cost advantage over China and other major economies could add $20 billion to $60 billion in output to Mexicos economy annually. And thanks to the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. manufacturers of components for everything from automobiles to computers assembled in Mexico also stand to benefit, according to new research by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The key drivers of Mexicos improving competitive edge are relatively low labor costs and shorter supply chains due to the country's proximity to markets in the U.S. Another important advantage is that Mexico has 44 free-trade agreementsmore than any other nationallowing many of its exports to enter major economies with few or no duties. A tipping point was reached in 2012, when average manufacturing costs in Mexico , adjusted for productivity, dropped below those of China. By 2015, BCG projects, average total manufacturing costs in Mexico are likely to be around 6 percent lower than in China and around 20 to 30 percent lower than in Japan, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. Mexico is in a strong position to be a significant winner from shifts in the global economy, said Harold L. Sirkin, a BCG senior partner. That is good news not only for Mexico, which relies on exports for around one third of its GDP. Its also good for America, since products made in Mexico contain four times as many U.S. -made parts, on average, as those made in China. The research is part of BCGs ongoing Made in America, Again series on the changing global economics of manufacturing, produced by its Operations and Global Advantage practices. BCG has previously released research predicting that rising U.S. exports, combined wit h production reshored from China, could create up to 5 million new U.S. jobs in manufacturing and related services by the end of the decade, thanks largely to significant labor- and energy-cost advantages over Western Europe and Japan and rising costs in China. Global companies are expected to continue moving production to Mexico despite concerns over crime and safety. Research by the World Economic
Forum has found that companies view violence and corruption as the most problematic factors of having operations in Mexicoas well as significant costs of doing business. Another drawback is the perception that Mexico lacks enough skilled workers. But the
cost advantages of producing in Mexico are becoming so attractive that many companies are finding ways to mitigate these perceived risks. When the economics are a wash, U.S. manufacturers often keep production in the U.S., said Michael Zinser, a BCG partner who leads the firms manufacturing work in North America. But when the economics are compelling, companies will invest in additional security and training to address these issues. Mexicos labor costs are especially competitive when productivity differences with other economies are factored in. By 2015, for example, average manufacturing-labor costs in Mexico are projected to be 19 percent lower than in China, where wages are rising rapidly, and around 30 percent lower when adjusted for output per worker. In 2000, Mexican labor was 58 percent more expensive than in China. Mexico will also have lower energy costs than many other economies. Average electricity costs are around 4 percent lower in
Mexico than in China, for example, while the average price of industrial natural gas is 63 percent lower.
10
Mex Econ Alt Cause 1NC
Faulty credit, informality, elite control, ineffective education, vulnerability to shocks are Alt Causes to Mexicos Econ Hanson, Pacific Economic Cooperation Chair in International Economic Relations at UC San Diego, 2012 [Hanson, August 2012, Regional Migration Study Group, Understanding Mexico's Economic
Underperformance, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/rmsg-mexicounderperformance.pdf, 7/10/13, AR] discussion of growth and development in Mexico ends up resembling a Diego Rivera mural, overstuffed with historical characters that collide in The faulty provision of credit, persistence of informality, control of key input markets by elites, continued ineffectiveness of public education, and vulnerability to adverse external shocks each may have a role in explaining Mexicos development trajectory over the past three decades. Still, the relative importance of these factors for the countrys growth record is unknown.
Any repeated and unexpected ways. In effect, Mexicos underperformance is overdetermined.
11
Mex Econ Collapse Inevitable 1NC

Corruption makes collapse inevitable
O'Neil, Douglas Dillon Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,2009
(Shannon, July/August, The Real War in Mexico, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88, Iss. 4; pg. 63, 16 pgs, 2009) Mexico's Achilles' heel is corruption - which in an electoral democracy cannot be stabilizing the way it was in the days of Mexico's
autocracy. Under the pri, the purpose of government policy was to assert power rather than govern by law. The opacity of court proceedings, the notorious graft of the police forces, and the menacing presence of special law enforcement agencies were essential elements of an overall system of political, economic, and social control. Rather than acting as a check or balance on executive power, the judiciary was often just another arm of the party, used to reward supporters and intimidate opponents. Law enforcement, too, was used to control, rather than protect, the population. The decline of
the pri and the onset of electoral competition transformed the workings of the executive and legislative branches quite quickly, but the changes have had much less influence over the judicial branch or over law enforcement more generally. Instead, even after the transition to democracy, accountability mechanisms remain either nonexistent or defunct. Most of Mexico's various police forces continue to be largely incapable of objective and thorough investigations, having never received adequate resources or training. Impunity reigns: the chance of being prosecuted, much less convicted, of a crime is extremely low. As a result, Mexicans place little faith in their law enforcement and judicial systems. And as today's democratic government manipulating the rule of law for their own benefit.
struggles to overcome this history through legislative reform, funding new programs for vetting and training and creating more avenues for citizen involvement, it faces a new threat: increasingly sophisticated, well-funded, and autonomous criminal organizations intent on
12
Mex Econ No Impact Econ 1NC

No war from Economic Decline - Studies prove.
Miller, Governance Professor, University of Ottawa, 2000
Morris, Centre on Governance professor University of Ottawa, 2k[Poverty as a Cause of Wars?, http://www.management.uottawa.ca/miller/poverty.htm] It seems reasonable to believe that a powerful "shock" factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership. The leadership, finding that this sudden adverse economic and social impact destabilizing, would possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. There would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis according to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since World War II they concluded that Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ..The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes .(or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violenceIn the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another.)
13
Mex Econ No Impact Econ 2NC

No war from decline preventative measures like WTO prove
Barnett, Wikistrat military chief analyst, 9
(Thomas P.M., 8/24/2009, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4213/the-new-rules-security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis, date accessed 7/1/13 IGM) Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed.
14
Mex Econ No Impact Drugs 1NC

Drug Trade Inevitable
Friedman, chief executive of STRATFOR, a private global intelligence firm he founded in 1996, 2010
(George, 4/6, The Political Machine, Drugs and Pinata: Mexico, failed state? http://www.politicalmachine.com/article/379548/Drugs_and_Pinata_Mexico_failed_state)
From Mexicos point of view, interrupting the flow of drugs to the United States is not clearly in the national interest or i n that of the economic elite. Observers often dwell on the warfare between smuggling organizations in the northern borderland but rarely on the
flow of American money into Mexico. Certainly, that money could corrupt the Mexican state, but it also behaves as money does. It is accumulated and invested, where it generates wealth and jobs. For the Mexican government to become willing to shut off this flow of money, the violence would have to become far more geographically widespread. And given the difficulty of ending the traffic anyway and that many in the state security and military apparatus benefit from it an obvious conclusion can be drawn: Namely, it is difficult to foresee scenarios in which the Mexican
government could or would stop the drug trade. Instead, Mexico will accept both the pain and the benefits of the drug trade. Mexicos policy is consistent: It makes every effort to appear to be stopping the drug trade so that it will not be accused of supporting it. The government does not object to disrupting one or more of the smuggling groups, so long as the aggregate inflow of cash does not materially decline. It demonstrates to the United States efforts (albeit inadequate) to tackle the trade,
while pointing out very real problems with its military and security apparatus and with its officials in Mexico City. It simultaneously points to the United States as the cause of the problem, given Washingtons failure to control demand or to reduce prices by legalization. And if massive amounts of money pour into Mexico as a result of this U.S. failure, Mexico is not going to refuse it. The problem with the Mexican military or police is not lack of training or equipment. It is not a lack of leadership. These may be problems, but they are only problems if they interfere with implementing Mexican national policy. The problem is that these forces are personally unmotivated to take the risks needed to be effective because they benefit more from being ineffective. This isnt incompetence but a rational national policy.
15
Mex Econ No Impact Heg 1NC

Data disproves hegemony impacts
Fettweis 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European
Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true . During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible peace dividend endangered both national and global security. No serious analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan, doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon
U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S.
capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the U nited States cannot drop without increasing
international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on.
Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands,
the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.
16
Mex Econ No Impact Heg 2NC

Hegemony is no longer stabilizing
Bandow 11 -- Senior Fellow @ the CATO Institute (Doug, " Solving the Debt Crisis: A Military Budget for a Republic," Jan 31st,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12746)
More than two decades after the Cold War dramatically ended, the U.S. maintains a Cold War military. America has a couple score allies, dozens of security commitments, hundreds of overseas bases, and hundreds of thousands of troops overseas. Yet international hegemonic communism has disappeared, the Soviet Union has collapsed, Maoist China has been transformed, and pro-communist Third World dictatorships have been discarded in history's dustbin . The European
Union has a larger economy and population than America does. Japan spent decades with the world's second largest economy. South Korea has 40 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea. As Colin Powell exclaimed in 1991, "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of enemies. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung." Yet America accounts for roughly half of the globe's military outlays. In real terms the U.S. government spends more on the military today than at any time during the Cold War, Korean War, or Vietnam War. It is difficult for even a paranoid to concoct a traditional threat to the American homeland. Terrorism is no replacement for the threat of nuclear holocaust. Commentator Philip Klein worries about "gutting" the military and argued that military cuts at the end of the Cold War "came back to haunt us when Sept. 11 happened." Yet the reductions, which still left America by far the world's most dominant power, neither allowed the attacks nor prevented Washington from responding with two wars. And responding with two wars turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. Evil terrorism is a threat, but existential threat it is not. Moreover, the best response is not invasions and occupations as the U.S. has learned at high cost in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather, the most effective tools are improved intelligence, Special Forces, international cooperation, and restrained intervention. Attempts at nation-building are perhaps even more misguided than subsidizing wealthy industrialized states. America's record isn't pretty. The U.S. wasn't able to anoint its preferred Somali warlord as leader of that fractured nation. Washington's allies in the still unofficial and unstable nation of Kosovo committed grievous crimes against Serb, Roma, and other minorities. Haiti remains a failed state after constant U.S. intervention. The invasion of Iraq unleashed mass violence, destroyed the indigenous Christian community, and empowered Iran; despite elections, a liberal society remains unlikely. After nine years most Afghans dislike and distrust the corrupt government created by the U.S. and sustained only by allied arms. The last resort of those who want America to do
everything everywhere is to claim that the world will collapse into various circles of fiery hell without a ubiquitous and vast U.S. military presence. Yet there is no reason to believe that scores of wars are waiting to break out. And America's prosperous and populous allies are capable of promoting peace and stability in their own regions. Indeed, U.S. security
guarantees are profoundly dangerous. Intended to deter by making American involvement automatic, they ensure American participation if deterrence fails. Moreover, Washington's defense promises discourage friendly states from defending themselves while encouraging them to take more provocative positions against their potential adversaries.
17
***Relations Advantage***
18
Relations Increasing Now 1NC

The relations between the US and Mexico have been growing, and President Nieto intends to increase bilateral cooperation while in office
Seelke, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 2013 (Clare, Jan 16, Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf, accessed 7/6/13, CBC) Congress has maintained significant interest in Mexico and played an important role in shaping bilateral relations. Recently, the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that governed Mexico from 1929 to 2000 retook the presidency after 12 years of rule by the conservative National Action Party (PAN) in the July 1, 2012 elections. The party also captured a plurality (but not a majority) in Mexicos Senate and Chamber of Deputies. PRI President Enrique Pea Nieto, a former governor of the state of Mexico, took office on December 1, 2012, pledging to enact bold structural reforms and broaden relations with the United States beyond security issues. U.S. policymakers are closely following what the return of a PRI government portends for Mexicos domestic policies and relations with the United States. Upon his inauguration, President Pea Nieto announced a reformist agenda with specific proposals under five broad pillars: reducing violence; combating poverty; boosting economic growth; reforming education; and fostering social responsibility. He then signed a Pact for Mexico agreement with the leaders of the PAN and leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) containing legislative proposals for implementing an agenda that includes energy and fiscal reform. Although the pact may ease opposition in Mexicos Congress, Pea Nieto could face other constraints such as violence perpetrated by Mexicos powerful criminal organizations and the performance of the U.S. and global economies. Some analysts maintain that the prospects for reform under this administration are good, while others are more circumspect. U.S.-Mexican relations grew closer during the Felipe Caldern Administration (2006-2012) as a result of the Mrida Initiative, a bilateral security effort for which Congress has provided $1.9 billion. Some Members of Congress may be concerned about whether bilateral relations, particularly security cooperation, may suffer now that the party controlling the presidency has changed. Although the transition from PAN to PRI rule is unlikely to result in seismic shifts in bilateral relations, a PRI government may emphasize economic issues more than security matters. President Pea Nieto has vowed to continue U.S.-Mexican security cooperation, albeit with a stronger emphasis on reducing violent crime in Mexico than on combating drug trafficking; what that cooperation will look like remains to be seen. He has also expressed support for increased bilateral and trilateral (with Canada) economic and energy cooperation.
19
Relations Increasing Now 2NC

The US and Mexico have a strong relationship with little risk of it declining
Rozental, former deputy foreign minister of Mexico , 2013
(Andres, Feb 1, The Brookings Institution, Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican Relations Improved?, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/01-us-mexico-rozental, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
The Mexico-U.S. relationship won't substantially change; there are too many ongoing issues to expect any major shift in what has become a very close and cooperative bilateral partnership in economic, security and social aspects. There will be a change of emphasis from the Mexican side as far as the security relationship goes, with Pea Nieto's declared intention to focus much more on the economy and public safety. He has already moved away from the constant statements made by his predecessor extolling the number of criminals apprehended and 'successes' in the fight against organized crime. The change of message comes as a relief to many Mexicans tired of hearing about violence and crime on a daily basis. There are two issues on the bilateral agenda, however, that portend significant changes if President Obama is able to fulfill his latest commitments: gun control and immigration reform. The latter seems to be headed toward a bipartisan agreement that might fundamentally change the situation for the thousands of Mexicans who are in the United States without proper documents. If Congress passes a comprehensive reform that allows them to normalize their situation and have a path to legal residency and eventual citizenship, it would have a huge positive impact on the relationship. As for gun control, Mexico would obviously favor a total ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons as the best way to prevent them from crossing the border, but even universal background checks and limits on the number and type of weapons an individual can purchase would be a welcome development. On trade ties, Mexico reached a quarter trillion dollars of total exports and imports in 2012 a hefty portion of that unprecedented amount was with the United States. As Mexico becomes an increasingly important part of the global supply chain and U.S. companies continue to invest heavily south of the border, the economic relationship has nowhere to go but up. And if Pea Nieto is able to fundamentally reform the country's energy sector, there promises to be even more investment.
The Mexican public has a favorable view towards the US, relations are high
Horowitz, senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, 2013
(Juliana, May 1, Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, How Mexicans See America, http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/01/how-mexicans-see-america/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico this week, he will encounter a Mexican public that has far more positive attitudes about the United States than at any time in the last several years Americas image south of the border fell sharply in 2010, when Arizona passed a show me your papers law aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. But Mexican views have rebounded since then, and U.S. favorability ratings are now at their highest point since 2009. The prospects for U.S. immigration reform may be, at least in part, the source of renewed Mexican approval of their neighbor to the north. A new Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans have a favorable opinion of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from a year ago and up 22 points from May 2010, immediately following the enactment of Arizonas immigration law. The last time Americas image was as strong among Mexicans was in 2009, when 69 percent said they had a favorable opinion.
In Obamas recent visit to Mexico, relations between the two countries were improved exponentially due to a laundry list of agreements
Eagle Pass Business Journal, a business journal for positive and professional journalism on the United States-Mexico Border, 2013
(May 2, Eagle Pass Business Journal, President Barack Obama visit to Mexico improves U.S.-Mexico relations, http://www.epbusinessjournal.com/2013/05/president-barack-obama-visit-to-mexicoimproves-u-s-mexico-relations/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
In his meeting earlier today with President Enrique Pea Nieto of Mexico, President Obama underscored the strategic nature of the bilateral relationship, and the two leaders discussed the broad range of bilateral, regional, and global issues
Gonzaga Debate Institute 20 Mexico Renewables Neg that bind the United States and Mexico and touch the daily lives of citizens of both countries. The Presidents discussed ways to deepen the economic and commercial relationship and reaffirmed their commitment to conclude a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership this year. President Obama noted the importance of people-to-people connections, including greater educational exchange as part of the 100,000 Strong in the Americas Initiative. President Obama reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to work in partnership with Mexico on the security challenges facing both countries. President Obama pledged to continue to use Merida Initiative resources to support efforts to reduce violence in Mexico and ensure respect for human rights. In particular, the two leaders discussed the importance of working together to strike at the financial underpinnings of criminal enterprises that operate in both countries, while ensuring the integrity of our financial systems for legitimate trade and commerce. President Obama also expressed support for Mexicos transition to an accusatory system of justice. The leaders affirmed their commitment to work together to promote a secure and efficient border. High Level Economic Dialogue. To further elevate and strengthen the U.S.-Mexico bilateral commercial and economic relationship, President Obama and President Pea Nieto agreed to establish a High Level Economic Dialogue (HLED). The HLED, which will be led at the cabinet level, is envisioned as a flexible platform intended to advance strategic economic and commercial priorities central to promoting mutual economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. It is expected to meet annually, starting this fall, to facilitate dialogue and joint initiatives and to promote shared approaches to regional and global economic leadership. It will build on, but not duplicate, a range of existing successful bilateral dialogues and working groups. Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research. Building on a long history of educational collaboration between the United States and Mexico, President Obama and President Pea Nieto announced the formation of a Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research. The Forum is intended to expand economic opportunities for citizens of both countries, develop a shared vision on educational cooperation, and share best practices in higher education and innovation. Renewed Commitment to the 21st Century Border Management Initiative. The two Presidents underscored their commitment to a secure and efficient shared border and reaffirmed the importance of the 21st Century Border Management Initiative, noting the recently concluded first meeting under President Pea Nietos tenure of the Initiatives Executive Steering Committee. During that meeting, both governments agreed to support key projects and initiatives that improve infrastructure, facilitate the secure flow of legitimate commerce and travel, and enhance law enforcement cooperation along the border. Parallel cabinet-level discussions have focused on the need to enhance joint security efforts on both sides of the border and further integrate our response to natural disasters. USAID-AMEXCID Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Third Countries. As part of an increased commitment to cooperate on common goals in Central America and elsewhere in the world, the two Presidents welcomed a recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Mexican Foreign Secretariats Agency for International Development Cooperation (AMEXCID) on international cooperation. The MOU facilitates U.S.-Mexico cooperation in third countries in areas such as economic growth, environment and climate change, disaster management, governance and rule of law, and science, technology, and innovation. U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. President Obama welcomed positive steps the U.S. Congress has taken recently toward implementing the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, which is designed to enhance energy security in North America and support our shared duty to exercise responsible stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico. The Agreement establishes a cooperative process for managing the development of oil and gas reservoirs that cross the international maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mexico. USPTO-IMPI Memorandum of Understanding on IPR Cooperation. Recognizing the importance of protecting intellectual property to our broader goals of economic growth and innovation, President Obama welcomed the recent signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its counterpart, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). The MOU will deepen cooperation between the two entities in a range of areas, including: public awareness of the importance of intellectual property; expert exchanges; and sharing best practices on intellectual property office administration.
The US and Mexico have an important, long-standing bilateral relationship

Nieto, the president of Mexico, 2012
(Enrique, Nov 23, The Washington Post, U.S., Mexico should build on their economic ties, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-23/opinions/35511831_1_energy-independencerenewable-energy-energy-resources, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
Both Mexico and the United States held presidential races this year, and the results offer an opportunity to redirect our countries bilateral relationship. The U.S. election demonstrated the growing demographic b onds that connect our countries futures. The election in Mexico heralded a new era of change and reform, as much as a new style of governing, based on pragmatism and results. To build a more prosperous future for our two countries, we must continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic, social and cultural ties. It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way. When I meet with President Obama on Tuesday just days before my inauguration I want to discuss the best way to rearrange our common priorities. After all, our agenda affects millions of citizens in both countries. Perhaps the most
Gonzaga Debate Institute 21 Mexico Renewables Neg important issue is finding new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship to attain common prosperity in our nations. The United States is already Mexicos largest trading partner. As a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), our economic ties have grown to an unprecedented degree. NAFTA links 441 million people producing trillions of dollars in goods and services annually, making it the largest trading bloc in the world. Consequently, in NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy. Together, we must build a more competitive and productive region. Another relevant bilateral issue relates to Mexicos status as an increasingly desirable and dependable manufacturing location. My country is the second-largest supplier of electronic goods to the United States. Coca-Cola, DuPont, GM, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Audi and many others are seizing the opportunity to manufacture within our borders. We seek to continue offering U.S. consumers better products and better prices. Energy production is another emerging area that can enhance our nations potential. I plan to open Mexicos energy sector to national and foreign private investment. Mexico holds the fifth largest shale gas reserve in the world, in addition to large deep-water oil reserves and a tremendous potential in renewable energy. We will not surrender Mexicos ownership over its energy resources, and we will not privatize our state -run oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). We will, however, welcome new technologies, new partnerships and new investments. Together with the United States and Canada, this may well contribute to guaranteeing North American energy independence something from which we would all greatly benefit. Above all, our mutual interest lies in our intertwined peoples. More than 1 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico, and my country remains the largest source of immigrants to the United States. Some analysts detect new momentum for comprehensive immigration reform since the U.S. presidential election. All Mexicans would welcome such a development. Both of our nations are seriously affected by organized-crime activities and drug trafficking. Working against them must be a shared responsibility. I will continue the efforts begun by President Felipe Caldern, but the strategy must necessarily change. I set as a public goal slashing violent crime significantly, proposing a sizable increase in security spending and doing away with redundant police levels. I will improve coordination among crime-fighting authorities, expand the federal police by at least 35,000 officers and bolster intelligence-gathering and analysis. It is also important that our countries increase intelligence-sharing and crime-fighting techniques and promote cooperation among law enforcement agencies. I am visiting Washington and President Obama because our nations share a long-standing and important relationship. The 2012 elections mark the beginning of a new era for the United States and Mexico. This is a great time to join efforts and capitalize on that momentum. We must build a more prosperous North America, on the basis of an alliance for a further competitive and productive integration of our economies.
US Mexico relations are increasing due to a decline in violence Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, & Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2013
Duncan & Christopher, January 2013, Woodrow Wilson Center, New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf, 7/10/13 While economic issues are likely to see increased attention, much of the day to day work in the bilateral relationship will remain focused on security. There are signs that overall levels of organized crime related violence in Mexico finally began to decline in 2012 after several years of growth, though much work remains to be done on issues of public security and criminal justice reform in Mexico, drug consumption in the United States, and the trafficking of weapons, drugs and illicit funds between the two countries. Fortunately, over the past six years an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican governments and their many law enforcement and national security agencies has been achieved, leaving a legacy of increased understanding and trust. Efforts must now be made by both sides to consolidate these gains in the context of the new security strategy being defined by the Mexican administration, the change in personnel in Mexico after the election, and the institutional adjustments seen with the strengthening of Mexicos Secretariat of Internal Affairs (Gobernacin) and the organization changes affecting the Secretariat of Public Security.
US Mexico security cooperation is close and effective Starr, Professor of International Relations and Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California and Director of the U.S.-Mexico Network, 2012
Pamela K., June 28, 2012, the Council of Foreign Relations, What Mexico's Election Means for the Drug War,http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137757/pamela-k-starr/what-mexicos-election-means-for-the-drug-war, 7/10/13 U.S.-Mexico security cooperation has been strikingly close and effective during the tenure of Mexican President Felipe Caldern. A country that had traditionally seen the United States as the principal threat to its national security has come to accept its northern neighbor as a partner in the battle against organized crime. Mexican intelligence agencies and naval units now collaborate closely with U.S. security personnel despite the historic reluctance of Mexicos highly nationalistic military establishment to do so. At the same time, the United States, a country that had traditionally seen Mexico as a weak and unreliable counterpart, has learned to see its southern neighbor as an increasingly trusted associate. The United
Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg States now willingly shares sensitive intelligence with Mexican officials, playing a critical role in improving the effectiveness of Mexican counternarcotics operations. Just a generation ago, this would have been unthinkable.
22
US and Mexico are already deeply engaged in bilateral co-operation over the drug war, SQ solves US-Mexico relations
Smith, Writer at Stop the Drug War 2013(Phillip, April 30, 2013, Stop the Drug War Mexico to Rein In US Agencies in
Drug War http://stopthedrugwar.org/topics/drug_war_issues/source_countries/mexican_drug_war NMS) Mexico has had a historically prickly relationship with US drug law enforcers, but under former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose term ended in December, US law enforcement and security cooperation with Mexican agencies expanded dramatically. The DEA, as well as the FBI, CIA, and Border Patrol, had agents working directly with units of the Mexican Federal Police, the army, and the navy. US law enforcement and security agencies worked closely with their Mexican counterparts on a strategy that aimed at arresting or killing top cartel figures, and managed to eliminate dozens of them, but at the same time, prohibition-related violence only mounted, with the death toll somewhere above 70,000 during Calderon's six-year term. The incoming Pena Nieto administration has previously signaled that it wants to shift away from high-profile target strategy to one centered on crime prevention. The Pena Nieto administration also represents a reversion to governance by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which had famously ruled Mexico as "the perfect dictatorship" for most of the 20th Century before falling to conservative National Action Party (PAN) presidential candidate Vicente Fox in 2000. Like Fox, Calderon ran under the PAN banner and cultivated closer relations with the US, especially on drug enforcement, than the PRI ever had. The PRI's relationships with US drug enforcers could be characterized as one of mutual suspicion and distrust, with occasional bouts of cooperation. As the Washington Post reported, high-ranking incoming PRI officials who met with US DEA, CIA, FBI, and other security representatives in December were stunned and "remained stone-faced as they learned for the first time just how entwined the two countries had become during the battle against narco-traffickers, and how, in the process, the United States had been given nearcomplete entree to Mexico's territory and the secrets of its citizens." Now, the Pena Nieto government is moving to get a better grip on the assistance it gets from its neighbor to the north. It was in the interest of Mexico to do so, Alcocer said. "The issue before is that there was a lack of coordination because there was not a single entity in the Mexican government that was coordinating all the efforts," he told the AP. "Nobody knew what was going on." The DEA and other agencies declined comment, leaving it the State Department, which said it looks forward to "continued close cooperation" with Mexico.
Status quo solves the aff. Economic, security, and democracy talks currently increasing US-Mexico relations
Selee, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute at the Wilson International Center for Scholars 2012(Andrew, July 2, 2012 CNN How will PRI's win change the U.S.-Mexico relationship?
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/02/how-will-pris-win-change-the-u-s-mexico-relationship-not-much/ NMS) At the same time, Mexico's expanding economy has allowed it to become the second destination for U.S. exports. States ranging from Texas to Nebraska, Michigan, Tennessee and New Hampshire depend heavily on the trading relationship with Mexico. Indeed, the growing Mexican economy is helping to fuel the expansion of jobs in these states in the midst of an economic crisis at home. Policymakers in both countries have a vested interest in managing these economic ties responsibly, and a new administration in Mexico is sure to make this a priority. There have also been suspicions that the PRI would renew its old ways in dealing with drug traffickers and jettison the growing security cooperation relationship with the United States. This also seems unlikely to happen, and the new government will almost certainly want to deepen cooperation against drug traffickers. In the past, PRI governments "managed" the traffickers to keep them under control, and scandals and allegations of relationships with cartels hound some former and current state PRI governors. However, the new government in Mexico has enormous incentives to tackle the violence that has beset parts of the country, and it cannot do that without extensive intelligence sharing, equipment and training from the U.S. government. We are likely to see cooperation against trafficking organizations deepen in the coming years as the new government tries to get control of areas in the north and along the coasts where criminal groups have established themselves. The main criminal groups are now too big to be dealt with through negotiations and deals as the PRI did in the 1980s and 90s. Inevitably, the new government will have to continue outgoing President Felipe Calderon's policy of confronting these groups, although it may find ways of prioritizing the protection of civilians in the process. Suspicions will, nonetheless, remain in the United States, as in much of Mexican society, about the PRI's honesty and transparency. A party that ruled through corrupt bargains in the past is unlikely to have been born again overnight. Indeed, the allegations of several creative means for vote buying by the PRI during this election worries many that the old ways of doing business are alive and well still in 2012. But even here there is hope. What has changed is not the PRI but Mexican society and the challenges it faces. Mexicans today have become used to a flourishing democracy with competitive elections, freedom of the press, and greater (if still imperfect) transparency in governance. Mexicans expect politicians to be accountable, police to do their jobs well and courts to be independent. They are often disappointed, to be sure, but their expectations have changed dramatically since the late 1990s when Mexico's democratic process began. The PRI is, in the end, a party that wants legitimacy and to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 23 Mexico Renewables Neg show that it can govern in a democratic era. The new government is almost certain to continue reforms to the courts, police and public services as a way of winning public trust. The United States has a substantial interest in seeing Mexico's democracy flourish, its security situation improve and its economy grow. Making sure that we have a secure and prosperous neighbor next door, with solid democratic institutions, will provide a buffer in an often hostile world and produce enormous tangible benefits for U.S. workers who depend on exports to Mexico. Deepening our partnership with Mexico is key to the future of U.S. security and prosperity. There will be legitimate doubts about the new government in Mexico, but there will be even more pressing reasons to move forward in strengthening the relationship with our neighbor next door.
24
Relations Alt NRG Now 1NC

The US and Mexico have been cooperating on clean energy projects for years
UPI, a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide, 2012
(March 29, United Press International, Mexico buoyed by renewable energy boost, aims for solar project, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/03/29/Mexico-buoyed-byrenewable-energy-boost-aims-for-solar-project/UPI-59891333048596/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
MEXICO CITY, March 29 (UPI) -- Mexico, buoyed by success in wind energy expansion, is launching a giant solar energy project that sees a U.S. firm's role in its primary development. Soaring crude oil prices have skewed national budgets throughout Central and Latin America and the ongoing row between Argentina and Spain's YPF Repsol is an indication of tension over rising energy costs. Mexico will aim to circumvent the challenge of punishing oil prices by installing highcapacity solar power generation systems, company data indicated. Californian solar systems provider SolFocus, Inc. said Thursday it joined with Mexican land and real estate developer Grupo Musa and U.S. energy developer Synergy Technologies LLC to work on a landmark solar power plant in Baja California, near Tecate, Mexico. The plant is planned to have a 450-megawatt capacity but will be built in 50-megawatt phases. Construction on the first phase will begin this year and that part of the plant will be operational next year. The plant will use the SolFocus Concentrator Photovoltaic equipment, but will be owned and operated by SolMex Energy S.A. de C.V., a new Grupo Musa and Synergy Technologies company focused on solar energy in Mexico. Officials said Mexico's solar energy aims met with the objectives of both Mexican and U.S. energy planners. "The project is in direct alignment with the Mexico and U.S. bilateral clean energy agenda," said David Munoz, director general of the Baja California State Commission of Energy. "The countries share a common goal of achieving strong economic growth and energy security while addressing climate change and increasing the reliability of energy infrastructure," Munoz said. "Mexico has been successful with wind energy, and now this large solar project will support our energy infrastructure and economic development efforts in the very near future," he said.
25
Relations Alt NRG Now 2NC

The US and Mexico joined a joint agreement to facilitate an interconnected grid with clean energy technologies
ENS, , 2012
(April 3, Environmental News Service, U.S., Canada, Mexico Vow Continental Energy Grid, http://ens-newswire.com/2012/04/03/u-s-canada-mexico-vow-continental-energy-grid/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
WASHINGTON, DC, April 2, 2012 (ENS) The leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada today pledged to develop continental energy, including electricity generation and interconnection across national borders and welcomed increasing North American energy trade. Meeting in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama, Canadas President Stephen Harper and Mexicos President Felipe Calderon committed their governments to enhance their collective energy security, to facilitate seamless energy flows on the interconnected grid and to promote trade and investment in clean energy technologies. They will cooperate in expanding cooperation to create clean energy jobs and combat climate change, the leaders said in a joint statement. Enhanced electricity interconnection in the Americas would advance the goals of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas to reduce energy poverty and increase the use of renewable sources of energy, the three leaders said.
Cooperation on renewable energy is high
Donnelly, associate with the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, 2010
(Robert, June 28, New Security Beat, U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a Green Agenda, http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2010/06/u-s-mexico-cooperation-on-renewableenergy-building-a-green-agenda/#.UdnKbjs3u8B, accessed 7/7/13, CBC)
A U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently formedan announcement timed to coincide with President Felipe Calderons April 2010 state visit to Washingtonand there has been high-level engagement on the issue by both administrations. Collaboration between Mexico and U.S. government agencies through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program has enabled richer development of Mexicos renewable resour ces while promoting the electrification and economic development of parts of rural Mexico.
US and Mexico are already engaged in a tri-pronged approach to increasing relations

Shoichet and Rodriguez, Writer and editor for CNN Digital, Associate Editor at The Huffington Post Latino Voices 2013 (Cathernine and Cindy. May 1, 2013, CNN Key issues on Obama's Mexico trip: Trade, immigration and drug war
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/mexico-obama-visit NMS) 1. Trade and economic ties The situation: The United States is Mexico's largest trading partner, and Mexico is America's third-largest trade partner, after China and Canada. Imports and exports between the two countries totaled nearly $500 billion last year. Officials on both sides of the border have said they want economic relations to be a focal point during Obama's visit. Obama's trip comes as Pea Nieto's government has said it's on the verge of pursuing reforms in the country's state-run oil company -- a politically divisive issue in Mexico and something U.S. and global investors are watching closely. Obama's take: "We spend so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner, responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border," Obama told reporters on Tuesday. "We want to see how we can deepen that, how we can improve that, and maintain that economic dialogue over a long period of time." Pea Nieto's take: "We should reconsider greater integration of North America to achieve a region that is more competitive and capable of creating more jobs," Pea Nieto told Obama during a meeting at the White House in November. Public opinion: Most Mexicans think the deep economic ties between the two countries are good for Mexico, according to survey results released this week by the Pew Research Center. But when the 1,000 people surveyed in March were asked about the influence the United States currently has on economic conditions in Mexico, views were mixed. One-third of Mexicans say the United States is having a positive impact on national economic conditions in Mexico, while 28% think the United States is having a negative impact. 2. Immigration The situation: The United States and Mexico are bound by a border which has made for a dysfunctional relationship over the years, especially when it comes to immigration. However, both governments have the issue high on their list of priorities. In the United States, a bipartisan group of senators have proposed an immigration reform bill, with U.S.-Mexico border security at its foundation. There are more than 11 million Mexicans living in the United States, including the 6 million estimated to be living there illegally as of 2010. But the migration rate from Mexico fell to zero in 2012, meaning the number of Mexicans coming to the United States -- and those
Gonzaga Debate Institute 26 Mexico Renewables Neg going the other way -- was virtually identical. Obama's take: "We've got to have more effective border security; although it should build on the great improvements that have been made on border security over the last four or five years," Obama said in a news conference this week. "We should make the legal immigration system work more effectively so that the waits are not as burdensome, the bureaucracy is not as complicated, so we continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to our shores in a legal fashion." President Enrique Pea Nieto and President Barack Obama meet in 2012. Pea Nieto's take: "We fully support your proposal for this migration reform," Pea Nieto told Obama in November. "More than demanding what you should do or shouldn't do, we do want to tell you that we want to contribute. We really want to participate with you. We want to contribute toward the accomplishment, so that of course we can participate in the betterment and the well-being of so many millions of people who live in your country." Public opinion: According to the Pew Research Center, Mexicans are divided on whether this is good or bad for their country; 44% say it's good for Mexico that many of its citizens live in the United States, and an equal share say this is bad for Mexico. And, perhaps the most surprising find from the study said that 61% of Mexicans would not move to the United States even if they had the means to do so. However, 35% say they would move to the United States if they could, including 20% who say they would emigrate without authorization. A little less than a third of the Mexicans questioned (30%) say they personally know someone who went to the United States but returned to Mexico because the person couldn't find work, according to the Pew Research Center. About a quarter (27%) know someone who has been deported or detained by the U.S. government for immigration reasons in the last 12 months. 3. Security and the drug war The situation: The battle against drug cartels has played a dominant role in U.S.-Mexican relations in recent years. Officials on both sides of the border have said that drugs traveling north from Mexico to consumers in the United States and weapons traveling south from the United States to cartels in Mexico are an increasingly deadly combination. High-profile cartel takedowns were a hallmark of former President Felipe Calderon's tenure. Pea Nieto has vowed to take a different approach, focusing more on education problems and social inequality that he says fuel drug violence. The details of his policies are still coming into focus, and analysts say his government has deliberately tried to shift drug violence out of the spotlight. Critics have expressed concerns that Pea Nieto's government will turn a blind eye to cartels or negotiate with them -- something he repeatedly denied on the campaign trail last year. On Tuesday -- two days before Obama's arrival -- his government arrested the father-in-law of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and one of the country's mostwanted drug lords. While both Obama and Pea Nieto have said they're committed to working together on security issues, it's unclear whether the U.S. role will change as Mexico's government shifts its strategy. Obama's take: The U.S. president has repeatedly said the United States will work to reduce demand for drugs and to stop the illegal flow of weapons to Mexico. But there's one approach he says isn't on the table -- drug legalization
27
Relations Relations Inevitable 1NC

US- Mexico relations inevitable
Ropp, Latin American Politics and Society, 2011
Steve C., Autumn 2011, Distributed by Wiley on behalf of the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami, Inevitable Partnership: Understanding Mexico-U.S. Relations, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177152, 7/10/13 In the introduction, he suggests that several recent developments and trends have made partnership between the United States and Mexico inevitable. First, there is the easy movement of peoples and their associated cultures (not to mention economic goods) across a common two-thousand-mile border. From a neofunctional theoretical perspective, these flows can be seen as creating incentives for leaders of the two respective states to work more closely and cooperatively. Indeed, Smith predicts that the eventual result will be a degree of institutionalized friendship and cooperation that can be referred to as a partnership. Mexico's domestic changes are a second contributing factor. Smith views Mexico's fundamental political, social, and economic restructuring over the past several decades as greatly increasing the probability of continuing improvement in interstate relations. Smith's underlying premise seems to be one of system convergence. Just as students of Soviet politics once argued that structural changes in the Soviet political and economic system would render it more like the United States and thus less of an adversary, Smith argues that changes in Mexico's political economy will inevitably produce a durable partnership.
28
Relations Relations Inevitable 2NC

NAFTA made US-Mexico relations inevitable Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of the Americas since early 2003 and an expert on hemispheric affairs and U.S. foreign and trade policy, 2012 Eric, 12-6-12, Huffington Post, What should the top priority for US -Mexico
Relations, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-farnsworth/top-priority-us-mexico_b_2245025.html, 7-6-13 KB On Dec. 1, Enrique Pea Nieto was inaugurated as Mexico's president. With a new leader taking the reins in Mexico and Barack Obama's reelection the United States, what should the two leaders focus on in terms of bilateral ties? Americas Society/Council of the Americas asked nine prominent experts to share what they consider top priorities. Responses ranged from expanding trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership to U.S. immigration reform. My response was as follows: "Should be" and "will be" have frequently been two very different things in the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship. The coming year offers the opportunity for a new approach. For the4ir own domestic purposes and in the wake of their respective elections, the United States should quickly tackle immigration reform while Mexico should liberalize its energy sector. In terms of the bilateral relationship, however , both governments (including their legislatures) should
recognize the nature of economic integration that has occurred since NAFTA, making our two economies virtually inseparable, along with Canada, as a joint production platform. This new reality should
both be celebrated and also enhanced. Joint approaches within the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations can be a means to achieve NAFTA 2.0. If coupled with a North American approach to potential trade negotiations with the EU, North American economic integration can advance to a point unthinkable even a few short years ago. With continued economic and commercial pressure from China, India, and elsewhere, this approach will support the long-term economic well-being of the United States and North America more broadly. A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before. The Hispanic community in the United States has found its voice politically, manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is doing well enough economically to entice investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic collaboration. It should be the top bilateral priority.
US/Mexico relations are resilient- Drug war proves

Clinton, US Secretary of State, 2010
(Hillary, Diplomats speak after U.S.-Mexico high level consultation group meeting, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Office of the Spokesman, March 23, 2010, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138963.htm)
Well, good afternoon. And let me begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Government of Mexico for hosting these very important discussions today. We have had the opportunity to delve into many areas of common concern that lie at the heart of the Merida Initiative and our shared responsibility to combat and defeat organized transnational crime. We're looking forward to continuing this conversation in the weeks and months ahead. We will be seeing President Calderon later today because the United States strongly supports his courageous campaign against violent criminal organizations on behalf of the Mexican people. And we honor the service and sacrifice of Mexico's men and women in uniform in the military and in the police forces. The relationship between our two nations is so comprehensive and complex and deep and broad. It is not
bound by borders or bureaucratic divisions. And what we are focused on today is a part of that relationship, but a truly significant part. We are working in our two governments together to solve the problem posed by the criminal cartels that stalk the streets of your cities and ours, that kill and injure innocent people, and spread a reign of terror and intimidation, and use the trafficking of drugs to addict people, the trafficking of persons to degrade them, and who are truly an insult and a rebuke to the common values that our two nations share. It's an honor to be joined here in Mexico by a very significant delegation
from the Obama Administration. Defense Secretary Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler, Acting Administrator of the DEA Michele Leonhart, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets in the Treasury Department Adam Szubin, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske, Ambassador Pascual, and a wide range of senior officials, all of whom are committed to this unique partnership that we are exhibiting today. Our broad engagement allows us to come at these problems from many different angles,
to devise cross-cutting solutions, to ensure that our two governments are working hand-in-hand, not just at the ministerial level but all the way down our bureaucracies.
29
Relations Relation Collapse Inevitable 1NC

History proves relations collapse inevitable
Purcell, Managing Director of the Council of the Americas Vice President of the Americas Society, editor and co-author
of EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA IN THE WORLD ECONOMY and JAPAN AND LATIN AMERICA IN THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER, 97 Susan, The Changing Nature of US-Mexican Relations, page 137, KB
The past few decades have seen profound changes in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico. The interests of the two countries, which often diverged during the Cold War years, increasingly began to converge following collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. With this convergence, bilateral relations seemed to enter a more cooperative stage. The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 was deemed a fitting symbol of the new, mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries. It was not long, however, before familiar conflicts over traditional issues - such as immigration, drugs and trade - began to resurface. The December 1994 devaluation of the peso, followed shortly thereafter by the heating up of the US presidential campaign, shifted the focus of the bilateral relationship away from the much anticipated benefits of the NAFTA to the costs of that agreement. In fact, by increasing the interdependence between the United States and Mexico, NAFTA served to blur even further the distinction between foreign and domestic issues, which had already been weakening for some time. As a result, after NAFTA, it became increasingly difficult to delink the various bilateral issues from each other. This made the solution of formerly manageable problems more intractable. It is not clear whether the increased, and growing, economic interdependence between the United States and Mexico will continue to magnify conflicts between them by automatically transforming domestic conflicts into bilateral ones and vice versa. There is reason to believe that the current situation may be transitional as both the United States and Mexico adjust to, and come to terms with, the new global economy and the ever-increasing links between the two countries. There is even some evidence that, on balance, NAFTA will prove more of a solution for, than a source of, bilateral friction and tensions. Much, of course, will depend on how the various actors on both sides of the border choose to manage their relations in this difficult period. The 2,000 mile shared border between the United States and Mexico has always made for a "special relationship" between the two countries. Each country's concept of the kind of special treatment it wanted from the other, however, was quite different. As a superpower with global security concerns, the United States wanted Mexico to be a stable, reliable ally against hostile powers interested in expanding their influence in Washington's "backyard." Mexico, in contrast, believed that a special relationship with the rich and powerful United States should provide it with economic advantages that would help it to transform itself from a developing to a developed country. Not surprisingly, each country ended up by disappointing the other. Mexico came to look upon the border shared with the United States more as a threat than as an opportunity. This was not surprising, given the history of US-Mexico relations. Every Mexican child knew that the United States had "taken" half of Mexico's territory during the 19th century while, during the 20th century, outright military intervention had been replaced by less tangible forms of intervention or interference. New technologies, such as television, combined with the growing importance of US multinational corporations in Mexico's economy, had fed Mexican politicians, and intellectuals in particular, to focus their attention instead on the threats these posed to Mexico's culture, identity, and sovereignty.
30
Relations No Internal Heg 1NC

Relations not keymilitary spending Perlo-freeman, a senior researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme, 10 (Sam, June 3rd 2010, Global Issues, World Military Spending,
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75 DM, accessed 7/10/13, JA) However, the fact that military expenditure is continuing to increase even as other areas are cut suggests a clear strategic choice: the fundamental goal of ensuring continued US dominance across the spectrum of military capabilities, for both conventional and asymmetric warfare, has not changed .
31
Relations No Internal Heg 2NC

Relations not key to US heg-- military leaders
Mullen, admiral of the U.S. navy and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, Joint chiefs of staff, 2011 (M.G., 2/8/11, United States Air Force at Air Univeristy, Leadership, Bravery and Justice: the United States Military, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nms/nms.pdf DM, accessed 7/10/13, JA)
Defeat Aggression: The core task of our Armed Forces remains to defend our Nation and win its wars. To do so, we must provide capabilities to defeat adversary aggression. Military force , at times, may be necessary to defend our Nation and allies or to preserve broader peace and security. Seeking to adhere to international standards, the United States will use military force in concert with allies and partners whenever possible, while reserving the right to act alone if necessary. Across a wide range of contingencies, military leaders will provide our Nations leadership with options of how the military can help achieve the Nations objectives.
32
Relations No Internal Drug 1NC

Mexico is not an important ally with the US- not cooperating on the drug war
Noriega, Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001-2003 and Assistant Secretary of State from 20032005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC, which represents U.S. and foreign clients, and contributes to www.interamericansecuritywatch.com, 2011 (Roger, August 30, 2011, Fox News, Is Mexico Our Ally or Our Enemy?, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/30/is-mexico-our-ally-or-our-enemy/, accessed 7/10/13, JA) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/30/is-mexico-our-ally-or-our-enemy/#ixzz2YhOO1HZb Former Mexican president Vicente Foxs dramatic declaration last Friday that his nation should seek a truce with vicious narco-trafficking gangs draws attention to a critical issue as Mexicans consider what kind of country they want to leave their children. Foxs suggestion also should serve as a wake-up call to our country that we should not take for granted the extraordinary sacrifice of Mexicans who are fighting the same transnational crime syndicates that threaten U.S. security and well-being. His provocative words may also ensure that Mexicos 2012 presidential campaign will include a healthy debate on whether its citizens are committed to building a modern, law-abiding society or prefer to tolerate drug corruption that stunts its economic and political growth. Vicente Fox is no radical. He is the charismatic democrat who led his center-right National Action Party (PAN) to a historic victory in 2000, ousting the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that had held power for over 70 years. Indeed, at the outset of his mandate, Fox battled the powerful narcotrafficking syndicates that control the transit of cocaine and other illegal drugs through Mexican territory to insatiable consumers in the United States. However, he backed off quickly as he realized that his security forces could not go toe-to-toe with the bloodthirsty criminals.
33
Relations No Internal Crime 1NC

US Latin American relations cant solve for organized crime because of corrupt government officials who turn a blind eye
The White House, 2011 (July 19, thewhitehouse.gov, Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Strategy_to_Combat_Transnational_Organize d_Crime_July_2011.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Transnational organized crime (TOC) poses a significant and growing threat to national and international security, with dire implications for public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe. Not only are criminal networks expanding, but they also are diversifying their activities, resulting in the convergence of threats that were once distinct and today have explosive and destabilizing effects. This Strategy organizes the United States to combat TOC networks that pose a strategic threat to Americans and to U.S. interests in key regions. Penetration of State Institutions, Corruption, and Threats to Governance. Developing countries with weak rule of law can be particularly susceptible to TOC penetration. TOC penetration of states is deepening, leading to co-option in a few cases and further weakening of governance in many others. The apparent growing nexus in some states among TOC groups and elements of governmentincluding intelligence servicesand high-level business figures represents a significant threat to economic growth and democratic institutions. In countries with weak governance, there are corrupt officials who turn a blind eye to TOC activity. TOC networks insinuate themselves into the political process in a variety of ways. This is often accomplished through direct bribery (but also by having members run for office); setting up shadow economies; infiltrating financial and security sectors through coercion or corruption; and positioning themselves as alternate providers of governance, security, services, and livelihoods. As they expand, TOC networks may threaten stability and undermine free markets as they build alliances with political leaders, financial institutions, law enforcement, foreign intelligence, and security agencies. TOC penetration of governments is exacerbating corruption and undermining governance, rule of law, judicial systems, free press, democratic institution-building, and transparency. Further, events in Somalia have shown how criminal control of territory and piracy ransoms generate significant sums of illicit revenue and promote the spread of government instability.
34
Relations No Internal Drug 1NC

US Latin American relations cant solve for organized crime, international cooperation and the UN are key
The White House, 2011 (July 19, thewhitehouse.gov, Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Strategy_to_Combat_Transnational_Organize d_Crime_July_2011.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
For nations that have the will to fulfill their international law enforcement commitments but lack the necessary means, the United States is committed to partnering with them to develop stronger law enforcement and criminal justice institutions necessary for ensuring the rule of law. Over the past decade, important gains have been made in developing criminal justice capacities in key regions of the world. The goal of the United States is to promote the expansion of such achievements on a worldwide basis, to the point where international law enforcement capabilities and cooperation among states are self-sustaining. Great progress also has been made in developing a common normative framework for international cooperation against TOC threats. The challenge for the United States and other countries over the next decade is to bring the promise of this worldwide regime into practice. The United States will encourage international partners to dedicate the necessary political capital and resources toward making the promise of these commitments a reality. The United States will pursue this through both a renewed commitment to multilateral diplomacy and by leveraging bilateral partnerships to elevate the importance of combating TOC as a key priority of U.S. diplomacy. For example, in February 2011, the United States and the United Kingdom established the Organized Crime Contact Group, to be chaired by the UK Home Secretary and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. In addition, the United States deploys hundreds of law enforcement attachs to its missions abroad to develop and maintain foreign contacts essential to combating immediate threats to public safety and security. The United States will continue to place a high priority on the provision of international technical assistance through our missions abroad and will continue to improve the coordination of these programs. The United States will leverage all possible areas of cooperation, including legal instruments such as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Convention), the UN Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, and the protocols to which the United States is a party, to obtain the assistance of international partners and to raise international criminal justice, border security, and law enforcement standards and norms. The United States will strengthen its engagement with the United Nations in this regard and leverage the growing role of regional and other multilateral institutions that have risen in significance and influence over the past decade. Additionally, the United States will continue to pursue cooperation with other countries and with partners such as the European Union, the G-8, the G-20, and new inter-regional platforms across the Pacific and Atlantic in developing leading-edge initiatives and political commitments to combat TOC.
35
Relations No Internal Econ 1NC

The economic stability of the world depends on US China relations; the US and China have the largest economies and there is not a more important relationship with regards to solving the global economy
Weinger, a breaking news reporter at Politico, 2011 (Mackenzie, Aug. 18, Politico, Biden: World economy depends on US-China ties, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61621.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Vice President Joe Biden told his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that the economic stability of the world depends on the U.S.-China relationship, Reuters reported Thursday. Biden, speaking on the first day of an official visit to China, said the two countries must focus on strengthening their economic ties. The trip comes in the midst of Chinese concerns over the U.S.s financial condition the country is the largest single holder of U.S. government debt. I would suggest that there is no more important relationship that we need to establish on the part of the United States than a close relationship with China, Biden said. I am absolutely confident that the economic stability of the world rests in no small part on cooperation between the United States and China. Vice President Xi told Biden that economic concerns are now the cornerstone of the two countries relationship. Recently, turmoil in international financial markets has deepened and global economic growth faces severe challenges, Xi said, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. As the worlds two biggest economies, China and the United States have a responsibility to strengthen macroeconomic policy coordination and together boost market confidence . The visit, which Biden said is about establishing relationships and trust, will not be about making deals. I also come with a strong message that the United State s of America is and will continue to be engaged totally in the world, Biden told Xi at the meeting.
36
***Warming Advantage***
37
Warming No Solvency 1NC

Climate change cant be solved by politics
Watkins, director and lead author of the 2007/2008 UN Human Development Report, 2008
(Kevin, United Nations, Human Development Report 2007/2008, p. 4, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Overview.pdf, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
The cumulative nature of the climate change has wide-ranging implications. Perhaps the most important is that carbon cycles do not follow political cycles. The current generation of political leaders cannot solve the climate change problem alone because a sustainable emissions pathway has to be followed over decades, not years. However, it has the power either to prise open the window of opportunity for future generations, or to close that window.
US China relations key to solving climate change they are the only two nations which are capable
Harvey, environmental correspondent for The Guardian, 2012 (Fiona, Dec. 12, The Guardian, China and US hold the key to a new global climate deal, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/12/china-us-global-climate-deal, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
China and the US are to be the clear focus of the next year of climate change negotiations, following a hard-fought climate conference that ended in Doha on Saturday night. The world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases hold the key to forging a new global agreement on climate change, that for the first time would bind both developed and developing countries to cut their emissions. But both face severe political problems that will make the talks for the next few years extremely difficult. At Doha, in a marathon 36-hour final session, governments agreed on a handful of measures that will enable the focus to move from the old negotiations to a new set of talks that will focus solely on forging a new international agreement, to be drawn up in 2015 and come into force from 2020. The measures included a continuation of the Kyoto protocol to 2020, and an agreement that "vulnerable countries" would be entitled to payments for the "loss and damage" they suffered as a result of climate change. But for the new talks, which will start at the beginning of next year, to succeed, both the US and China must accept stiff emissions-cutting targets, and find a way of providing finance to poor countries to help them cut emissions and cope with the effects of global warming. Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate chief, made a veiled reference to China after the conference when she said: "Some people have no contributions [on cutting] emissions under the Kyoto protocol] and they want that to last. But there is a new world order now. The rich have to do more than the poorest but all will have to do something."
38
Warming No Solvency 2NC

US- China cooperation on climate change key to solvency- not Mexico
Walker, associate vice president of Environmental Defense Funds U.S. Climate and Energy program, 7/10 (Derek, 7/10/13, Environmental Defense Fund, Hopeful signs for U.S. and Chinese cooperation on climate change, http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/07/10/hopeful-signs-us-and-chinese-cooperation-climate-change, accessed 7/10/13, JA) Last month offered a thrilling glimpse into the future for the millions of people around the U.S. and across the world who are yearning for real solutions to climate change. On June 18, Shenzhen, an economically-vibrant city of 15 million on the South China Sea, launched the first of seven Chinese regional pilot carbon market systems slated to begin by the end of 2014. The Shenzhen market is set to include at least 635 local companies that contribute approximately 40% of the citys CO2 emissions, and is expected to result in a 21% decrease in the carbon intensity of the economy in just two years. Shenzhen is one of seven carbon trading pilots that represent about 25% of Chinas GDP
and may include thousands of companies emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2. Inspiration, encouragement and support for Shenzhens maiden market launch came from a familiar place: California. Both Shenzhen and California have well-established reputations as trailblazers on innovative solutions that match economic growth with environmental gains. Perhaps it will be little surprise, then, that none other than the states top climate change official, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Mary Nichols and Governor Browns personal representative, Wade Crowfoot, stood with senior officials from Shenzhen and from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) at the Shenzen launch. Nichols has presided over the development of Californias groundbreaking climate change effort and oversaw the Fall 2013 launch of Californias carbon market, the first comprehensive state-level system in the U.S. The California market is a promising model for Shenzhen and the other Chinese pilots. California has held three allowance auctions to date, with strong participation by companies and a modest increase in the price of allowances with each auction. Ultimately, Californias carbon market will be a key element driving the state back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas pollution by 2020, accompanied by dramatic improvements in air quality and significant incentives to carbon-cutting entrepreneurs. Nichols formalized the partnership between California and Shenzhen by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) paving the way for technical cooperation between officials and other stakeholders engaged in the respective carbon market programs. The California-Shenzhen partnership is just the tip of the iceberg in the crescendo of cooperation between the U.S. and China. Earlier in June in California, President Obama and Chinese President Xi signed an agreement to collectively fight dangerous hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that are used in air conditioning and refrigeration. HFCs are pound-for-pound some of the most potent greenhouse gases, and controlling them will be an essential short-term piece of solving the climate change puzzle. As California and Shenzhen roll up their sleeves to support one anothers ambitious climate change programs, they will provide demonstrable proof of the promise of cooperation between their nations and will deliver results and momentum towards national action. In her remarks at the Shenzhen launch, Mary Nichols called the leadership of California, Shenzhen, and other provinces, states and cities around th e world a foundation that national and international action can spring from. The Chinese carbon trading pilots are strong signals that climate change is an issue to be taken seriously and to be acted on expeditiously. In the U.S., President Barack Obama recently took the stage in Washington and laid out his Administrations vision for bold national action to fight climate change, an eagerly-anticipated outline of how progress will be achieved towards Obamas 2009 commitment to slash greenhouse gas pollution 17% by 2020. While 2020 will be an important milestone in charting progress, it is but the beginning of a long journey. Climate change science couldnt be clearer about the need to achieve dramatic greenho use gas reductions by midcentury. And no long-term solution to the environmental challenge of our lifetime will be found without the leadership of the worlds top greenhou se gas polluters. That leadership is now coalescing into national and bilateral action and, for the first time in some time, offers hope that we are headed in the right direction.
39
Ice Age Turn

An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- only maintaining emissions can solve
Kenny 2
(Andrew, 7/14/02, The Sunday Mail, The Ice Age Cometh, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm, accessed 7/12/13, JA)
A new ice age is due now , but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about
consumerism to make us believe in global warming. THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies. The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975) The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976) As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote: The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one for there will be a next one could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started. The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse. But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry. Even the White House is making cautionary sounds about warming. What facts have emerged to make this dramatic reversal? Well, none really. The most reliable measurements show no change whatsoever in global temperatures in the past 20 years. What has changed is the perception that global warming makes a better scare than the coming ice age. A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. It is not the destruction itself of Sodom and Gomorrah that makes the story so appealing but the fact that they were destroyed because they were so sinful. One of the real threats to mankind is the danger of collision with a large asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings, protests and newspaper headlines about asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you could persuade people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous editorials in all the papers. Global warming has the perfect culprit: naughty, industrialised, advanced, consuming, Western society, which has made itself very rich by burning a lot of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). This, so the scare goes, is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide, which is dangerously heating up the world. THERE are two facts in the scare. First, it is true that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas one which traps heat on Earth. (Without it, the Earth would be 'too cold for' life.) Second, it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. The rest is guesswork. The global warmers said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever. Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years. (The curve, incidentally, is a bad match against rising carbon dioxide but a good one against solar activity, which suggests the sun might be the reason for the warming.) However, there are accurate methods of measuring sea temperatures going back much further. Past temperatures for the Atlantic Ocean have been found by looking at dead marine life. The isotope ratio of carbon-14 in their skeletons tells you when they lived. The ratio of other isotopes tells you the temperature then. Thus we are able to know temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years. They make nonsense of the global warming scare. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the "Holocene Maximum" of about 5000 years ago when it was about l.5C higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in the years 600 to 1100, when temperatures. were about 1C higher than now. This was a golden age for northern European agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation. Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England. Then temperatures dropped to "The Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1000 years ago. We are now in a rather cool period. What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a fact of nature, and we have no idea if the claimed 0.3C heating over the past 100 years is caused by man's activities or part of a natural cycle. What we can say, though, is that if Europe heats up by 1C it would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased
Gonzaga Debate Institute 40 Mexico Renewables Neg carbon dioxide makes plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests. The Earth's climate is immensely complicated, far beyond our present powers of understanding and the calculating powers of modern computers. Changes in phase from ice to water to vapour; cloud formation; convection; ocean currents; winds; changes in the sun: the complicated shapes of the land masses; the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide all of these and a thousand other factors operating with small differences over vast masses and distances make it practically impossible for us to make predictions about long-term climate patterns, and perhaps make such predictions inherently impossible. The computer models that the global warmers now use are ludicrously oversimplified, and it is no surprise they have made one wrong prediction after another. If the global warming scare has little foundation in fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due. We do not know what causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf Stream, but we do not know. However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity. It may be that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the
ice age. In this case, we should give tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they
release.
An ice age is coming and will cause extinction- need to keep up emissions to survive
Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, 8
(Phil, April 23th 2008, The Australian, Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html, accessed 7/12/2013, JA) THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global
temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research
Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days . A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do . There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in
Gonzaga Debate Institute 41 Mexico Renewables Neg global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
The coming Ice Age outweighs any impacts of Warming

Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, 7
(Fred, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Page 13, JA) The climate event that deserves real concern is the next Big Ice Age. That is inevitably approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may plummet 15 degrees Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder. Humanity and food production will be forced closer to the equator , as huge ice sheets expand in Canada.
Scandinavia. Russia, and Argentina. Even Ohio and Indiana may gradually be encased in mile-thick ice, while California and the Great Plains could suffer century-long drought. Keeping warm will become the critical issue,
both night and day . Getting
enough food for eight or nine billion people from the relatively small amount of arable land left unfrozen will be a potentially desperate effort. The broad, fertile plains of Alberta and the Ukraine will become sub-Arctic wastes. Wildlife species will be extremely challenged, even though they've survived such cold before-because this time there will be more humans competing for the ice-free land. That's when human knowledge and high-tech farming will be truly needed. In contrast, none of the
scary scenarios posited by today's global warming advocates took place during the Earth's past warm periods
An ice age is coming

National Post 8
(February 25th 2008, the National Post, Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0, accessed 7/12/13, JA) Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climatechange dogma. According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong. "We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war
Gonzaga Debate Institute 42 Mexico Renewables Neg were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
An ice age is cooling due to lower sun activity- solar science proves
Svensmark, PhD., director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space,9
(Henrik, 9/10/09, Whatsupwiththat.com, Svensmark: global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning enjoy global warming while it lasts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-acooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/, accessed 7/12/13, JA) The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Suns magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, It is likely that the current years number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth. If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring nothing. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Lets take a closer look. Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, Chinas population doubled in this period. But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger. "The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjlland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image. Its important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a grand minimum such as we saw in the Little Ice Age. The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result. You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Suns changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation . That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb. Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earths climate . In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun its impact on Earths cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earths cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Suns magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then. That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller. Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science. First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation. Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically. It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect indeed so great that in popular terms the Earths clouds originate in space. So we have watched the Suns magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s. That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts. In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in
Gonzaga Debate Institute 43 Mexico Renewables Neg Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
Emissions can prevent an ice age we must continue to burn fossil fuels
Science Daily, 7
(Aug. 30, 2007, ScienceDaily.com, Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm, accessed 7/12/2013, JA) Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Arguably, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. Dr Tyrrell's team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The world's oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed. Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon. The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age. Dr Tyrrell said: 'Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.' Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth's orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important. Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.
Warming cant trigger another Ice Age prefer our science over their unwarranted fear-mongering
Gibbs, journalist for the New York Times, 2007
(Walter, May 15th 2007, The New York Times, Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/earth/15cold.html?pagewanted=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/%20Env ironment&_r=2%3E, accessed 7/12/13, JA) Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of cooling northwestern Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about that particular disaster, although it retains a vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North Atlantic Current, an extension of the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that warm-water current, Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe, where major cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of the world sweltered. All that has now been removed from the forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced by scientists worldwide in recent years has also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue. The concern had previously been that we were close to a threshold where the Atlantic circulation system would stop, said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously thought. After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it was very unlikely that the crucial flow of warm water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed by a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a result of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. The bottom line is that the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 44 Mexico Renewables Neg atmosphere is warming up so much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe , said Helge Drange, a professor at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway.
An Ice Age causes extinction

Snook, author, 7
(Jim, Ice Age Extinction: Cause and Human Consequences, JA) This study indicates that low atmospheric carbon dioxide was the major cause of the large animal extinction near the end of the last ice age. There was not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for most plants in the higher latitude and low altitude areas. The reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere occurred over thousands of years, and the dying off of the plants was a very gradual process. Without sufficient plants to eat, most of the large animals could not survive . These large animals had been on earth for many millions of years and had survived many previous threats to their existence. Yet in a geologically short period of time they became extinct. We will now look at the sequence of events involved in extinction.
Sunspots prove- global cooling is coming

Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform
and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, 5/26/13 (Peter, 7/12/13, Forbes.com, To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-ishere/, accessed 7/12/13, JA) The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010 . That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASAs Science News report for January 8, 2013 states, Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini -Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. That is even more significant because NASAs climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement. But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013, Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesnt bring about considerable climate change only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. In other words, another Little Ice Age.
45
***Addons***
46
Blackouts Addon A2 Economy Impact 2NC

Empirically denied-huge blackouts in the past decade didnt collapse the economy
IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, 8-15-2003
[IEEE-USAs Call for Reliability Legislation Underscored by Largest U.S. Power Outage http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2003/081503pr.html] vpotluri Electric power reliability problems have led to more blackouts in recent years than historically experienced in North America. Customers in 14 western states underwent scattered outages twice in the summer of 1996. Major outages occurred during the summer of 1999 in different regions of North America, including Chicago and New York. More recently, California experienced rotating blackouts, price spikes and near bankruptcy of several utilities starting in mid-2000 and continuing into 2001.
47
Blackouts Addon A2 Reactors Impact 2NC

Early warning allows for nuclear shut down- even if grid goes multiple backups solve
Biello, Associate Editor, Energy & Environment Scientific American 11, (David, 3/11,How to Cool a Nuclear Reactor,
Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-cool-a-nuclear-reactor [Duvarney] Scientific American spoke with Scott Burnell, public affairs officer at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the government agency charged with monitoring the safety of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S ., about what it takes to cool down a reactor. [An edited transcript of the interview follows.] How do you typically cool a reactor? The approach to cooling is very simple: push water past the nuclear core and carry the heat somewhere else. The chain reaction that actually runs the reactor can be shut off in a matter of seconds. What's left over in the core, the radioactive material, will continue to give off heat for a long time. Unless you have a mechanism to remove that, the heat can build up and can eventually damage the radioactive fuel or the reactor. Pushing water past the core means pumps that are generally run by electricity. What happens when a reactor gets disconnected from the grid? There are emergency diesel generators. You also have a battery system to keep instruments running, but that can also provide power to safety systems [which prevent a meltdown by cooling the reactor core]. It's all meant to provide defense in depth. First you rely on the grid. If the grid is no longer available, you use diesel generators. If there is an issue with the diesels, you have a battery backup. And the batteries usually last long enough for you to get the diesels going.
Nuclear meltdowns dont cause death-multiple backups and its empirically denied
Beller works at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas , 2004
[Dennis, Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future Land Resources and Envtl.] vpotluri No caveats, no explanation, not from this engineer/scientist. It's just plain safe! All sources of electricity production result in health and safety impacts. However, at the National Press Club meeting, Energy Secretary Richardson indicated that nuclear power is safe by stating, "I'm convinced it is." 45 Every nuclear scientist and engineer should agree with that statement. Even mining, transportation, and waste from nuclear power have lower impacts because of the difference in magnitude of materials. In addition, emissions from nuclear plants are kept to near zero. 46 If you ask a theoretical scientist, nuclear energy does have a potential tremendous adverse impact. However, it has had that same potential for forty years, which is why we designed and operate nuclear plants with multiple levels of containment and safety and multiple backup systems. Even the country's most catastrophic accident, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, did not injure anyone. 47 The fact is, Western-developed and Western-operated nuclear power is the safest major source of electricity production. Haven't we heard enough cries of "nuclear wolf" from scared old men and "the sky is radioactive" from [*50] nuclear Chicken Littles? We have a world of data to prove the fallacy of these claims about the unsafe nature of nuclear installations. Figure 2. Deaths resulting from electricity generation. 48 Figure 2 shows the results of an ongoing analysis of the safety impacts of energy production from several sources of energy. Of all major sources of electricity, nuclear power has produced the least impact from real accidents that have killed real people during the past 30 years, while hydroelectric has had the most severe accident impact. 49 The same is true for environmental and health impacts. 50 Of all major sources of energy, nuclear energy has the least impacts on environment and health while coal has the greatest. 51 The low death [*51] rate from nuclear power accidents in the figure includes the Chernobyl accident in the Former Soviet Union. 52
48
Blackouts Addon A2 Spillover 1NC

Safeguards check spillover
DoE 04
(9/10, [Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Is Our Power Grid More Reliable One Year After the Blackout?, State Energy Program, Sept.-Oct./04, http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/fid=32?print] The U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force publication, The August 14, 2003 Blackout One Year Later: Actions Taken in the United States and Canada to Reduce Blackout Risk (PDF 236 KB) Download Acrobat Reader, details the actions taken to improve grid reliability. For example, shortly after the Task Force identified direct causes of the August 14 blackout, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and NERC set to correct them. The U.S. Canada Power System Outage Task Force conducted a massive investigation into the causes of the blackout and made 42 recommendations to improve power system operations. In December 2003, FERC ordere d FirstEnergy to study the adequacy of transmission and generation facilities in northeastern Ohio. The results were submitted in April 2004 and recommendations are now being incorporated into FirstEnergy's operations and strategic plan. In February 2004, NERC directed FirstEnergy, the MISO, PJM Interconnection, and the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement on actions each organization needed by June 30, 2004, to reduce the potential of future blackouts. NERC then approved and verified their compliance plans. In response to the April 2004 Final Report, FERC took the following actions to clarify and develop reliability standards: Commissioned a firm to analyze transmission line outages related to inadequate tree trimming a major contributor to the August 14 blackout and determine best practices for preventing this problem. See the "Utility Vegetation Management and Bulk Electric Reliability Report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" (PDF 92 KB). * Began to require transmission owners to file reports on their tree trimming practices. * Affirmed the need to strengthen and clarify NERC's operating reliability standards. Meanwhile, NERC strengthened its policies on emergency operations, operations planning, and reliability coordinator procedures and will include compliance metrics in its operating policies and planning standards by February 2005. New standards for managing vegetation and calculating transmission line ratings are also being developed; procedures for training and certifying operators are being revised.
49
Blackouts Addon No Solvency 1NC

Huge solar flares will wipe out our electrical grid, causing catastrophic blackouts
Brooks, English scientist and author, Ph.D. in Quantum Physics, 2009 (Michael, Space storm alert: 90 seconds from
catastrophe, New Scientist, March 23, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90seconds-from-catastrophe.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news) Over the last few decades, western civilizations have busily sown the seeds of their own destruction. Our modern way of life, with its reliance on technology, has unwittingly exposed us to an extraordinary danger: plasma balls spewed from the surface of the sun could wipe out our power grids, with catastrophic consequences. The projections of just how catastrophic make chilling reading. " We're moving closer and closer to the edge of a possible disaster," says Daniel Baker, a space weather expert based at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and chair of the NAS committee responsible for the report. It is hard to conceive of the sun wiping out a large amount of our hard-earned progress. Nevertheless, it is possible. The surface of the sun is a roiling mass of plasma - charged high-energy particles - some of which escape the surface and travel through space as the solar wind. From time to time, that wind carries a billion-tonne glob of plasma, a fireball known as a coronal mass ejection. (see "When hell comes to Earth"). If one should hit the Earth's magnetic shield, the result could be truly devastating. The incursion of the plasma into our atmosphere causes rapid changes in the configuration of Earth's magnetic field which, in turn, induce currents in the long wires of the power grids . The grids were not built to handle this sort of direct current electricity. The greatest danger is at the step-up and step-down transformers used to convert power from its transport voltage to domestically useful voltage. The increased DC current creates strong magnetic fields that saturate a transformer's magnetic core. The result is runaway current in the transformer's copper wiring, which rapidly heats up and melts. This is exactly what happened in the Canadian province of Quebec in March 1989, and six million people spent 9 hours without electricity. But things could get much, much worse than that. The most serious space weather event in history happened in 1859. It is known as the Carrington event, after the British amateur astronomer Richard Carrington, who was the first to note its cause: "two patches of intensely bright and white light" emanating from a large group of sunspots. The Carrington event comprised eight days of severe space weather. There were eyewitness accounts of stunning auroras, even at equatorial latitudes. The world's telegraph networks experienced severe disruptions, and Victorian magnetometers were driven off the scale. Though a solar outburst could conceivably be more powerful, "we haven't found an example of anything worse than a Carrington event", says James Green, head of NASA's planetary division and an expert on the events of 1859. "From a scientific perspective, that would be the one that we'd want to survive." However, the prognosis from the NAS analysis is that, thanks to our technological prowess, many of us may not. There are two problems to face. The first is the modern electricity grid, which is designed to operate at ever higher voltages over ever larger areas . Though this provides a more efficient way to run the electricity networks, minimising power losses and wastage through overproduction, it has made them much more vulnerable to space weather. The high-power grids act as particularly efficient antennas, channelling enormous direct currents into the power transformers. The second problem is the grid's interdependence with the systems that support our lives: water and sewage treatment, supermarket delivery infrastructures, power station controls, financial markets and many others all rely on electricity. Put the two together, and it is clear that a repeat of the Carrington event could produce a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen. "It's just the opposite of how we usually think of natural disasters," says John Kappenman, a power industry analyst with the Metatech Corporation of Goleta, California, and an advisor to the NAS committee that produced the report. "Usually the less developed regions of the world are most vulnerable, not the highly sophisticated technological regions."
50
Off Case
51
Politics Unpopular Link 1NC

House is cutting renewable energy spending for sequestration its a low priority
Wasson and Geman, 2013
(Erik and Ben, 6-17-13, The Hill, GOP bill would cut renewable energy spending in half, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/e2-wire/305921-gop-bill-cuts-renewable-energy-spending-in-half, 7-9-13, EB) House appropriators on Monday revealed that they plan to cut Energy Department spending on renewable energy in half next year as part of their plan to cope with automatic sequestration cuts in fiscal 2014. Renewable energy, a key priority for President Obama,
would be cut to $1 billion, a reduction of $911 million compared to 2013. The cut comes as part of an Energy and Water appropriations bill, the fifth that the House is moving as part of a plan to produce all 12 annual spending bills at the topline $967 billion level called for in the 2011 sequestration law. The House is increasing defense spending above the sequester level and must cut non-defense spending in order to offset those increases. The Energy Department oversees the nations nuclear arsenal, so defense spending is part of its appropriations bill. In a challenging fiscal environment, we have to prioritize funding, and the Subcommittee chose to address the readiness and safety of the nations nuclear stockpile and to invest in critical infrastructure projects to protect lives and property and support economic growth, said subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.).
52
Politics Unpopular Link 2NC

Boehner strongly opposes renewable energy investment
Graves, 6-25
(Lucia, 6-25-13, Huffington Post, Obama Climate Change 2013 Policy Speech Outlines Executive Orders, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html, accessed 7-9-13, EB) Obama's strategy in the second-term rests on three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to cut global emissions. Among the top-billed items are imposing the first carbon limits on existing power plants and requiring all federal projects to be able to withstand the heightened storms and sea level rise associated with climate change. Obama also made a point to dismiss those who don't acknowledge the science behind man-made global warming, something that Organizing for Action, the advocacy arm of his administration, has featured in its climate campaign. "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," he quipped. The policies laid out by the president signal a piecemeal approach to tackling what has proved thus far to be a difficult area for reform. Using his executive powers, Obama articulated a broad array of regulations his administration would enact that affect both government and the business sector, with many of the details still to come. Of particular note is the president's directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward with climate change regulations to limit carbon emissions from existing coal and gas-fired utilities by no later than June 2014. Less settled is exactly how the agency will accomplish that and at what cost to industry. Some observers have noted that the timing of Obama's climate speech won't make Gina McCarthy's nomination to lead the EPA any simpler. McCarthy, who currently heads the EPA's air and radiation office, has a history of generating bipartisan cooperation. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from holding up her confirmation process. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has been outspoken in his criticism of McCarthy, and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has placed a standing hold on her nomination. Some Democrats fear if Republicans frame her as the embodiment of the president's left-leaning agenda, she may fall short of the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. Republicans, unsurprisingly, have been quick to dismiss the president's energy plan. "I think this is absolutely crazy," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told Fox News ahead of Obama's speech. "Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking, 'Where are the jobs?'
House is cutting renewable energy spending its a low priority

Wasson and Geman, 2013
(Erik and Ben, 6-17-13, The Hill, GOP bill would cut renewable energy spending in half, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/e2-wire/305921-gop-bill-cuts-renewable-energy-spending-in-half, 7-9-13, EB) House appropriators on Monday revealed that they plan to cut Energy Department spending on renewable energy in half next year as part of their plan to cope with automatic sequestration cuts in fiscal 2014. Renewable energy, a key priority for President Obama,
would be cut to $1 billion, a reduction of $911 million compared to 2013. The cut comes as part of an Energy and Water appropriations bill, the fifth that the House is moving as part of a plan to produce all 12 annual spending bills at the topline $967 billion level called for in the 2011 sequestration law. The House is increasing defense spending above the sequester level and must cut non-defense spending in order to offset those increases. The Energy Department oversees the nations nuclear arsenal, so defense spending is part of its appropriations bill. In a challenging fiscal environment, we have to prioritize funding, and the Subcommittee chose to address the readiness and safety of the nations nuclear stockpile and to invest in critical infrastructure projects to protect lives and property and support economic growth, said subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.).
Republicans are ideologically opposed to climate legislation

Goldenberg, 2012 (Suzanne, 7-13-12,The Guardian Climate Change Campaigners Cautioned Over Reaction to Extreme Weather, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/13/climate-change-campaigners-cautioned?newsfeed=true, accessed 7-10-13, EB) Half of the incoming crop of Republicans in that election denied the existence of climate change or opposed action on climate change. None of the Republican contenders for the White House in this election has acknowledged the dangers of climate change. The House energy and commerce committee has yet to hold a hearing on the dangers of wildfires and drought due to climate change, despite 15 requests to date from Democrats on the committee. But Inglis said Republicans will not be shaken out of their denial through fear. "Those who do speak, speak in apocalyptic visions and that drives us further into denial as a suitable coping mechanism," Inglis said. "If you tell me we are all toast and it's just terrible, that doom is imminent, if you tell me that then eat, drink and be merry. If I am toast, I may as well just ignore it," he said
Climate issues divide the Congress opposing expectations

Zeller, 2013
(Tom, 1-17-13, Huffington Post, Obama On Climate Change Faces High Expectations, And High Hurdles, In Se cond Term, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/obama-climate- change_n_2472552.html?utm_hp_ref=the-roadforward, accessed 7-10-13, EB)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 53 Mexico Renewables Neg But even after a year of record-breaking heat, Obama embarks on his second term against the backdrop of a Congress that remains stubbornly divided on questions of climate and conservation, leaving little hope these issues will be addressed through broad-based legislation, which the administration has long said was the preferred route for such measures. That will leave the president with a long list of demands and expectations from his environmental base and only the comparatively narrow corridors of his own regulatory authority through which to pursue any of it -- should he choose to do so.
54
Oil DA Link 1NC

Mexican economic stability is dependent on oil
-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications M. Angeles Villarreal Specialist in International relations and trade 12 8/7 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf congressional research service Mexicos long-term economic recovery and stability partially depend upon what happens in the oil industry. In 2010, Mexico was the seventh-largest producer of oil in the world and the third largest in the Western Hemisphere. 39 The Mexican government depends heavily on oil revenues, which provide 30% to 40% of the governments fiscal revenues, but oil production in Mexico is declining rapidly. Many industry experts state that Mexican oil production has peaked and that the countrys production will continue to decline in the coming years. 40 The Mexican government has used oil revenues from its state oil company, Ptroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), for government operating expenses, which has come at the expense of needed reinvestment in the company itself. Because the government relies so heavily on oil income, any decline in production has major fiscal implications. In 2008, the government enacted new legislation that sought to reform the countrys oil sector, which was nationalized in 1938, 41 and to help increase production capability. The reforms permit Pemex to create incentive-based service contracts with private companies. Some analysts contend, however, that the reforms did not go far enough and that they do little to help the company address its major challenges. 42 Mexicos President-elect Enrique Pea Nieto of the centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) has vowed to convince his party, which nationalized the industry and has blocked previous attempts at reforming the energy sector, and the PRI-aligned oil workers union, to allow further energy reforms to move forward. The narrow margin of Pea Nietos victory and his coalitions apparent failure to capture a majority in either chamber of the Mexican Congress, however, may make it difficult to reform the energy sector. Another issue that may block energy reforms from moving forward is the nationalist lefts strong showing in the July 1, 2012, electionove s. The leftist coalition led by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has the second-largest bloc in the lower house of the Mexican Congress and remains staunchly opposed to increasing private involvement in Pemex. 43 Most experts contend that Pemex has only the capacity to produce in shallow waters and needs to bring in new technologies and know-how throug h private investment to allow the company to successfully explore and produce in the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico. 44 The lack of further reforms is reportedly keeping Mexico from allowing much-needed foreign investment for oil exploration. Though the performance-based contracts are expected to increase production and reserves, Pemex faces serious challenges in finding new, productive wells and also lacks resources for investment in increasing engineering capacity and exploration. 4
55
Oil DA Link 2NC

Mexico suffers from Dutch disease of oil
Jean-Pierre Allegret and Tahar Ben-Khodja 13 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE RISE OF ISLAMIST PARTIES, The Dutch Disease Effect in a High vs Low Oil Dependent Countries http://www.erf.org.eg/CMS/uploads/pdf/ERF19AC_Allegret_Benkhodja.pdf Our main fndings are twofold. First, our results conFrm the fact that the Dutch disease occurs mainly in high oil dependent countries. More precisely, we Find that the manufacturing production decreases in the aftermath of a positive oil price shock in six countries (on eight) of our First sample while only Mexico suffers from a Dutch disease in the sample of low oil dependant economies. Second, the appropriate monetary policy rule -exchange rate rule versus inflation targeting one- to prevent the Dutch disease diers according to the countries. In other words, the best monetary rule is speciFc to each country
Shift to renewable energy would crush global oil prices

Huag, 2011
(Marianne, Spring, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 27, Number 1, p. 92 116, EB) Clean energy is hardly new. At present, it covers energy supply from hydro and other renewable energy technologies, nuclear power, and fossil fuel with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). From 1973 to 2008, clean energy so dened increased its share in primary energy from 12.4 to 18.7 per cent owing to the expansion of nuclear and hydro power. Other renewablesbiomass, solar, geothermal, windjust kept pace with overall energy demand growth. This picture is changing in response to technology and market support policies for other or modern renewables. Recently, energy supply from wind and solar has been growing at 20 per cent or more per year (IEA, 2009). The imperatives of climate change and the conventional wisdom could not be further apart. The climate change challengelimiting temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above the temperature level reached at the beginning of the twentieth century requires that by 2050 carbon emissions from energy-related activities worldwide be cut in half compared to the present. This can only be achieved through a drastic reduction of fossil fuel use, including oil; decarbonization of the electricity system; and major improvements in end-use efciency for buildings, transport, and industry. Putting conventional wisdom aside, pol icymakers and companies alike call for an energy revolution with low -carbon energy at its core. A diminishing role for oil is implicit in such transition. In the aftermath of the Stern Report (2007), a host of modelling or scenario exercises were commissioned to understand the technologies and policies needed for such a low-carbon energy revolution (WEC, 2007; IEA, 2010a,b,c; Greenpeace/EREC, 2010; ECF, 2010) It can be done is the consistent tenor of these studies. Governments and civil society are given the message that a low carbon economy transition while challengingis manageable. Appropriate global, regional, and national policies need to be adopted to deal with the multiple market failures. New nancing must be mobilized for clean energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) and market introduction incentives. And, last but not least, capital and technology transfers from advanced economies must encourage emerging economies and low-income countries to adopt clean energy despite its still higher cost than fossil fuel. Assumptions on policies, technologies, costs, diffusion speed, and competition vary considerably among these studies. Little attention is paid to the dynamics of the transition or the costs and risks of disruptions. Even less is said about price and output responses of oil producers. Two examples illustrate the range of scenarios and interim pathways to reach the 2050 goal. The post-Copenhagen IEA 450ppm scenario (450 parts per million carbondioxide-equivalent) focuses on developments until 2035. Primary energy would continue to grow chiey in the non -OECD countries, but average globally only half the growth of the past two decades. Oil demand would peak at 88m barrels per day (mb/d) and then fall steadily to 81mb/d by 2035. Oils share in global primary energy would have dropped to 25 per cent, well below the 38 per cent share for low-carbon fuels. Oil prices would stabilize at US$90 per barrel in 2009 terms by 2020. In brief, the IEA 450ppm scenario sees an industry with turnover at the present level in real termsa no output growth or slightly shrinking industry within the coming 25 years. In contrast, the Greenpeace/EREC study (2010) projects a 20 per cent reduction of primary energy use by 2030 through drastic energy savings in advanced economies to allow energy demand growth in the emerging economies and low-income countries. Oil demand would fall by more than 25 per cent. Strong policy support for renewables, fuel switching to natural gas, and oil prices in 2008 terms of US$110 per barrel in 2015 and US$150 per barrel by 2030, would catapult renewable energy to a 60 per cent share in global primary energy. As in the case of the IEA scenario and thanks to raising oil prices, overall industry revenues would still be at todays level in real terms, but with two-thirds of the output of today.
56
Spending DA Link 1NC

Renewable electricity investment kills jobs and crushes growth
Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, 2013
(Margo, 7-9-13, The Hill, Obama climate change initiatives: A decidedly mixed bag, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-a-environment/309613-obama-climate-change-initiatives-a-decidedly-mixed-bag, accessed 7-10-13, EB) President Obama, not content to have added thousands of pages of regulation and red tape to the federal code in his first term, recently announced that Americas energy and industrial sectors need to be saddled with new regulations including limiting greenhouse gases from new and existing power plants. Other initiatives include new energy efficiency and renewable energy mandates and a continuation of the costly and inefficient renewable fuel standards. This couldnt have come at a worse time. America needs economic growth and job creation; the Presidents plan will only have the opposite effects , while also failing to have any substantial impact on the environment. Previous regulatory overreach shows exactly what can happen when energy regulation goes awry. Case in point: Analysis of the EPAs 2011 decision to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is estimated to decrease U.S. investment by 5 percent to 15 percent over the 2011-2014 period, or between $25 and $75 billion per year. These are more than just numbers on a page: Each $1 billion in business investment translates into roughly 23,000 jobs. Thus, such a drop in investment would have directly led to job losses, direct and indirect, ranging from 476,000 to a staggering 1.4 million. The presidents goal of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020 will raise electricity prices and slow U.S. economic growth. The Department of Energys data show that new electric generating capacity using wind
and solar power tends to be considerably more expensive than conventional natural gas and coal resources. The high costs of renewables will put a substantial strain on the federal departments that are being committed to renewable power generation including the Department of Interior and Department of Defense, both of which are already suffering significant budget strains under the federal sequestration.

LeducMin - Mexico Renewables Neg - GDI 13

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LeducMin - Mexico Renewables Neg - GDI 13

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Solvency Integration Fails 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Solvency Say No 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Solvency Say No 2NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

***Mexico Econ Advantage***

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ Econ High 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ Econ High 2NC

Mexican unemployment decreasing in the status quo, bodes well

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ Alt Cause 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ Collapse Inevitable 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ No Impact Econ 1NC

Miller, Governance Professor, University of Ottawa, 2000

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ No Impact Econ 2NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ No Impact Drugs 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ No Impact Heg 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mex Econ No Impact Heg 2NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Increasing Now 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Increasing Now 2NC

The US and Mexico have an important, long-standing bilateral relationship

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Alt NRG Now 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Alt NRG Now 2NC

Cooperation on renewable energy is high

US and Mexico are already engaged in a tri-pronged approach to increasing relations

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Relations Inevitable 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Relations Inevitable 2NC

US/Mexico relations are resilient- Drug war proves

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations Relation Collapse Inevitable 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Heg 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Heg 2NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Drug 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Crime 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Drug 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Relations No Internal Econ 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Gonzaga Debate Institute Mexico Renewables Neg

Mexico Econ Advantage