m***Af

***Protectionism Advantage

1AC Advantage
US reliance on other countries causes price spikes, trade
disagreements, efect all sectors of the economy and heg
China has a monopoly --- that causes China bashing
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
Minerals are a subject of much contention. On one hand, the United States remains less
prepared for supply disruptions, price spikes and trade
disagreements related to the global minerals trade than most experts realize.
On the other hand, public concern over reliable access to the minerals
required in key sectors of the U.S. economy , in particular those
needed to produce military equipment, is growing . Too frequently, however,
such concerns are based on inaccurate assumptions. A sober and informed analysis suggests there
are real vulnerabilities, which place critical national security and
foreign policy interests at risk . In worst-case scenarios, supplies of minerals
that the United States does not produce domestically

may be disrupted, creating price

spikes and lags in delivery. Even short of major supply disruptions,

supplier countries can exert leverage over the United States by
threatening to cut of certain key mineral supplies. The United
States may also lose ground strategically if it continues to lag in man - aging
mineral issues, as countries that consider assured access to minerals as far more strategically important
are increasingly setting the rules for trade in this area

Chinas rising dominance is at

the heart of this growing public debate. Its 2010 cutof of rare earth
elements 2 a unique set of minerals that are difficult to process yet
critical to many high- tech applications attracted particular
attention. After Japan detained a Chinese trawler captain over a skirmish in the East China Sea,
Japanese companies reported weeks of stalled shipments of rare earths from China amid rumors of an

China currently controls

production of about 95 percent of the worlds rare earths, which are
of - cial embargo. This may sound like a minor trade dispute, but

critical to building laser-guidance systems for weapons, refining petroleum and building wind turbines.

Coinciding with possessing this incredible leverage over the rest of

the world, China has also reduced its export quotas for these
minerals. For its part, the Chinese government contended that it did not put any formal export
embargo in place, and that its plans to reduce exports simply reflect the need to meet growing domestic
demand for rare earths. Japan-China relations experienced further strain in their already tense
relationship. In the United States, many reporters, policy analysts and decision makers did not foresee

Feeling blindsided, some in the United States characterized

the situation in a manner that demonized China rather than using the
opportunity to better understand the true nature of U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities.The 2010
rare earths case and others are increasing interest in critical
minerals among U.S. policymakers. Congress held hearings on the
strategic importance of minerals between 2007 and 2010, and the 2010 National
this challenge.

Defense Authorization Act required DOD to study and report on its dependence on rare earth elements
for weapons, communications and other systems. 3 During a 2009 hearing on minerals and military

Forbes of Virginia called minerals, one

of those things that no one really talks about or worries about until
something goes wrong. Its at that point the point where we dont
have the steel we need to build MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehi - cles] or the
readi - ness, Republican Representative Randy

rhenium we need to build a JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] engine that the stockpile becomes critically

Clinton stated that it

would be in our interests commercially and strategically to find
additional sources of supply for rare earth minerals, and stated that
important. 4 In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Chinas recent cuts to rare earth exports served as a wakeup call

that being so dependent on only one source , disruption could occur
for natural disaster reasons or other kinds of events could
intervene. 5 In January 2011, Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and
Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates express - ing concern for
minerals required for producing defense equipment such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which
stated, Clearly,

rare earth supply limitations present a serious

vul nerability to our national security . Yet early indications are that DOD has
dismissed the severity of the situation to date. 6 Additionally, the

Department of Energy (DOE) launched a multiyear effort to explore potential vulnerabilities in supply
chains for minerals that will be critical to four distinct areas of energy technology innovation.While

concern is growing, the media and policy - makers often focus too narrowly on what may
seem the most compelling indicators usually import dependence or scarcity in
prescribing solutions to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities, in particular to
supply disruptions in critical minerals such as rare earths. This focus is sparking
protectionist attitudes , with some worrying that import dependence
poses an inherent risk to the U.S. economy. Discussion of minerals also frequently
focuses on supply scarcity and resource depletion in absolute terms. However, both the rhenium and

rare earth minerals dis - ruptions of the past five years were
triggered by deliberate decisions made by political leaders to leverage their positions
of strength, not by market forces, disorder or scarcities of these minerals. Countries often
revert to hoarding , pressuring suppliers and otherwise behaving as
if scarcities are present even when they are not, based solely on concerns that shortages
are likely in the near term. In fact, neither scarcity nor import dependence alone is sufcient to signal
vulnerability, and a combination of factors including concentration of suppliers is most often required for
mineral issues to become security or foreign policy problems. This report, based on two years of

demand and
use of minerals can impair U.S. foreign relations, economic
research, site visits and discussions with stakeholders, explores how the supply,

interests and defense readiness. It examines cases of five individual min - erals
lithium, gallium, rhenium, tantalum and niobium and rare earth elements, such as neo - dymium,
samarium and dysprosium, as a sixth group in order to show the complexity of addressing these

Each of these minerals is critical for defense technologies and

U.S. economic growth plans. They share characteristics with
minerals that have caused important political or economic concerns
for the United States in the past. Additionally, lithium is fre - quently cited in the
media and in discussions of how clean energy supply chains are critical to
meeting Americas future economic, energy and environmental
goals. Within the past five years, two of these cases rhenium and rare earth minerals
have involved supply disruptions or important threats of disruptions
for the United States and its allies. Each of these minerals will require federal
concerns.

U.S. Vulnerability Analysts vary

assessing the implications of U.S. dependence on critical minerals,
despite broad acceptance of the physical reality that mineral resources are finite and
the economic realities that requirements are ubiquitous and demand
is growing. On one extreme, some analysts believe the 2010 incident between
China and Japan sug - gests an approaching Hobbesian world in
government attention in the coming years.assessing
widely in

which resource demands outstrip supplies for minerals, nonrenewable

energy sources and even food sup - plies. History indicates that conflict over absolute scarcities is
unlikely. At the other end of the spectrum, many still believe that an open market and its invisible hand
will continue to determine winners and losers with no serious repercussions or the United States given its
purchasing power. In between these extremes, even staunch pragmatists will point to the 2010 China

The United States and other marketbased economies no longer determine all the rules of global trade
Central to this narrative is a conundrum for policymakers. Reserve estimates show that
global supplies of almost all minerals are ade - quate to meet
expected global demands over the long term , and for decades into the future
rare earths episode as proof of one basic tenet:

for most minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates, for example, that world sup - plies of

These estimates, however, can

be meaningless in the near term if supplies are insufficient, or if
rare earths will be adequate for more than 100 years. 13

suppliers reduce exports or otherwise manipulate trade. For example,

most experts project that global production of rare earths will likely be insufficient to
meet the worlds demand over the next two to three years. The long-term
sufciency of supplies has no practical effect because it takes years and high capital costs to start up
new mining and processing businesses for rare earths. Thus,

the risks of inaction are

high . A range of political, economic and geographic factors can

disrupt supplies and cause price spikes that can create rifts in
bilateral relations , trade disputes , accusations of economic
sabotage and instability in countries that possess rare reserves of
prized minerals. They can also give supplier countries extraordinary
leverage that can alter geopoliti - cal calculations, especially when
single countries control most world supplies For U.S. policymakers, the risks fall
into two rough categories: Disruptions, delivery lags and price spikes that
afect military assets and place unanticipated strains on defense
budgets ; and lack of afordable access to minerals and raw
materials preventing important national economic growth goals.
The defense industrial base in the modern era difers greatly from
any previous time. Often, actual scarcity is not required for
procurement

problems to arise , as concerns about future scarcities often drive

countries to behave as if shortages are occurring

In particular, dependence on China for rare earths results

in China bashing and protectionist legislation towards
China --- this escalates and collapses relations with China
Eastman, 12 March 25, Scott, Policy Mic, Why Obama And Romney
Should Not Alienate China, http://dev.policymic.com/articles/5929/whyobama-and-romney-should-not-alienate-china
China is far too important as a trading partner for elected ofcials and
presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney, to alienate for political points. AntiChina rhetoric hurts American citizens by encouraging retaliatory ,

protectionist policies that discourage trade and make valuable

resources more difficult to obtain. The most recent reiteration of
Chinas importance to the United States has been a trade dispute
over access to rare earth metals. The U.S. has joined the European Union and Japan in
filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization to protest a Chinese trade policy that caps the amount

Obama accused China of breaking

trade agreements and driving up the prices of rare earth metals . China
of rare earth metals it exports. President Barack

is responsible for 90% of the worlds rare earth metal production, and seven of these metals have been

Chinas cap on rare

earth metal exports should be particularly concerning for America. If
our need for these resources increases dramatically or unexpectedly, Chinas export limit will
keep America from obtaining these resources until the U.S. finds a
identified by the Defense Department as having military applications.

more reliable source . Since China controls such a large share of the rare earth metal market
currently, however, trade relations with China are all the more important to the U.S. and its ability to
acquire needed resources. For this reason,

the U.S. must find ways to promote free

trade and discourage protectionism in its trade relations with

China.

Villifying China has not worked to promote positive trade relations in the past. While

there
is a noticeable trend linking anti-China rhetoric within American
politics and protectionist trade policies within China that illustrate
how China-bashing can damage U.S.-China trade relations. For
protectionist policies within China cannot be blamed completely on rhetoric in the United States,

example, Dan Ikenson of the Cato Institute suggests that economic hardship in the US amid the recession
of 2008 created resentment at Chinas comparably better economic status at the time. A feeling among

U.S. policies had too leniently allowed for Chinas economic growth led to
calls for protectionism that strained U.S. relations with China . American
Americans that

businesses in China also began to complain about Chinese policies that favored local Chinese businesses,
leading these businesses to call for more protectionist policies. Obama acted on these sentiments by
enacting a tax on tires to protect U.S. tire manufacturers in September, 2009. Shortly after, China
threatened tariffs on American goods, such as chicken meat. This chain of events shows how an ti-

Chinese rhetoric and calls for protectionism in America have

generated protectionist responses from China , which is in neither countrys best
Demonizing China is not in the best interest of the U.S.
especially given Chinas economic importance, as demonstrated by
its 90% control of the rare earth metal market, which the U.S.
currently relies upon for military purposes. When anti-Chinese sentiment promotes
protectionist policies, such as Obamas tire tariff in 2009, the U.S. risks losing a vitally
interest.

important trade partner.

Moreover, Americans are forced to bear the costs of protectionism

by paying more for Chinese goods that are tariffed, all so politicians can protect American industries from

A healthy trade relationship with China is in the economic

interest of all Americans, no matter what politicians say. Striving for
a more cooperative , less antagonistic tenor in rhetoric regarding China will do
competition.

much more to foster a cooperative , healthy trade relationship with

China than making China a political punching bag.

Tit-for-tat measures break down free trade and causes

war and WMD terrorism
Panzner 8 Michael, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year
veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in
New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and
JPMorgan Chase Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic
Collapse, pg. 136-138
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will
inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth
protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the

Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe
helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is
any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood
of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will
almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement
of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential
travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly
difcult. As desperate ofcials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless

Foreign individuals and

companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure
assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap
thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on
investment by noncitizens. Those eforts will cause spasms to ripple
across economies and markets, disrupting global payment,
settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course,
continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending.
In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits
systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or
portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be
easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife , or
policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange.

that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with
accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and
dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of
production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw
materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure
adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter
with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will
become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military

economic conditions will

serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural
encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances,

and religious diferences . Alternatively, nations may look to divert

attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration
and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled
by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution ,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their
horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole

new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber

rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes
will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an
increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may
embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel,
for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around
the world into a growing number of conflicts . Some observers, like John
Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense
confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some point. More than a few

Growing cultural and religious

diferences will be transformed from wars of words to battles
disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological.

soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also

degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and
triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear
weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles,
and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will
interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a
new world war .

Independent of protectionism --- shortages and crackdowns cause war --- the US needs its own sustainable
supply
Hinten-Nooijen, 10 Professor of Economics at Tilburg University in the
Netherlands, Rare minerals The treasures of a sustainable economy,
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over-tilburg-university/cultuur-ensport/cwl/publicaties/beschouwingen/minerals/)
Driving a hybrid car, using energy from wind turbines or solar
panels. That are choices to contribute to the transition to a

sustainable economy . Sustainability is the spearhead of many

western policy plans. It is regarded as the solution to get out of the crisis. But ironically, the
raw materials that are needed for hybrid cars and wind turbines, for our technological
industry as a whole, are not that sustainable. Necessarily required
minerals like neodymium and indium are rare . And they are not available in the
China has almost all of them . And having this position of power,
China wants to use it. That is about strategy. The high-tech raw materials
play a central part in the highly industrialised high-wage countries
to survive the global competition by technological excellence . Will
west,

future wars be about minerals instead of oil, territories or water ?

THE BONE MARROW OF MODERN ECONOMY Minerals are an
indispensable material pillar of our current economies and societies. They
are the natural product of geological processes and occur in the crust of the planet. Only a fraction of the
known minerals exists in greater quantities. Some of these are mined, refined and processed; are broken
up into their elemental components, which are recombined into different types of materials.

These

materials are used to manufacture products that form the backbone

of our modern economies : from LCD displays to fighter jets, from smart phones to electric
cars. Without minerals, industrial society and modern technology would be inconceivable. That seems
unbelievable, because we hardly hear or read about them in the media - whereas several research reports
have been published recently. But imagine that by reading this article on printed paper or at your
computer screen, minerals like nickel, chromium, molybdenum, gallium, selenium, aluminium, silicon and

And all these elements have to be first extracted

from minerals, which in turn need to be mined from the earth's crust .
CHINA'S GREEN DEAL In recent years, the world economy has grown enormously,
and many new high-tech applications have been made. Moreover, the
manganese were needed!

demand for minerals has exploded . Mining tried to meet the demand. A global
competition between countries and companies over rare mineral
resources started. Prices have shot up,

countries have created strategic stockpiles or

imposed export restrictions in order to secure supplies of these valuable resources. Mineral scarcity
concerning the industry seems to be more of an economic issue than an issue set by limited resources.
Minerals are getting evermore difcult to find and costly to extract - while they are the key to advanced
sustainable technologies. Talking about sustainability seems not talking about China, because China is still
building many polluting coal-fired power plants, and the social circumstances there are poor. However,
recent developments also show progress concerning sustainability. And in a country like China these
developments go faster than in many western democracies. Where we in the west talk and dawdle, they

Obama has to explain the

Americans that forms of the New Green Deal are inevitable - like the
think and act strategically. In the United States, president

situation in the thirties of the last century, when President Roosevelt made the so-called New Deal to
reform the economy. Many Americans do not want the government to influence the market. They radically

the ideological separation between

market and government does not exist. There is no Wall Street with greedy bankers,
believe in the free market. In China, by contrast,

no neoconservative Grand Old Party that dreams of the cowboy economy. Decisions are taken quickly. And
besides, they have to feed one billion people and develop a country that lived in Mao-ist poverty before.
The Chinese are successful, after all, also in creating a sustainable economy: China does not only build old
polluting power stations but uses the latest technology, with CO2- catch and -storage. And they are
working on alternatives: windmills. In the next five years, they will build 100,000 windmills in the Gobi
desert. Did they hate the wind in that area before, now they consider it the new gold. In the north-west
area of China, the province of Gansu, the Qilian-mountains pass into the Gobi desert. There China is
building the biggest windmill and solar panel park in the world. Six windmill parks with a capacity of ten
gigawatts each are built, making China the biggest market of technology of wind energy, defeating the
United States. "Red China becomes green China", party ofcials are saying. China has to grow, and so has
the contribution of wind, water and sun at the energy market. This market would be interesting for foreign
investments. According to Chinese ofcials they are welcome and can get subsidies. But, Beijing has
decided that 70 percent of the windmills have to be made and designed in China. So it can be questioned if
European and American companies have a fair chance in tendering for a contract. China considers itself a
developing country and thinks that the western countries should contribute money to China to reduce the
CO2 discharge. While America thought that energy saving is not worthwhile, China has taken an enormous
energy-technological lead. The authoritarian and undemocratic but intelligent China exposes a variant of

The example of China shows us that

sustainable economy has everything to do with strategy and power .
the New Deal. THE OPEC OF THE RARE MINERALS

In a few decades China has been flooding the market of rare metals. The legend goes that president Deng
Xiaoping had already predicted this in 1992, during a tour in the south of China: "They [the Mid East] have
oil, but we in China have rare minerals". Nowadays, China indeed has 95 percent of the global supply of

China flooded
the world market with the rare minerals, although there was not
that much demand. The west thought it okay because getting the
minerals was a very expensive production process and the
environmental legislation was very strict. The western competitors went bankrupt
rare minerals. How did it do that? It was a result of good strategy: in the nineties,

and they closed their mines. China became powerful. One of the centres of the rare mineral supply is
around the city Baotou, an industrial city of two million people in Inner Mongolia. Here the states concern

DISRUPTION OF THE MARKET

The lack of raw materials is not particularly a result of the geological
exploits almost half of the world storage of neodymium.

availability but of disruptions in the market,

because the developments of the

world wide demand for rare minerals are not recognised in time - as part of the stormy development of the
Chinese economy and the expansion of technical developments - and because the minerals occur in only a
few countries. Experts have predicted that in the next few decades the demand of neodymium will

China uses 60 percent of its exploitation for its own

economy. What's more, the Chinese export quota become stricter every
increase by a factor 3.8.

year . What happens? Sudden peaks in the demand can lead to speculative
price movements and a disruption of the market. "2010 will be the year of the

raw materials", according to Trevor Greetham, Asset Allocation Director of Fidelity. Indium, a silver-white
metal, which is not found directly in nature, but is a residual product of thin and zinc, is used in LCD
displays for TVs, computers, mobile phones, and for led lights and the ultrathin and flexible solar panel.
The price of this mineral multiplied tenfold between 2003 and 2006 from 100 to 980 Dollars per kilogram.
The price of neodymium decreased from 11.7 dollar per kilogram in 1992 to 7.4 dollar in 1996. The market
volume rose. In 2006 almost all of the world production of 137,000 tons came from China. By scaling back
the export, prices rose, up to 60 dollar per kilogram in 2007. Imagine that for a hybrid car, like the Toyota
Prius or the Mercedes S 400, you need at least 500 grams of neodymium for the magnetic power of the
engine; and for the newest generation of wind turbines, the ones that are 16 meters high, you need about
1000 kilogram. That makes 60,000 dollars - for just a little bit of metal! Big business for China. At the same
time, China makes further strategic investments: it took an interest in oil and gas fields. In August 2009,
PetroChina paid 41 billion dollar to gain access to an enormous field of natural gas in front of the coast of
Australia. And in September that year, it obtained a stake of 60 percent in the exploitation of fields of tar
sand in Alberta, which might hold one of the biggest oil reserves in the world. And because China considers
titanium a growing market, it took an interest of 70 percent in a titanium mine in Kenia - not only to build
the Chinese 'Jumbojet', but also to provide Boeing with 2000 tons of titanium each year. By doing so, China
might beat the competition in the battle for the market in green technologies. The 'free' market can be
questioned. The mineral policies of China and the US both mention the usage of administrative barriers.
These nontariff barriers involve regulations that seek to protect the national mineral extraction industry. As
a result, it is much harder for foreign companies, if not impossible, to invest and gain a foothold in the
national mineral extraction industry in these countries. The search for rare metals has become a global
race: a mine in California has also been reopened, the mine of Mountain Pass. In 2008, it was bought by a
group of investors, the partnership 'Molycorp Minerals'. The process of bringing the old mines into use
costs much time and money. What does this mean for us? Do we get more dependent of China? The
'Innovationplatform' in Rotterdam planned to build a unique windmill park in the sea, further from the
coast and in the strongest sea wind than anywhere in the world. To build these windmills, we need rare
minerals, the export of which is dominated by China. Part of the project is Darwind, which designed
enormous windmills for at sea. But the umbrella company, of which Darwind is part, Econcern, was about
to go bankrupt. Then, in mid-August 2009 it was saved by the, surprisingly, Chinese XEMC.

THE

THREAT OF GEOPOLITICAL INSTABILITY The transition to a

sustainable economy involves underexposed elements like deficiency
in minerals and shifting balances of power . They are the ideal
receipt for geopolitical instability. The new world order will be a
balance between countries that do have particular raw materials
and ones that do not. The lack of indispensable minerals sharpens
the relations in the world. The access to critical minerals is more and
more an issue of national security, concluded the 'The Hague Centre for Strategic

Studies' (HCSS) in its report about the scarcity of minerals (January 2010). The US, Japan and China are
making a policy that tries to secure the supply of these raw materials. That will disturb the free market
activity. HCSS thinks that large concerns will, with support of the government, compete more intensively
with each other for access to these raw materials, e.g. by direct investments in areas rich in raw materials.

Mineral scarcity will be an issue in the next decades, though it is

uncertain when and to what extent. And we have to do something
because a change in supply of rare minerals directly afects our
current modern lives.

US-China war causes extinction

Wittner 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New
York/Albany, Wittner is the author of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of
over 250 published articles and book reviews. From 1984 to 1987, he edited Peace & Change, a journal of
peace research., 11/28/2011, "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?", www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will
be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with
nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S.
relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this
phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is
clear enough. Disturbed by Chinas growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government
recently challenged Chinas claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S.

military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other
nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United
States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war? Not
necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United
States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S.
government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during
the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of
Chinas ofshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter
confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons
would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of course, China didnt have
nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate.
But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government ofcials during the Cold War, when both
nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear

Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent

wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there havent been very many
at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and
nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed,
in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistans
saber-rattling persists.

foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its
arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is

dont
nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO
leaders didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs
strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on
Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the
nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials
really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have
resorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national missile defense.
Why are these vastly expensiveand probably unworkablemilitary defense
systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking
by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans
convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese
nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater
than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses
claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though,

over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three
hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely

A
nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10
million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of
sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would
be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands .
the United States would win any nuclear war with China. But what would that victory entail?

radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun
and bring on a nuclear winter around the globedestroying
Also,

agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and

destruction.

The recent WTO ruling failed to stop China from still

implementing protectionist legislation --- China will
continue to protect their industries and the US will begin
to act outside the legal system --- the af is key to solve
Wu, 4/2 Mark, assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School, where he
specializes in international trade., A Free Pass for China,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/a-free-pass-for-china.html?_r=0
Cambridge, Mass. A World Trade Organization panel ruled last week that
Chinas export restraints on rare earth elements and other metals
violate W.T.O. rules because they are discriminatory. Rare earth minerals are critical in a wide

range of industries, from electronics and hybrid automobiles to petroleum and chemicals. Should the ruling

This ruling
may appear , at first glance, to be a vindication of the strategy of turning
to the W.T.O. to fight Chinese protectionism. But litigation victories
do not always translate into economic victories, especially when the
W.T.O. is concerned. In 2010, China imposed quotas and other
restraints to sharply limit exports of rare earths. Because more than nine-tenths of the
worlds production of rare earths occurs in China, price shocks hit foreign producers
who rely on the Chinese minerals. Complaining that the export restraints were
stand, China will have to dismantle the discriminatory policies or face trade sanctions.

discriminatory and illegal, the United States, the European Union and Japan all filed complaints before the
W.T.O. China defended its actions by arguing that the export limits were necessary because of the
environmental hazards associated with rare earths production. That environmental harm can occur is
undoubtedly true, but the W.T.O. panel found this was just an excuse. The export restraints, it ruled, were
designed to achieve industrial policy goals rather than promote conservation. In other words, China sought
to limit its export of rare earths to give a leg up to Chinese manufacturers. It also sought to use cheaper
domestic prices to entice foreign companies dependent on rare earths to relocate production to China.
The strategy worked. Chinese manufacturers in several industries relying on rare earths, such as wind
turbines and chemicals, made formidable inroads against their foreign competitors. Foreign companies
making products relying on rare earths, such as camera lenses and touchscreen glass, shifted some
production to China. Although the W.T.O. panel ruled against China, it did not require China to pay
compensation. By design, the W.T.O.s remedies are not retrospective. Workers who lost their jobs because
firms outsourced production to China would receive no damages. In fact, so long as China eliminates the
discriminatory elements of its policies going forward, there are no remedies available for the United States
or the other countries. The main goal of W.T.O. dispute settlement is to force compliance with the law

The W.T.O., in efect, provides

countries with a free pass to breach its rules temporarily. So long as a
violating country ends its illegal policy in a reasonable period of time following a final judgment, it need
not worry about being punished. W.T.O. rulings do little to dissuade
rather than provide economic justice for past harm.

China from continuing to take advantage of the free pass to

advance other unfair and illegal policies when the gains are large
enough . China has done this in industry after industry, from semiconductors
to electronic payment services. The approach typically involves contravening trade rules just long enough
to allow domestic players to build up their market position without incurring W.T.O. sanctions. China then
undoes the policy and claims that it is respectful of W.T.O. judgments.

gains afterward often proves difficult.

But undoing Chinas

Continue reading the main story Continue

reading the main story Continue reading the main story It may seem as though the solution to Chinas
flouting of trade rules would be to push for more robust remedies at the W.T.O. But retrospective remedies

are not necessarily in the interest of other big countries like the United States. That is because they also
lose cases at the W.T.O. Beyond the simple calculation of whether Chinas competitors would gain or lose

there is also the political difficulty of

implementing such a solution. Imagine that having lost a cotton subsidies case to Brazil,
more with stricter punishments,

the United States was ordered to pay compensation. Would the government claw back these subsidies
from cotton farmers? Or would it try to convince the American public to shoulder the burden on behalf of

Relying on the W.T.O.

alone to fight back against Chinese protectionism is a losing
cotton farmers through higher taxes or greater deficit spending?

strategy . The United States should employ an array of tools to ensure that, even when our
companies face discriminatory policies overseas, they are not tempted to relocate. The United
States should undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the minerals
critical for strategic interests. The government then should play a
major role in re-establishing a robust domestic supply chain for
such minerals . Such a strategy will take time to execute. In the meantime, stockpiles should be
built to guard against future attempts to use rare earths as economic leverage. The American Congress
would do well to hasten its review of the bills introduced to reduce foreign mineral dependency. Careful
consideration should be given to whether government procurement policies can be altered to dissuade
companies from succumbing to resource-based extortion by other countries. This may provide an opening
to make it clear that companies that shift technology or jobs overseas in response to discriminatory export

While court victories

are satisfying, they are often not enough. This is doubly true when the legal
systems remedies are inadequate . When faced with unfair competition, companies
restrictions may hamper their chances of winning government contracts.

develop comprehensive plans beyond litigation to push back against such threats. So too should
governments. Otherwise, W

.T.O. victories will prove hollow .

2AC REE = War

Reliance on China for rare earth elements initiates
resource fights that cause WWIII
Anthony, 11 Sebastian, Rare earth crisis: Innovate, or be crushed by

China, Lead editor at Ziff Davis, Inc. Owner at SA Holdings Past Columnist at
Tecca Editor at Aol (Weblogs, Inc) Education University of Essex Extreme Tech,
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/111029-rare-earth-crisis-innovate-orbe-crushed-by-china
The rare earth apocalypse The doomsday event that everyone is
praying will never come to pass, but which every Western nation is
currently planning for, is the eventual cut-of of Chinese rare earth exports.
Last year, 97% of the worlds rare earth metals were produced in China but over the last few years, the Chinese government
has been shutting down mines, ostensibly to save what resources it
has, and also reducing the amount of rare earth that can be
exported. Last year, China produced some 130,000 tons of rare earths, but export restrictions meant that only 35,000 tons were sent to other countries.
As a result, demand outside China now outstrips supply by some
40,000 tons per year, and as expected many countries are now stockpiling the reserves that they have. Almost
every Western country is now digging around in their backyard for rare earthrich mud and sand, but itll probably be too little too late and anyway, due to geochemistry, theres no guarantee
that explorers and assayers will find what theyre looking for. The price of rare earths are already going
up , and so are the non-Chinese-made gadgets and gizmos that use them. Exacerbating the issue yet further, as technology grows more advanced, our
reliance on the strange and magical properties of rare earths
increases and China, with the worlds largest workforce and a fire
hose of rare earths, is perfectly poised to become the only real
producer of solar power photovoltaic cells, computer chips, and more. In short, China has the world by the
short hairs, and when combined with a hotting-up cyber front, its
not hard to see how this situation might devolve into World War III .
The alternate, ecological point of view, is that were simply living beyond the planets means. Either way, strategic and logistic planning to make
the most of scarce metals and minerals is now one of the most
important tasks that face governments and corporations. Even if large
rare earth deposits are found soon, or we start recycling our gadgets in a big way , the only real solution is
to somehow lessen our reliance on a finite resource. Just like oil and energy, this will probably require drastic technological leaps. Instead of reducing the amount of
tantalum used in capacitors, or indium in LCD displays, we will probably have to discover completely different ways of storing energy or displaying images. My moneys on
graphene.

2AC AT: No China Monopoly

China has monopoly
Dillow, 11 Clay, Massive Undersea Discovery of Rare Earth Elements May
Break Chinese Monopoly, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/201107/japanese-researchers-claim-massive-rare-earths-discovery-deep-pacificseabed

Then there's the question of whether undersea mining of rare earths is commercially viable? It may be that
getting to these seabed deposits is so expensive as to be prohibitive. Or the discovery might lead to the

Whatever the future

developments may be, the immediate impact is limited : China's grip
on the rare earths market is no less strong today as it was
development of entire fleets of seafloor mining robots.

yesterday , and it's not likely to change in the foreseeable future .

The US is currently reliant on rare earth elements---that

threatens national security as China can cut down on
them---we need to have our own sources
Hays, 12 Jeffrey, Facts and Details, RARE EARTHS OUTSIDE OF CHINA: OLD
AND NEW SOURCES, URBAN MINING AND ALTERNATIVES TO RARE EARTHS,
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat51/sub325/item2399.html
Foreign companies and governments are scrambling to find new
sources of rare earths as China threatens to further tighten
restrictions or even ban exports

of some elements and close mines. Dudely Kingsnrth,

Its crunch time , In the next few

years, we are going to be in a situation where [export and production]
quotas are reduced and unless we have sources outside China , more
an Australia-based independent rare earth analyst, told AFP,

companies are going to have to relocate to China to secure access. In the wake of China's tougher
restrictions, alternative mines have been explored across the globe. However, economists predict that the

There are rare earth mines with

in Russia, India and Brazil. Deposits are also being
developed in Australia and United States. These will produce about 50,000 tons of
rare earths by 2014. This is not enough to keep up with demand , with some
world will rely on China for dysprosium in the foreseeable future.
minimal production

analyst predicting a tight market starting in 2012 and severe problems

if

there are delays in the Australian and U.S. projects. James Lifton, an independent U.S.-based rare earths
analyst, told AFP, Chinas goal is to create jobs in China and create goods in China . We need to start
producing these metals here [in the United States] as we did in the past. If we dont do that,

China

will be the only country manufacturing devises using rare earth by

the year 2015 . Ren Xianfang, a Beijing-based economist with IHS Global Insight, told AFP, The
government hopes the restrictions could prompt the transfer of advanced rare earth processing
technologies into China. Whether this resource-in-exchange-for-technology strategy will work in favor of
China remains to be seen. Rare Earths and Other Countries search for rare earths Although

China

currently monopolizes rare earth mining (with 36 percent of the

world's reserves), other countries have deposits too. Russia has the largest reserves of rare

earths after China. According to U.S. government data it holds 19 percent of the worlds 99 million tons of
commercially viable rare earths. The United States has 13 percent. Australian has five percent. Namibia,
Mongolia, Malaysia, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Canada have substantial deposits as well.

Kazakhstan is the worlds second largest producer of rare earths, but it produces only about 4.5 percent of
the worlds supply. The United States and Australia mined rare earths in the past but stopped mining them
because of cheaper competition from China. Global rare earth reserves (total 99 million tons); 1) China
(36 percent ); 2) former Soviet countries (19 percent); 3) the United States (13 percent); 4) Australia (6
percent ); 5) India (3 percent ); 6) Others (23 percent). [Source: Japans Economy, Trade and Industry
Ministry, 2009] Companies in Australia, Canada and Brazil are on the hunt for rare earth sites. Heightened
interest in alternative sources has also been an impetus to plans to reopen or establish new rare earth
mines in a handful of countries around the world, including South Africa, Russia Australia and Canada. An
additional 40,000 tons is expected to come form non-Chinese sources in coming years. The Lynas Corp,
won the right to mine worlds richest non-Chinese deposit of rare earths, in Australia. It will be at least until
2012 before it is capable of mining the deposit. Other rare earth companies include China Rare Earth
Holdings, Arafura resources, Alkane resources and Greenland Minerals and Energy rare earths Brazil has
the worlds largest know deposit of niobium. It is said to be large enough supply the world for 500 years at
current consumption rates. Some in Russia claim that Yakutias Tontorskoye in Siberia is many times
bigger in volume and quality than Brazils famous deposits. The European Union said it might 1) start
stockpiling rare earths; 2) strengthen ties with African countries that have rare earth deposits; 3) take
measures to discourage speculation of rare earths; and and consider nullifying most-favored-nation
treatment to countries (i.e. China)that try to restrict supplies of rare earths and other strategically
important raw materials. Yoichi Saito of Mitsui believes that China will use it monopoly status in rare
earths to crush competition. Although other places have reserves of rare earths, few places have
significant refinery capacity. Refineries require a lot of investment to set and China could easily undercut
prices of materials produced by rival sources. Saito told Times, Many people are looking at establishing
alternative refineries and sources outside China, but the investment is not necessarily a sound one
because of the threat of price revenge by China. If new projects emerge as they have recently in Malaysia
and Australia, China could just drop its prices and rivals are out of business. China is also taking steps to
corner the marker globally. In early 2009, for example, it acquired 25 percent of Arafura Resources, a
Australian rare earth miner. Some suggest recycling existing rare earths materials---known as "urban
mining." Others are considering using substitute materials such as aluminum, copper and iron in place of
rare earths. Rare Earths in Greenland and the Sea 20111201-Molycorp Pr_214px.jpg Recently a large
source of rare earth was found in southwestern Greenland in geological strata called the Ilimaussaq
Intrusion. The find could enrich Greenland and make Chinas monopoly on rare earth a thing of the past.
The Ilimaussaq Intrusion lies on a desolate plateau and is thought to contain the largest known reserves of
rare earths. An Australian mining company has the rights to mine the site and it plans to process about
50,000 tons of rare-earth-bearing ore by 2010. In July 2011, Japan announced it had found abundant rare
earth elements on the sea floor of the Pacific ocean. The Yomiuri Shimbun reported: Mud on the seafloor
in certain areas of the Pacific Ocean contains about 800 times the amount of rare earth elements found in
deposits on land, a Japanese research team has reported in the electronic version of the British magazine
Nature Geoscience. The nine-member team, which includes University of Tokyo Associate Prof. Yasuhiro
Kato, said it located the deposits in ocean-floor mud at depths of 3,500 meters to 6,000 meters in central
and southeastern areas of the Pacific Ocean. [Source: Yomiuri Shimbun, July 5, 2011] 20111201-Molycorp
Pm_214px.jpg The group believes deep-sea mud constitutes a highly promising source of these
elements."If the technology to exploit them efciently is developed, it would be possible for the deposits to
become an alternative to land-based rare earth elements," Kato said. The group analyzed the elemental
composition of more than 2,000 seafloor sediments, sampled from a wide stretch of areas in the Pacific
Ocean during international deep-sea drilling projects in which Japan and the United States participated.
[Ibid] It found high concentrations of rare earth minerals, equivalent to those found in mines on land, in
deep-sea mud 23.6 meters thick in the central Pacific Ocean, including near the Hawaiian Islands. It also
found such deposits in southeastern waters around the French Polynesian island of Tahiti, in mud eight
meters thick. Estimating from points where the sediments were sampled, the group believes the deposits
are distributed over an area of about 8.8 million square kilometers in the central Pacific and an area of
about 2.4 million square kilometers in the southeastern Pacific. [Ibid] Rare Earths and Japan Japan
imports of rare earths from China accounted for about 82 percent of Japan's imports of rare earths in
2010.The Economist reported: Japan imports more rare earths than any other country. Its electronics, finechemicals and car industries rely on them. A disruption of supply could paralyse the Japanese economy as
much as an oil embargo or food blockade. And because Japan dominates some of the technological
processes that use rare earthssuch as polishing hard-drive platters with cerium oxide---interrupted access
would be felt worldwide. [Source: The Economist, January 20, 2011] Japan is the largest consumer of rare
earths. It uses a fifth of the worlds supply. It is predicted to face a rare shortage of 11,300 tons in 2011.
Chinas rare earth exports (50,000 tons in 2009); 1) Japan (56 percent); 2) the United States (17 percent);
3) France (6 percent); 4) Others (21 percent) [Source: Japans Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry]
Japan gets 90 percent of its rare earths from China. Hiroko Tabuchi wrote in the New York Times, Japanese
companies generally avoid discussing their mineral holdings. But experts say that some manufacturers
have been stockpiling rare earths, building inventories ranging from a few months to a years worth. In
September 2010 the Japanese trade minister, said the government was considering starting a stockpile of
rare earths as a buffer against trade interruptions. [Source: Hiroko Tabuchi New York Times, October 4,
2010] China Bans Rare Earth Exports to Japan In early September 2010, when a major diplomatic row
broke out between Japan and China over a group of disputed islands after a Chinese trawler collided with
two Japanese Coast Guard, China effectively imposed a ban on the export of rare earths and silicon--materials critical in the electronics and automobile industry and of which China is one of the sole

suppliers---by initiating customs procedures such as requiring documents to be in Chinese, a deviation

from usual practices, that halted the shipments. All 31 Japanese companies involved in the rare trade said
their businesses had been hampered by the Chinese export restrictions. Customs restrictions in rare
earths remained in place even after the captain of the Chinese ship at the center of the dispute was
released. An industry ofcial said, though a trickle of shipments seemed to be seeping out as a result of
uneven enforcement of the ban by customs ofcers at various ports. China has allowed exports of Chinesemade rare earth magnets and other rare earth products to Japan, but not semi-processed rare earth ores
that would enable Japanese companies to make products. Finally, about five days after the captain was
released China began to back down. The rhetoric was toned down. Customs procedures returned to normal
and shipments or rare earths and materials resumed. [Source: Hiroko Tabuchi New York Times, October 4,
2010] Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, Even before the Then came the trawler event. Chinese
restrictions on rare earth exports were already in violation of agreements China made before joining the
World Trade Organization. But the embargo on rare earth exports to Japan was an even more blatant
violation of international trade law...Oh, and Chinese ofcials have not improved matters by insulting our
intelligence, claiming that there was no ofcial embargo. All of Chinas rare earth exporters, they say--some of them foreign-owned---simultaneously decided to halt shipments because of their personal feelings
toward Japan. Right. [Source: Paul Krugman New York Times, October 17, 2010] Hiroko Tabuchi wrote in
the New York Times, The cutoff has caused hand-wringing at Japanese manufacturers, from giants like
Toyota to tiny electronics makers, because the raw materials are crucial to products as diverse as hybrid
electric cars, wind turbines and computer display screens. Japans trade minister, Akihiro Ohata, said he
would ask the government to include a rare earth strategy in its supplementary budget for this year.
[Source: Hiroko Tabuchi New York Times, October 4, 2010] So what are the lessons of the rare earth
fracas? Krugman asked. First, and most obviously, the world needs to develop non-Chinese sources of
these materials. There are extensive rare earth deposits in the United States and elsewhere. However,
developing these deposits and the facilities to process the raw materials will take both time and financial
support. So will a prominent alternative: urban mining, a k a recycling of rare earths and other materials
from used electronic devices. [Krugman, Op. Cit] Japan Responds to Chinese Rare Earth Quotas The
Economist reported: Two decades of economic impotence have convinced many observers that Japan is
cautious and slow to change. But the country can move quickly when sufciently provoked?...for example
by... Chinas hoarding of rare earths. Since shipments of rare earths were cut off over the island dispute in
September 2010 Japan Inc has sprung into action. [Source: The Economist, January 20, 2011] The big
trading houses such as Sojitz, Sumitomo and Mitsubishi are securing alternative supplies, supported by
state financing. Companies such as Toyota, Hitachi, Nidec and TDK are working to reduce or eliminate the
rare-earth elements needed in devices. Recycling programmes are being studied. The government
earmarked $1 billion from a stimulus package in November to secure supplies, including funding university
research and projects such as robotic deep-sea mining. [Ibid] A national stockpile of the kind that
already exists for rice, cereals and petrol has been mooted. There is even talk of creating a generously
funded agency to acquire stakes in non-Chinese producers, possibly using the countrys vast foreignexchange reserves (at $1 trillion, the worlds largest after Chinas). Japans prime minister has met his
Vietnamese and Mongolian counterparts to discuss new production. [Ibid] Japan has been suddenly
spurred to action before. The environmental crisis in the 1960s, the oil shocks of the 1970s and the strong
yen in the 1980s rallied bureaucrats, politicians, business leaders, the media and the public. High energy
prices forced Japan to become one of the worlds most energy-efcient countries....Japan will remain
dependent on Chinese rare earths for some time. The countrys resource mandarins say they have no
specific target for reducing this dependency, though they reafrm an earlier goal that Japan should control
50 percent of its mineral needs, including rare earths, by 2030. [Ibid] Japan Seeks Alternative Source of
Rare Earths The fallout over the Chinese fishing boat in waters of the disputed Senkaku islands in
September 2010 and the blocking of rare earth exports, accelerated Japans quest for alternative sources
of rare earths and development of technologies that didnt need rare earths so it wasnt so dependant on
China for them. Days after the effective export on rare earths from China to Japan was imposed the
Japanese Economy and Trade Minister Akihiro Ohata established a new rare earth policy aimed at
diversifying Japan supply and stockpiling the materials. Ties were firmed up with Kazakhstan, the worlds
second largest producer of rare earths after China, and Vietnam and Mongolia, two other large rare earth
producers. Kazakhstan was told to send representatives to Japan as soon as possible to negotiate and
expand its rare earth deal with Japan. In November 2010, Sojitz, a large Japanese conglomerate,
announced a deal with Lynas, an Australian mining company, to secure rare earths through 2020s.
According to the agreement Sojitz would receive 70 percent of Lynass annual 22,000 ton annual rare earth
capacity. In March 2011, a consortium of Japanese and South Korean companies---including Nippon Steel
and JFE Steel of Japan and POSCO of South Koreasaid they were buying a 15 percent stake in Companhia
Brasileira de Meltalurgiae Mineracao (CBMM)---a major rare earth mining firm and producer of niobium in
Brazil for about $1.7 billion. Sojitz is also negotiating the rights to a rare earth mine in Vietnam. The
industrial conglomerate Sumitomo plans to work with Kazakhstans government to recover rare earth
elements from uranium ore residues. The Japanese companies Mitsui and Sumitomo Corp., are exploring
the possibility of mining rare earths from deposits in Siberia that werent expected to be exploited until
2030. The company talked with government ofcials in Yakutia---an area of northeastern Russia the size of
India with frigid winters and only about 1 million people about mining deposits of niobium and scandium.
[Source: Bloomberg] Geoff Bedford of the rare-earth-processor Neo Technologies, told AFP, We do not
have a customer in Japan whose research and development group is not working overtime to figure out
how to reduce, or eliminate, rare earths in their products. Japan has budgeted $1.25 billion---equal to the

total annual rare earth market value---in 2011 to secure non-Chinese supplies. In October 2010, Japan and
the United States agreed to cooperate to diversify suppliers after China announced it was going to curb
exports. In February 2011, the Japanese government decided to give $360 million to 169 projects to
encourages firms to cut their use of rare earths, Japan Seeks Recycled Rare Earths from Urban Mining
The National Institute for Materials Science, a government-afliated research group, says that used
electronics in Japan hold an estimated 300,000 tons of rare earths. Though that amount is tiny compared
to reserves in China, tapping these urban mines could help reduce Japans dependence on Chinese
sources. Reporting from Kosaka, Japan, Hiroko Tabuchi wrote in the New York Times, Two decades after
global competition drove the mines in this corner of Japan to extinction, Kosaka is again abuzz with talk of
new riches. The treasures are not copper or coal. They are rare-earth elements and other minerals that are
crucial to many Japanese technologies and have so far come almost exclusively from China, the global
leader in rare earth mining. This towns hopes for a mining comeback lie not underground, but in what
Japan refers to as urban mining---recycling the valuable metals and minerals from the countrys huge
stockpiles of used electronics like cellphones and computers. Weve literally discovered gold in
cellphones, said Tetsuzo Fuyushiba, a former land minister on a visit to Kosakas recycling plant. [Source:
Hiroko Tabuchi New York Times, October 4, 2010] In Kosaka, Dowa Holdings, the company that mined
here for over a century, has built a recycling plant whose 200-foot-tall furnace renders old electronics parts
into a molten stew from which valuable metals and other minerals can be extracted. The salvaged parts
come from around Japan and overseas, including the United States. Besides gold, Dowas subsidiary,
Kosaka Smelting and Refining, has so far successfully reclaimed rare metals like indium, used in liquidcrystal display screens, and antimony, used in silicon wafers for semiconductors. The company is trying to
develop ways to reclaim the harder-to-mine minerals included among the rare earths---like neodymium, a
vital element in industrial batteries used in electric motors, and dysprosium, used in laser materials.
[Ibid] Various players have tried to recycle rare earths and metals in Japan. Last year, Hitachi began to
experiment to extract rare earths from magnets in old computer hard drives, though the company said the
project was not expected to go into operation until 2013. But it is Dowa, the company that has mined in
Kosaka since 1884, that has emerged as the fields early leader. And it could not come a moment too soon
for this town of 6,000, which is littered with the remnants of its old ore mines: tunnels overgrown with
weeds, old railroad tracks, and an abandoned bathhouse where miners once sponged off the grime from
their long days underground. The mines operated up to 1990, until a surging yen and international
competition drove operations out of business. Now, portions of the old red-brick ore processing factories
serve as part of Dowas recycling plant, which started fully operating two years ago. [Ibid] It is
important for Japan to actively tap its urban mines, Kohmei Harada, a managing director at the National
Institute of Materials Science, told the New York Times. He is an enthusiastic supporter of recycling efforts
like the one in Kosaka. Apart from rare metals and earths, Mr. Harada estimates that about 6,800 tons of
gold, or the equivalent of about 16 percent of the total reserves in the worlds gold mines, lie in used
electronics in Japan. Japans economy has grown by gathering resources from around the world, and those
resources are still with us, in one form or another, he said. But this form of recycling is an expensive and
technically difcult process that is still being perfected. At Dowas plant, computer chips and other vital
parts from electronics are hacked into two-centimeter squares. This feedstock then must be smelted in a
furnace that reaches 1,400 degrees Celsius before various minerals can be extracted. The factory
processes 300 tons of materials a day, and each ton yields only about 150 grams of rare metals. Though
Dowa does not disclose the finances of its Kosaka recycling operations, the company says that after a year
of operating at a low capacity, the factory now turns a profit. Over all, net income at Dowa Holdings, which
deals in industrial metals and electronic materials, almost tripled in the quarter ending June 30, to 6.52
billion yen, or $78.2 million, as global industrial production rebounded. [Ibid] Utaro Sekiya, the manager
of Dowas recycling plant, said, Its about time Japan started paying more attention to recycling rare
earths...If we can become a leader in this field, perhaps China will be the one coming to us to buy our
technology. Tabuchi wrote: As Dowa has turned its attention to rare earths, a priority is developing ways
to render neodymium, which is used in powerful magnets. Its extraction has proved costly. Neodymium is
found only in tiny quantities in parts used in the speakers of cellphones, for example, making it a challenge
to collect meaningful amounts, said Sekiya... Finding enough electronics parts to recycle has also grown
more difcult for Dowa, which procures used gadgets from around the world. A growing number of
countries, including the United States, are recognizing the value of holding onto old electronics. And China
already bans the export of used computer motherboards and other discarded electronics parts. [Ibid]
Rare Earths in the United States Until the 1980s, the United States led the world in rare earth production,
thanks largely to the Mountain Pass mine in California. "There was a time we were producing 20,000 tons a
year when the market was 30,000 tons," Mark A. Smith, president and CEO of Molycorp, an American
company that reopened a rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, told National Geographic. "So we were 60-plus
percent of the world's market." Tim Folger wrote in National Geographic, American dominance ended in
the mid 1980s. China, which for decades had been developing the technology for separating rare earths...
entered the world market with a roar. With government support, cheap labor, and lax or nonexistent
environmental regulations, its rare earth industries undercut all competitors. Mountain Pass was closed in
2002 after an industrial accident and because of competition from China and environmental concerns.
[Source: Tim Folger, National Geographic, June 2011 ] The California deposit was discovered in the 1940s
by uranium prospectors. It became the world's largest supplier of rare earths as the demand for europium,
which is used for color television screens, surged in the 1960s. When the mine closed it left behind mounds
of tailings, or leftover dirt, around the property.

Many wonder how the United States

could let itself become so dependant on its rival China---and

vulnerable to supply cut ofs --- for strategic minerals like rare earths.
Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, You really have to wonder why nobody
raised an alarm while this was happening, if only on national
security grounds . But policy makers simply stood by

as the U.S. rare earth

industry shut down. In at least one case, in 2003---a time when, if you believed the Bush administration,

national security governed every aspect of U.S. policy--the Chinese literally packed up all the equipment in a U.S.
production facility and shipped it to China. [Source: Paul Krugman New York Times,
October 17, 2010] The result, Kugman wrote, was a monopoly position
exceeding the wildest dreams of Middle Eastern oil-fueled tyrants .
And even before the trawler incident, China showed itself willing to
considerations of

exploit that monopoly to the fullest . The United Steelworkers

recently filed a complaint against Chinese trade practices, stepping in
where U.S. businesses fear to tread because they fear Chinese
retaliation. The union put Chinas imposition of export restrictions and taxes on rare earths--restrictions that give Chinese production in a number of industries
an important competitive advantage---at the top of the list. [Ibid] In October 2010,

the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill authorizing research to address the supply of rare
earths, saying the minerals were critical to energy, military and manufacturing technologies. The U.S. rare
earths industry is hoping domestic mines will open. The U.S. Geological Survey has identified several sites,
including Music Valley in Southern California, where rare earths could be mined. Congress is considering
proposals, some pushing for loan guarantees for rare earths suppliers, to encourage more domestic
research and production. [Source: New York Times, Los Angeles Times]

***Clean Tech Advantage

1AC Clean Tech

We are in a new race and Sputnik has just launched --- US
is losing out on the clean tech race
Friedman, 9 Thomas, won three Pulitzer Prizes for the NYT, NYT Foreign
Affairs Op-Ed columnist, The New Sputnik,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html ///BDS
Yes, Chinas leaders have decided to go green out of necessity

because

too many of their people cant breathe, cant swim, cant fish, cant farm and cant drink thanks to
pollution from its coal- and oil-based manufacturing growth engine. And, therefore, unless China powers its
development with cleaner energy systems, and more knowledge-intensive businesses without
smokestacks, China will die of its own development. What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of

And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity,

watch out . You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next
electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software
from China. I believe this Chinese decision to go green is the 21stcentury equivalent of the Soviet Unions 1957 launch of Sputnik the worlds
first Earth-orbiting satellite. That launch stunned us, convinced President Eisenhower that the
U.S. was falling behind in missile technology and spurred America to make
massive investments in science, education, infrastructure and
networking one eventual byproduct of which was the Internet. Well, folks. Sputnik just
invention.

went up again: Chinas going clean-tech. The view of China in the U.S. Congress
that China is going to try to leapfrog us by out-polluting us is out of date.
Its going to try to out-green us . Right now, China is focused on low-cost
manufacturing of solar, wind and batteries and building the worlds
biggest market for these products. It still badly lags U.S. innovation. But research will
follow the market. Americas premier solar equipment maker, Applied Materials, is about to open the

If they invest in
21st-century technologies and we invest in 20th-century
technologies, theyll win, says David Sandalow, the assistant secretary of energy for
policy. If we both invest in 21st-century technologies, challenging each
other, we all win. Unfortunately, were still not racing. Its like
Sputnik went up and we think its just a shooting star. Instead of a
strategic response, too many of our politicians are still trapped in
their own dumb-as-we-wanna-be bubble, where were always No. 1,
and where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, having sold its soul to the old coal and
worlds largest privately funded solar research facility in Xian, China.

oil industries, uses its influence to prevent Congress from passing legislation to really spur renewables.
Hats off to the courageous chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric, Peter Darbee, who last week announced
that his huge California power company was quitting the chamber because of its obstructionist tactics.

Chinas
leaders, mostly engineers, wasted little time debating global warming . They
All shareholders in America should ask their C.E.O.s why they still belong to the chamber.

know the Tibetan glaciers that feed their major rivers are melting. But they also know that even if climate
change were a hoax, the demand for clean, renewable power is going to soar as we add an estimated 2.5
billion people to the planet by 2050, many of whom will want to live high-energy lifestyles. In that world,
E.T. or energy technology will be as big as I.T., and China intends to be a big E.T. player. For the last
three years, the U.S. has led the world in new wind generation, said the ecologist Lester Brown, author of
Plan B 4.0. By

the end of this year, China will bypass us on new wind

generation so fast we wont even see it go by. I met this week with Shi

Zhengrong, the founder of Suntech, already the worlds largest manufacturer of solar panels. Shi recalled
how, shortly after he started his company in Wuxi, nearby Lake Tai, Chinas third-largest freshwater lake,

choked to death from pollution. After this disaster, explained Shi, the party secretary of Wuxi city came
to me and said, I want to support you to grow this solar business into a $15 billion industry, so then we
can shut down as many polluting and energy consuming companies in the region as soon as possible. He
is one of a group of young Chinese leaders, very innovative and very revolutionary, on this issue.
Something has changed. China realized it has no capacity to absorb all this waste. We have to grow

China will continue to grow with cheap, dirty

coal, to arrest over-eager environmentalists and to strip African
forests for wood and minerals. Have no doubt about that. But have no doubt either that,
without declaring it, China is embarking on a new, parallel path of clean
without pollution. Of course,

power deployment and innovation . It is the Sputnik of our day . We

ignore it at our peril.

Chinas monopoly enables them to decimate US military,

economic, industrial, and greentech primacy --- we need
our own domestic supply
FLOYD G. BROWN, has written for the San Francisco Chronicle, the
Washington Times, Townhall.com and WND.com. His latest book is Killing
Wealth/Freeing Wealth, published in 2010 by WND Books, Floyd writes a
weekly syndicated column about politics, culture and the economy, China is
One Breath From Disarming the Entire U.S. Military, Western
Journalism, 7-8-2013, http://www.westernjournalism.com/chinas-dangerousrare-earths-monopoly/2///BDS
Of all the power that China wields in the world today, its monopoly over
rare earth minerals could have the most frightening impact. You see, rare
earth resources are essential for producing high-tech products ,
renewable energy technologies and advanced weapons systems. In fact,
without rare earth minerals, the United States would face a fullblown national security crisis. It was only a few decades ago, during the Cold War, that the
United States was an undisputed leader in the field. Yet as vital as these minerals are to
our future, Barack Obamas administration has no plan for re-building
Americas capacity to produce and refine them. How quickly the mighty have
fallen Our supreme leader has no idea, or even any desire, to get us back in the
game. In fact, Team Obama doesnt have a clue how to develop a domestic rare earth supply. And
Thats Not All Even beyond our ability to build arms, the rare earth
shortages prevent us from building a sustainable, green energy
future. Rare earth minerals are indispensable for building wind
turbines and hybrid/electric vehicles. The Obama administrations only
solution to our vulnerabilities is bringing a case against the Chinese
at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. Trade Representative lodged a formal complaint with
the WTO about Chinese trade restrictions on the rare earths, including export duties and quotas. These
measures brought down prices for the minerals in China, although they increased prices for foreign firms.
As a result, Team Obama is alleging unfair competition. Unfair competition is putting it mildly, in my

The Communist party has understood for years now that rare
earths are an area of strategic advantage. Deng Xiaoping made a cryptic
opinion.

statement all the way back in 1992 about his designs for the future: There is oil in the Middle East; there

With huge rare earth deposits and world power rather

in mind, China began supplying our need for rare earths at
dirt-cheap prices, which our own companies couldnt match. Part of
the Chinese strategy is to force American and Japanese
manufacturers to relocate to China. Industries that depend on rare
is rare earth in China.
than profit

earth minerals also have the added benefit of having access to Chinas
supply at a lower cost. So medical device makers, automotive parts firms and green
energy firms have pulled up stakes around the world and relocated to
China. America needs a plan to restore our leadership. We need the
capability to mine and process the minerals here. Sadly, even the ores mined here by our domestic
producer, MolyCorp Inc., are sent to China for processing. Once our American ore is processed in China, it
becomes subject to the Chinese export restrictions. Obama has resisted developing a strategic plan, and
the reason is likely his slavish devotion to radical environmentalist interests that dislike any company with

the lack of a domestic supply of rare

earth minerals is stunting the growth of the green energy firms these same
the name of mining or refining in it. Ironically,

environmental interests are always touting. Members of the Armed Forces House and Senate Committees
are deeply concerned, and they have some ideas. U.S. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri recently said, By

encouraging the domestic production and refinement of rare earth

minerals, we can reduce our dependency on other countries and
encourage economic development here in the U.S. The bottom line is, we
need a strategy, and the Obama Administration is failing to provide it. Congressional members must step

Until we have a strategy, we are hostage to the

Chinese, and can only hope they dont cut our supplies the same way
they cut Japans after a territorial dispute in 2010. Right now, the Chinese
have us over a dangerous barrel. Your Eyes on the Hill. Floyd G. Brown
in and take the lead.

REEs give the US the capabilities to transition to a green

economy and renewable industries like solar and wind
Investor Intel 13 (Investor Intel Admin, More please: The critical

contributions of Rare Earth Elements to the new economy, Investor Intel, 1010-2013, http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/please-critical-contributionsrare-earth-elements-new-economy///BDS)
Let me begin by clarifying, I am not an environmentalist, unless it makes sense economically. Irrespective
of the deeply divided political squabbling in the US about the importance of renewable energy and clean

there is a strong
consensus among governments, the corporate sector, and investors
that renewable energy will drive economic growth. However, even the
technology to long-term economic and environmental challenges,

most optimistic among us regarding this developing industry (still very much in its early stages) must
acknowledge one harsh reality: the sector faces challenges. Exceptional challenges.
Long-established, highly profitable reigning industries (with tremendous influence among influencers),
coupled with challenging financing hurdles are obviously obstacles to clean-tech expansion. But another

In order to
transition towards a cleaner, healthier and more robust economy fueled by
renewable energy and clean technology, rare earth elements (or REEs, subdivided into
drawback for clean technology is one that hasnt received enough attention.

two categories; light rare earth elements or LREEs, and the more-valuable heavy rare earth elements or
HREEs)

have to be mined. REEs

are needed to produce the requisite green energy

Rare earth elements

are absolutely essential
ingredients for creating the technologies that reduce US and global
dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources. As most InvestorIntel readers are
infrastructure and associated products. That is a bit of an understatement.
(metals, oxides, phosphors and other REE derivatives)

already aware, thanks to Publisher, Editor-in-Chief and Queen of Rare Earths Tracy Weslosky, what makes
rare earths rare is not the relative scarcity (i.e. oil). Rare earth elements are considered rare because they

REEs (and graphite and,

provide critical contributions to renewable energy
technology, including in solar power, wind turbines, lithium-ion batteries, and all
electric motors. Some wind turbines contain over 500 pounds of rare
earth elements. Each and every Prius that rolls off the Toyota assembly line in Tokyo carries almost
occur, widely dispersed in the earths crust, rather than in concentrated ores.
soon, graphene will)

30 pounds of REEs (Tesla Motors wasnt able to respond by the publication deadline of this article). More
people need to know that

without rare earth elements, it would be completely

impossible to manufacture the building blocks that operate these

technologies. According to industry experts, with more supply, demand for REEs
will increase. And, obviously, more REEs will be required as these
technologies (still in their respective early stages) become more and more mainstream.
Wind turbines and electric vehicles, in particular, rely on rare earths
neodymium and dysprosium. A recent study conducted by a US private research university
concluded that global demand for neodymium and dysprosium will
outstrip supply over the medium- and mid-term if worldwide production does
not increase by 8% for neodymium and 14% for dysprosium. The conclusion? Present rare
earth production is not increasing at a sustainable level. The
problem of future access to rare earth resources is exacerbated by
Chinas recent imposition of REE export quotas, which caused some users of REEs to charge
REE surcharges to their customers. A shrinking supply of REEs guarantees higher
costs for industries desperate to be more cost-competitive and that are
striving to improve performance, while lowering price (remember, the world expects the price of a

This conundrum could set

back wind and solar at a time when we need to advance them. Who, in their right mind, could
particular technology to come down over time). The end result?

say we do not need more energy diversity especially in the long term?

US clean tech leadership is key to hegemony and warming

--- the af is key to turn America into a green-hegemon
Klarevas, 9 Louis Professor of Global Affairs, Professor at the Center for
Global Affairs New York University, December 15, Securing American
Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of
Greengemony, Hufngton Post, 12-15, http://www.hufngtonpost.com/louisklarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the
United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global
primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S.
must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming
environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will
save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to
outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as
the international system's hegemon . But the greening of American
strategy must occur soon . The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in
time , unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is
portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action.
This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few
reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik,

environmental issues as they

national interests in a way that generates relative
power advantages vis--vis the other major powers in the system:
Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union . Liberals, on the other
which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount
are not seen as advancing

hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by
mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global
good. This, though, ruffles elected ofcials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote
American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green
fighting machine,

the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to

advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at

the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the
future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional
hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon . Hegemons are
countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries
in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important
international institutions, and covering the costs that result from
free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the
purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global
economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire
system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the
least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the
postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited
from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The
liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like
Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of
American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling
blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators

With the impending

systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds
itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that
will benefit both the international community collectively and the
U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling
animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has
to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however.

already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-of

places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty
zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and
its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy
and global stability . Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run
national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of
carbon dioxide emissions . So long as the global economy remains
oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are
predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the
next twenty-five years . That likely means more devastating water
shortages , droughts , forest fires , floods , and storms. In other words, if global
competition for access to energy resources does not undermine
international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a
culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last
half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will
be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind,
solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And
the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid
the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's firstever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment
in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice,
committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently
being spent. By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure
it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for
automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources.
Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive

amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efcient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels,

will not only provide

alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global
competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce
technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the
oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt
such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic
and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations

boom , while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that

can be employed to keep potential foes in check.

<insert warming impact>

2AC Dependence Bad

In particular, shortages and reliance on China for rare
earths decks the clean tech development
Vidal, 12 John, Global Research, Shortages of rare minerals: Chinas

strategic control over terbium, yttrium, dysprosium, europium and

neodymium, http://www.globalresearch.ca/shortages-of-rare-minerals-chinas-strategic-control-over-terbium-yttrium-dysprosium-europium-andneodymium/29033
Chinas near-exclusive access to terbium and yttrium sent prices
soaring in 2011, potentially hobbling clean energy industry Shortages of a
handful of rare minerals could slow the future growth of the burgeoning
renewable energy industries, and afect countries chances of
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, business leaders were told at the World Economic
Forum in Davos this week. Last year, prices of many scarce minerals exploded ,
rising as much as 10 times over 2010 levels before dropping back, said PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

Terbium, yttrium, dysprosium, europium and neodymium are widely

used in the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, electric car
batteries and energy-efficient lightbulbs. But because these rare earths
are mined almost exclusively in China , it is becoming increasingly
difficult and expensive to source them in the required quantities . In a
survey of some of the largest clean energy manufacturers, 78% told PwC said they were
already experiencing instability of supply of rare metals, and most said
they did not expect shortages to ease for at least five years. Currently, 95% of the rare earth
minerals needed by clean tech industries come from China which has
set strict export quotas. Last year China reserved most for its own for its domestic wind, solar
and battery industries, shifting costs to the US and Europe which do not mine any of the minerals.

Scarcity of the mineral resources could afect disrupt entire supply

chains and countries attempts to meet emissions targets, said PwC.
The energy sector could face very great problems if the world turns to
[renewables] in a big way. In the short term,

there will be major supply problem s. The

availability of these metals will define the growth of these industry sectors.

There are so far

not many alternatives , said Rob Mathlener, author of a report that urged companies to build
future strategies around recycling and reusing resources. Last December, Janez Potonik, the EU
commissioner for the environment, warned that the waste of valuable natural resources threatens to

None of the minerals is likely to physically run

out, but it can take 10 years for countries to open new mines. In the
US there has been growing concerns that China dominates the
supply of the materials considered crucial for the expansion of the
US defence, computer andrenewable energy sectors. A series of US
produce a fresh economic crisis.

government reports have urged an immediate increase in production of rare minerals. By mid-2012, US
mining company Molycorp Minerals aims to produce 20,000 tonnes a year of nine of the 17 rare minerals,
or about 25% of current western imports from China. Malcolm Preston, PwCs global sustainability leader,
said: Its

a time bomb . Many businesses now recognise that we are

living beyond the planets means. If these industries, supply chains
and economies are disrupted by shortages in supply, then the

luxury of choice lifestyle many in the Western world have become

accustomed to, will also be afected.

2AC REEs Key

Rare earth supply problems kill renewable development
Jones 13 (Nicole, 18 November 2013, A Scarcity of Rare Metals Is
Hindering Green Technologies,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_te
chnologies/2711/, ADL)
A shortage of "rare earth" metals, used in everything from electric
car batteries to solar panels to wind turbines, is hampering the
growth of renewable energy technologies. Researchers are now working to find
alternatives to these critical elements or better ways to recycle them. by nicola jones With the
global push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, its ironic that
several energy- or resource-saving technologies arent being used to
the fullest simply because we dont have enough raw materials to
make them. For example, says Alex King, director of the new Critical Materials Institute, every wind
farm has a few turbines standing idle because their fragile gearboxes have broken
down. They can be fixed, of course, but that takes time and meanwhile
wind power isnt being gathered. Now you can make a more reliable wind turbine that doesnt need a

you need a truckload of so-called "rare earth"

metals to do Rare earth metals recycling Haruyoshi Yamaguchi/Bloomberg These bits of critical
gearbox at all, King points out, but

elements are bound for recycling at a Mitsubishi subsidiary in Japan. it, and there simply isnt the supply.

Likewise, we could all be using next-generation fluorescent light

bulbs that are twice as efficient as the current standard. But when
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) tried to make that switch in
2009, companies like General Electric cried foul: they wouldn t be
able to get hold of enough rare earths to make the new bulbs. The
move toward new and better technologies from smart phones to
electric cars means an ever-increasing demand for exotic metals
that are scarce thanks to both geology and politics. Thin, cheap solar panels need
tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earths crust, making it three times rarer
than gold. High-performance batteries need lithium , which is only easily extracted
from briny pools in the Andes. In 2011, the average price of 'rare earth' metals shot up by as much as 750

Platinum, needed as a catalyst in fuel cells that turn hydrogen

into energy, comes almost exclusively from South Africa. Researchers and industry
workers alike woke with a shock to the problems caused by these
dodgy supply chains in 2011, when the average price of "rare
earths" including terbium and europium, used in fluorescent
bulbs; and neodymium, used in the powerful magnets that help to
drive wind turbines and electric engines shot up by as much as
750 percent in a year. The problem was that China, which controlled 97
percent of global rare earth production, had clamped down on trad e.
A solution was brokered and the price shock faded, but the threat of future supply
problems for rare earths and other so-called "critical elements" still
looms. Thats why the Critical Materials Institute, located at the DOEs Ames Laboratory, was created.
percent.

The institute opened in June, and the ofcial ribbon-cutting was in September. Its mission is to predict
which materials are going to become problems next, work to improve supply chains, and try to invent
alternative materials that dont need so many critical elements in the first place. The institute is one of a
handful of organizations worldwide trying to tackle the problem of critical elements, which organizations
like the American Physical Society have been calling attention to for years. "Its a hot topic in Europe right
now," says Olivier Vidal, coordinator of a European Commission project called ERA-MIN one of a handful
of European initiatives that are now ramping up.

"It's really urgent," says King. "We're

facing real challenges today we need solutions tomorrow, not the

day after." Despite the high cost and high demand of metals critical
for energy technologies, very little of this metal is recycled : In 2009, it
was estimated that less than one percent of rare earth metals was recovered. Ruediger Kuehr, head of the
Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) initiative in Bonn, says that 49 million tons of e-waste are produced
each year, from cell phones to refrigerators. Of that, perhaps 10 percent is recycled. Its ridiculous to
simply throw so much valuable material away, says Diran Apelian, founding director of the Metal
Processing Institute in Worcester, A Belgian company now recycles 350,000 tons of e-waste a year,
including photovoltaic cells. Massachusetts. "Theres something like 32 tons of gold in all the world's cell

Getting the metals out

of modern technology is a pain, since they are incorporated in tiny
amounts into increasingly-complex devices. A circa-2000 cell phone used about
phones," says Apelian. "There's a huge goldmine in our urban landfills."

two dozen elements; a modern smart phone uses more than 60. "Were making things more difcult for
ourselves," says King. Despite the relatively high concentrations of rare earths in technology, he says, its
actually chemically easier to separate them from the surrounding material in simple rocks than in
complicated phones.

***Hegemony Advantage

1AC Industrial Base

Aside from clean tech, Dependence on other countries for
REEs cause price rises that eviscerates our defense
industrial base and economic competitiveness
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
The 2010 rare earths case and others are increasing interest in
critical minerals among U.S. policymakers. Congress held hearings on
the strategic importance of minerals between 2007 and 2010, and the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act
required DOD to study and report on its dependence on rare earth elements for weapons, communications and other systems. 3 During a 2009 hearing on minerals

Forbes of Virginia called minerals, one of those

things that no one really talks about or worries about until
something goes wrong. Its at that point the point where we dont
have the steel we need to build MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehi - cles] or the rhenium we need to build a JSF [Joint Strike Fighter]
engine that the stockpile becomes critically important. 4 In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that it
would be in our interests commercially and strategically to find
additional sources of supply for rare earth minerals, and stated that Chinas
and military readi - ness, Republican Representative Randy

recent

cuts to rare earth exports served as a wakeup call that being so

dependent on only one source , disruption could occur for natural

disaster reasons or other kinds of events could intervene. 5 In January 2011,
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates express - ing concern

Clearly, rare earth

supply limitations present a serious vul nerability to our national
for minerals required for producing defense equipment such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which stated,

security . Yet early indications are that DOD has dismissed the severity of the
situation to date. 6 Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) launched a multiyear effort to explore potential vulnerabilities in supply
chains for minerals that will be critical to four distinct areas of energy technology innovation. While concern is growing, the media and policy - makers often focus
too narrowly on what may seem the most compelling indicators usually import dependence or scarcity in prescribing solutions to reduce U.S. vulnerabilities, in
particular to supply disruptions in critical minerals such as rare earths. This focus is sparking protectionist attitudes, with some worrying that import dependence
poses an inherent risk to the U.S. economy. Discussion of minerals also frequently focuses on supply scarcity and resource depletion in absolute terms. However,
both the rhenium and rare earth minerals dis - ruptions of the past five years were triggered by deliberate decisions made by political leaders to leverage their
positions of strength, not by market forces, disorder or scarcities of these minerals. Countries often revert to hoarding, pressuring suppliers and otherwise behaving as
if scarcities are present even when they are not, based solely on concerns that shortages are likely in the near term. In fact, neither scarcity nor import dependence
alone is sufcient to signal vulnerability, and a combination of factors including concentration of suppliers is most often required for mineral issues to become security
or foreign policy problems. This report, based on two years of research, site visits and discussions with stakeholders, explores how the supply, demand and use of
minerals can impair U.S. foreign relations, economic interests and defense readiness. It examines cases of five individual min - erals lithium, gallium, rhenium,
tantalum and niobium and rare earth elements, such as neo - dymium, samarium and dysprosium, as a sixth group in order to show the complexity of addressing
these concerns. Each of these minerals is critical for defense technologies and U.S. economic growth plans. They share characteristics with minerals that have
caused important political or economic concerns for the United States in the past. Additionally, lithium is fre - quently cited in the media and in discussions of how
clean energy supply chains are critical to meeting Americas future economic, energy and environmental goals. Within the past five years, two of these cases rhenium
and rare earth minerals have involved supply disruptions or important threats of disruptions for the United States and its allies. Each of these minerals will require
federal government attention in the coming years. assessing U.S. Vulnerability Analysts vary widely in assessing the implications of U.S. dependence on critical
minerals, despite broad acceptance of the physical reality that mineral resources are finite and the economic realities that requirements are ubiquitous and demand is
growing. On one extreme, some analysts believe the 2010 incident between China and Japan sug - gests an approaching Hobbesian world in which resource
demands outstrip supplies for minerals, nonrenewable energy sources and even food sup - plies. History indicates that conflict over absolute scarcities is unlikely. At
the other end of the spectrum, many still believe that an open market and its invisible hand will continue to determine winners and losers with no serious
repercussions or the United States given its purchasing power. In between these extremes, even staunch pragmatists will point to the 2010 China rare earths episode
as proof of one basic tenet: The United States and other market-based economies no longer determine all the rules of global trade Central to this narrative is a
conundrum for policymakers. Reserve estimates show that global supplies of almost all minerals are ade - quate to meet expected global demands over the long
term , and for decades into the future for most minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates, for example, that world sup - plies of rare earths will be
adequate for more than 100 years. 13 These estimates, however, can be meaningless in the near term if supplies are insufcient, or if suppliers reduce exports
or otherwise manipulate trade. For example, most experts project that global production of rare earths will likely be insufcient to meet the worlds demand over the
next two to three years. The long-term sufciency of supplies has no practical effect because it takes years and high capital costs to start up new mining and
processing businesses for rare earths. Thus, the risks of inaction are high. A range of political, economic and geographic factors can disrupt supplies and cause price
spikes that can create rifts in bilateral relations, trade disputes, accusations of economic sabotage and instability in countries that possess rare reserves of prized
minerals. They can also give supplier countries extraordinary leverage that can alter geopoliti - cal calculations, especially when single countries control most world

Disruptions, delivery lags and price

spikes that afect military assets and place unanticipated strains on
supplies For U.S. policymakers, the risks fall into two rough categories:

defense procurement budgets ; and lack of afordable access to minerals and

raw materials preventing important national economic growth
goals. The defense industrial base in the modern era difers greatly
from any previous time. Often, actual scarcity is not required for
problems to arise , as concerns about future scarcities often drive
countries to behave as if shortages are occurring . The National Academies recently reported,
The risk of supply interruption arguably has increased or, at the very least, has
become diferent from the mor---e traditional threats associated
with the more familiar ideas of war and conflict. 14 During World War I and World War II, for

example, governments counted on domestic steel production and even civilian willingness to contribute scrap materi - als for reuse and recycling for tanks and

modern warfare relies on globalized and privatized

supply chains rather than a primarily domestic (and often government-run) network.
Vulnerability to mineral supply disrup - tions is likewise far broader
and more complicated than it was in previous eras. Policymakers
should also consider minerals that play uniquely important roles in
the American economy. Rare earths, for example, are important in
petroleum refining, which today enables the smooth functioning of the
other equipment. In contrast,

economy . Looking to the longer term, much concern is turning toward minerals that
may see booming demand as the economy develops a greater
reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, such
as the lithium used in advanced batteries and hybrid and electric vehicles.

These minerals will directly afect

U.S. economic competitiveness, and plans for improving economic

growth and job development. This vulnerability is not a new concern. Since the early 1900s, U.S. defense analysts and
national policymakers have worried about U.S. vulnerabili - ties to supply disruptions of the minerals critical to manufacturing defense systems, from tanks and
munitions to communications equipment. These concerns were generally heightened in war - time. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil
embargo and related oil cri - ses of the 1970s further brought into question the assumption that the United States could depend on imports, as it became apparent
that broader global conditions and political decisions by other countries could dramatically hinder the U.S. abil - ity to openly purchase sufcient commodities at
affordable costs. This conclusion was reinforced when supply disruptions and threats of disruptions by apartheid-era South Africa, the hostile Soviet Union and its

U.S.
vulnerability Following these Cold War-era events, policy - makers
held hearings and commissioned studies in order to understand
which specific factors were most important in signaling that U.S.
eco nomic and security interests may be in jeopardy. American
analysts generally agreed that the following factors were the most
important to track: Level of substitutes and the uniqueness of spe - cific minerals. Level of U.S.
satellites led to a wave of congressio - nal hearings, government reports and independent analysis of the conditions contributing to

domestic supplies and dependence on foreign sources.

Geographic concentration of

supplies. Stability of producing countries and their region. Distances and routes of supply chains. Availability of technology to recover and process the
minerals. Economic price of the resources themselves. Inability of foreign governments to coordinate minerals policies. Level of domestic demand in
producing countries. Some of these concerns remain today, but changes in technology, economics and the international security environment will pose new

Analysts often pinpoint Chinas rising resource Elements of Security

demand as the major new cause
for concern, yet limited transparency and the changing nature of the
defense industrial base and the broader economy will also afect
U.S. mineral supplies in the coming decades. Looking forward, major concerns for the U.S.
government will include: Lack of suffi - cient information for
policymakers; understanding the evolving energy paradigm; increasing exploration of space and
seabed territory ; and a changing defense industrial base. Elements of Security Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals
JUNE 2011 12 | demand as the major new cause for concern , yet limited transparency and the
challenges as well.

Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals JUNE 2011 12 |

changing nature of the defense industrial base and the broader econ - omy will also affect U.S. mineral supplies in the coming decades. Looking forward, major
concerns for the U.S. government will include: Lack of suf - cient information for policymakers; understanding the evolving energy paradigm; increasing explora -

tion of space and seabed territory; and a changing defense industrial base. Poor information is a major obstacle to address - ing critical mineral

vulnerabilities, and it is creating conditions in which hype could drive

policy debates. For example, the media and oth - ers focused heavy attention throughout 2009 and 2010 on Bolivias potentially large lithium
supplies, often noting the populist, and at times erratic, behavior of the Bolivian president as a reason for great concern over future lithium availability. In reality, many
independent experts agree that reliable exporters such as Chile and Argentina will prove to be the most important lithium suppliers for years, and supply gluts in the
lithium market will continue for the foresee - able future even in the face of rising demand. Yet the popular media focus on lithium rarely, if ever, includes this market
information. 16 Identifying when and how mineral supply disrup - tions (or threats of disruptions) could affect U.S. defense industries or foreign relations is further
complicated by both often-long global supply chains and the nature of transactions. In some cases, natu - ral disasters or strikes halt production at specific mines

disruptions manifest as long

contracting or legal delays (often intentional, for pricing or political
reasons) or long lags in delivery. Whether disruptions are abrupt and clear, or long and uncertain, delivery
times and prices of important energy technologies and military
equip - ment can rise significantly . Todays global supply chains are
incredibly efficient, as companies have worked to reduce the slack in their transit routes and shipping plans. This
efficiency can save energy and money, but as infrastructure, routes and people are taken out of service, it also
that produce large proportions of global supplies. In murkier cases,

reduces options when things go wrong. 17 Four other trends are changing the ways in which minerals affect U.S. security and foreign policy interests. Rare earth

Eforts to develop alternative energy

sources will influence the global demand for minerals . Governments
minerals are key to clean tech and electric grid security

around the world are promoting a more sustainable , lower-carbon

energy paradigm that includes increasing adoption of renewable
energy sources, energy efficiency technologies, advanced batteries
and other products. Just as rare earths and other minerals are critical to petroleum production,
developing and manufac - turing wind turbines , solar energy
systems and efficient batteries on a large scale will drive new
mineral demands. In particular, energy storage will be critical in the
coming decades for military- specific energy innovation , electric
grid security , clean energy development and much more. As a result, the Obama
administration has already identified energy storage as a key technology area for research and development investment. The Department of Energy has increased
loans and grants related to energy storage, and DOD has begun fielding renewable energy generation and advanced energy storage units in Afghanistan. Such

development are likely to produce new technolo -

gies that trigger major changes in global mineral requirements over
the decades ahead, making it crucial for the U.S. government to
monitor min - eral supply chains Due to requirements for advanced technologies and components that can withstand
significant investments in research and

extreme conditions, the expansion of countries space capabilities over the coming decades will influence demand for critical minerals. A range of nations from
India to Iran aim to bolster their reputa - tions as space powers and develop more advanced satellite systems and launch capabilities. The U.S. government must
therefore expect demand growth (and potentially growth that is not linear or predictable) for minerals like rare earths that are critical in space technologies. On the
supply side, many countries are considering the possibil - ity of mining space objects, and even the 2010 U.S. National Space Policy suggests that the United States

Given the state of the modern defense

industrial base, the National Academies of Science deter - mined in 2008, The Department of
Defense appears not to fully understand its needs for specific
materials or to have adequate information on their supply. 19 In the
information age, the U.S. military increasingly relies on dual-use equipment
and depends on globalized supply chains . Military equipment for
should identify potentially resource-rich planetary objects.

the modern battlefield includes communications technologies ,

robotics , computer systems and space assets that are used by
DOD, civilian government agencies and private enterprises alike. Indeed, a
2008 Defense Science Board report noted, Military-relevant technol - ogy will continue to change rapidly and will be increasingly global. 20 Defense
supply chains are, therefore, less distinct from those in the broader
economy as they once were, and the dual-use nature of a broad range of assets also means that many supply chains are
more globalized t han ever . Moreover, higher risk of and uncertainty
about supply disruptions owing to the fragmentation of global

supply chains

threaten assured access to critical minerals .

modern
warfares dependence on computer systems, satellites, radar and
Global Positioning System. The National Academies study notes, The glo - balization of materials production and supply has
21 can further

Much of todays defense equipment is purchased directly from civilian vendors and designed to meet both civilian and military needs. Consider

radically changed the ability of the United States to produce and to procure materials vital to defense needs, and that the stockpiling system is inadequate given

These risks, coupled with long-enduring vulnerabilities ,

are heightening concerns about U.S. access to minerals. We can gain an even deeper
todays global supply systems

understanding of the security challenges involved by examining specific minerals in detail.

The industrial base formulates the underpinning of US

military power
National Aerospace Week 10 September 18, Aerospace and
Defense: The Strength to Lift America,
http://www.nationalaerospaceweek.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/whitepaper.pdf

The beginning of a new decade presents the defense industry with challenges that arent new, but are

becoming more urgent.

Developing a national strategy to ensure a robust

industrial base and modernizing our military hardware must become

frontburner priorities . The health of the industrial base is at the
heart of our ability to supply our nation with the weapons systems
it requires. As we wrote in our landmark study on the industrial base in 2009: Military technologies
used to be much more closely related to civilian technologies. They even used common production

because DOD is today the sole customer for industrys

most advanced capabilities, the defense industrial base is
increasingly specialized and separate from the general
manufacturing and technology sectors. That means even a healthy
general economy will not necessarily help underwrite the industrial
capabilities DOD most needs. A huge step forward was made this year when the industrial
processes. But

base was included in the Quadrennial Defense Review as a factor to be considered in its long-term
planning. Were optimistic that the next step inclusion of industrial base considerations in program plans
and policy will be executed as directed by the QDR ensuring that it becomes incorporated into long-

we remain concerned about the fragility of the

supplier base. With another round of acquisitions and consolidations
imminent along with a projected decline in defense spending, the
supplier base remains particularly vulnerable. These small businesses
are critical to the primes and to the government. They face multiple challenges
range defense plans. However,

overcoming barriers to federal contracting and once they leave the contracting base, they and their unique
skills cannot be recovered. 2010 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 4 Along with our

The
1980s defense build-up is now 25 years old, and systems acquired
then are in need of replacement. The decade of 2010-19 is the crucial
time to reset, recapitalize and modernize our military forces. Not only are
many of our systems reaching the end of their designed lives, but Americas military forces
are using their equipment at many times the programmed rates in
the harsh conditions of combat, wearing out equipment prematurely .
Delaying modernization will make it even harder to identify and
efectively address global threats in the future . The requirements
identified in the QDR for the United States to overmatch potential
adversaries and to execute long-duration campaigns in coming years
concern about the industrial base is the long-term issue of modernizing our military hardware.

against increasingly capable potential opponents will require

complex and expensive aerospace capabilities. This is a concern that the Defense
Department recognizes. Under Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has said that the department is looking
to develop a family of systems for future strike options that will be supported by the family of industry.
9 This is welcome news. However, defense modernization is not optional. While the
fiscal 2011 budget request is a reasonable target that takes into account funding needed to fight two wars,
the pressure on the procurement and research and development budget is sure to increase in the future.

America must adapt its defenses to new kinds of threats.

A large-scale attack on information networks could pose a serious
economic threat, impeding or preventing commerce conducted
electronically. This would affect not only ATM transactions, but commercial and governmental fund
At the same time,

transfers and the just-in-time orders on which the manufacturing sector depends. It could even pose
threats to American lives, interrupting the transfer of medical data, disrupting power grids, even disabling
emergency communications links. In partnership with the government, our industry is on the forefront of
securing these networks and combating cyber attack. The American people also demand better security
for the U.S. homeland, from gaining control of our borders to more effective law enforcement and disaster

The aerospace industry provides the tools that help diferent

forces and jurisdictions communicate with each other; monitor
critical facilities and unpatrolled borders, and give advance warning
of natural disasters, among other capabilities. In many cases, government is the
only market for these technologies. Therefore, sound government policy is essential
not only to maintain current capabilities, but to ensure that a
technology and manufacturing base exists to develop new ones.
response.

Strong industrial base is critical to naval power

Eaglen and McGrath, 11 Mackenzie,- research fellow for national
security studies Brian,- retired naval ofcer and the Director of Delex
Consulting, Studies and Analysis in Vienna, Virginia Thinking About a Day
Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy 5-16
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/Thinking-About-a-DayWithout-Sea-Power-Implications-for-US-Defense-Policy)

Recapturing Innovation and a Sound Industrial Policy. Despite the fact that industrial policy became a

Congress needs
to prevent the loss of innovation in defense-related research and
dirty word from its association with socialist governments during the Cold War,

development.

Members should already know and be alarmed that the U.S. military has no

manned aircraft under developmenta first in the history of aviation. Similarly, no surface ships or attack
submarines are in the design phase. With development cycles lasting 20 years or longer, elected

leaders need to ensure that the Defense Department is not losing

critical skills that will be needed to imagine and build the next
generation of ships, aircraft, sensors, and weapons for the U.S.
Navy . The critical workforce ingredients needed to sustain an industrial base capable of building nextgeneration systems are specialized design, engineering, and manufacturing skills. The growth of the
defense industry after World War II peaked in the late 1950s when defense production became a leading
sector of the national economy, a trend that continued well into the 1980s. This period was also marked by
an increased focus on developing advanced defense technologies. By 1960, the federal government was
responsible for 58 percent of the nations research and development investments. This emphasis required
a new level of engineering skills and capabilities within the industry to develop the complex defense

the United States has

benefited from the skills of a robust defense industrial and
manufacturing workforce. For more than six decades, various U.S. defense strategies have
emphasized the benefits of a technologically superior military to help to deter
systems the government sought to build. Since World War II,

and win wars . The U.S. military has pursued this technical overmatch for decades in an attempt

to deter potential enemies from engaging the U.S. in conflict and to reduce risk and loss of life on the
battlefield. When the Cold War ended in 1991, the sudden apparent dissolution of national security threats
prompted a period of intense downsizing and consolidation. Whereas more than 50 major defense firms
dominated the market in the early 1990s, only six prime contractors remain today. Contrary to popular
perception, 60 percent to 75 percent of work programs in the aerospace and defense industries are
performed by sub-prime companies and lower-tier suppliers, not the big defense contractors. These small

companies are increasingly vulnerable to the vagaries of defense

budgets, and reductions in defense research and development will
cause them to disappear along with their tooling and skills. An expected,
the emerging round of consolidation of the defense industry has increased the burden on the small
collection of defense companies. The consolidation of major defense contractors has generally reduced the
number of available workers. Already at a turning point, the potential closure of major defense
manufacturing lines in the next five years with no additional scheduled production could shrink this
national asset even further. While the manufacturing workforce alone should not dictate congressional
defense acquisition decisions, Congress needs to consider the potential defense brain drain when
determining whether or not to shut down major production lines permanently, particularly in shipbuilding
and aerospace. More often than not, once these highly skilled workers leave the federal workforce, they
are difcult to recruit back and even more expensive to retrain. This dynamic creates significant project
gaps.

Naval power solves hegemony, alliances, SLOC insecurity,

and global conflict
Cropsey 10- Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, (Seth Strategic Analysis
Vol. 34, No. 1, January 2010, 3545)

The cooperative arrangements with foreign navies envisioned by the Navys cur- rent maritime strategy
may perhaps moderate problems of failing states and terror. But is this enough to manage other
challenges? Is the Navys current organization capable of addressing both conventional and asymmetric
threats? Can todays highly structured and inflexible system for designing and building ships adapt quickly
and cost-effectively to changes in the strategic environment? What, for example, do globalization, the
growing dependence of the United States on sea-borne transit for strategic resources and minerals, and
the likelihood of more dislocations such as con- tinue from Somali piracy mean for the future of US national
security? American maritime strategy has played a major role in binding together the international system

What are
the consequences for the United States and its allies if those bonds crumble
as a result of a shrinking Navy with reduced international presence, and a
weakening ability to project power, provide stabilizing presence, and respond
to serious crises? The widely-shared current assumption that the immensity of US
China trade eliminates the possibility of serious Sino-American conflict
recapitulates the United Kingdoms decision a century ago that alliance with Japan was prudent
and sufcient to secure the Crowns interests in the Far East. If this assumption proves wrong
the consequences for US influence in the Pacific would be as disastrous for us as
they were for Great Britain. The historically unprecedented half century of relative
naval peace in the Mediterranean may continue indefinitely, but such a
prolongation would be a freak of history. The re-deployment of major United States naval
that US foreign policy has aimed to establish since the begin- ning of the twentieth century.

force from the Mediterranean to support operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, added to the
declining US naval fleet would leave us with terrible choices if, for example, Tur- keys drift towards
Islamism yields a naval force with ambitions similar to those of her fifteenth century Ghazi Ottoman rulers.

What are the long-term consequences as our ability to maintain a global naval
presence which heretofore has been judged benefi- cent erodes? The size, shape, and strategy of the
US Navy are a critical element of Americas position as the worlds great
power. Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globes ocean-going lines of communication is
inseparable from our position as the worlds great power. But very few outside a small community of naval
ofcers and selected military/foreign policy analysts appreciate the strategic results of American sea-

The eventual impact of this weakening includes, but is not

a major shift of power away from American influence in Asia; the shattering of
such key maritime alliances and partnerships as those we currently maintain with
powers slow but steady diminution.
limited to,

Australia, India, Japan, and Singapore; the rise of China as a hegemonic

power; a debilitating loss in Americas ability to shape the future global
strategic environment; and a powerful reinforcement of the perception that the United States is in
decline. Globally, the continued attrition of US naval force also means a serious
threat to the security of the worlds sea lines of communication and the choke
points such as the Straits of Hormuz through which pass an increasing volume of global com- merce,
the departure of a visible and stabilizing American presence from allied ports as well
as potential worldwide flashpoints, and the international perception that the
United States is abandoning the critical element of military capability that undergirded the world system American policy has sought for over a century, seapower.

Economic competitiveness is key to hegemony --- that

solves great power war
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W.
Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from
1990 to 1992. "The Econom and National Security" Feb 8
www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/259024
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat
to the United States position as global leader. While the United States
sufers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of
rival powers are developing rapidly . The continuation of these two
trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multipolar global system , leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry
and even war among the great powers . The current recession is the result of a deep
financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis
was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy
ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles,
particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and
unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending
put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over

Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce

deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous
60 percent of GDP in three years.

proportions . If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already
are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases
that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a
sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its
outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical
retrenchment of the United States internationally.

Such scenarios would reshape the

international order . It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during
World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish
their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity
to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev,
contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern

the United
States would be compelled to retrench , reducing its military
Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical,

spending and shedding international commitments . We face this

domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid
economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political,

social, demographic, and economic problems,

their economies are growing faster

than ours , and this could alter the global distribution of power .
These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new

The closing of the gap between the United

States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among
major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major
powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or
respond to international crises because of the higher risk of
escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of
peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership.
By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable , with their
international order will emerge.

competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars

among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international
systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could
have devastating consequence s. Without an American security
blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance
against emerging threats . Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation , or other crises spiraling
into all-out conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the
stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture
away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be
emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

Aside from the Industrial Base, Rare Earths are critical to

the military
Humphries, 10 Marc, September 30th, Rare Earth Elements: The Global

Supply China, http://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=uzkYstWv_HYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=rare+earth+mineral+m
anufacturing&ots=w8pgQRrBjf&sig=JFDykOT6QCEPUhMgKpkveim6rY#v=onepage&q=rare%20earth%20mineral
%20manufacturing&f=false
Current government policies pertaining to the acquisition of certain minerals
for defense purposes are addressed, in part, in several different legislative initiatives,
including the Defense Production Act (P.L. 81 -774). National Defense Stockpile (Title 50 United States Code
(U.S.C.) 98-h-^a)].1 Bay American Act (41 U.S.C. I0-I0d), Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2533a), and the

these policies do not present a unified

opinion on whether every mineral is considered "critical," "strategic," or
necessary for national security purposes, and there is a certain lack of cohesion to the
Specialty Metal provision (10 U.S.C. 2533b). However,

application of these policies. As an example, rare earth elements (and rare earth metals) fall outside of the
scope of the Berry Amendment and the Specialty Metal provision." The primary defense application of rareearth materials is their use in four types of permanent magnet materials commercially available: Alnico.
Ferrites, Samarium Cobalt, and Neodymium Iron Boron. With the exception of Neodymium Iron Boron, all of
ihc materials are domestically produced. The United States has no production capabilities for Neodymium

Neo magnets, the product derived from Neodymium Iron Boron, and
Samarium Cobalt, are considered important to many defense products. They
are considered one of the world's strongest permanent magnets and an
Iron Boron.

essential element to many military weapons systems , as described in the following

examples. Jet fighter engines and other aircraft components , including samariumcobalt magnets used in generators that produce electricity for aircraft electrical systems:
Missile guidance systems, including precision guidance munitions, lasers, and
smart bombs;'' Electronic countermeasures systems ; Underwater mine detection
systems; Antimissile defense systems; Range finders, including lasers ; and
Satellite power and communication systems, including traveling wave tubes (TWT) rare earth speakers,
defense system control panels, radar systems, electronic counter measures, and optical equipment.1"

Many scientific organizations have concluded that certain rare earth metals
are critical to U.S. national security and becoming increasingly more
important in defense applications.11 Some industry analysts are concerned
with an increasing dependence on foreign sources for rare earth metals; a dwindling
source of domestic supply for certain rare earth metals; and the emergence of a manufacturing supply
chain that has largely migrated outside of the United States . In July 2010, the China
Ministry of Commerce announced that China would cut its export quota for rare earth minerals by 72%,
raising concerns because of estimates that China controls approximately 97% of the global production of
rare earth minerals.11 It is also estimated that by 2012 China's domestic consumption will outpace China's
domestic production of rare earth minerals. Some experts are concerned that DOD is not doing enough to
mitigate the possible risk posed by a scarcity of domestic suppliers. As an example, the United States
Magnet Materials Association (USMM A), a coalition of companies representing aerospace, medical, and
electronic materials, has recently expanded its focus to include rare earth metals and the rare earth

USMMA unveiled a six-point plan to address

what they describe as the "impending rare earth crisis" which they assert
poses a significant threat to the economy and national security of the United
States." However, it appears that DOD's position assumes that there are a sufcient number of supplier
magnet supply chain. In February 2010.

countries worldwide to mitigate the potential for shortages.

2AC Deterrence
A healthy domestic industrial base is key to mobilization
and deterrence
McCormick, 8 Beth, Acting Director, Defense Technology Security
Administration, Department Of Defense, Lexis

U.S. national
security depends on a strong U.S. industrial base that can easily
The third goal of my agency is to assure the health of the defense industrial base.

mobilize to support military capabilities and deter potential

adversaries . The United States must maintain a technology
superiority and highly competitive defense industrial base to
support increased global competition. DTSA will continue to balance national security
interests while being receptive to the needs of the U.S. industrial base.

2AC REEs Key

Securing rare earth independence from China is key to
U.S. military capabilities
Coppel 11 (Emily, Feb 1 2011, "Rare earth metals and U.S. national

security," americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RareEarth-Metals-and-US-Security-FINAL.pdf, ADL)

Rare earth metals are essential for he United States military and
economic well-being. Yet the U.S. has been particularly lax when it
comes to securing the supply of these metals. The U.S. has gone from the worlds top
producer and supplier of rare earths to being completely dependent on one country China for its supply. Chinas
dominance in the rare earths market will have profound implications
for U.S. national security in the next couple of years. As it is, some analysts
already believe it is too late to avoid a global shortage of rare earth metals, placing the U.S. in greater risk. The U.S.
needs to take steps now to remedy this situation. Background There are 17 rare
earth metals. Contrary to their name, rare earth metals are not rare at all. In fact, all of them are as common in the earth
as silver. Some are even more abundant than lead.1 Their name stems from the fact that, despite their relative
abundance, they are difcult to extract from ore and the extraction process is costly and more environmentally damaging
than for other elements. Rare earth metals have a wide variety of applications. They are used in hybrid car motors,

They are also essential for military

equipment. Jet engines, smart bombs and guided missiles, lasers,
radar, night vision goggles, and satellites all depend on rare earth
metals to function. The vast majority of these metals are produced by China, which owns approximately
computer hard drives, cell phones, and wind turbines.

97% of the global market in rare earth metals.2 China also has 35% of the worlds reserves in rare earth metals, and
supplies almost all of the worlds demand. Chinas stronghold in the rare earths market is due to strong government
support, cheap labor, and relatively loose environmental laws. These factors make it much more economical to mine and
produce rare earth metals in China. The United States has the worlds second-biggest deposit of rare earth metals.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. has approximately 13 million metric tons of rare earth elements,
mainly located in western states such as California, Alaska, and Wyoming.3 Until the 1980s, the U.S. was the chief supplier
of rare earth metals to the rest of the world, when production and mining facilities began to move to China.4 Today, the
U.S. no longer produces any rare earth metals, having sold off its last domestic producer of rare earth magnets (used in
smart bombs) in 2003. The last U.S. rare earth mine, located at Mountain Pass, California, closed in 2002. Before it closed,
Mountain Pass was one of the worlds largest rare earth mines. National Security Risks Many analysts fear that there will
be a shortage of rare earth metals as early as 2012, although most believe the shortage will not occur until 2014. This
makes U.S. dependence on China for rare earths extremely problematic.

U.S. dependence poses

both economic and national security risks. Military: The United States
reliance on technology, particularly for military applications, is the
biggest cause for concern. Although the Pentagon claims that the U.S. only uses 5% of the worlds
supply of rare earth metals for defense purposes,5 the fact is that the U.S. is completely reliant
on China for the production of some of its most powerful weapons .
Peter Leiter, a former trade advisor at the Department of Defense, echoed this concern when he stated, The
Pentagon has been incredibly negligentthere are plenty of early
warning signs that China will use its leverage over these materials
as a weapon.6 Even commercial uses of rare earth metals, such as
cell phones and laptops, have military applications and are critical to
operating current military platforms. Yet top U.S. defense ofcials are unaware of just how
dependent they are on rare earths. According to a U.S. National Defense Stockpile report, [U.S.] defense leaders do not
necessarily know exactly which minerals they use in which systems in what amounts, [and] where the minerals came

A shortage
of rare earths will afect the strength and readiness of the U.S.
military until current systems are no longer in operation. However, it
will also afect future production: newer systems rely just as much, if
not more, on computers and other electronic equipment. The U.S. is developing
from7 Likewise, the U.S. does not track rare earth metals in its weapons systems or platforms.8

itself into greater dependence on rare earth metals.

REEs vital to hegemony

Green 12 Jeffery A. Green is the founder of the Strategic Material

Advisory Council and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy
Analysis (8/2/12, The Defense Implications of Rare Earth Shortages,
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib112, ADL)
Rare earth elements are used in everyday products: smart phones, hard disc drives, flat-screen televisions
and advanced batteries. They are essential to such green technologies as wind turbines, compact
fluorescent lights and hybrid cars. In todays world, which emphasizes cutting-edge and environmentally-

a range of highly advanced

defense systems depend on rare earth phosphors, metals, alloys and
magnets for their unique functionality. For example: The Ground Laser
Target Designator, which allows infantrymen to guide munitions onto targets and estimate
ranges, depends on neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminum garnets.
Advanced jet aircraft engines rely upon thermal barrier coatings
utilizing yttria-stabilized zirconia to shield metal components from extreme heat. Samariumcobalt and neodymium-iron-boron (neo) permanent magnets are used to move
the fins of precision-guided munitions and, in combination with a terbiumiron-nickel alloy (with some dysprosium, also known as Terfenol-D), to mute rotor
sound in helicopter stealth systems.1 Possible shortages of some
rare earths, therefore, threaten our nation's defense systems. The Defense
friendly technologies, rare earths are everywhere. Furthermore,

Implications of Rare Earth ShortagesRare Earth Supply Chain. During the Cold War, U.S. companies
encompassed the entire rare earth supply chain, from mining and chemical separation to metal-making
and component manufacture. The Mountain Pass mine in California dominated rare earth production and
General Motors invented the bonded neo magnet. Today, no U.S.-produced rare earth metals are sold
commercially and only two firms can produce limited amounts of rare earth alloys. Two other companies
can manufacture rare earth permanent magnets, but only of the samarium-cobalt type. Only one U.S.
company mines and separates rare earths into oxides; however, this company reportedly intends to ship to
China for processing unspecified amounts of its heavy rare earth concentrates the feedstock for
additives to samarium-cobalt and neo magnets.2 Today, as a direct consequence of active government
support for the rare earth industry since the 1980s [see Figure I below]: 3 China produces more than 94
percent of the worlds rare earth oxides, virtually 100 percent of all commercially available rare earth
metals and more than 90 percent of the rare earth alloys. China manufactures three-fourths of the worlds

China has leveraged this

quasi-monopoly to extract rents from the market by manipulating
production and export quotas. For example: In 2002, the export quota for rare earth oxidesamarium-cobalt magnets and 60 percent of the neo magnets.

equivalents was 40,000 metric tons for domestic Chinese companies, and there was no quota for joint
ventures with foreign companies. Since 2002, the quota has declined to 22,712 metric tons annually for
domestic Chinese companies and 7,472 metric tons for joint ventures.4 Simultaneously, China shifted from
offering a value-added tax rebate to export rare earths in 2005 to imposing duties of 10 percent and 25
percent for certain products, progressively including more value-added rare earth products.5 The resulting
volatility in prices, unavailability and two-tiered pricing structure (for exports versus domestic
consumption) cast doubt upon the ability of todays supply chain to fulfill U.S. commercial or military

A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report

highlighted very real national security concerns, noting that rebuilding the
requirements.

domestic supply chain from mining to magnet manufacture could take up to 15 years and was contingent
upon capital investment and the expiration of certain patents.6 Other reports before and after the
recommissioning of the Mountain Pass mine echoed the GAOs concerns

availability of critical materials.7

about the

***Manufacturing Advantage

1AC / 2AC Manufacturing

The US needs to develop its own domestic supply of REEs
to sustain the entirety of the manufacturing industry --the alternative is collapse
Leybovich 10 (Ilya Leybovich, 10/12/10, Will the Rare-Elements Shortage
Cripple Industry?, http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2010/10/12/will-the-rareelements-shortage-cripple-industry/, ADL)
The U.S. supply of rare-earth elements, necessary for the production
of many manufactured goods, is dwindling. How will American firms overcome their
reliance on China to compensate for the shortage? The planet has a limited supply of certain important
elements, particularly the 17 rare

earth elements. Several of these rare elements are

crucial for advanced manufacturing, including the production of
electronics, energy technologies and a range of defense goods.
Concerns are on the rise that the United States diminishing supply of
these critical elements may cripple some industries or increase the
reliance on China, the worlds largest supplier of rare-earth elements. Although rareearth elements may be less recognizable than other resources, they
play an integral role in modern life. For example, tantalum is found in cell
phone capacitors; neodymium is used for powerful lightweight
magnets found in hard drives, automobiles, communications
systems and countless miniaturization applications; europium is
used in both color televisions and computer screens; and lithium is
crucial for electronic batteries and hybrid car engines. Increasingly
important to technology, theyre also playing a larger role in geopolitical maneuvering. Today, more
than 95 percent of all rare-earth elements come from China , while the
United States produces at most 2 percent, Popular Mechanics reports. That disparity makes some

what happens when Chinese industry needs so much

of the rare-earth elements mined in that country that theres
nothing left to export? According to a report from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. did
experts twitch. After all,

not mine any rare-earth elements in 2008 and 2009, but imported quantities worth $186 million and $84
million, respectively. U.S. reserves of these elements currently stand at 13 million tons. By comparison,
China mined 120,000 tons of rare earth elements in both 2008 and 2009, while its reserves are at 36
million tons. Ninety-one percent of U.S. rare-earth elements imports came from China between 2005 and
2008. An analysis released in July from the Congressional Research Service found that global demand for
rare-earth elements is roughly 134,000 tons per year, while production is at 124,000 tons per year.
Although stockpiles currently make up for the difference, demand is expected to rise to 180,000 tons
annually by 2012 and 200,000 by 2014, while it is unlikely that new mine output will close the gap in the
short term. At the current rates of production and consumption, a worldwide shortfall seems inevitable.

Apart from the economic repercussions, such a shortage could also pose a risk to
U.S. defense capabilities, as the military relies on rare-earth elements for a
broad range of devices, such as missile-guidance systems, lasers
and aircraft electronics. According to the Government Accountability Ofce (GAO),
Government and industry ofcials have identified a wide variety of defense systems and components that
are dependent on rare-earth materials for functionality and are provided by lower-tier subcontractors in the

systems will likely continue to depend on rare-earth

materials, based on their life cycles and lack of efective
substitutes. Chinas dominance of the rare-earth elements market may pose serious problems for
supply chain. Defense

countries that depend on its exports, as Chinese consumption of rare-earth metals increases and
availability is curtailed. Last month, a political dispute led China to block all shipments of rare-earth
materials to Japan, forcing Japanese manufacturers to introduce recycling and reclamation to meet basic
production needs. Concern over Chinas hoarding of rare earths has also been spreading to the United
States, the New York Times reports. Although China has not specifically blocked shipments to any place

but Japan, it had already tightened its overall export quotas of the minerals, announcing in July that it
would reduce them by 72 percent for the rest of the year. Japan and other countries, such as South Korea,
are instituting government initiatives to secure more stable rare-earth supplies and research possible
alternatives. The U.S. is also evaluating new rare-earth elements policies ,
with Congress considering a bill known as the Rare Earths and Critical Materials Revitalization Act of 2010,
which would establish a $70 million program to conduct research and development to increase access to
these elements.

U.S. industry groups support the measure.

A collapse of advanced manufacturing kills

semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, clean energy
technologies, and nanotechnologies
McConaghy and Swezey 11 - Ryan and Devon, respectively, of the
"Third Way Fresh Thinking" and "Breakthrough" Instiutes of the Schwartz
Initiative on American Economic Policy (October 2011, "Manufacturing
Growth: Advanced Manufacturing and the Future of the American Economy,"
thebreakthrough.org/blog/BTI_Third_Way_Idea_Brief__Manufacturing_Growth_.pdf, ADL)
However, despite these relative declines, manufacturing remains a sizeable contributor to our economy and directly
employs over 11.5 million people.8 Paradoxically, even as manufacturings relative share of employment and GDP has
decreased in recent decades, manufacturing has actually become even more important to sustaining American prosperity.

Manufacturing is the most capital-intensive and productive sector of

the economy, and it is key to developing and commercializing new
technologies. Manufacturing also has the largest employment and output multipliers of any sector of the

economy, creating many indirect jobs and making it a key catalyst of broad economic growth. Moreover, a healthy
manufacturing sector is central to the United States ability to reduce its large and persistent trade deficit. The changes in
the employment, industrial focus, and workforce skills associated with the new manufacturing should be viewed as the
growing pains that accompany any significant metamorphosis. The most recent evolution in manufacturing has resulted in
key differences between advanced and traditional activities. These differences have profound implications for the role of
manufacturing in our economy and the design of national policy toward manufacturing. New manufacturing thrives on and

Manufacturing is a core component of the nations

innovation ecosystem. Firms engaged in manufacturing re-invest a significant portion of revenues in
research and development (R&D). Overall, the manufacturing sector comprises twothirds9 of industry investment in R&D and employs nearly 64% of the countrys scientists and
drives innovation.

engineers.10 Manufacturers also have unique opportunities to apply new technologies for specialized functions and
achieve economies of scale at the plant or firm,11 making the return on manufacturing R&D significant. The transition to

advanced manufacturing will enhance the sectors role in fostering

innovation and developing and commercializing new technologies .
Advanced manufacturing industries, including semiconductors,
computers, pharmaceuticals, clean energy technologies, and
nanotechnology, play an outsized role in generating the new
technologies, products, and processes that drive economic growth.
Advanced manufacturing is also characterized by the rapid transfer
of science and technology into manufacturing processes and
products, which in and of itself drives innovation. The research-to-manufacturing process is cyclical, with multiple

feedbacks between basic R&D, pre-competitive research, prototyping, product development, and manufacturing. This
opens new possibilities for product development and manufacturing.12 Because of the technological complexity of many
modern, science-based industries, technology development often requires interactions among experts from many

It is therefore supported by geographic clustering of

related manufacturing, supply chain, research, and educational
facilities. 13 According to a 2004 report by President Bushs Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
different disciplines.

(PCAST), design, product development, and process evolution all benefit from proximity to manufacturing, so that new
ideas can be tested and discussed with those working on the ground.14 As a result, when a high-tech manufacturing
cluster forms, it often attracts the co-location of R&D activities and helps sustain the global competitiveness of the entire
region. This is why Intel recently decided to build a new state-ofthe- art R&D facility near Portland, Oregon where it has
long had a high-tech manufacturing presence, as well as related silicon manufacturers, suppliers, and a high-skilled
workforce.15

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is key to solve pandemics

and bioterror attacks
Comstock 8 - Pharmaceutical Online Editor (Kristen, 4/10/08,
"Pharmaceutical And Biotechnology Industries Intersect At INTERPHEX 2008,"
www.pharmaceuticalonline.com/doc/pharmaceutical-and-biotechnologyindustries-i-0001, ADL)
The panel discussion From Pandemics to Bioterrorism: The Role of Bio Manufacturing in Global Healthcare
addressed the vital importance of concentrating on pandemics and
bioterrorism in pharmaceutical manufacturing. The panel included
Parrish Galliher (founder, president, and CTO, Xcellerex, Inc.),
Melissa Hersh (VP of global risk intelligence strategies and resiliency
solutions, MARSH), Patrick Lucy (global business development
leader, Dowpharma), and Dr. Diana M. Lanchoney (executive director
of world strategic integration, Merck Vaccine Division & Infectious
Disease). Melissa Hersh, Patrick Lucy, Parrish Galliher, and Dr. Diana Lanchoney answer questions from Moderator
Anne Montgomery during the INTERPHEX's panel discussion. The panelists agreed that it is the
responsibility of government, local municipalities, countries, health organizations, corporate partnerships,
and the biomanufacturing industry to develop solutions to quell
pandemics or bioterrorism attacks. As Dr. Diana M. Lanchoney
explained, "The [biomanufacturing] industry has an incredible role in
preventing pandemics, and we need a broad range of public and
private organizations to help develop solutions."

Impending disease and bioterror require nanotech

Treder 05 (Mike, March 2, 2005, "Early Development,"
crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/page/31/, ADL)

the world is now in the gravest

possible danger of a pandemic," states Dr. Shigeru Omi, the WHOs
Western Pacific regional director. He says the world is "now overdue"
for an influenza pandemic, since mass epidemics have occurred every 20 to 30 years. It has
been nearly 40 years since the last one. For many reasons, including thronging
urban populations and high rates of overseas travel, health and
government officials fear that an imminent flu pandemic could kill
many millions. New diseases such as the avian flu continue to be a
threat to the human race. Naturally occurring diseases could be
more devastating than any pandemic in decades, and an engineered
disease could conceivably wipe out most of the human race. It is
becoming increasingly important to have a technology base that can
detect new diseases even before symptoms appear, and create a
cure in a matter of days. Molecular manufacturing will enable such a
rapid response. With complete genomes and proteomes for humans
and for all known pathogens, plus cheap, highly parallel DNA and
protein analysis and sufcient computer resources along with new MM-based monitoring and
diagnostic tools, it will be possible to spot any new pathogen almost
immediately and begin aggressive countermeasures . This isn't a guarantee
that diseases and epidemics won't occur, but clearly it could save millions of lives and
untold human sufering.
"We at WHO [World Health Organization] believe that

2AC Uniqueness
Chinas stranglehold on rare earth elements will kill the
US manufacturing supply chain
Goldenberg 10 (Suzanne, 12/26/10, Rare earth metals mine is key to US
control over hi-tech future,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/26/rare-earth-metals-us,
ADL)

It's a deep pit in the Mojave desert. But it could hold the key to America challenging China's technological domination of
the 21st century. At the bottom of the vast site, beneath 6 metres (20ft) of bright emerald-green water, runs a rich seam
of ores that are hardly household names but are rapidly emerging as the building blocks of the hi-tech future. The mine is
the largest known deposit of rare earth elements outside China. Eight years ago, it was shut down in a tacit admission
that the US was ceding the market to China. Now, the owners have secured final approval to restart operations, and hope
to begin production soon. "We will probably never be the largest [mine] in the world again. It will be hard to overcome
China's status in that regard, but we do think we will be a very significant supplier," Mark Smith, chief executive of
Molycorp Minerals which owns the mine, told reporters during a tour of the site. So far as the Obama administration is
concerned, the mine can't open soon enough. A US department of energy report warned on 15 December that, in the

America risks losing control over the production

of a host of technologies, from smart phones to smart bombs,
electric car batteries to wind turbines, because of a virtual Chinese
monopoly on the rare earth metals essential to their production.
China controls 97% of global rare earth metals production . Such total
domination of a strategic resource became impossible to ignore in October when China cut exports of
rare earth elements by more than 70% over the previous year,
disrupting manufacturing in Japan, Europe and the US. Prices of
even the cheapest of the 17 rare earth elements rose 40%. Now America,
like Japan and Europe, is desperate to find alternatives. "Reopening domestic production is an
important part of a globalised supply chain ," David Sandalow, the energy department's
absence of mines such as this one,

assistant secretary for international affairs told a seminar in Washington. For Smith, the ofcial recognition of the strategic
importance of the metals was a long time coming. "I've been going out to Washington DC every other week for about two
years trying to tell the rare earths story," he said. They are listening in Washington now. At the 15 December seminar at
the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, one PowerPoint presentation lingered on a slide that showed only the
Chinese flag. The room filled with nervous laughter. By 2015, global demand for rare earths is expected to reach 205,000
tonnes. "If

we don't get alternative supplies up and running we are

going to have this supply gap that is going to cause a lot of issues, "
Smith said. Those issues forced their way onto the government's agenda this autumn when China began
squeezing raw material exports of rare earth minerals. Some US media reports

have speculated China is trying to use its control over the supply lines for political leverage. But a number of analysts say
China is trying to get better control over an expensive, dirty and dangerous mining process, and to get more factories to
set up shop inside the country. Rare earths are extracted through opencast mining and generate radioactive waste. "I
don't believe that China is trying to chop the west off at the knees but it has a growing internal market that is driving the
demand," said Gareth Hatch, an analyst at Technology Metal Research. "That reduces the amount they are willing to
export." That is where Molycorp the frontrunner for now in a global race to develop alternative production of rare earth
materials hopes to step in. Since going public last July, the company has raised more than $500m (323m) to expand its
production facilities at Mountain Pass, a collection of rusting buildings that date from the 1950s. This month, Sumitomo
Corp of Japan invested $130m in return for guaranteed supplies of rare earths for the next seven years. The company has
also applied for department of energy loans. By mid-2012, Molycorp aims to produce 20,000 tonnes a year of nine of the
17 rare earths or about 25% of current western imports from China. Smith suggested the company could possibly ramp up
production to 40,000 tonnes within the next 18 months. He says Molycorp has exposed just 55 acres of the 2,200 acre
site. But even production on that scale may not be enough to guarantee the supply of metals needed to move to a clean

lanthanum for batteries for hybrid cars, neodymium for

the permanent magnets for wind turbines, especially ofshore,
europium for energy efficient lighting. "You would need seven mines the size of Molycorp's
energy economy:

just to meet the demand for wind turbines and that would mean no neodymium for motors or any other applications," said
Jim Hedrick, who until last year was the rare earth expert at the US Geological Survey. "Obviously there is a demand for 10
or 20 mines through the world to meet all the different demands for these products." Some companies, such as General
Electric, are already moving to reduce their use of rare earths. "What we are going to absolutely have to do is diversify our
sources and optimise the use of these materials in manufacturing," said Steve Duclos, who heads GE's global research
division. In Japan, meanwhile, Hitachi has started a recycling effort to recover rare earths from hard drives and other
materials. Aside from raw materials, it is also unclear whether the US still has the expertise for the complicated process of
turning minerals into usable clean tech components. Such challenges were unthinkable half-a-century ago when
prospectors looking for uranium stumbled instead on a rich deposit of rare earths about an hour's drive from Las Vegas.

By the 1960s, the mine was booming, largely through sales of europium, used to produce the bright red tones of colour
televisions. But prices fell as China came on the market, with its low production costs. A pipeline accident in the late
1990s, which leaked radioactive fluid into the desert and a nearby town, led to an expensive clean-up. The mine closed in
2002. The central pit in the 55-acre site became a pool of bright green water. White bales of minerals some mined eight
years ago were stockpiled until such time as prices would rise. This time around, however, Molycorp claims it has a
fighting chance against China, especially if it is able to meet its goal of complete mines-to-magnet processing at the
Mountain Pass facility. The company is also confident it can head off competition from a slew of new mines due to begin
coming online from Australia, Wyoming, Quebec and South Africa. "The growth in demand for these minerals is just
phenomenal," Smith said. "A 6% average growth rate for us would be very, very good but when you start adding things
like hybrid vehicles and wind turbines to the rare earth sectors now you are talking about double digit growth, and you still
don't know where that will end." At this point, though, Molycorp is not even at the beginning. "The road to the green world
of the future starts from the black earth. But first you have to get the materials out of the ground," said Hatch. "The whole

The "rare earth elements" are a group of 17

naturally occurring metallic elements used in small amounts in
everything from high-powered magnets to batteries and electronic
circuits. The materials (including scandium, yttrium and a group of elements called the lanthanides)
have chemical and physical properties that make them useful in
improving the performance of computer hard drives and catalytic
converters, mobile phones, hi-tech televisions, sunglasses and
lasers.
clean-tech energy industry is hinging on it."

2AC Spillover IL
Manufacturing sectors are interconnected

Pisano and Shih, 12 [September, Producing Prosperity: Why America

Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance [Kindle Edition], Harry E. Figgie Professor
of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He has been on
the Harvard faculty for 23 years, Professor of Management Practice. He joined
the Technology and Operations Management Unit in January 2007, p. amazon
kindle]
The rough and tumble of international competition means we should
expect industries to come and go. Even if this is sometimes painful,
it is, in fact, a healthy process by which resources flow to their most
productive uses. When a commons erodes, however, it represents a
deeper and more systematic problem. It means the foundation upon
which future innovative sectors can be built is crumbling . When the
semiconductor production business moved to Asia in the 1980s, it brought with it a whole host of
capabilitieselectronic-materials processing, deposition and coating, and sophisticated test and assembly
capabilitiesthat formed an industrial commons needed to produce a whole host of advanced, highvalued-added electronic products such as flat-panel displays, solid-state lighting, and solar PV. In this book,
we will examine the dynamics that underlie both the rise and decline of commons, and the consequence of
those declines. Our argument is built around three core themes. Theme 1:

When a Country

Loses the Capability to Manufacture, It Loses the Ability to Innovate

Innovation and manufacturing are often viewed as residing at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum
innovation being all about the brain (knowledge work) and manufacturing all about brawn (physical
work). Innovation requires highly skilled, highly paid workers, and manufacturing requires low-skilled, lowpaid workers; innovation is a high-valued-added specialty, and manufacturing is a low-value-added
commodity; innovation is creative and clean, and manufacturing is dull and dirty. Such a view of
manufacturing is a myth and is based on a profound misunderstanding of how the process of innovation
works and the link between R&D and manufacturing. R&D is a critical part of the innovation process, but it
is not the whole thing. Innovation is about moving the idea from concept to the customers hands. For
some highly complex products (flat-panel displays, PV cells, and biotechnology drugs, to name a few) the
transfer from R&D into production is a messy affair, requiring extremely tight coordination and the transfer
of learning between those who design and those who manufacture. If you do not understand the

there are
strong reasons to co-locate R&D and production. It is a lot easier for
an engineer to walk across the street to the plant or drive down the road than to
fly halfway around the world to troubleshoot a problem. This helps to explain
production environment, you have a harder time designing the product. In these settings,

why the American company Applied Materials, a leading maker of equipment for manufacturing
semiconductors and solar panels, moved its chief technical ofcer from the United States to China.14

it makes sense
for the company to do its research close to the factories that use its
equipment. Applied Materials is now moving much of its manufacturing operations to Asia as well. In
Because most of its large customers are now in China, Taiwan, and South Korea,

chapter 4, we will offer a framework for determining when it matters whether R&D and manufacturing are
located near each and when it does not. Theme 2:

Platform for Growth

The Industrial Commons Is a

The industrial commons perspective suggests that

a decline of

competitiveness of firms in one sector can have implications for the

competitiveness of firms in another. Industries and the suppliers of
capabilities to the industries need each other. Kill a critical industry,
and the suppliers probably will not survive for long; other industries in the
region that depend on those suppliers will then be jeopardized. When the auto
industry declines, it causes an atrophy of capabilities (such as casting and precision machining) that are

also used in industries such as heavy equipment, scientific instruments, and advanced materials. The

As capabilities erode, it is harder for

companies that require access to stay in business . They are forced to move
unraveling of a commons is a vicious circle.

their operations or their supplier base to the new commons. As they move, it is harder for existing
suppliers to sustain themselves. Ultimately, they must either close shop or move their operations. Even

the loss of a commons may cut of future opportunities for the

emergence of new innovative sectors if they require close access to
the same capabilities. Four decades ago, when US consumer electronics companies decided to
worse,

move production of these mature products to Asia, who would have guessed that this decision would
influence where the most important component for tomorrows electric vehiclesthe batterieswould be
produced? But that is what happened.15 The offshoring of consumer electronics production (often
contracted to then-little-known Japanese companies such as Sony and Matsushita) led to the migration of
R&D in consumer electronics to Japan (and later to South Korea and Taiwan). As consumers demanded
ever-smaller, lighter, and more powerful (and power hungry!) mobile computers and cell phones,
electronics companies were pushed to innovate in batteries. In the process, Asia became the hub for
innovation in the design and manufacturing of compact, high-capacity, rechargeable, lithium ion batteries,
a technology that was invented in America. This explains why Asian suppliers have become the dominant
source of the lithium ion battery cells used in electric vehicles.

A collapse of one sector afects all other sectors and the

economy
Green 10 (Harlan Russell, June 27 2010, Economic Interdependence Is

Good, http://populareconomicsweekly.blogspot.com/2010/06/economicinterdependence-is-good.html, ADL)

How interdependent we have become! The lessons of this recession and the ongoing
recovery, is that going it alone wont workwhether when drilling oil wells, or evading financial
regulations. We even have to thank our dependence on foreign trade with Asia, and our government-aided

what is leading this recoverythe manufacturing sector.

Economic interdependence is becoming the norm in this decade
private industry (via innovation) and governments (via regulation) are becoming
more interdependent. One can no longer exist without the other. And
what afects one sector now afects the overall economy. The bursting
auto industry, for

housing bubble almost caused the worldwide collapse of the financial system because financial markets
are now interconnected. The BP Gulf oil disaster is an example of natures interconnectedness. A toxic spill

Overall industrial production in May

surged 1.2 percent, following a 0.7 percent boost the month before. The latest number was stronger
than the consensus forecast for 1.0 percent. Manufacturing has been robust over the
last three months with this component gaining 0.9 percent in the two latest months and jumping 1.2
has become toxic to all states in the Gulf region.

percent in March.

Economic systems and industries are dependent on each

other one collapse creates a domino efect
Haimes Santos et al (Yacov Haimes, Joost Santos, Kenneth Crowther,
Matthew Henry, Chenyang Lian, Zhenyu Yan, No Date, "Risk analysis in
interdependent infrastructures," www.docin.com/p-367199136.html, ADL)
Human activities are defined and influenced by interdependent
engineered and socioeconomic systems. In particular, the global
economy is increasingly dependent on an interconnected web of
infrastructures that permit hitherto unfathomable rates of information
exchange, commodity flow and personal mobility. The interconnectedness
and interdependencies exhibited by these infrastructures enable
them to provide the quality of life to which we have become accustomed

and, at the same time, expose seemingly robust and secure systems to
risk to which they would otherwise not be subjected. This paper
examines several analytical methodologies for risk assessment and
management of interdependent macroeconomic and infrastructure systems.
They include models for estimating the economic impact of disruptive events,
describing complex systems from multiple perspectives, combining sparse
data to enhance estimation, and assessing the risk of cyber attack on process
control systems. 1. Introduction Critical infrastructure and industry
sectors in the United States and abroad are becoming more
interdependent due largely to the increasing integration and
application of information technology in business operations such as
manufacturing marketing and throughout the supply chain. New
sources of risk to critical infrastructures and national security emerge
from the dynamics of large-scale, complex systems that are highly
interconnected and interdependent.

2AC Food Prices

Nanotech is key to solving future food shortages
Sarchet et al - Penny Sarchet, Alok Jha (science and environment
correspondent), Kathy Groves (food microscopist of Leatherhead Food
Research), Terry Jones (Director of communications of Food and Drink
Federation), (Ian Illuminato of the Friends of the Earth) ("Nanotech's role in
feeding the planet," www.theguardian.com/what-is-nano/nanotech-feedingthe-planet-nanotech-s-role-in-feeding-the-planet, ADL)
The challenge is clear: globally, we will need to feed two billion extra
people by 2050. As politicians, industry and scientists turn their attention to the problem of world
food security, many believe we will need to use every available tool to tackle this
impending crisis. One such tool could be nanotechnology, the applications of which
could potentially help us to produce more food, using less water and
fertiliser, and with less of an impact on the environment. A recent Guardian
seminar, sponsored by the European Commission, met to debate how we will
continue to feed the world, and the panelists Terry Jones, Kathy Groves and
Ian Illuminato, chaired by Alok Jha considered how important
nanotechnology is likely to be in this task. Their opinions were listened to by
members of an invited public audience, who were also able to put questions to the panel. "The scale of the
challenge is reasonably well known," suggested Jones, director of communications at trade association the
Food and Drink Federation. "The more pressing number, I think, is the eight billion people on the planet by
2025. If we're going to feed them, then we need to produce more food, from fewer resources, with a
smaller impact on the environment and that's going to require us to think differently." Futuristic goals
Nanotechnology is the engineering of the very small, at the scale of millionths of a millimetre. It can
describe both the futuristic goals of building tiny molecular machines and the more contemporary practice
of adding nanoparticle substances to consumer products to make them lighter, stronger or more hygienic.
The current use of nanotechnology in the food industry is still in its early stages and generally builds upon
longstanding processes and practices in food production. Jones, however, says it is clear that
nanotechnology might provide solutions to a range of industry problems. " You

could see
nanotechnology used in the cultivation, production, processing or
packaging of food," he said. "It could be used to develop new food products or, indeed, improve
existing ones." As well as reducing water use and contamination in food
processing, Jones believes nanotechnology could help make food healthier.
"In the UK, we talk a lot about what we need to take out of food, but nanotech could help us to add or
enable the release of positive foods as well," said Jones, who noted that 30% of food waste occurs in the
home and suggested that nanotech-enhanced packaging might tackle this. He also posited that

nanotech could be used to enhance our enjoyment of food by

providing us with new textures, tastes and colours.

2AC Economy
Manufacturing is vital to the economy erosion of
manufacturing kills the economy
McConaghy and Swezey 11 - Ryan and Devon, respectively, of the

"Third Way Fresh Thinking" and "Breakthrough" Instiutes of the Schwartz

Initiative on American Economic Policy (October 2011, "Manufacturing
Growth: Advanced Manufacturing and the Future of the American Economy,"
thebreakthrough.org/blog/BTI_Third_Way_Idea_Brief__Manufacturing_Growth_.pdf, ADL)
MANUFACTURING AND THE FUTURE U.S. ECONOMY Manufacturing Growth and Jobs Advanced
manufacturing is vital to widespread job creation and economic
growth. Manufacturing already has a major impact on American
employment and prosperity. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs that pay higher-than-average
wages. In March 2009, manufacturing companies paid $32 per hour in wages and benefits, while all employers paid an

Beyond direct job creation,

manufacturing generates high levels of output and employment
throughout the economy. The sector has the largest employment
multiplier, according to economist Josh Bivens, who finds that each job created in manufacturing leads to the
creation of 2.91 additional jobs, compared to 1.54 jobs in business services and 0.88 jobs in retail trade.26 The
manufacturing output multiplier is also higher than any other
sector of the economy. Every dollar in final sales of manufacturing products supports $1.40 in output
average of $29.39 per houra 9% wage premium.25

from other economic sectors. Most industries, including professional and business services have multipliers of less than

As the demand for manufacturing

grows, it therefore spurs investment, job creation, and innovation
throughout the economy.28 Conversely, the erosion of U.S.
$0.70, and no other industry has a multiplier above $1.10.27

manufacturing output and employment has an outsized and often

devastating impact on regional economies . The economic multiplier
efects from manufacturing are even greater in high-tech,
advanced manufacturing sectors. The Milken Institute finds that
every job created in electronic computer manufacturing generates 15 other
jobs throughout the economy.29 Intels new $4 billion R&D and manufacturing facility near
Portland, Oregon, for example, will create 6,000 to 8,000 construction jobs and nearly 1,000 permanent high-tech jobs in
the area. The government will benefit from property and sales taxes, and additional jobs will be created in downstream

In addition to creating jobs,

manufacturing is a driver of widespread economic growth. As Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke notes, increasing productivity is perhaps the
single most important determinant of living standards and
prosperity. 31 And as one of the most intensive users of capital equipment and technology in the economy, the
manufacturing sector is one of the nations most productive sectors ;
industries like home construction and services.30

from 1987-2008, labor productivity in the U.S. manufacturing sector grew by 103%, nearly double the rate of 56% for the
private sector as a whole.32

2AC Hegemony
Semiconductors are key to hegemony
NDU 03 - The National Defense University ("Electronics Industry Study
Report:Semiconductors and Defense Electronics," www.dtic.mil/get-trdoc/pdf?AD=ADA524792, ADL)
Overview. Semiconductors are found in many defense related
electronics components such as computers, sensors, switches and
amplifiers. Semiconductors are critical to the way the U.S. military
fights and to the functioning of the global economy. Electronics
content in military ordnance, fighter planes, bombers, tanks,
armored personnel carriers, and a range of other weapons systems
is all increasing, according to analysts. 23 In an interesting paradox, electronics
are becoming more important to the Defense Department , while the
Defense Department is becoming increasingly unimportant to thesemiconductor industry. Estimates put
electronics as 60% of the cost of new weaponssystems, yet defense represents only .3% of the
semiconductor market

2AC Renewables
Semiconductors key to viable renewables
Backlund and Rahimo 10 - Bjorn Backlund and Munaf Rahimo of ABB
Switzerland Ltd (Power Mag, Issue 4 2010, "Power Semiconductor
Technologies for Renewable Energy Sources," www.powermag.com/pdf/feature_pdf/1283337722_ABB_Feature_Layout_1.pdf, ADL)
High power semiconductors are key components for controlling the
generation and connection to the network of renewable energy
sources such as wind-turbines and photovoltaic cells . For a highest
efficiency of the energy source, it is therefore essential to select the right device for the given

conditions. This article looks at the performance features for the available high power semiconductors of
choice and also takes a look at future device technologies and their expected impact on efciency. Bjrn
Backlund and Munaf Rahimo, ABB Switzerland Ltd, Semiconductors, Lenzburg, Switzerland

Renewable energy sources as windturbines and photovoltaic cells

have reached power levels of several MWs which have resulted in
the need for high power semiconductor devices for optimized generation and
network connection. The state-of-the-art devices of choice for these power levels are the IGBTs and IGCTs.
Due to the power quality requirements, the earlier used solutions with thyristors in the wind turbines are

semiconductors have gone

through a remarkable development. Several new generations of IGBT-dies have lead to
a reduction in VCEsat of almost 40 % since the early 1990s, and still a potential for further
improvement is available. The Bipolar devices have also seen large improvements where the
rarely seen today. During the last 15 years, high power

introduction of the IGCT have had a large impact on the MV-Drive design and higher ratings for them have
recently been introduced or are in development. The thyristors have also not been standing still but have

The
power semiconductors are used for two main tasks in the chain of
renewable energy sources such as conversion of the power in the
plant, as in wind-turbines, and transmission of the power to the grid.
moved from 6500 V, 2600 A to 8500 V, 4000 A devices based on 150mm silicon now in production.

The best solution to determine what semiconductors to use for these tasks is to move top-down by
following the path system requirements defining equipment requirements which in turn are defining the
power semiconductor requirements. Through this chain the requirements on the devices are determined
regarding items as required voltage and current ratings, needed degree of controllability, and operating
frequency.

***Solvency

1AC Plan Text Loan Gurantees

Text: The United States federal government should ofer
loan guarantees for the mining of rare earth elements in
the Outer Continental Shelf
The Federal Government is key financing, loanguarantees, knowledge infrastructure, interagency
collaboration, and competitive grants for public and
private entities
Smith 10 Mark A. Smith is the Chief Executive Ofcer of Molycorp
Minerals, LLC. This is from a written testimony in front of the House Science
and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
(March 16 2010, Rare earth minerals and 21st century industry,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2010_hr/Smith_Testimo
ny.pdf, ADL)
These process improvements fundamentally reverse the conventional wisdom that superior environmental stewardship
increases production costs. At the same time, we significantly distinguish ourselves from the Chinese rare earth industry

to
recognize and rectify need for Federal Leadership Over the past year, I have
spent a significant amount of time in Washington meeting with
Members of Congress and their staffs as well as ofcials in a variety of federal
agencies to direct greater attention to this issue. Im pleased to report, just over one
year since we began our efforts, that the federal government is beginning to take
meaningful steps toward understanding and addressing our rare
earth vulnerabilities. The question remains, however, if it will be able to make its assessments, determine
that has been plagued by a history of significant environmental degradation, one that it is just beginning

the required actions, and execute them within a timeline that seems to be accelerating daily. In each of these meetings,

the federal government should play

have the greatest
near- and long-term impact: 1) federally based financing and/or loan
guarantee support for highly capital intensive projects like ours; 2)
assistance rebuilding Americas rare earth knowledge infrastructure
and as this Committee has also inquired, I am asked what role

in tackling this pressing concern, and I believe that there are 4 areas where it can

(university-based rare earth research, development of academic curricula and fields of study, training and exposure to the
chemical and physical science related to rare earths, etc .);

3) increased interagency
collaboration at the highest levels on the impact of rare earth
accessibility on major national objectives; and 4) funding
competitive grants for public and private sector rare earth research.

Ill explore each in greater depth below: Financing support: Given the size, scale, ambition, and necessity of Molycorps
redevelopment efforts, we submitted an application for the Department of Energys Loan Guarantee Program (LGP). We
believed that the program was well-suited for our project, particularly given that the projects substantial implications
closely match the programs paramount objectives. Traditional bank financing in the current climate with very short
repayment periods and interest rates near double digits is not economically feasible. The LGP offers longer term
financing and lower interest rates and would allow Molycorp to accelerate development in the near-term while ensuring
rare earth resource availability in the long term. However, the DOE summarily rejected our application in December,
saying that the project did not qualify as a New or Significantly Improved Technology. We reviewed the relevant portion
of the Rule, Section 609.2, and our project meets every one of the stated criteria. We requested further discussion with
the DOE to understand how it came to its conclusion and how Molycorp might proceed. After almost two months, the DOE
finally responded to our request. During the meeting, the DOE contended that this project goes too far upstream and
that the program was not intended to cover mining projects. We have yet to find the legislative or regulatory language
that provides such a limitation. However, it appears we may need to ask Congress for legislative direction or possibly new
legislative language specifically authorizing the use of loan guarantees for strategically important projects like this. Our
frustrations with the loan guarantee notwithstanding, I still believe that this kind of financing support is exactly what a
project like ours needs. We will be in a very strong position to both raise our portion of the capital to execute the project
and repay the loan well-within the required timeline. We will continue to pursue this financing support despite the DOEs
current position. Rebuilding the rare earth knowledge infrastructure: The United States used to be the worlds
preeminent source of rare earth information and expertise, but it has ceded that advantage over the past decade, as its

The federal
government, and the House Science and Technology Committee in
particular, can play a pivotal role in reestablishing that institutional
knowledge and expertise and sharing it with a wider audience of researchers, scholars, and
position in the industry has become subordinate to China and other countries in East Asia.

practitioners here in the U.S. and abroad. At Molycorp, we are fortunate to have a team of 17 rare earth researchers and
technologists who are second to none in the world, but almost all of them had no previous expertise in rare earths prior to
joining Molycorp. It will be difcult for the U.S. to

reestablish its preeminence without a concerted

effort to attract the brightest scientists and researchers to the field of rare earths. Rebuilding the
knowledge infrastructure and the research support will go a long way toward that goal. Dr. Gerschneidner, who Im
honored to testify with today, is regarded as the father of rare earths, and his work at Ames Laboratory and Iowa State
University as well as the great work being done by Dr. Eggert and his colleagues at the Colorado School of Mines can
serve as the foundation on which to expand Americas rare earth expertise. As a reminder of the rest of the worlds
interests and actions in this regard, the Korea Times recently reported that Korea is developing rare earth metals for
industrial use at a government-funded research center. Interagency Cooperation: Over the past several months, we
have been very pleased to learn about efforts within many federal agencies to direct specific attention to rare earth
issues. We have been in direct contact with the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and State, and each is examining
this issue within the unique context of their agencies work. It is also worth noting that the Commerce Department
convened a group of stakeholders from both the government and the private sector in December, 2009, which included
representatives from DoD, GAO, USTR, and OSTP. We have also had multiple discussions with the Ofce of Science and
Technology Policy directly and have been very appreciative of their engagement on this issue. In fact, OSTP, along with
Commerce, is facilitating interagency collaboration going forward. While we are encouraged by these recent efforts, it is
our hope that the agencies and the White House recognize that the global supply-demand challenges are approaching at
an increasingly rapid pace and that their efforts should reflect the requisite urgency. Funding support for rare earth
research: Part of Chinas success in growing and dominating the market for rare earths can be attributed to their efforts to

Federal funding support for

competitive grants specifically directed at rare earth research will
help to expand the U.S.s ability to do the same . This has the potential to
broaden the economic impact of rare earths, and contribute to the
goal mentioned above of reestablishing Americas superior expertise in rare
earth research.
find and commercialize new applications for rare earth materials.

1AC Plan Text Licensing

Text: The United States federal government should issue
licenses for rare earth element mining on the Outer
Continent Shelf
Minerals management service is who issues the leases
RSOC, 95 The Resource Agency of California, July, California's Ocean

Resources: An Agenda for the Future, Chapter 3

http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html
Minerals Management Service : leases the federal outer continental
shelf, as well as conducts environmental review, permit processes , and
ongoing monitoring for specific proposals to explore for, or produce
oil and gas resources

2AC Licensing
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, part of the
Department of Interior, is responsible for ofshore leasing
Virginia Places, 9 Virginia and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/ocs.html
Federal agencies issue permits for species harvest and mineral
extraction, beyond state waters, to the limit of US claims. For example,
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a part of the Department
of the Interior, is responsible for ofshore leasing outside of state
waters.

2AC Naitilus
Naitilus plan uses two cutters, collector, and a pump
system
Goodier, 11 Rob, Journalist, Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay

Right Where They AreFor Now,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rareearth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now, Vitz
Nautilus plans to unleash three remote-controlled devices on the sea
floor: two cutters and a collector, adapted from technologies used in
the oil and cable-trenching industries. An as-yet-undesigned pump
system will lift the ore from the seafloor to the ship . "They've already spent
about $400 million, the boat will be a couple hundred million," Wiltshire says. " A complete
operation for Nautilus will easily be a billion."

2AC AT: No REEs in OCS

Rare earth metals exist in the US outer continental shelf
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE N.O.A.A. 75 - National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a federal agency focused on the condition
of the oceans and the atmosphere. It plays several distinct roles within the
Department of Commerce: A Supplier of Environmental Information Products, A
Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services and a Leader in Applied Scientific
Research. (1975, "MINING IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AND IN THE DEEP
OCEAN," www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZIC-tn291-5-a87-1975/html/CZIC-tn291-5-a871975.htm, ADL)

the most promising potential for mining hard

United States outer continental shelf waters. Placer deposits of this
potential include gold, platinum, cassiterite (tiLn), scheelite (tungsten), rare earths, ilmenite
The Bering Sea --- outer continental shelf has
minerals of all

(titanium), and others. Lode deposits are likely to include barite and copper, lead and zinc (as sulf ides),
and molybdenum, while deposits of chemical precipitates of uranium-bearing minerals are probable in

Government, industry, and academic groups have been

conducting hard mineral surveys in this area for more than ten
years.
some anoxic sites.

Rare earths are harvested from outer continental shelf

deposits
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE N.O.A.A. 75 - National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a federal agency focused on the condition
of the oceans and the atmosphere. It plays several distinct roles within the
Department of Commerce: A Supplier of Environmental Information Products, A
Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services and a Leader in Applied Scientific
Research. (1975, "MINING IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AND IN THE DEEP
OCEAN," www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZIC-tn291-5-a87-1975/html/CZIC-tn291-5-a871975.htm, ADL)

On the continental shelf, the Panel believes that initial mining operations in the production of
sand and gravel will continue to be conducted with rather conventional equipment (Table 1). On a
smaller scale, and with similar conventional equipment, other resources,
such as rare earth sands, barite, coal, tin, and phosphate rock have already been
produced from shelf deposits in various parts of the world. Such activities are expected to
increase as technological capability and economic rewards increase. Unlike the area
underlying the deep ocean, the question of ownership of much of the
continental margins of the world is well-defined under existing
international law.

2AC AT: R&D

R and D solves the af and avoids backlash
Humphries 10

(Marc Humphries is a , September 30th, 2010, Rare Earth Elements: The Global
Supply Chain, Congressional Report Service)

establish an R&D program within the DOE to assure longterm supply of rare earth materials. The R&D program would, among
other things, seek to identify and test potential substitutes, improve
extraction, processing, recovery, and recycling technology of rare
earth materials. The Secretary of Energy would establish an R&D Information Center and
The bill would

collaborate with members of the European Commission to coordinate activities of mutual interest. The

proposed R&D Information Center would be a repository for scientific

and technical data, assist scientists and engineers in using the
Center, provide advice to the Secretary on the R&D program and
promote information sharing among the interested parties. The Secretary
of Energy would present a plan to Congress that describes R&D activities and their anticipated
contribution to providing rare earth materials to the U.S. economy,
explain the requirements of the DOE loan guarantee program and the status of the programs receiving
loan guarantee support. After four years the program would be assessed by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS). The program would be authorized for $70 million over a five-year period (2011-2015). H.R.

would establish a Rare Earth Materials Loan Guarantee program

for commercial application of new and improved technologies for the
separation, and recovery of rare earths, the preparation of rare
earths (i.e., oxides, metal, and alloys) and the application of rare
earths in the production of magnets, batteries, optical systems, and
electronics, among other things. The Secretary would be required to cooperate with the
private sector to assure complete rare earth materials production capacity
6160

five years after H.R. 6160 would be enacted into law. The authority to enter into loan guarantees would
expire in 2018. The bill would also amend sections 3, 4, and 5 of the National Materials and Minerals Policy
Research and Development Act of 1980.

2AC AT: BOEM

The US has these resources and can initiate drilling.

BOEM 12 (BOEM Ocean Science, Winter 2012, No author, The Marine Minerals Program:
Meeting the Needs of Our Nations Coastline,
http://www.boem.gov/uploadedfiles/boem/newsroom/publications_library/ocean_science/os_12_
oct_nov_dec.pdf)

Ofshore extraction of marine minerals that are critical to the U.S.

economy and national security may become an important resource
managed by BOEM under the Marine Minerals Program in the future, but the

concept is not new. In fact, BOEM (then MMS) looked into leases for offshore mining of these resources on
the Hawaii, California, and Oregon OCS during the mid- to late 1980s. The marine minerals of interest were
cobalt-rich manganese crusts in Hawaii and massive sulfide deposits offshore Oregon and California.
During that period, two task forces were established with the States, one with Hawaii and the other with
Oregon and California, to assess the economic, engineering, and environmental aspects of ocean mining A
three-year program to assess the mineral and biological resource potential of the Gorda Ridge was
completed in 1986. The program discovered large polymetallic sulfide deposits on the Gorda Ridge,
located approximately 150 miles offshore northern California and southern Oregon in water depths
between 10,000 and 11,000 feet. Task Force sponsored surveys also resulted in the discovery of cobalt-rich
manganese crusts on seamounts in the Hawaiian OCS, and US territories and possession. In both cases,
MMS opted not to offer the areas for lease due to the adequacy of existing onshore mineral supply sources,
market conditions, and consultations with mining companies that expressed the opinion it was premature

Some 30 years later,

demand has increased for products with components that contain
copper, lead, zinc, manganese, cobalt and platinum, and rare earth
elements (REEs) which are used in color television and flat panel
displays (cell phones, portable DVDs, and laptops), rechargeable
batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, important defense
applications, such as night vision equipment, and space-based
satellites and communication systems. REEs often occur with other
elements (e.g., copper, gold, uranium). Higher prices for those
metals in recent years may be another reason for the increased
interest in ofshore mining. Most REE mining is likely to occur far from our mainland shores.
to consider leasing the areas due to the technological mining constraints.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that global reserves of 110 million tons are found mainly in China,
although Japanese researchers say they have discovered vast deposits at 78 locations on the Pacific Ocean
floor at depths of 11,500 to 20,000 feet below the ocean surface in international waters east and west of
Hawaii and east of Tahiti. Mining offshore REE deposits would likely be costly, but it doesnt appear that
consumption of products containing REEs will decline any time soon. Global demand for REEs may reach
210,000 tons per year by 2015, according to one estimate (see Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply
Chain). Only time will tell whether mining the sea floor can be commercially viable off our Nations coasts
in the Pacific Region and elsewhere. If so, BOEMs Marine Minerals Program will ensure it is carried out
without damaging the diverse life forms found in these delicate offshore ocean environments.

BOEM is our agent, also US is key

BOEM 14

(Bureau of Ocean Management is a section of the department of the interior responsible for
all ocean based drilling and mining projects, January 2014, Marine Minerals Program Fact Sheet,
http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/MMP-Fact-Sheet.pdf)

BOEM is the agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior which
manages the responsible exploration and development of ofshore
energy and marine mineral resources on the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS). The bureau promotes energy independence, environmental protection and
economic development through responsible management of these
resources based on the best available science. Although the largest component
within BOEM is the exploration and development of oil and gas resources, the Marine Minerals
Program (MMP) is responsible for managing non-energy minerals

(primarily sand and gravel) on the ocean floor. As stewards of these resources,
BOEM must ensure that the removal of any mineral resource is
conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, and that
any potentially adverse impacts on the marine, coastal, or human
environments are avoided or minimized For over 20 years, BOEM has provided OCS
sand resources to complete 42 projects and convey more than 77 million cubic yards of material to coastal
communities. That amount of sand, in cubic feet, would circle Earths equator 15.85 times. What are the
primary uses of marine minerals? Marine minerals are used primarily in coastal restoration projects,
including beach nourishment and wetlands restoration. Beach nourishment is the replenishment of beach
sand by natural or artificial means.

2AC AT: LOST/I-Law

International law allows deep sea mining and the US
hasnt ratified lost, so nbd
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate

Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International

Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
This lack of progress occurs in a context where the sustainability of consensus on international waters is

The U.N.C.L.O.S. conception of the seabed as the

common heritage of mankind is not universal . Indeed it is important
to keep in mind that the United States has not ratified U.N.C.L.O.S .33
and rather consider that Deep seabed mining is a high seas
not yet established.

freedom that all nations may engage in regardless of their

membership or non- membership in U.N.C.L.O.S. or any other treaty .
Like other high seas freedoms, the right to engage in deep seabed mining is
inherent to all sovereign nations under customary international law.
Rather, it is the convention that attempts to restrict access to the deep
seabed and infringe on the intrinsic rights of the United States and
other nations that have chosen to remain non- parties.34However, in the
past the United States has secured its rights to mine the deep seabed through bilateral agreements with
other deep seabed mining nations.

2AC AT: No Tech

Tech is based of of existing undersea tech and it is in the
public domain
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental

Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive

Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
***DSM = Deep Sea Mining
In order to develop DSM technology, Nautilus put together an
Alliance of eight key players from the ofshore equipment , services and
engineering industries. These players are still developing deep-sea mining
technology. Current designs have drawn upon existing technology
from both the ofshore petroleum and transoceanic communications cable
industries. The basic methods and designs for exploration and
extraction are in the public domain . Specific designs and methods developed by
industry first movers are considered patentable or trade secrets. As such, for the purposes of this section,

we will only review currently proposed DSM technology and

operations designs within the public domain and then ofer some
potential solutions to identified problems.
Tech now, research has been done
Duarte 13 (Carlos Duarte is a professor at the University of Western Australia, co-written by
Sophie Arnaud-Haond, SBS, Deep Sea Mining: Coming soon to an ocean near you,
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/25/deep-sea-mining-coming-soon-ocean-nearyou_

These facts suggest that we may soon face and underwater gold rush, but in most citizens minds deep-

Much to the contrary, the technology

for deep-sea mining is not something of the future but it is largely
existing. A deep-sea mining operation consists of a mining support platform or vessel; a launch and
sea mining is still something for sci-fic movies.

recovery system; a crawler with a mining head, centrifugal pump and vertical transport system; and

Companies such as Lockheed Martin,

are developing vehicles
for deep-sea mining, pledging they are in the position to readily
develop techniques to operate down to 5,000 metre depth. Indeed, the submarine
vehicles required are already in existence and their operations are described in
electrical, control, instrumentation and visualization systems.

Soil Machine Dynamics, IHC Mining and Bauer or Nautilus Minerals

compelling animations.

We have the locating tech now

Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental

Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive

Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
Exploratory technology for deep-sea mining is currently in use and is
similar to petroleum exploratory technology . Active vents can be
located from the plume, which can be detected up to 10 km away , and
tracked it to its source. Continental margin fault lines can be followed using
side scan sonar. Vent fields generally occur along continental
margins where geologic instability is common . Inactive vents and active vents
can generally be found in close proximity (Baulch, 2005b). Active vent plumes can be
located by detecting compounds or elements such as methane and manganese, which

in the water around the source vent. (Herzig and Petersen, 2000). Locating inactive vents is
teams use side-scan sonar, seismic surveyors,
and deep-tow video systems to find the telltale features of an SMS mound (Herzig and
occur

more difcult; exploration

Petersen, 2000).

2AC AT: Cant Mine

Mining the resources is 5 years away
Goldenberg, 14 Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Marine
mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat
Mining the ocean floor of the central Pacific on a commercial scale is
five years away , but the beginnings of an underwater gold rush are under
way The number of companies seeking to mine beneath
international waters has tripled in the last three or four years. "We
have already got a gold rush, in a way," said Michael Lodge, deputy secretary general of the International
Seabed Authority, which regulates the use of the sea floor in international waters. "

activity has expanded exponentially."

The amount of

2AC AT: Cant Extract

We have the extraction tech now
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental
Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive
Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
After the size and ore grade of the deposit have been assessed, trial mining
may begin. Specific designs for SMS extraction are still in development
and have not been disclosed, but concepts have been publicly
discussed. These are a mixture of previous designs for crust and
nodule mining, including modified technology from terrestrial coal
and ocean diamond mining methods. SMS deposits present several challenges for
extraction technology. First, the ore body is comprised of a combination of loose material such as fallen
chimneys, and solid fused minerals such as re-crystallized sulfides and deposition layers (Herzig, 1999).

Extracting the ore body,

will require a 25 combination of technologies
working in stages. An SMS extraction device can be divided by three
components: 1) drive body, 2) ore crusher and 3) ore lifter.
Second, the seafloor terrain may be rugged due to tectonic activity.
while minimizing environmental impacts,

2AC AT: Cant Process

We have the processing technology
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental
Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive
Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
Ore processing technology has typically had the most widespread , concentrated,
and lasting environmental impacts in the mining industry. The use of cyanide leaching techniques in

gold processing and the resultant cyanide settling ponds have been the source of some of the worst
environmental mining catastrophes (i.e., Summitville Mine in Colorado, Marcopper Mine in the Philippines,
or Omai Gold Mine in Guyana). Processing methods of massive sulfide deposits typically recover only 40%
of the gold (INEEL, 2005). Much of the losses are because the gold particles in the sulfide ore are too fine
(<10 microns) whereas the average particle size used in ore processing slurries is 70 microns (Newmont).
This leaves much of the gold on the inside of the ore particle, unavailable to the cyanide molecules during
leaching. The gold left in the particle ends up in the tailings, considered too uneconomical to recover. The
polymetallic nature of the SMS deposits may further complicate processing, though dore bullion (gold

A
potential solution to cyanide tainted sulfide tailings disposal may be
the ocean. The basic design involves a pipe from the processing
plant out to a slope on the seafloor that falls to a kilometer depth.
The technique relies upon anoxic conditions at the bottom to be
sufficient to inhibit the formation of sulfuric acid and heavy metal
dissolution and transport associated with terrestrial acid mine drainage problems. There are
26 such tailings disposal operations in the world and the majority
are found in the Asia-Pacific region (Pearce, 2000).
bullion with other metallic impurities such as Zn, Cu, or Ag) can be separated further during smelting.

2AC AT: No REEs

Lots of REEs
Goodier, 11 Rob, Journalist, Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay
Right Where They AreFor Now,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rareearth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now
So it's no surprise that the Japanese study, which appears in the journal Nature Geoscience,
sparked excitement. The researchers took core samples at 78 sites around
Hawaii , Tahiti and other locations in the eastern South Pacific and
central North Pacific, finding rare-earth concentrations of about 0.2 percent. At that
concentration, they reported, just 1 square kilometer of sea-floor mud could
provide one-fifth of the world's annual rare-earth consumption,
making it a "highly promising huge resource for these elements ."

***AT: Topicality

2AC AT: Exploration

Exploration means the process of searching for minerals--the af meets that
Outer Continental Shelf Land Act, 53, Bureau of Ocean
Management, 1 of 59 TITLE 43 CHAPTER 29 > SUBCHAPTER III
SUBCHAPTER IIIOUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS,
http://www.boem.gov/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lands-Act/
The term exploration means the process of searching for

minerals , including (1) geophysical surveys where magnet ic,

gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to detect or imply the
presence of such minerals, and (2) any drilling , whether on or off known geological
structures, including the drilling of a well in which a discovery of oil or natural gas in
paying quanti ties is made and the dr illing of any additional delineation well after such
discovery which is needed to delineate any reservoir and to enable
the lessee to determine whether to proceed with development and
production;

2AC AT: Development

Development means the discovery of minerals---the af
meets that
Outer Continental Shelf Land Act, 53, Bureau of Ocean

Management, 1 of 59 TITLE 43 CHAPTER 29 > SUBCHAPTER III

SUBCHAPTER IIIOUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS,
http://www.boem.gov/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lands-Act/
The term development means those activities which take place
following discovery of minerals in paying quantities, including geophysical
activity, drilling , platform construction , and operation of all onshore
support facilities, and which are for the purpose of ultimately producing
the minerals discovered

***AT: Disads

AT: Obama Good

Domestic military applications and previous legislation
prove popular.
Humphries 10

(Marc Humphries is a , September 30th, 2010, Rare Earth Elements: The Global
Supply Chain, Congressional Report Service)

World demand for rare earth elements is estimated at 134,000 tons

per year, with global production around 124,000 tons annually. The
difference is covered by previously mined aboveground stocks. World demand is projected
to rise to 180,000 tons annually by 2012, while it is unlikely that new mine output
will close the gap in the short term. New mining projects could easily take 10 years to reach
production. In the long run, however, the USGS expects that global reserves and
undiscovered resources are large enough to meet demand.
Legislative proposals H.R. 4866 (Cofman) and S. 3521(Murkowski) have
been introduced to support domestic production of REEs, because of
congressional concerns over access to rare earth raw materials and
downstream products used in many national security applications
and clean energy technologies.

Plan popularmilitary supply

Grasso 13 (Valerie Bailey Grasso is a specialist in defense acquisition, Rare Earth Elements
in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, CRS, December
23rd, 2013, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41744.pdf)

Members of Congress have expressed concern with the nearly

total U.S. dependence on foreign sources for rare earth elements. Some have raised
Some

questions about Chinas near dominance of the rare earth industry and the implications for U.S. national

the crisis for many policymakers is not the fact that China
has cut its rare earth exports and appears to be restricting the
worlds access to rare earths, but the fact that the United States has
lost its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials,
and that the manufacturing supply chain for rare earths has largely
migrated to outside the United States. Still others are concerned about
the impact of a potential supply chain vulnerability of materials critical for
defense systems. Additionally, some Members of Congress have questioned the lack
of knowledge of what specific materials are needed for defense
purposes, which materials are strategic and critical to national security, and what steps might be
taken to increase the domestic capability to produce these materials. In January 2011, three
Members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert
M. Gates outlining their concerns over what they perceived as a lack
of action on DODs part to ensure that adequate supplies of rare earths were available. They
security. Yet

pressed for DOD to take immediate action, as described in excerpts below

Plan popularrenewables and ofsets china

GCC 14

(Green Car Congress is a website specializing in bills related to renewable technology, 2/8/14,
Senators introduce bill to encourage US production of thorium and rare earth minerals,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140208-blount.html)

US Senators Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Joe Manchin (W. Va.) introduced
the National Rare Earth Cooperative Act of 2014 this week,
bipartisan legislation to encourage US production of rare earth

metals (and thorium), relieving US dependence on Chinas rare earth

minerals. Noting that thorium is a mildly radioactive element commonly associated with the
lanthanide elements in the most heavy rare earth deposits that are located in the United States and
elsewhere, and that current regulations regulations regarding thorium represent a barrier to the
development of a heavy rare earth industry that is based in the United States, the act grants private rare
earth suppliers and end-users with an opportunity to set up a thorium-bearing rare earth refining
cooperative in America. The bill proposes that: It is the policy of the United States to advance domestic
refining of heavy rare earth materials and the safe storage of thorium in anticipation of the potential future
industrial uses of thorium, including energy, as (1) thorium has a mineralogical association with valuable
heavy rare earth elements; 2) there is a great need to develop domestic refining capacity to process
domestic heavy rare earth deposits; and (3) the economy of the United States would benefit from the rapid
development and control of intellectual property relating to the commercial development of technology
utilizing thorium. The bill proposes that as soon as practicable after enactment, the Cooperative Board, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, establish the Thorium Storage, Energy, and Industrial Products
Corporation to develop uses and markets for thorium, including energy. Thorium, among other uses, is of
interest in advanced nuclear fuel cycles. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), rare

Washington County, Mo.

Missouri also has a long mining history in various minerals, including
some of the largest sources of lead deposits in the country. Blunt is
also a co-sponsor of Senators Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Lisa
Murkowskis (Alaska) Critical Minerals Bill, which directs the USGS to
establish a list of minerals critical to the US economy and national
security such as Rare Earth Elements.
earth elements are located in the Pea Ridge iron-ore mine in

Plan popularRepublicans support breaking dependence

on China
Topf 13

(Andrew Topf is a exclusive writer for Rare Earth Investing News, 9/23/14, House Passes Critical Minerals
Act, Rare Earth investing News, http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/16395-house-passes-critical-minerals-act.html)

the bill was passed 246

to 178, with just 15 Democrats in favor. In the last Congress, 22 Democrats supported
Known as the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act,

a similar bill. The act would give federal agencies a maximum 30 months to decide on whether to approve
or reject permits for exploration and mining, and it limits the ability of opponents to use courts to stop
mining. Get the latest Rare Earth Investing News articles delivered to your email inbox. Learn more Email

Republican supporters of the bill say the legislation is needed

to speed up mining approvals, to ensure that the US has adequate
sources of strategic minerals such as rare earths. Locally sourced
strategic minerals would break US dependence on other countries,
such as China, on importing the materials, used for defense and other applications.
Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits and
onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S.
for more than 10 years, The Hill reported House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), as saying. These
unnecessary delays cost American jobs as we become more and more dependent on
Sign up

foreign countries for these raw ingredients. As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare earth
elements,

we should respond with an American mineral mining

renaissance

that will bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America.

AT: Midterms (Plan Popular)

2NC Card- Blue Economy Warrant from Bugel Evidence
The blue economy nature of Ocean Mining is popular and
is seen as revitalization of American technological
dominance
Moorcroft 13 (Sheila, April 17th, Ocean mining a race to the bottom,
http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2013/04/17/ocean-mining-a-race-tothe-bottom/)
The blue economy, the term ascribed to a wide range of activities such as
fishing, shipping, coastal tourism, energy, cable laying and mining , presents huge
opportunities. Estimates of the current value vary from $6-$21trillion; a recent study put the value added

Investment is
growing, but also environmental concern. Deep sea mining is at present a small but
increasingly significant element of that economy . What is changing? The oceans cover
arising from the EU opportunity alone at 500 billion, rising to 600 billion by 2020.

an area of about 360 million km2, at an average depth of about 3800 metres, and contain the worlds most
active volcanoes, highest mountains and deepest valleys. At present, only about 5% of the ocean bed is
accurately mapped, but the advent of new deep sea robotic submersibles as well as ever more
sophisticated survey ships and even satellites is beginning to address the challenge. But it will be a long,

Deep sea mining is

attracting significant investment. It was first attempted when the mineral-rich, deep sea vents
surrounding underwater volcanoes were first discovered in the late 1970s: the cost and technical
challenges of exploration prevented progress till now . The sophistication of new
slow process the area that each ship or submersible can cover is small.

technologies and the growing demand for and price of many mineral resources are changing the
equations. Copper, zinc, manganese and gold among many others are all to be found in deep sea
deposits, many of which are said to produce far higher levels of purity than their land based equivalents.

Global metal and mineral mining output was valued at $644 billion in 2010 ;

but even land based mining is facing challenges as resource extraction moves to remoter and more
inhospitable locations. Deep sea mining today provides almost none of that global supply, but by 2020 it
could be providing 5%, 10% by 2030, valuing it at $65 billion in 2010 prices. However, to put the scale of
deep sea deposits in perspective, the estimated value of deep sea gold deposits alone has been put at
$150 trillion at todays prices. But it is very early days. To date, 12 exploratory permits have been issued
and one area of active mining is underway off the coast of Papua New Guinea. However, controversy is not
far away. The Papua New Guinea government is challenging the terms of the deal and environmentalists
are challenging the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment. Exploration continues. Why is this
important?

The potential rewards are enormous . In coming years we may witness a new
try to establish technological leadership to
capture as much of the market not just for the minerals, but for the technologies needed to
locate and extract them. Aerospace and oil industry companies, electronics and
robotics suppliers, marine and mining specialists all stand to gain as they
transfer their various areas of expertise to this new frontier . Governments too are
gold rush as nations and companies

investing heavily including many emerging nation economies. Depending on whether the scale of the
deposits lives up to expectations and our ability to extract them proves technically and economically as

For example,
deep sea mining may break the relative stranglehold China has on supplies of
rare earths, essential for mobile phones and clean technologies. Demand for gold has been increasing
well as environmentally viable, deep sea mining could change the mineral supply base.

to offset fears of inflation and financial uncertainty, but also in consumer markets such as India; a
significant increase in supply could destabilize price structures.

2AC AT: REE DA

Deep sea mining inevitable
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
Initiated by the Japanese after Chinas economic sanctions over Senkaku
territorial dispute, the revival of Deep Sea mining projects has expanded
worldwide . China 15 and India 16 have both launched important
programs. Despite impressive challenges, Deep Sea mining projects
are ongoing and their spreading seems inevitable

2AC AT: China Monopoly Good DA

China only cares about producing for domestic industries
they can still meet their own demand post plan
Alec Gimurtu, interviewing Jack Lifton, an independent consultant and

commentator, He specializes in nonferrous strategic metals and studies those

businesses; He has more than 50 years of experience in the global OEM
automotive, heavy equipment, electrical and electronic, mining, smelting and
refining industries, Streetwise Reports, A Radical Solution for the Rare Earth
Supply Crunch: Jack Lifton, 7-9-2013, http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/aradical-solution-for-the-rare-earth-supply-crunch-jack-lifton//BDS)
TMR: In August, you are presenting your case for a new international REE toll refinery to the Chinese
Society of Rare Earths. What reaction are you expecting? JL: My thinking about this has evolved. I think

The Chinese are now restructuring their REE

production industry and downsizing it to match their internal
demand. They will grow the industry in the future, but only to meet
that the Chinese want this to happen.

their domestic demand . I do not believe that the Chinese are

interested in the REE export business. In the last year the Chinese have
cut legal, reported production by more than 30%. Originally, Chinese domestic
users consumed 60% of their own production. It's up to more than 80%
today. When I proposed an international toll refinery, I was surprised at the positive reaction I got from
this in China. I was told by a high-ranking Chinese official in the REE
industry that this is an excellent topic. The Chinese really do want to hear outsider views
on this. It appears that the Chinese would like the rest of the world to
develop enough REE production and refining so that the domestic
Chinese REE industry can be left alone. That's my analysis at this point in time. TMR:

How would new international toll refining change REE pricing? Would there still be a Chinese domestic
price and a different international price? JL: Yes. At the moment the export prices are set by tax.
Domestically, Chinese REEs are much cheaper than internationally posted prices because of the large
export tax. There's a cap on volume as well as a large tax. The prices we see for cerium or lanthanum in
North America, for example, are Chinese domestic prices plus export duties and transport. The problem for
a new REE producer iswhich price is it that you're going after? For example, say I can buy lanthanum in
Chicago for the Chinese export price of $20/kg. Suppose I can produce lanthanum in New Jersey for
$10/kg. That looks like a solid profit. The problem is "where is your market?" Yes, $10/kg is great if you're
going to sell this into a North American market and the Chinese maintain their export duties. That is fine,
except that there's no real market for these materials in North America. There's no total supply chain
outside of China. China is the main place where the raw materials get turned into finished product. China is
the only location of an existing "mine to magnet" total supply chain. Better than even, "mine to magnet,"
China has "mine to vacuum cleaner," "mine to car," and "mine to washing machine." They've got
everything. As a North American producer of lanthanum, I'm going to have to sell into China at the
domestic price, and pay the import duty and cover transport costs. These are all issues that junior miners
do not think about. But these issues matter if you are trying to finance a $1B refinery. Is there a market at
the price you're going to produce? It's not just about your costs per kilogram. When there is an accidental
or intentional monopoly player like China, there are substantial additional factors to consider. And we
haven't even mentioned the possibility of import quotas. And then there is the uncertainty. . .everything
could change tomorrow. The

Chinese REE market is evolving rapidly. They

have dramatic overcapacity in everything: mining, refining,
fabrication, you name it. There is a desire to cut back to profitable
unit production. As they move in that direction, prices will rise in China. The
Chinese goal is to have prices that can sustain the industry. External
competition in the commodity markets is not their concern. The model of
Rhodia as a toll refinery does not concern China. Solvay is not in the mining business. They don't make
metals. They don't make magnets. They are a solvent exchange separation and high-purity refining
company. Their output goes directly to the chemical, automotive and high-tech industries. Rhodia has a

large competitive advantage because of its extant investment and China is not trying to take it away.
However, REE permanent magnets are a different business because the refined elements from a company
like Rhodia have to go to metal maker, an alloy maker and then a magnet maker. While they have these

The
Chinese dominate the HREEs because there are no sources outside
China. There are still no mines outside of China that are producing
significant quantities of HREEs. The Chinese still supply 100% of the
world production. The locations of the REE survivors will determine where the toll refining
industries in Europe, there is not enough capacity to satisfy all European industrial demand.

business opportunities will happen. Ucore is in Alaska, Rare Element Resources in Wyoming. The American
political climate is such that exporting natural resources to China, especially ones that have been as hyped
as REEs, is not very likely to get the support of the government. Therefore, I think there is a strong
possibility of a REE toll refinery being built in North America. Tasman is located in Sweden and does not
have to deal with the U.S. political climate. In this case, there is a strong possibility that HREE concentrates
will be sold to China, for processing inside China. Other than Rhodia and perhaps two other small facilities
in Japan, there's no HREE processing capability outside of China. While
Tasman could ship ore or concentrates to China for the dysprosium content, the company wouldn't make
any money doing it. Tasman is under review by several European companies as a source for potential
feedstock into their vertical supply chain. That would be one path to the creation of a central European

The entire HREE industry of the world,

which today is 100% in China, produces total of 15,000 tpa of HREEs. Of that, 60% is the
element yttrium. Two new toll refining plants outside of China could double the
world's production of the HREEs. In order to do that, we'd have to
obtain HREEs ores from outside of China. The surviving juniors will be the companies
REE toll separation and refining plant.

that supply the midrange and HREEs to these types of refineries.

And Turn China can meet domestic Light REE demand

indefinitely but cant maintain a Heavy REE export
monopoly, other production is required to avoid industry
collapse
Jack Lifton, a Founding Principal of Technology Metals Research, LLC. He is

also a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of the

technology metals, Investor Intel, Lifton Unchained (Part 2): The Driver for
Global Rare Earth Demand, 10-1-2013, http://investorintel.com/rare-earthintel/part-2///BDS)
The overall driver for global rare earth demand now and for the
foreseeable future is a function of the evolution, nationally ( i.e.
domestically in China), regionally (i.e. in southeast Asia), and globally, of the Chinese
Rare Earth Industry. It is the same for global rare earth supply. Thus rare
earth pricing and its impact on Future Supply and Demand also is dominated by the Chinese rare earth
industry growth and the Chinese industrys deployment of short term tactics based on its long term

There is sufficient developed light

rare earth (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium) total supply chain
capacity domestically in China to completely satisfy Chinas
strategy. Based on what I know today, I think that: 1.

domestic demand for the indefinite future . Thus the only markets
available to non-Chinese light rare earth producers are those outside
of China and these account today for at most 20% of global demand, 2. The
same is most likely true also for Chinas domestic total supply chain and
demand for the SEG (samarium, europium, and gadolinium) rare earths, 3. The total
global demand for primary HREEs is today essentially Chinas
domestic manufacturing market, However, from my own background knowledge and
experience, and my personal research in China, I believe that China does not have
sufficient economically practical (profitable) or environmentally safe to

mine supplies of new HREEs (I define these as terbium, dysprosium, and yttrium) to
satisfy even its near-term domestic (and currently the global) demand. Its
not that the Chinese ion-adsorption clays are played out; its that their continued legal production
is likely to be dramatically reduced by environmental and regulatory
restrictions in the new era in China of the nations switch from
export and savings driven GDP growth to that of domestic
consumption as the principal driver. 4. It is my further opinion that if it were not for the
fact that the Chinese rare earth processing industry is already
massively recycling HREE bearing waste streams from industrial processing and end of
life industrial components there would already be a shortage within China of
the HREEs. As it is, and as I stated above, I believe that new production of terbium,
dysprosium, and yttrium from the Chinese adsorption clay deposits are
diminishing due to the crackdown on illegal mining and on the issue
of environmental pollution. Thus the rare earth market is truly segmented. On the one hand
the two large non-Chinese producing primary rare earth mines, Mountain Pass and Mt Weld,
overwhelmingly contain and produce just the light rare earths. Those deposits that are relatively rich in the
HREEs, and are today in operation to produce HREEs, are the very low grade adsorption clays in southern
China. The HREE separation and refining market within China has or seems to have vast overcapacity. This
would seem to be an ideal situation for non-Chinese producers of mixed rare earth concentrates that have

But the issue is the rare earth total value

chain not just the supply c hain. Those without knowledge of either chain have been for
significant percentages of HREEs.

the last several years simply assuming the they could ascribe the market value or a high proportion of it to
their models of the values for the mixed rare earth process leach solutions derived from their mechanically
beneficiated ore concentrates. The primary error in this reasoning is the assumption that the discount from
market pricing would be only 40%. In fact the principle and majority OPEXs are incurred downstream of
this point which involves processing the PLS all the way to the fabricated metallic forms or specified
chemical blends required by the actual consuming industries. Among other glossed over expenditures are:
The costs added for removing and disposing of radioactive components from the PLS are not just CAPEX
and OPEX chemical but must also include future regulatory costs, which are today purely speculative, at
best, The costs of separating the desired rare earths from each other involve substantial initial CAPEX
and OPEX but most of the juniors have even so vastly overestimated such costs while simultaneously
trivializing the costs discussed in factor 1 above, The cost of obtaining the latest, most efcient and
competitive, supply chain component technology, such as those for separation, purification, metal making,
and alloy making, The cost in time and manpower (person-power) to bring a total supply chain or enough
of its components into operation to make a rare earth venture profitable from the start, and The cost of
finding the people for and setting up a marketing organization to convince end users that they should risk
adding a vendor to their procurement profile. Note well that this process normally takes up to three years!

China is shifting to supplying domestic demand and ei

they can meet global demand now the CCP is purging the
country of excess production
Jack Lifton, a Founding Principal of Technology Metals Research, LLC. He is
also a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of the
technology metals, Investor Intel, Lifton Unchained (Part 4): China is
ofcially shifting focus to domestic consumer demand, 10-3- 2013
http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/part4///BDS)
The late and unlamented Soviet Union created this planning model, but could not make it work, and so the
Soviet Union became a hypocritical dead end benefiting only privileged elites that in the end simply went
bankrupt. Even though it had produced immense stockpiles of natural resources. It had not managed to

China, over the last 25 years, just one

has created the largest export led economy in the world. It has
accumulated US$3 trillion of reserves in doing so. China is now officially shifting gears .
It has announced that it will shift its focus to domestic consumer demand so as
to be able to maintain the vast productive capacity it has built as a low
create an economy that could consume them.
generation,

labor cost exporter. The Chinese mining industry and its downstream
value chain are part and parcel of this shift in emphasis. Lets see how
exactly this is affecting the rare earth supply chain in China and how this will affect any forecast of future

China
today, notwithstanding the entry of both Molycorp and Lynas into the light rare earth supply market,
remains the overwhelmingly largest supplier of light rare earths in
the world. I estimate that during the last 12 months China has produced and sold 90% of the worlds
global demand for the rare earths collectively and individually. First of all please note that

legally traded light rare earths. I say sold to emphasize that Molycorp has stated that it has built a large
inventory of material and it is not clear to me how much has been actually sold into the market. Lynas,
hopefully due to start up issues, has so far produced almost nothing in finished goods (at its entry point

a speaker from
Baotou dramatically emphasized that his company is the worlds
largest vertically integrated producer of light rare earths all the way
through to metals, and that, by itself, Baotou could easily supply the
worlds demand for such products indefinitely. Keep in mind that of the 200 or so
into the market). Three weeks ago when I was in China at the ICRE in Ganzhou

people in that audience only a dozen, at most, were not Chinese. Ganzhou is the heavy rare earth

There are, as I mentioned above, some 38 rare earth

separation plants with more than 60,000 tons per year of capacity in the
three-province local region of southern China . The Baotou speaker wasnt trying
to impress us, few, non-Chinese, he was very pointedly telling the other Chinese
to stick to mining and refining heavy rare earths. Why? Because he is
worried about competition in refining not from Molycorp or Lynas
but from other increasingly stressed Chinese rare earth refiners who
are being told by the central government that unless they are legal,
environmentally in order, and profitable they can be ignored by the
new consolidators of the rare earth industry appointed by the
central government who, the consolidators, are the only ones who
can give out production and end-use allocations and licenses.
processing center of the world.

Interestingly enough there was a list shown of the individual capacities of the 38 rare earth separation
plants in the region. The largest was of 5000 tons per annum capacity, the smallest was 1000 tons, and
the average was 2000 tons. There are a small, relative to the total, number of much larger light rare earth
separation plants in China. Notably in Baotous home, the Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia. I was told
that China Minmetals, now appointed as a rare earth consolidator, for example, is building a new 10,000+
ton per year capacity SX plant. The statement was made in the conference that 90% of Chinas rare earth

There is
clearly a vast excess rare earth separation and refining capacity in
China and there is clearly a bloodbath underway among them to see
which will survive. These communists are doing a very good job of using market capitalism to
sort out a problem. When this type of behavior occurs in a free market
economy it normally results in temporary low prices during the
oversupply period followed by price stability as inefficient companies
fail and then price rises by the winners to compensate for their
losses in the battle for survival . I think this is exactly what were seeing today in the,
refining is done by the largest 6 SX plants and that 97% is done by the top 20 SX plants.

still dominated by China, rare earth markets

China has control over the REM industry but overheating,

structural failures, and overproduction has left Chinas
industry weak
Morrison and Tang 12 (Wanye and Rachel, April 30th, Chinas Rare Earth Industry and
Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85418/m1/1/high_res_d/R42510_2012Apr
30.pdf

Overheated rare earth production in China during the 1990s and the early 2000s
generated a fragmented industry with thousands of mines, many
engaging in reckless mining and illicit production. In order to maximize profits,
these small companies often ignored safety and environmental
regulations and fiercely competed with each other for export deals. In addition to environmental
degradation in China, this overcrowded rare earth sector and often intense
competition sharply drove down rare earths prices and. therefore, further pressed
producers to cut corners in order to secure their already thinning profit margins. Local governments, which

In addition to illicit rare earth

production, smuggling also became widespread, which exacerbated
resource depletion and kept prices low. According to China Business News, about
20.000 tons of rare earths were smuggled from China in 2008. Which
was estimated to have accounted for one- third of the total volume of
rare earths leaving China that year. This smuggling is often the main reason behind the
often had vested interests, often tolerated these practices.34

discrepancies between the ofcial statistics and the actual data of rare earth production and exports in

Chinese policymakers and industry experts have voiced concerns

over the perceived rapid depletion of their exhaustible rare earth
resources. They contend that the rare earth deposits in China account for less than half of total global
reserves; however, the country mines and provides over 95% of the global
supply Rare earth production in China has far outpaced the sustainable level which makes Chinese
China.

ofcials concerned that such a disproportionately high level of output could soon deplete their resources.

The Chinese government is also concerned that overproduction and

illegal mining often came at the cost of environmental degradation safety or environmental protection is often ignored in pursuit of revenue potential.36 The Chinese
media have repeatedly exposed incidents of water system and
farmland contamination in rare earth mining areas, from Inner Mongolia to

southern provinces such as Guangdong and Jiangxi.37 hi the southern provinces, rare earths can be found

saw an
explosion of the number of poorly constructed and maintained local
mines that were both polluting and wasteful, leaving behind
contaminated soil and water. In November of 2011, during a product quality inspection,
in high concentration in clays and soil a few feet underground. As a result, the 1990s

China's General Administration of Quality Supervision found that 19 of 85 tea products contained excessive
levels of toxic rare earths, including a batch of Lipton tea produced and sold in China by Unilever. Unilever
later stated that the rare earth metals had come from the soil where the tea was grown and had nothing to

China currently argues that it is now moving to

consolidate production and put supplies of a critical and exhaustible
resource on a more sustainable footing. China maintains that rare earth export prices
have been too low to reflect its virtual monopoly position. Moreover, such dominance, in view
of the Chinese industry experts and policymakers, should assist China
to move up the supply chain and engage in rare earth application and
end products, not just being the world's supplier of raw materials.39 hi
recent years, China has put in place a series of industry and trade policies,
aiming to capitalize on its dominance of rare earth supply
do with its production process.38

Clean Tech Leadership isnt zero-sum ,empirics proves

Economy 10

(Elizabeth C, "The game changer: coping with China's foreign policy

revolution." Foreign Affairs, Academic OneFile. Web,
http://go.galegroup.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ps/i.do?action =interpret&id=GALE
%7CA246715580&v=2.1&u=
northwestern&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1)

If the United States wants to be the global leader in clean-energy technology

by 2050, for example, it should now be developing the intellectual, financial, and
political infrastructure to get there. And when Chinese clean-energy investment
interests come knocking, as they are doing, the United States will be well positioned
to determine what types of investment should be welcomed . When done right, such
deals have the potential to result in equitable partnerships and successful
cooperation. In August 2010, for example, the United Steelworkers union struck a deal
with the Chinese companies A-Power Energy Generation Systems and Shenyang
Power Group to develop a $1.5 billion wind-farm venture in Texas that will create
1,000 jobs for U.S. workers--up from 330 U.S. jobs when the project was first
proposed--and use about 50,000 tons of U.S.-made steel . Similarly, China's efforts to
move the international financial system away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency, although
potentially costly if done abruptly, might nonetheless be advantageous for Washington over the long run. If
the United States were no longer able to borrow money at a better rate than other countries or run greater
trade deficits with the benefit of a much-delayed economic impact, for example, it would impose a
potentially helpful fiscal discipline on the U.S. economy.

Not zero-sum basis for cooperation in squo means that

technology and development get shared
Wan 2013 (Zheng, Brian Craig, Utilities Policy 27, Reflections on China-US energy
cooperation: Overcoming differences to advance collaboration,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178713000581

These intergovernmental agreements/protocols promote

cooperation and interaction among institutions and personnel on a wider scale.
The US is an important force in the development of energy technology,
with obvious advantages in research, development, and industrialization. Meanwhile, China is home
to the fastest-growing energy markets with enormous potential for domination in the
(2008).

world market. China adopts a "market for technology" strategy (Mu and Lee, 2005) to introduce direct
investment projects from the US and guide technology transfer. In this manner, China has enhanced its
energy efciency schemes and developed its strengths in research and development During the Obama

China and the US accomplished additional breakthroughs in

energy cooperation. In November 2009, the two governments established the
USChina Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), which promotes
cooperative research and development through collaboration in
production, learning, and research on clean coal, clean energy
vehicles, and building energy conservation. The cooperation between the two is not
limited to related technology developments and government investments in scientific research; it also
brings in more investments from enterprises and business agencies , with
marketing as an important consideration. In early 2011, the energy sectors of China and
the US signed the energy cooperation agreement (which covers product procurement), which
amounts to more than US$13 billion (The Economic Times, 2011). The Sino-US Relations
administration,

Research Croup of China Energy Fund predicts that if the US lifts its restrictions on exports, China can
import American energy and environmental protection technology worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Such large-scale bilateral energy cooperation will enable China to

acquire technology for new energy sources, as well as resolve urgent energy and environmental
issues. Meanwhile, business opportunities will reduce the huge trade
deficit of the US and alleviate bilateral trade imbalance.

Clean Tech Markets arent Zero-Sum

Eisen 2010 (Joel B, Chinas Renewable Energy Law: A Platform for Green
Leadership?,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1917549)

It is exceedingly tempting to descend into stereotyping about a

monolithic "Red Menace" aiming to dominate the world's economy. Of
course, some do see China's growth in renewables as a threat. Many Western commentators focus on the
growth of China's greentech manufacturing sector and its potential impact on trade. n23

Protectionism in China's domestic greentech industries is a continuing

concern, and, as I discuss below, it has led to claims, as most prominently made in a recent
investigation commenced by the United States Trade Representative ("USTR"), that multinational

Western observers also

see Chinese firms as competition at [*5] home, focusing on potential imports of Chinese
companies face obstacles to cracking the Chinese market. n24 Some

technology into the United States at the expense of domestic companies and the economy. n25 This
important subject is worth a full treatment in its own right, as it is inextricably bound up in a much broader

it is
worth noting that growth in China's renewable power sector need not
be viewed as a zero-sum game. Precisely the opposite may well be true. Chinese and
discussion about multilateral trade relations. I will touch upon it briefly in this article. For now,

Western companies have begun to and China are much more complex than they are often made out to be.

that continued expansion of renewable energy in

China is complex because it faces substantial technical and legal
challenges similar in some respects to those faced in the United States. I will embark on an in-depth
Similarly, I contend in this article

analysis of those challenges, set against the legal, political, and financial environment for renewable
energy deployment in China. Beginning with China's governmental structure, I note that its unique
characteristics pose special challenges for increasing the deployment of renewable energy.

The race is all rhetoric because its actually zero sum and
the US would win anyways
Christina Larson, journalist focusing on international environmental issues,
based in Beijing and Washington, D.C. contributing editor at foreign policy,
Americas Unfounded Fears of A Green-Tech Race with China, Yale
Environment 360, 8-2-2010,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/americas_unfounded_fears_of_a_greentech_race_with_china/2238///BDS)
At a factory in Wuxi, China, workers lift solar panels onto conveyor belts, while others in white lab coats move between
machines as they check on a process for etching and engraving silicon wafers to form solar cells. This scene in itself isnt
remarkable. But there is a new sort of excitement about the work. Chinas production of solar panels has grown quickly in
the past two years; it is it now the worlds leading exporter. When Matt Lewis, a representative of the California-based
nonprofit ClimateWorks, visited the factory in October, he said it reminded him of his native Silicon Valley: The workers,
even ordinary line workers, had a sense that they were part of building the future, the hot new industry. This comparison
makes some in the United States, and especially in Washington, nervous. Thomas Friedman has used the bully pulpit of
his China Production Line influential New York Times column to warn that the United States is engaged in a global greentech competition with China, whose potential dominance represents a new Sputnik. (How do you say clean your clock
in Chinese? he wrote.) This notion, conjuring residual memories of the days in which U.S. rivalry with Soviet Union was
crystallized in the space race when the word Sputnik, the name of the Soviet space program, inspired quivers of
anxiety about Americas political and economic prowess and its existential place in the world has today struck a
resonant chord in Washington, drawing upon existing fears and mistrust of China. While some U.S. politicians and
commentators still paint China as the global pollution villain, especially after the disappointing outcome at Copenhagen,
others are beginning to take green China seriously as a threat. Last fall, for instance, when Senator Charles Schumer
got wind of a planned wind farm in west Texas, announced by a partnership of American and Chinese companies, that
would use some wind equipment made in China and potentially create new jobs across the Pacific, he recommended
blocking stimulus money from the project, rather than help boost green China. The stimulus money is supposed to create
jobs in America, he wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. (The new wind farm would also have created 300
jobs in Texas, but Schumer was worried that a greater number could be created in China.) Last month, a front-page
Sunday piece by Keith Bradsher of the New York Times took the competition metaphor a step further and declared that
China was in fact already winning the green-tech race. The article, China Leading Race to Make Clean Energy, made the
rounds in Washington with its assertion that China had passed the U.S. and several western European countries to become
the words top manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines; it quoted the CEO of a private equity firm in Beijing

saying, ominously, Most of the energy equipment [of the future] will carry a brass plate, Made in China. The Times
article also raised another spine-tingling geopolitical comparison this time not likening Beijing to the latter-day USSR,
but to the modern-day Middle East. [Chinas] efforts to dominate renewable China will gain thousands of jobs, but not
necessarily at Americas expense. energy technologies, Bradsher wrote, raise the prospect that the West may someday
trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in
China. In other words, China might become the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy; the implication seems to be that not
only might green China pose an economic threat, but the sheiks of Beijing might soon wield undue political influence over

Few business stories have ever been imbued with so

much gravitas, so many fears, so many metaphors, so much
geopolitical speculation, as the recent articles and coverage of
Chinas growing green-tech manufacturing sector. Behind these
fears, there is something worth probing and some myths worth
dispelling. Just what are Americans afraid of? To distill the cloud of anxiety, there
seem to be three chief fears. The first is very tangible jobs. The second is about Americas place
a dependent United States.

in the world will the U.S. remain a global leader in innovation? And the third is about leverage will the U.S. control its
future, or be beholden to a foreign energy gatekeeper, one that exerts undue pull on its economic or foreign policy? Even

it really pays to give a

close look at what is actually happening on the ground , says Elizabeth
Economy, director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The River Runs Black. Then you
begin to get a different, more nuanced picture than what is blasted on the business
section of the New York Times. The first essential fact to be aware of is that most news stories about
Chinas greentech gains are about manufacturing. China is becoming the wind-turbine factory to
when you are looking at these big numbers that are coming out of China today, I think

the world for much the same reasons it has long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the world: lower wages, lower land

shouldnt be
seen as a reversal of the status quo. Whats changed most dramatically in
the last five years has been growing global demand. With significant government investment, Chinese
prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements, etc. This isnt particularly surprising, and it

factories have planned for and stepped up production accordingly. Yes, this is bad news for U.S. cities like Detroit, where
planners have recently been retrofitting old hot-rod factories into wind-turbine factories, such as an old Ford Thunderbird
plant in Michigan thats being converted into a green-tech manufacturing center in a bid to boost the local economy.

Chinas research labs are politically constrained, limiting their ability

to attract top talent. Manufacturing in China, especially low and medium-tech manufacturing, has certain
clear economic advantages. But its also worth considering a few other facts. Most of the green
manufacturing jobs that the U.S. stands to lose havent in fact
been created yet; China will gain thousands of new jobs, but not necessarily at
Americas expense. Moreover, the United States will still gain many new greencollar jobs, in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well
as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to
support the growing green-tech field. Besides green-tech hardware, theres also the question of the technology that

Who will be responsible for the innovation that drives the low-carbon future?
At present, America still has significant advantages including the worlds
leading university system and the entrepreneurial culture and
venture-capital spigots of technology hubs, particularly Silicon Valley.
Intellectual property rights have done a lot to hamper Chinas development
of green technology, says Linden Ellis, U.S. director of nonprofit China Dialogue. People would
rather come to Silicon Valley and develop a technology where they know it will be
protected by the law, right down to every line, than go to China and try to develop a technology there where
enables it.

maybe the components will be cheaper and there is a lot of interest, but people do not trust that their findings will be

Similar concerns have, for the past two decades, grounded Beijings
attempts to build a domestic airline industry, considered the pinnacle of high-tech
manufacturing. Foreign companies and top-notch engineers have simply been
unwilling to share technology with China (Boeing has even avoided building factories in
protected.

China, for fear of commercial espionage). The result: Planes that fly from Beijing to Shanghai today are still built by Boeing
and Airbus. Of course, most green-energy equipment wont match the complexity of assembling something like Boeings

cheap labor is hardly the

only factor driving business decisions, and that, despite substantial
government support, Chinas domestic aerospace engineers have
new Dreamliner, but the airplane situation sheds light on two points: that

not yet produced research to rival that of Western competitors . (Chinas

university system and research labs are famously politically constrained, limiting their ability to attract top global talent.)
Of course, China would like to change this. Beijing is doing its best to both allay the fears of international partners and to
nurture its own homegrown innovators. A program known as the State High-Tech Development Plan, launched by Beijing
in March 1986 and nicknamed the 863 Program, The

clean-tech war is overblown from

the start, says one American entrepreneur. aims to develop top scientists in China and
to incubate cutting-edge technology projects in energy and other sectors. So far, its results have been modest over two
decades: birthing a family of computer processors known as Loongson, and some technology used in the Shenzhou

863 Programs track record should certainly dispel Western assumptions that
also disproves the notion that money alone
can clone a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. This should allay
some anxiety in Washington about America having fallen behind, but
it is not a reason to become complacent. America has neither
relinquished, nor is forever assured, her innovation crown. Meanwhile,
folks in the green-tech and environmental frontlines as opposed to politicians and
commentators dont see a race at all. I do not see such a pattern
exists, says Wen Bo, a Beijing environmentalist. The clean-tech war is
overblown from the start, says Richard Brubaker, an American environmental
entrepreneur in Shanghai. To them, the green-tech race is not one that one
side wins and the other loses, but a scenario where partnerships are
sought out and the final equation doesnt have to be a zero-sum
spacecraft. While the

no good research can come from China, it

game. For now at least, there is a great symbiotic relationship with

California and the east coast of China on green technology , says Linden
Ellis. Where California has the know-how, the technology, the
universities and programs dedicated to developing technology, people who are
interested in piloting it on a very expansive scale, or trying new combinations, often seek out research
partners in China. Similar partnerships can exist even when the focus shifts from research to commercial
activity. Kevin Czinger, the CEO of a Santa Monica-based electric car company that partners with a Chinese battery

the U.S. would stop feeling threatened by

Chinas progress on clean technology, it might begin to recognize its
own strengths in this field.
company, noted in a New Yorker article that if

China and US achieve best results through cooperating on

cleantech
[this ev is probably more prescriptive than descriptive]
Jonathan Woetzel, director in McKinseys Shanghai ofce, China and the
US: The potential of a clean-tech partnership
, McKinsey & Company, 8-2009,
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/china_and_the
_us_the_potential_of_a_clean-tech_partnership//BDS)
China and the United States, the worlds dominant producers of carbon emissions, have
adopted aggressive programs to reduce oil imports, create new clean-energy
industries and jobs, and generally improve the environment. But the environment that will
be most critical to making or breaking the two countries eforts to curb the
dangers of global warming could well be the market that they jointly
create in pursuit of their aims. Unless the two work together to
provide the scale, standards, and technology transfer necessary to make a
handful of promising but expensive new clean-energy technologies successful, momentum to

curb global warming could stall and neither country will maximize its
gains in terms of green jobs, new companies, and energy security.
The risk is real. Electrified vehicles, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and concentrated solar power,
among other emerging green

tech sectors, will need massive investment,

infrastructure, and research to get off the ground. While the Chinese and US
governments, along with private investors, are pursuing all of these technologies,
they cannot achieve separately what they could jointly. Whether
collaborating formally or informally, China and the United States
working as a group of two (or G-2) dedicated to climate change would
boost these technologies and deliver benefits that would accrue to
all nations. Clean-energy solutions are critical for reducing the amount of harmful greenhouse gases
produced not only by the two highest-emitting nations but also by countries worldwide. For instance, if the
majority of vehicles on the worlds roads by 2030 were hybrids and battery-powered vehicles, they would
generate 42 percent fewer emissions than if all cars continued to run on todays gas and diesel engines.1
But such reductions wont occurwont even come close to happeningunless China and the United

A global electric-car sector must start in China

begin with the two countries jointly creating
an environment for automotive investors to scale their bets across both
nations. Private companies in China and the United States will most certainly compete to make the
States lay the groundwork to make it so.
and the United States, and it must

products, including electric-drive (or hybrid) vehicles, batteries, charging stations, and so on. But the two
governments can no doubt create the conditions for both of them to succeedfor example, by setting
coordinated product and safety standards across the two markets, funding the rollout of infrastructure,
sponsoring joint R&D initiatives in select areas (such as new materials for car parts), ensuring that trade
policies support rather than hinder the development of a global supply chain for the sector, and providing
consumers with financial incentives to buy the new models. More immediately, the two governments could
pick matching cities in China and the United States for electrified-vehicle pilots that could be used to
collect standardized data on real electrified-vehicle consumer adoption, infrastructure costs, and driving

This new sector will

require scale to succeedmore scale than could be found any time soon
in either country alone. Electrified vehicles may one day become a viable market within both
nations, but that day will arrive much more quickly if the two countries
collaborate to create a market that is bigger and more attractive. In building this market, China
conditions that could then be shared with companies in both nations.

and the United States would also ensure that the companies and jobs associated with it would be created
in both countries sooner. Oil consumption will fall more quickly as well: today, about 50 percent of Chinas
oil importsand 80 percent of Americasare used to fuel vehicles. In other words, one plus one would
equal three. Such momentum would also likely spark Europe into competing in a global electrified-vehicle

CCS is another technology whose success needs the scale

that only China and the United States can create together. Adapting CCS
industry faster.

technology to coal-fired plants to capture the emitted greenhouse gases is expensive. CCS technology also
uses a lot of energy to capture the emissions, thereby making plants less efcient. And fundamental
questions about how the captured emissions are to be stored still need addressing. Neither nation is
pursuing this expensive, uncertain emissions reduction technology quickly, but they would improve their
chances and their options if they pooled costs and knowledge. Together,

the two governments

could fund demonstration plants in China and the United States, jointly evaluate

technologies available from vendors, set standards, and drive down costs. By using the pilot plants as
research labs to learn more about the challenges CCS faces and how to overcome them, the governments
could share the information with companies entering the CCS business, advancing learning in this industry
at a quicker pace. Assuming engineers find solutions to the technical and storage hurdles, we estimate
that by 2030 this technology could clean 17 percent of coal power in the United States and 30 percent of
Chinas coal power, reducing total combined emissions by as much as 7 percenta significant benefit to

solar power (CSP) might not even have a

future without joint action by China and the United States . As an emerging
both nations and to the world. Concentrated

technology, CSP requires both technical progress and massive investments that only the largest economies
can support. CSP technology uses sunlight to create and store steam power to drive turbines that transmit
electricity on a larger scale more easily than they could using photovoltaic technology (which uses flatscreen receptors that turn sunlight into power). If clean concentrated solar power is scaled to generate 22
percent of total power in China and the United States by 2030, it could create over half a million jobs in
each country. Setting common standards, coinvesting in pilot projects and R&D, and undertaking other
joint initiatives are the way to get this started. There are other benefits to joint action on clean energy

Cooperation on tangible
actions that result in positive improvements for each country could
help to foster trust between governments that have real diferences
on other political and economic issues. In addition, meaningful reductions in
oil consumption by the worlds two largest importers of oil could
ease pressure on future global supply and demand imbalances of the
fossil fuel. It wont be easy for countries and companies to work in common to make these
besides reducing oil imports, cleaning up the air, and creating jobs.

technologies real. The challenges to cooperation are numerous. Companies in both nations will be wary
about what information they share with partners and competitors. Real cooperation between the two
countries on technology initiatives is limited, so both sides will have to work hard to build relationships. In
addition, they will need to create institutional frameworks for implementing and managing projects, as well
as cofinancing mechanisms, partnership rules, and governance models. US companies will be concerned
about protecting the intellectual property (IP) technologies that they use in pilot projects in China. The two
governments will need to cleanly separate bilateral initiatives on clean-energy development from broader,

none of these
challenges are showstoppers. Negotiations between the two countries could
address nearly all these issues comprehensively. Even the thorniestIP protectionis
multilateral agreements on emissions reductions. The list goes on. But

manageable. Because companies from many nations would contribute to making these three big
technologies a success, IP agreements should be international. On that front, China will need to improve its
ability to enforce global IP rules. Most critical, however, is the leadership that will be needed to surmount
these obstacles. A commitment at the top levels of both governments to set a joint course for making
these technologies real would be the signal of a real beginning. From there the impulse for collaboration
may well filter down through the public and private sectors in the two countries to make research,
investment, and policy a cooperative agenda.

2AC AT: China Monopoly Good (China Econ

Impact)
Chinese economy resilient urbanization, investment, and
stimulus prove
Reuters 11

(Kevin Yao, June 23, Analysis: China economy resilient, for now,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/us-china-economy-growth-idUSTRE75M1AO20110623) RA
BEIJING (Reuters) China's growth is slowing under the weight of Beijing's anti-inflation campaign and

investors betting on a hard landing would be

underestimating the resilience of the world's second-largest economy .
China's relentless urbanization continue to drive expansion even as Beijing
seeks to check unfettered investment by growth-obsessed local authorities,
while stronger domestic consumption is providing a firmer cushion against
external shocks. China bears may have been emboldened on Thursday by a purchasing managers'
survey showing growth in the factory sector nearly stalled in June as new export orders fell. But skeptics
who are expecting an abrupt economic slowdown may have miscalculated
Beijing's resolve to act quickly if needed to revive growth, especially if inflation eases
weaker global demand, but any

later this year as expected, reducing the need for fresh monetary tightening measures, analysts say.

"The economy is set up for growth. You've still got urbanization and
industrialization to come and all the incentives at local government levels are
still to do with encouraging growth," said Stephen Green, an economist at
Standard Chartered Bank in Hong Kong. "People always over-worry about a
China hard landing. Clearly there are a lot of problems with the economy but people may
underestimate the government's ability to muddle through." Green expects some
policy relaxation later this year as price pressures start to moderate. NO HARD LANDING? Global investors
are unnerved by any sign of a slowdown in China, a key global growth engine, even as the U.S. economic
recovery loses momentum and Europe struggles with a sovereign debt crisis. An abrupt slowdown in China
could hammer international financial markets and stifle demand for commodities from iron ore to
soybeans. The economy has expanded at an average annual pace of 10 percent in the past three decades.
Fears of a hard landing have gained traction as a recent stream of data showed the turbo-charged

China shows no signs of following the West with

growth levels falling well below long-term trends. Indeed, most market
watchers typically define a hard landing in the Chinese context as a sudden dip in
quarterly GDP growth below 8 percent, a level advanced economies can only
dream about. The 8 percent threshold is, more importantly, a political line in the sand for Beijing,
which it deems to be the minimum level needed to create enough jobs to ensure social stability. The last
time the economy showed signs of a sudden slump, during the depths of the
global financial crisis in late 2008, Beijing announced a 4 trillion yuan ($600
billion) stimulus plan, quickly returning to double-digit growth. While few argue with
economy is cooling, but for now

the success of that scheme, many economists say the spending binge also sowed the seeds of inflation
and created excesses such as unrestrained lending and property bubbles which are aggravating
imbalances in the economy, leaving it more vulnerable if the current "soft patch" in Western demand turns
out to be a prolonged downturn. MORE STIMULUS? Policymakers will certainly have more room to consider
fresh pump-priming if inflation peaks in June or July near 6 percent, as widely expected, and then
moderates steadily in the second-half of the year. Dong Tao, an economist at Credit Suisse, believes the
central bank will not rush to relax policy for fear of fueling further property price rises, but said the

"Should the
threat of a hard landing emerge, we would expect fiscal stimulus to come to
the rescue, instead of monetary easing. Providing funding to policy housing
and speeding up infrastructure projects would be the easy options, " he said.
government will unleash its spending power to prevent growth from slowing too much.

China has already announced an ambitious plan to start building and upgrading 36 million affordable
homes between 2011-2015, with 10 million to be completed this year, to quell growing public discontent

Many economists, while trimming their growth

forecasts for China, don't believe the current slowdown will amount to a
slump akin to that during the global financial crisis . Most still expect GDP growth of
over rapidly rising house prices.

more than 9 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier compared with 9.7 percent in the first

"I'm not worried about the risk of a

hard landing in China. It's a low-probability event this year and next year ,"
said Gao Shanwen, chief economist at China Essence Securities in Beijing . After
quarter, with full-year growth seen at about 9 percent.

all, a gentle easing in growth is exactly what Beijing wants and is in line with its policy to priorities' efforts
to cool inflation. "The slowdown is essentially part of the deal. you need to a slowdown to reduce excesses
and control inflation," said Kevin Lai, economist at Daiwa Global Markets in Hong Kong.

Chinese economy is self-correcting threats of crisis are

overblown and not supported
Ulrich 10 - Managing Director and Chairman of China Equities at J.P. Morgan (Jing, March 3, J.P.

Morgans Hands-On China Series, Google, Debunking the myth of a China collapse) RA
There have always been cynics regarding Chinas economic growth and without joining the ranks of the
doomsayers, it is easy to veer towards pessimistic conjecture simply by observing the changing landscape
in Chinas rapidly developing cities. Any casual visitor will marvel at the sprawling complexes of newly-built
apartments and ofce towers admittedly many units at these developments are typically owned by
speculative investors holding out for capital appreciation. The worst-case fears concerning Chinas
property market are based upon a layer of truth and we ourselves have highlighted the untenable nature
of price increases in some big Chinese cities, as well as the possibility that last years property boom was
partly fuelled by misdirected bank loans. However,

there are crucial differences between

Chinas real estate markets and those of the U.S. (and indeed Dubai), which require
that we view the apparent building bubble through the lens of Chinas unique
circumstances. Unlike the dramatic increase in household leverage that
precipitated the U.S. sub-prime crisis, Chinese household debt amounts to
approximately 17% of GDP, compared to roughly 96% in the US and 62% in the
Euro area. While the level of Chinese household leverage has increased in recent years, it has done so
from a very low base. HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT MAR 3, 2010 With respect to residential property,
homebuyers in China are required to make minimum downpayments of 30% before receiving a mortgage,
and at least 40% for a second home purchase. Even at the height of the governments stimulus efforts, the
minimum down-payment requirement for first homes was only lowered to 20%. The Chinese cultural
tendency of shunning debt explains the many anecdotal accounts we hear about homebuyers putting
down amounts that substantially exceed these minimum requirements. This is made possible by the
massive amount of savings that Chinese households have accumulated, while in comparison, the U.S.
savings rate stood below 1% in the years preceding the housing crisis. Although price increases in the
Chinese residential market appear rapid (over 20% in 2009), such headline figures cannot be viewed in
isolation of the broader trend in income growth. Over the past 5 years, urban household incomes grew at a
13.2% compound annual rate, compared to an 11.9% CAGR in home prices. This is not to say that pockets
of overheating cannot be found in some regional markets. In Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hangzhou,
for instance, prices did in fact outpace income growth by a margin of more than 5 percentage points over
the same period. But again, we see this as a symptom of new urban wealth being put to speculative use,

The combination of excessive leverage and

mortgage securitization were at the epicenter of the U.S. sub-prime crisis
both of these factors are absent in the Chinese context. The commercial segment of
rather than the profligate use of leverage.

real estate has inspired just as much concern, with prices rising 16% in 2009, despite low rental yields and
prime ofce vacancy rates as high as 21% and 14% in Beijing and Shanghai, respectively. However
occupancy and rental rates have started to pick up for prime properties many of the current vacancies

Chinas
urbanization process is far from over and vacant space will be absorbed over
time. The crux of the problem with the Chinese real estate sector is that property is seen by the countrys
are at the lower end. While returns for new projects may end up lower than expected,

investing class as a store of value, within an economy that offers its citizens persistently low deposit rates
and limited investment options. The absence of a recurring property holding tax allows speculative
homebuyers to disregard rental yields in hopes of reaping capital appreciation in the nottoo-distant future.
We share many of the concerns about flawed incentives and overheating in the Chinese property market

even if property prices were to undergo a correction, this would not trigger
the type of economic and financial devastation that might arise in an overbut

leveraged economy. Although stability in the property market is critical to

sustaining the Chinese economys recovery, policymakers are clearly
concerned about the risk of asset bubbles and the threat that excessive
speculation could drive prices beyond affordability for average homebuyers.
The government is also well aware of the need to increase the holding costs for property investment and is
weighing the potential value of introducing a national property tax. This measure might be introduced in
the medium-term and should serve to deflate prices in some overheating markets. In the meantime,
authorities have re-imposed a business tax on homeowners who resell their properties within a period of
two years and could hike this further to deter speculation. The perennial ups and downs of Chinas
property sector arise from the fact that the countrys closed capital account and underdeveloped capital
markets leave its citizens with few investment options. Investment interest in residential property has
fuelled a mismatch between the stock of higher-ed apartment buildings and practical needs for affordable
housing. This imbalance must be resolved over time by spurring the development of affordable housing,
which is currently one of the governments HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT MAR 3, 2010 main policy
initiatives.

In the long run, financial reform, including capital account

liberalization, will provide Chinese investors with broader investment options ,
reducing the role of real estate as a form of capital preservation. Worries about public sector debt A more
recent warning issued by some China bears is that of hidden debt risk among Chinese local government
investment companies which according to state media reports, received approximately 40% of last years
RMB9.6 trillion in new loans. Ofcial estimates of the total outstanding loan balance for such investment
entities exceed RMB6 trillion or roughly 20% of Chinese GDP a figure that has been criticized by some
as being too low. According to a Bloomberg report quoting Victor Shih of Northwestern University, the
worst case scenario arising from hidden borrowing by Chinas local investment intermediaries is a largescale financial crisis around 2012. Since many shovel-ready local infrastructure projects were brought
forward as part of the stimulus plan, near-term returns on investment are likely to be subdued. However,
as J.P. Morgan analysts Samuel Chen and Sunil Garg have pointed out, Chinese bank loans for public sector
investment projects carry implicit or explicit sovereign guarantees, and are thus almost akin to a bond
issuance for a public works project. Moreover, the majority of projects at local government levels carry land
collateral and explicit fiscal revenue guarantees. Over the past year, the Chinese government has also
stepped up efforts to enforce tax collection across the corporate sector. This effort, when combined with
improving business conditions, brought last years fiscal deficit to a narrower-thanbudgeted 2.2% of GDP.
Chinese economic planners are already aiming to achieve a slowdown in infrastructure investment, shifting
focus toward completing existing projects rather than funding new construction. Growth in infrastructure
investment slowed to 42.5% in FY09, from 50.7% in the first half. On a year-over-year basis, the slowdown
has been more pronounced, with infrastructure investment growth peaking at 55.5% in May, vs. 31.9% in
December. Meanwhile, Chinas banking regulator has ordered banks to closely follow lending guidelines to
ensure that all lending to local government investment companies are backed by actual projects and that
project risks are properly accounted for. Looking ahead, while certain local administrations might struggle
to service debt, the magnitude of public sector debt risks do not appear as severe as some have
suggested. According to IMF forecasts, Chinas government debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to reach 22% in
2010, compared to 94% in the U.S. and 227% in Japan. Even if the more alarming estimates of local
government debt were included, the ratio would only grow to approximately 51% of estimated 2010 GDP.

China's ability to
regulate its economy has far reaching implication s for global markets. One
must not underestimate the scale of future demand in a country that is
urbanizing at a rate of 15 million people a year. Today, many observers are
concerned that Chinas economy has grown too rapidly, and are all too-ready
to point to pockets of overcapacity as proof of an imminent system-wide
collapse. While we agree that certain vulnerable areas of the economy
deserve closer monitoring, we find little support for the sceptics' views of an
imminent crisis.
As a pillar of demand for a number of economies and for the commodities complex,

2AC AT: Enviro DA

Robotics dont link to the environment DA---it doesnt tear
up the ocean floor
Currie, 13 Adam, Rare Earth Investing News, The Pacific Dream: An
Underwater Rare Earth Behemoth, http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/9349underwater-rare-earth-deep-sea-china-japan-ocean-floor-geophysicsdiscovery.html
Environmentally sound Over half of the metal in this underwater
deposit is on the heavier end of the spectrum, twice the level of Chinas key mines and without the
radioactive by-product thorium that makes the metals so hard to mine, according to researchers cited by The Telegraph. Commenting on
the environmental implications of mining REEs from the seabed , Kowalczyk
noted that there will likely not be any major implications and that if issues
arise, they will most likely be associated with the amount of material that needs to be moved to access the ore-bearing horizons, which are subhorizontal and exist
over large areas. Describing the kind of extraction process that would be used
to retrieve REEs from the seabed, Kowalczyk stated it will
undoubtedly be robotic. It is very unlikely it will be an open-cut type
of extraction sequence as this would impact considerable amounts
of material. Possible candidates are in situ leaching, robotic mining machines
that are analogues of tunnel boring machines and perhaps
subhorizontal drilling similar to that used in the extractions of tight
gas from shale formations on land. He continued, it may be that a process
similar to that used for roll-front uranium deposits on land may be
adaptable to this environment also. If the new high-grade nodule
type deposits are confirmed to be extensive and not buried deeply,
this will simplify the mining process.

The plan is net better than status quo mining and could to
lead to environmental protection
UNEP 12 (United Nations Environmental Programme, Green Economy in a
Blue World, http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_Economy_Blue_Full.pdf)
2.2 Environmental Opportunities It may at first glance appear that deep-sea mining
offers very few environmental 'opportunities ' but advocates of deep-sea mining have
argued that focusing mineral exploration on the deep sea is significantly better for
the environment than the continued exploitation of minerals on land {Branan,
2007 and Schrope, 2007). The reasons put forward include less waste, smaller mine
footprint, reusable infrastructure, lower greenhouse gas generation and
easier site remediation. The trend of terrestrial mining to exploit ores of
increasingly lower grades results in larger and larger amounts of waste material
being generated. The comparatively high grade of deep-sea ores and the general absence of
overburden means that, in comparison toon-land mining, there is likely to be a much smaller
mine footprint and much less waste generation {Scott, 2001). Historically mining waste
has often caused serious pollution - contamination of waterways, increased sedimentation and acid mine

due to the minimal amount of waste theorized to be generated at

deep-sea mine sites, toxic waste is considered to pose less of a problem with
marine mining. Deep-sea mining is not likely to displace most land-based mining, however, unless
drainage - but

policy actions are implemented to limit or at least charge for environmental impacts associated with

Deep-sea mining activity may provide environmental spinoffs, which include increased knowledge of deep-sea biological communities .
mining (see text box).

For example, private company funded research in the Manus Basin, Papua New Guinea, has already
produced a significant body of literature on vent communities and the physio-chemical conditions
surrounding hydrothermal systems. The value of these scientific discoveries is difcult to quantify, but it is
clear that the costs of conducting such research in the absence of commercial exploration would be high
and therefore may not occur. Increased knowledge assists with the management and conservation of

Deep-sea mining activity and the habitat-mapping data it could

generate can be used to define meaningful marine protected areas in regions
of the deep sea where there is currently very sparse information.
deep-sea environments.

Dont have to drill---can scoop it up

Goldenberg, 14 Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Marine
mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat
Lodge expects the pace to continue, with rising demand for metals for emerging economies, and for
technologies such as hybrid cars and smart phones.

Extracting the metals will not

require drilling. The ore deposits are in nodules strewn across the
rolling plains of sediment that carpet the ocean floor.
Oceanographers say they resemble knobbly black potatoes, ranging in size
from a couple of centimetres to 30cm. Mining companies say it may be possible to
scoop them up with giant tongs and then siphon them up to vessels
waiting on the surface.
No risktheir studies are all hype.
Begley 10 (Sharon Begley is a environmental writer for Newsweek, 9/20/11, Is Deep-Sea Mining Bad
for the Environment?, http://www.newsweek.com/deep-sea-mining-bad-environment-71983)

surprise of many scientists, however, the risk mining poses to

the vent communities may be smaller than originally feared . For one
thing, seafloor deposits are much more concentrated than those on land: at a site
To the

3,000 feet down off Papua New Guinea called Solwara 1, where Nautilus expects to begin mining in 2012,
deposits contain 6.7 percent copper. That compares with 0.46 percent for typical deposits on land. Pound
for pound, seafloor ore also has more gold, zinc, and silver than land deposits do. Thats why seafloor
mining should make economic sense in the first place. Its also why, to extract a given quantity of metal,

less material needs to be processed, which is the most

environmentally destructive part of mining . (Processing requires
toxic compounds and leaves vast piles of waste.) Seafloor mining
might therefore be less destructive than mining on land , which brings such
not-exactly-benign consequences as mountaintop removal, mercury pollution, and destruction of
watersheds. In addition, the cutter suction technology pioneered by Nautilussome version of which

minimizes how much sediment is stirred up , says

Remote-controlled machines
smash the sulfide deposits, which are then hoovered up through a
riser pipe to a vessel on the surface. Although the process destroys the chimneys that
encase the sulfide-rich plumes, the vents themselves survive. The challenge, says Dukes
Van Dover, is to ensure that cumulative efects of mining activities do
not exceed the rate of recovery of the organisms that rely on these
habitats for survival.
China presumably would adopt

Samantha Smith, Nautiluss environmental manager.

The vents are resilient

Begley 10

(Sharon Begley is a environmental writer for Newsweek, 9/20/11, Is Deep-Sea Mining Bad
for the Environment?, http://www.newsweek.com/deep-sea-mining-bad-environment-71983)

the vents can withstand disasters such as

undersea volcanoes. A huge one near the East Pacific Rise erupted in 1991, releasing molten
lava that basically paved the seafloor and choked off the geyser, obliterating the vent
creatures. Yet microorganisms and larger animals recolonized the
Another reason for optimism is that

vent within two years, as larvae from neighboring vents arrived and
set up housekeepin g. (Of course, if larvae from a species different from the one wiped out
arrive first, the new colony will differ from the original, with unknown consequences for deep-sea
biodiversity.) That

suggests a resilience that bodes well for recolonization

after the mining operation moves on , too, though only for vents on tectonically active
sites such as that where the eruption occurred. Vents such as those on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, for example,
are not likely to be frequently overrun by lava and are relatively far apart, suggesting they may be less

Still, vent organisms seem to be adapted to withstand

relatively frequent natural and severe disasters, says Van Dover.
Seafloor mining might be no worse than what nature delivers,
though the efects of mining come on top of what nature does.
resilient.

Af would mine in safe ways.

Begley 10 (Sharon Begley is a environmental writer for Newsweek, 9/20/11, Is Deep-Sea Mining Bad
for the Environment?, http://www.newsweek.com/deep-sea-mining-bad-environment-71983)

surest way to spare the vent creatures would be to mine only

inactive vents, where the geysers have stopped and the ecosystem
The

has died . Nautilus has not agreed to that, but says it will take steps to preserve
vents. Weve put in place a number of measures to ensure that
ecosystems and biodiversity are maintained, says Smith. It plans to use
undersea robots to move some vent animals away from the area being
mined, establish refuges from which vent creatures can seed
ecosystems recovering from mining,
mining before the company tackles adjacent sites.

and allow one vent community to recover from

AT: Midterms
No one cares about rare earths
Dobranksy 13

(Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is

completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice
Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, October, 2013,
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, Rare Earth Elements and U.S. Foreign Policy, Rare Earth Elements and U.S.
Foreign Policy)
The

political dimension of REEs has not been developed or debated

fully by Americans ,or by the rest of the world. Many politicians and corporate
executives have transnational interests and cannot argue for more aggressive policies without risking
possible severe consequences.

Most of the Wes tern public are not aware of

REE s and, thus have not demanded redress of the issue. Political
scientists and other scholars in general have not been attuned to
the REE issue

and, therefore, have not made any significant attempt to examine the issue, let

alone make recommendations. A number of journalists and think tank members have been lighting the
torch and waving it to get others attention but so far few people have taken notice. With such relatively

little interest by the general public or intense demands by a fervent

and powerful few,

the REE issue is riding below the political radar screen to the grave

disadvantage of all. This issue has the potential to bring down America and greatly undermine its well-

American prosperity and stability,

and the worlds strategic balance, may well hang in the balance on
the REE issue. If China consolidates its position and maintains a long-term monopoly of REEs, then
being and security, as well as the rest of the world.

it will ensure that most high-end and valuable products with REEs will be manufactured eventually in China
and, thus, much of the worlds wealth will shift to China and be utilized there. China, then, will attain the
level of the newand, possibly, solesuperpower in the world in the coming decades.27

***AT: CPs

2AC FG Key (Generic)

Federal Gov Key to Mining Operations

UNEP 12 (United Nations Environmental Programme, Green Economy in a

Blue World,
http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_Economy_Blue_Full.pdf)
There are several reasons why comprehensive and well-implemented
legislative and regulatory frameworks are essential to the
governance of mining activity. As a first step, investors require a
minimum of rules before making a positive investment decision ,
because of 1} the long-term nature of the investment ; 2) the
extremely high capital intensity of the industry, especially in
mining; and 3) the immobility of assets once built . In devising legal and
contractual frameworks, it is important to entrench internationally accepted
standards and practices concerning natural resource sector administration
and management. This includes making appropriate provisions mining
in legislation which reflect best internal practices for transparency in
decision-making, together with measures which are designed to uphold accepted standards of
corporate responsibility for companies, as well as enhancing the
developmental benefits for local communities.

2AC FG Key (Protectionism)

Government is key to obtain the knowledge infrastructure
to protect US interests --- the CP causes protectionism
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
To protect the U.S. governments ability to manage critical minerals
appropriately, Congress should protect the governments role in
analyzing critical mineral vulnerabilities and producing its own
data . As congressional leaders in both political parties strive to reduce spend - ing and seek
efciencies, they should maintain a strong U.S. government capacity for
research and analysis a public good that is both necessary to
protect U.S. interests and undersupplied by the private sector .
Without vigilance,

the United States risks being blindsided by regular

trade disputes and supply disruptions , and by countries exerting

political leverage.

Improving how the U.S. government handles mineral issues should not

But the administration and

Congress must maintain the existing capacities and preserve the
knowledge infrastructure that the government has redeveloped in
the past few years (See Key U.S. Government Ofces box).
require major increases in manpower or spending.

2AC FG Key (Regulations)

Outer Continent Shelf Lands Act confirms federal
jurisidiction
RSOC, 95 The Resource Agency of California, July, California's Ocean
Resources: An Agenda for the Future, Chapter 3
http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html
Outer Continental Shelf (seaward of 3 nautical miles from shore): the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C.A. 1331 et seq.), passed in
coordination with the Submerged Lands Act, confirmed federal

jurisdiction over the resources beyond three nautical miles from

shore and created a legal process for developing those resources (such
as oil and gas).

The FG has the jurisdiction for the 197 miles

RSOC, 95 The Resource Agency of California, July, California's Ocean

Resources: An Agenda for the Future, Chapter 3

http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html
Exclusive Economic Zone (3 nautical miles to 200 miles offshore): pursuant to a 1983
proclamation by President Reagan (Proclamation No. 5030), the United States
now asserts jurisdiction over the living and non-living resources
within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). While coastal states have primary
jurisdiction and control over the first three miles of the EEZ and the federal government has
primary jurisdiction over and controls the remaining 197 miles , the
Coastal Zone Management Act provides coastal states with substantial authority to influence federal
actions beyond three nautical miles.

The assertion of jurisdiction under the EEZ

provides a basis for U.S. economic exploration and exploitation ,

scientific research, and protection of the environment.

Federal government, rather than states, have control over

the coastal waters
RSOC, 95 The Resource Agency of California, July, California's Ocean
Resources: An Agenda for the Future, Chapter 3
http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html
Debate over who controls and manages the waters and resources
found ofshore the United States began in the late 1700's and continues to this day.
Issues in this debate include key federal and State relationships which

must be better understood for effective management of California's ocean resources. Soon after the
founding of the United States, the newly formed federal government asserted sovereignty over a territorial

the coastal states asserted the

ability to develop ocean resources out to three miles. Over the past
45 years, however, a number of events have occurred which drastically
sea extending three miles from the coast. Moreover,

modified management of the ofshore area. In 1947, the United States

Supreme Court upset what had appeared to be settled law and

determined that the United States , rather than coastal states, had
paramount rights over the nation's coastal waters and resources
[United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947)]. This decision was surprising to coastal states, and set the
stage for a debate resulting in the enactment of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (granting coastal states

the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, establishing federal
ownership of the lands and resources out to three nautical miles from shore). Also enacted was

jurisdiction over the resources beyond three nautical miles from

shore and creating a legal process for developing those resources.
In the early 1970's, Congress recognized that activities beyond states' control and jurisdiction could
significantly affect coastal states. Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C.
1451 et seq.) in 1972, providing a crucial link between coastal states and federal activities, or federally
permitted activities, which occur just beyond state waters. As an incentive for states to develop
management plans for their coastal resources, the Congress granted states the ability to review, and in
some circumstances stop, federally permitted activities which "affect" the resources of the coastal zone, if

the
CZMA allows the U.S. Department of Commerce to override a state's
those activities are not consistent with the federally approved state coastal program. However,

objection to a federal permit activity if the Secretary for Commerce

finds that the objection is not supported

by the approved coastal management

program, or the activity is otherwise required in the interests of national security.

Federal government has control over the outer

continental shelf
Virginia Places, 9 Virginia and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/ocs.html
In 1953 Congress also passed the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Land Act, endorsing the
national government's claim to the ocean resources issued originally by
President Harry Truman. International claims of rights to control navigation, fishing, and economic development of mineral

The Department of the

Interior determines the boundary of Federal/state jurisdiction , when
defining parcel boundaries for leasing OCS resources such as sand,
heavy minerals, and especially hydrocarbons (oil and gas). The Department has
resources led to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

adopted the mean lower low water (MLLW) line, as drawn on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation (NOAA) National Ocean Service nautical charts, as the coast line. (NOAA uses the average of the lower low water height of each
tidal day to draw the the mean lower low water or MLLW line.) Because the boundary changes as storms, currents, or even

Federal government is partnering with

the states to adopt a fixed set of geographic coordinates to
"immobilize" the boundary, eliminating future changes and
minimizing confusion regarding jurisdiction. 8 More legal wrangling was required after
construction projects reshape the shoreline, the

1953 to clarify the relative power of the states/Federal government over the Outer Continental Shelf, beyond the 3

In United States v. Maine, Virginia claimed that its

colonial charters granted the state exclusive jurisdiction of Atlantic
Ocean resources for 100 miles beyond the coastline.9 The US Supreme
Court rejected that claim in 1975, affirming state control over the
"inner" Continental Shelf but ensuring Federal authority over the
Outer Continental Shelf. International standards for ocean boundaries are established in an
nautical mile limit.

international treaty. President Clinton signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty in 1994, after it was modified to
resolve President Reagan's concerns regarding international controls on deep sea mining of polymetallic (iron/manganese)
nodules. However, Senate approval is required to finalize the US commitment to the treaty. Congress has never ratified it,
declining once again in 2012 due in part to concerns that the International Seabed Authority could limit US sovereignty.
(The International Seabed Authority is headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, and is not part of the United Nations.) 10

Consistent with the treaty (even though Congress has not ratified it), the United States claims a Territorial Sea for 12
nautical miles offshore. The starting point for defining offshore vs. inland waters is the "baseline," defined by the US as the
line of mean low low water (MLLW) as mapped on the most-detailed (large scale) NOAA nautical charts.11 The US
exercises sovereignty over its Territorial Sea, the air space above it, and the seabed and subsoil beneath it, but foreignflag ships enjoy the right of innocent passage. The Federal government also claims a Contiguous Zone out to 24 miles (12
miles further than the Territorial Sea), allowing enforcement of federal customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws (but
otherwise the US does not exercise sovereignty in the Contiguous Zone). Finally, the US claims an Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) extending from 12-200 nautical miles offshore, with exclusive rights to develop and manage marine resources
- including energy and mineral resources on the seabed, such as oil/natural gas and iron/manganese nodules. While

the Federal government claims full ownership of lands outside the

state claims , in 1986 Congress created the Revenue Sharing Boundary in section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act
amendments so the Federal government will share a "fair and equitable" portion of offshore revenues. The 8(g) Zone
extends 3 miles beyond the state waters, and the Federal government gives coastal states 27% of revenues from oil/gas
and renewable energy leases (i.e., offshore wind turbines) located in the 8(g) Zone.12

Federal government controls the land

Carlson and Mayer, 13 Ann E. Carlson is the Shirley Shapiro Professor
of Environmental Law and the co - Faculty Di rector of the Emmett Center
on Climate Change and the Environment. Andrew Mayer is a 2012 graduate
of the UCLA School of Law and is currently an associate at a law fi rm. We
thank Rich Ambrose, William Boyd, Megan Herzog, Jon Michaels, Jon Varat,
Jonathan Z asloff, participants in workshops at the University of Colorado -
Duke Environmental Roundtable and the UCLA School of Law School, and
research assistant Will Marshall, Reverse Pre-Emption,
http://www.boalt.org/elq/documents/Carlson_Mayer_Reverse_Preemption.pdf

Coastal states own the land in their territorial sea, which includes all lands permanently or periodically
covered by tidal waters . . . seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of

The lands beyond the states territorial seas the

outer continental shelf, or OCS are owned by the federal
each such state. 104

government . 105 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953

granted the Secretary of the Interior the authority to lease the OCS
for oil and gas exploration and drilling. 106 Absent the CZMA, states would not be
able to afect federal management of OCS lands . 107 Given that the CZMA
was inspired in part by the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969, it is unsurprising that most of the ma jor
disputes over the consistency requirement have involved the federal leasing of tracts on the OCS and
thus outside a states coastal zone for oil and gas exploration or extraction

2AC AT: China CP

With increasing demand the magnitude and ease of
access of deep sea REEs makes them more viable than
the most efficient land source

[in context of china but can be read on land CP]

Tom Green, Editor in chief of the Robotics Business Review, Deep Sea Dive for
Rare Earth Elements, Robotics business review, 5-12-2014,
http://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/article/deep_sea_dive_for_rare_earth_
elements//BDS)
Rare metals with names rarely heard After a year of falling prices and depleting customer inventories,
buyers of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) are coming back into this $10B market, but now supplies are getting
scarce and prices are beginning to soar. With populations consuming metals and minerals on the rise,

demand is set to skyrocket.

supply chains and national economies will witness major
disruptions, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study: Minerals and metals
scarcity in manufacturing: The ticking time bomb. Three deep-ocean mining
especially new middle-class consumers in China and India,
Future

companies, Nautilus Minerals; UK Seabed Resources (the British division of Lockheed Martin); and
DeepGreen Resources, plan to mine the sea floor under the Pacific Ocean (most notably in the Bismarck
Sea off Papua New Guinea) using a combination of remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles,
pumps, suction and riser pipes to extract the minerals. papua mines These REEs, with odd monikers like
lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, promethium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium,
dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium, are not household names, but what they
do makes every householdand the people in those householdslive better lives. For example, most of

Better
yet for this Pacific sea hunt, the REEs arent alone on the sea floor:
staggering levels of magnesium, gold, silver, cobalt, nickel and
copper are there for the taking as well; much of which are easy
pickings as mineral-rich nodules scattered over the sea bottom .
our fancy electronic gadgetslike our Smartphones and laptopsdepend on REEs to operate.

Frontrunner: Nautilus Minerals Of the three contenders, the Canadian company, Nautilus Minerals
(TSX:NUS), is the more ready to mine. Nautilus plans to deploy three machines, operated by remote
control. Operators sitting on a ship stationed above the deposit will control mine-bots on the seafloor: an
initial cutter for clearance; a bulk cutter to do most of the work; and a machine to collect and transport the
material to a pumping station. slurry ship The material will then be pumped up in slurry form to the ship,
where it will be de-watered and set to shore for processing. For nodules, robots will roam the seabed.
Critical to high-tech everything REEs are metals with unique physical, chemical and light-emitting
properties vital to hybrid vehicles, rechargeable batteries, wind turbines (renewable energy) mobile (cell)
phones, compact fluorescent light bulbs, laptop computers, disk drives, catalytic converters, and LED,
Plasma, and LCD display panels. Neodymium, for example, is responsible for ensuring that the likes of

Far
from abundant on land With over 30 percent of the worlds known
REE deposits and by far the cheapest extraction process, China
supplies 95 percent of the worlds REEs. However, China, with a rising
middle class and booming domestic market, is steadily reducing
export quotas. The Word Trade Organization (WTO), of which China is a member, ruled in March of
Smartphones, hard drives, earphones, even MRI scanners, do the job they are designed to do.

2014 that China was hoarding and taking unfair advantage of the market. That decision was two years in
coming, and now China will appeal the current WTO judgment, which might take another two years. Byron
Capital analyst, John Hykawy said Ive heard from so many critical materials buyers at large

corporations that they want security of supply. And security of supply to

them means avoiding Chinese supply at all costs because they got fooled once.
They dont want to get fooled again. 2- to 3-miles down: REEs not alone on the seabed In
the meantime, REEs are again getting to be in short supply , and with
demand forecast to progressively increase , the world drastically
needs new suppliers of REEs. The London Metal Exchange lists neodymium at $800 Kg;
terbium metal at 1,900 Kg; and scandium metal 15,500.00 per Kg. Relatively inexpensive is lanthanum at

$13 Kg. However, the battery in a Toyota Prius hybrid requires more than 10kg of lanthanum. Now multiply
$130 times millions of Toyotas and the need for lots of lanthanum comes into focus. Stephen Ball, chief

Martin UK, owner of UK Seabed Resources, told the BBC

another source of minerals theres a shortage and theres
difficulty getting access, so theres strategic value for the UK
government in getting an opportunity to get these minerals . UK Seabed
Resources says surveys have revealed huge numbers of nodules small
lumps of rock rich in valuable metals lying on the ocean floor south
of Hawaii and west of Mexico. The exact value of these resources is impossible to calculate
reliably, but a leading UN official described the scale of mineral deposits
in the worlds oceans as staggering with several hundred years
worth of cobalt and nickel. These tennis-ball sized nodules, found approximately
four kilometers (2.5 miles) beneath the oceans surface, can provide millions
of tons of copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese, as well as rare
earth minerals, that are used in the construction, aerospace, alternative energy, and
executive ofcer of Lockheed
Its

communications industries, among others, reports Lockheed Martin. The Japan Agency for Marine-Earth

Tokyo confirmed the discovery of a

huge new deposit on the Pacific seabed, claiming the deposit can
be mined at very low cost and will be able to produce materials that
are 20 to 30 times more concentrated than those currently being
mined in China. Robot submersibles hold the key Located approximately 5,700 meters or 3.5 miles
Science and Technology and the University of

down, the Japanese scientists claim the deposits to be approximately 6.8 million metric tons of rare
earths, equivalent to 230 years of local demand. subsea mining Although subsea mining at depths of 500

deep sea projects have had to await

technology, which is now coming on line, funded by companies like Nautilus
feet or less has been carried out for some time,

Minerals, with subsea robot mining tools built by technology partners like Soil Machine Dynamics. Then
too, there are plenty of environmental issues about the potential impact on an ecosystem 3-miles deep
the flora and fauna of that lightless place we know little to nothing about. An adverse report was published
in 2012: Out of our Depth: Mining the Ocean Floor in Papua New Guinea. Also, according to Mining
Magazine, The UNs International Seabed Authority (ISA) is involved, reporting that these new sea floor
mining areas provide the habitat for a variety of animal life previously unknown to science, and that over
500 new species have been discoveredand are of great interest to science. Yet the ISA didnt say no to
the Bismarck Sea (Solwara I) operation. The ISA basically said be careful: The uniqueness and fragility
of this geographically fragmented ecosystem, and the value it holds for fundamental biological studies of
metabolism, evolution and adaptation, will have to be taken into account in planning for mineral
exploration and exploitation. Below is a Nautilus-produced video that explains the Solwara I mining
venture in depth. . About Nautilus Minerals: A Canadian registered company, Nautilus is listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange TSX:NUS. Its corporate ofce is in Brisbane, Australia. Its major shareholders
include MB Holding Company LLC, an Oman based group with interests in mining, oil & gas, which holds a
28.00% interest, Metalloinvest, the largest iron ore producer in Europe and the CIS, which has a 20.75%
holding and global mining group Anglo American, which holds a 5.95% interest.

Lax environmental restrictions means the cost of

producing REEs in china is externalized onto the
environment
Jonathan Kaiman, Beijing Guardian writer, The Guardian, Rare earth mining
in China: the bleak social and environmental costs, 3-20- 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-chinasocial-environmental-costs//BDS)

Although Wang Jianguo knows little about rare earths mining, he is an accidental expert on its
consequences. A short walk from the 43-year-old former farmer's dilapidated brick home in Xinguang
Number One Village, is the world's largest rare earths mine tailings pond an endless expanse of viscous

The pond, owned by the Inner Mongolia

Baotou Steel, lacks a proper lining and
for the past 20 years its toxic contents have been seeping into
grey sludge built in the 1950s under Mao Zedong.
Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-Tech Company, or

groundwater, according to villagers and state media reports. It is trickling towards

the nearby Yellow River, a major drinking water source for much of
northern China, at a rate of 20 to 30 metres a year, a local expert told the influential
Chinese magazine Caixin. "In the beginning, there was no tap water here, so we all drank from wells,"
Wang said. "The water looked fine, but it smelled really bad." In the 1990s, when China's rare earths
production kicked into full gear, his sheep died and his cabbage crops withered. Most of his neighbours
have moved away. Seven have died of cancer. His teeth have grown yellow and crooked; they jut out at
strange angles from blackened gums. Rare earths are a group of 17 elements: "iron grey to silvery lustrous
metals" that are "typically soft, malleable, and ductile; and usually reactive", according to the US
Geological Survey. They're crucial in manufacturing a broad array of high-tech products, such as
smartphones, wind turbines, camera lenses, magnets and missile defence systems. China produces more
than 85% of the world's supply, about half of which comes from Baotou, a city of 2.5 million in China's

Processing rare earths is a

dirty business. Their ore is often laced with radioactive materials such as
thorium, and separating the wheat from the chaf requires huge amounts
of carcinogenic toxins sulphates, ammonia and hydrochloric acid.
Processing one ton of rare earths produces 2,000 tons of toxic wast e;
Baotou's rare earths enterprises produce 10m tons of wastewater
per year. They're pumped into tailings dams, like the one by Wang's village,
12km west of the city centre. China began mining the minerals on a mass scale in the mid 1980s, and
after nearly two decades of lax environmental regulation has only
recently begun to address their noxious legacy. Seven years ago, China began
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, 650km northwest of Beijing.

restricting and taxing its rare earths exports, ostensibly to improve its environmental record. In 2010, the
US, European Union and Japan long accustomed to China's inexpensive supply lodged a complaint with
the World Trade Organisation. China, they argued, was simply encouraging domestic consumers to pick up
the slack. In late October, the organisation ruled that China's export restrictions violated its regulations.
China is expected to appeal. In 2009, Baotou Steel began relocating farmers from villages around the
tailings pond to resettlement sites on the city's outskirts; it has set up a waste managing warehouse
staffed by 400 employees. Yet the pond is still a reminder of how far China's cleanup effort has to go.
Surrounding villages are decimated. Stray dogs amble through dessicated corn and wheat
fields, the rusted frames of dismantled greenhouses arching above tangles of discarded plastic bags. "In

China, the cost of environmental violations and damage is still way

too low," said Ma Jun, director of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and
Environmental Afairs. "Rare earths is such a classic case of this we
basically export the resources at a rather cheap price, and much of the
environmental cost is externalised to local communities." Most of the
rare earths processed by Baotou are extracted in Bayan Obo, a mining
district in the Gobi desert 120km north of the city. Its largest open-pit mine is 1,000 metres deep and
spans 48 sq km; in satellite images by Nasa released in 2012, it appears as one of many massive black
craters dwarfing a sprawl of apartment blocks directly to their south. In 2009, the Beijing Science and

the area is struggling with its own pollution

problems. A villager near its eastern mine told the newspaper that while visiting a nearby sheep
Technology News reported that

market the year prior, he found that many of the animals had two rows of teeth, some so long that they
couldn't close their mouths. Other countries have become less dependent on China's rare earths supply

The US and Australia are

developing their own, more environmentally friendly mines . Rare earthssince 2010, when export quotas caused global prices to spike.

dependent industries are learning to recycle. A hard hat-wearing mechanic outside a tightly-guarded
refinery near Baotou's tailings pond said the declining demand has hurt his job prospects. The man,
surnamed Li, said a few hundred of his colleagues had been laid off over the past few months. When asked
about the plant's environmental impact, he shrugged his shoulders. "We don't understand these things,"
he said. "We're just here to make a living."

2AC AT: Intl CP (Protectionism DA)

The US is hypocritical when it tells China to stop putting
REEs
Tamny 12 (John, China's "Rare Earths", and the Hypocrisy of the Obama

Administration, Forbes, 3-25,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/03/25/chinas-rare-earths-andthe-hyprocrisy-of-the-obama-administration/)
As is well known now, the Obama administration recently joined the EU and Japan in a
lawsuit filed at the World Trade Organization over Chinas alleged
restrictions on the export of rare earth elements. For those whove properly
ignored what until now should have been a non-story, rare earths are metals essential
for the production of everything from smart phones, to hybrid cars, to military
equipment. At present, China produces roughly 95% of rare earths, and its of
course assumed that the high price of these obscure metals has resulted from export
restrictions. Obama et al really ought to look in the mirror on this one ,
and once they do, leave China alone. To see why, lets think for a moment about what this is all about. The

The
hypocrisy here is impressive , particularly considering the myriad
restrictions our own government puts on the exploration for and
mining of, nearly everything . What the Obama administration is doing
here is the equivalent of China going to the WTO with a lawsuit
demanding that we open up more of Alaska and other oil rich locales
controlled by the U.S., not to mention reduce the various regulations
controlling the mining of other commodities that the U.S. is rich in. If the Chinese
were to do so, theres no telling what the negative reaction would be from
the U.S. political class, not to mention its citizenry . Wed be rightfully offended
U.S. and others are telling China the country that it must sell more of what is endemic to China.

for another country nosing in on what should be a U.S. matter. Its arguable that what makes the U.S. great
is our collective lack of self-awareness that often reveals itself through some of the most disruptive

arent we crossing the line

when we meddle in the afairs of other countries; essentially saying
to them Mine what we tell you to, and then sell to us? A little
humility is surely in order, for one.
entrepreneurial innovations known to mankind, but goodness,

The US must be the leader in stopping protectionism

Perry, 4/14 Bill, Perry was an attorney with the Ofce of General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), and Ofce of Chief Counsel and
Ofce of Antidumping Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce., US
CHINA TRADE WAR DEVELOPMENTSTRADE, IP, ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES,
http://uschinatradewar.com/us-china-trade-war-developments-trade-ipantitrust-and-securities/
Fourth, some nations simply dont share Americas commitment to
labor and the environment, so when the U.S. doesnt lead the way
with strong standards and enforcement, trade agreements fall short.
Commitments on these issues have to be core parts of trade
agreements , rather than something like a side deal thats just

coasting along for the ride. This is one area where the U.S. has made progress. . . . Finally,
agreements must be ambitious, opening foreign markets and helping
U.S. workers, farmers, manufacturers and service providers increase
exports. . . .

2AC AT: Land CP

Sea mining will substantially decrease the environmental
strain of land mining
[also a one line cap answer- and perhaps a space warrant above it]
Winston Tarere, referencing an environmental expert Samantha Smith,
Deep sea mining to drive green growth and economy, Vanuatu daily post, 920-2012, http://www.dailypost.vu/content/deep-sea-mining-drive-greengrowth-and-economy//BDS)
Smith, environmental expert employed by the Canadian firm Nautilus Minerals
is promoting deep sea mining at the world conservation congress organized by the
International Union of Conservation Network (IUCN) in Jeju, South Korea, as the solution to the
ecological destruction of ecosystems by mining operations on land.
The world demand for minerals is on the rise and with the land resources
stretched and the grades of minerals declining, deep sea mineral
production ofer sound environmental advantages. She said the green
Dr Samantha

growth can only be sustained by deep sea mining. Nautilus argues that
deep sea mining is needed now more than ever to drive the growth
towards developing clean technologies such as solar and wind
energy. To build just one wind turbine requires 500kg of nickel plus 1000kg of copper. This means that
a single turbine requires 12 times more copper to create 1 kilowatt of power than fossil fuels, Dr Smith
said. To put things into perspective,

land only represents 30% of the earths

surface while 70% is submerged underwater. Today 100% of mining
is done terrestrially on 30% of the earths surface while 70% remains
untouched on the seabed. Because most of these metals especially nickel are found in the
equatorial regions, it is argued that the further we delay mining the seabed, more
virgin forests have to be destroyed to make way for mining,
destroying biodiversity and tropical ecosystem as well as the earths
capacity to absorb carbon emissions. With declining quality in the
average ore grade to 0.61% grade on ore extracted on land
compared to a 7.2 % grade from samples obtained on the seabed in
the Bismarck Sea in PNG, these large sulphide deposits on the seabed will become
the worlds major source of gold, copper, zinc and silver. Nautilus Minerals argue that
building electric and hybrid cars with low carbon emissions and costs will
require more minerals such as copper that terrestrial mining cannot
ofer without further destruction to the environment, loss of
biodiversity and livelihoods from climate change. The average car built in the
US today has around 50-55 pounds or 22 to 24kg of copper. In a hybrid electric vehicle, this amount will
double to 44 to 48kg of copper and triple to 66 to 72kg of copper in a pure electric vehicle. The vehicles
inverter system alone which delivers power to the motors is connected to them by cables containing 8-18
kg of copper. The trade off in using more copper in vehicles in the US is 93% less smog-forming volatile
and organic compounds and 31% less nitrogen oxide, compared to a car on fossil fuels. The Copper
Development Association Inc translates this into a one-third reduction in use of oil if three-fourths of
American vehicles were electric. Operating costs of plug-in cars are likely to be significantly lower than
those on fossil fuel-powered cars because electricity costs three to five cents per mile with average electric

the
green economy will be driven by the use of renewable energy
sources that has seen developed countries investing in new
technology that seeks to make them become less dependent on
rates, of the equivalent of 75 cents to $1.25 per gallon of gasoline. The rationale used is that

fossil fuels for their energy supplies, building electricity based infrastructure for
transportation. In-order to convert wind and solar energy directly into
electric energy requires large amounts of metals whose terrestrial
extraction have been cause of much destruction of natures biodiversity.
According to a technical report prepared by SRK consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd released May this year for
Nautilus Minerals Inc, it has made applications for prospecting licenses and mining leases in PNG, Solomon
Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Tonga and New Zealand. Applications were made through Nautilus Minerals Offshore,
a company registered in Vanuatu and fully owned by Nautilus Minerals Inc. Nautilus has 41 granted
Prospecting Licenses in Vanuatu covering an area of 3630km2 on the eastern side of the main islands while
there are 14 further Prospecting License applications covering 1247km2 Safe and environmentally friendly
Deep Sea Mining has been hailed as the new frontier and the Solwora 1 site at the bottom of the
Bismarck Sea is the experimental site and the new Wild West that needs to be conquered and subdued. Dr.

deep sea mining is environmentally friendly because they

will be using technology that will scrape the top of the ocean floor
getting metals like a lawnmower cutting grass and transporting it in
closed tubes back up to the to avoid spills and pollution to the
surrounding environment. In her presentation she said the mineral deposit under the seabed
Smith said the

at the Solwora 1 site in the Bismarck Sea goes down to a depth of 30 to 50 meters, however, there was
enough deposits on the surface to sustainably produce enough without having to dig. When pressed about
the drilling below the seabed to meet global demands she responded: Even

if we have to
drill, 50 meters is not deep enough into the earths crust to trigger of a
volcanic eruption, an earthquake or tsunami. The Solwara 1 deposit is a
stratabound seafloor massive sulphide that occurs on the flank and crest of a sub-sea volcanic mound
which extends about 150m to 200m above the surrounding seafloor. Despite the safety assurances,
opposing groups argue that there is too much that is unknown about seafloor mining to guarantee a full
proof protection against any form of destruction of the marine biodiversity and ecosystems. The irony of
deep sea mining as a green solution to terrestrial mining is that after we have extracted all minerals,
leveled mountains and dig deep holes towards the earths crust to milk every last bit of rock, we now want
to shift into the sea which truly remains as the last frontier. Perhaps after we have depleted all mineral
resources at the bottom of the ocean, the new frontier will become the moon and Mars. Capitalism,
modern consumerism and our desire and wants to have more, bigger, better, faster, smaller and efcient

has a funny way of justifying greed for profit in a green growth and
green economy framework.

Land mining is substantially more destructive to the

environment and people than sea mining
Meghan Miner, a freelance science and travel writer based in Washington,
DC, masters in science journalism, editorial researcher for National
Geographics Traveler Magazine, science news writer for COSMOS Magazine
in Sydney, Australia, and for the NPR program Living on Earth., Will Deep-sea
Mining Yield an Underwater Gold Rush?, National Geographic, 2-1- 2013,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130201-underwatermining-gold-precious-metals-oceans-environment///BDS)
But a fledgling deep-sea mining industry faces a host of challenges
before it can claim the precious minerals, from the need for new mining technology
and serious capital to the concerns of conservationists, fishers, and coastal
residents. The roadblocks are coming into view in the coastal waters of Papua New Guinea, where the
seafloor contains copper, zinc, and gold deposits worth hundreds of millions of dollars and where one
company, Nautilus Minerals, hopes to launch the world's first deep-sea mining operation. Last year, the
Papua New Guinean government granted the Canadian firm a 20-year license to mine a site 19 miles (30
kilometers) off their coast, in the Bismarck Sea in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. The company plans to
mine the site, known as Solwara 1, by marrying existing technologies from the offshore oil and gas
industry with new underwater robotic technologies to extract an estimated 1.3 million tons of minerals per

Smith, Nautilus's vice president for corporate social responsibility, says

ocean floor mining is safer, cleaner, and more environmentally

year. Samantha
that

friendly than its terrestrial counterpart. "There are no mountains that

need to be removed to get to the ore body," she says. "There's a
potential to have a lot less waste ... No people need to be displaced .
Shouldn't we as a society consider such an option?" But mining a mile below the sea's surface, where
pressure is 160 times greater than on land and where temperatures swing from below freezing to hundreds
of degrees above boiling, is trickier and more expensive than mining on terra firma.

CP has quantifiably one tenth the solvency

Meghan Miner, a freelance science and travel writer based in Washington,
DC, masters in science journalism, editorial researcher for National
Geographics Traveler Magazine, science news writer for COSMOS Magazine
in Sydney, Australia, and for the NPR program Living on Earth., Will Deep-sea
Mining Yield an Underwater Gold Rush?, National Geographic, 2-1- 2013,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130201-underwatermining-gold-precious-metals-oceans-environment///BDS)
A mile beneath the ocean's waves waits a buried cache beyond any treasure
hunter's wildest dreams: gold, copper, zinc, and other valuable minerals.
Scientists have known about the bounty for decades, but only recently has
rising demand for such commodities sparked interest in actually surfacing it.
The treasure doesn't lie in the holds of sunken ships, but in natural mineral
deposits that a handful of companies are poised to begin mining sometime in
the next one to five years. The deposits aren't too hard to findthey're in
seams spread along the seafloor, where natural hydrothermal vents eject rich
concentrations of metals and minerals. These underwater geysers spit out
fluids with temperatures exceeding 600C. And when those fluids hit the icy
seawater, minerals precipitate out, falling to the ocean floor. The deposits
can yield as much as ten times the desirable minerals as a seam
that's mined on land. While different vent systems contain varying
concentrations of precious minerals, the deep sea contains enough mineable
gold that there's nine pounds (four kilograms) of it for every person on Earth,
according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
National Ocean Service. At today's gold prices, that's a volume worth more
than $150 trillion.

Plan or perm solves net better, land mines have more

regulations, less resources, and a larger environmental
impact
Simon Rees, Deep-sea mining firms up standards as Nautilus turns corner,
Mining Weekly, 8-8-2013, http://www.miningweekly.com/article/deep-seamining-firms-up-standards-as-nautilus-turns-corner-2013-08-08//BDS
This fits in with the notion that all mankind should share in the wealth
accrued by exploiting minerals from the ocean floor in international waters.
But how they set up an equitable mechanism for payment to all countries will
be an immense challenge, he added. When considering the benefits to
mankind, proponents of deep-sea mining argue it also afords a partial
solution to ofsetting the interruption and impact caused by surface
operations. Questions about how, where and to what extent traditional

mining should take place will undoubtedly intensify as the global population
continues to climb. Its getting harder to develop mines on land and
there are fewer places left on the planet where you can establish a
mine without afecting people, Johnston said. Nonetheless, it is
critical that marine ecosystems are aforded equal respect to those
on land. In this regard, binding frameworks for deep-sea mining,
environmental best practice and monitoring should be formally
codified sooner rather than later. By striking the right balance now,
future mineral rewards from the deep will be both great and good

Solvency deficit: deep sea mining can produce

comparatively more minerals
Robert Thomason, CIA Cover Story Gives Birth to Deep Ocean Mining, DC
BUREAU, 3-10-14, http://www.dcbureau.org/201403109664/naturalresources-news-service/cia-cover-story-gives-birth-deep-oceanmining.html//BDS )

Resting deep on the seabed of the Pacific are two symbols of oceanic politics, one decaying as time ticks
by; the other slowly growing at a pace measured in millions of years. The first symbol is the salvage site of
Soviet submarine K-129. Once it prowled the seas with three nuclear missiles, but suddenly she and her
crew were lost to the depths. After sinking mysteriously in 1968, the diesel-powered submarine became
the object of an expensive and elaborate operation of the Cold War. The Central Intelligence Agency and
Howard Hughes devised a cover story about deep-sea mining to recover it secretly. The operation, run by
former CIA Director William Colby, was trying to determine the state of Soviet nuclear weapons prowess.
After a string of near mishaps, the mission recovered only part of the sub. The other symbol is a
widespread deposit of potato-sized rocks rich in manganese and other minerals. Called polymetallic

nodules
are the prizes of a very real, but hardly less complicated, search of the ocean
floors. The stories of the sunken Soviet sub and the polymetallic nodules are intertwined in history,
nodules, these rocks were the original fictitious prey of the CIAs cover story. But today those

technology and politics. Deep-sea mining is on track to become a reality soon despite serious questions
about its environmental consequences. The linkage began soon after the United States found the lost
Soviet submarine. A CIA plan codenamed Project Azorian oversaw the design and construction of the
Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship of unprecedented design and cost. The ships goal was to lift a 1,750-ton
submarine, armed with nuclear missiles and torpedoes, off the seabed and into the belly of a huge oceangoing vessel. The CIA buried the operation in code names like AZORIAN, DESKTOP and JENNIFER. Only a
few years later, the very same ship that had pretended to look for deep sea minerals was in fact employed

after
four decades of international treaty negotiations, scientific studies,
technological progress and roller coaster-like business cycles of
metal prices, the polymetallic nodules still sit silently on the
seafloor. Interested parties around the globe are debating both economic and environmental
concerns. But the interest in deep sea mining of these mineral resources is
intensifying, and by 2016 remote controlled vehicles could be crawling
the ocean floor environment, cutting into or scooping from the seabed, and pulling up
ore that is richer in bounty than many mining resources that
by Lockheed Martin to developed modern technology for pulling nodules off the seabed. Now,

remain on dry land.

The polymetallic nodules are not the only treasure deep sea miners will be

pursuing. Seamounts formed by underwater volcanoes and cobalt-rich crusts are also being studied
intensively for commercial exploitation.

DSM is cheaper and less environment impact --- private

companies say now
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental
Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive
Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
***DSM = Deep Sea Mining
As we enter the 21st century, and assuming mining companies are finding
deposits of sufficient size and grade, there are three possible
economic drivers required for DSM to become a viable industry: 1)
deep-sea mining may actually be cheaper than land mining , as
suggested by Nautilus Minerals Worley Parson Engineering study
(Heydon, 2005) 1 which indicates that DSM for copper could cost about
half the price of developing a land- based mine, 2) though unproven, the
concept of surgical mining of relatively small areas of SMS
deposits may have less impact on the environment than terrestrial
mining

(Heydon, 2005), and 3) India and China will both need large amounts of copper to build power-

grid infrastructure, driving the metals market to deep-sea mining (Yamazaki, 2005b).

2AC AT: LOST

no net benefit - LOST fails to regulate mining due to lack
of coordination and proactive authority
Brooke Jarvis, independent journalist based in Seattle. Her work has

appeared in Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, Sierra Magazine, Aeon

Magazine, and The American Prospect, among others., Deep-Sea Mining
Bonanza or Boondoggle?, NOVA Next, 6-25-2013,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/deep-sea-mining///BDS)
Policing the Deep Sea It was the prospect of deep sea mining that prompted the
Law of the Sea Convention, an effort to regulate marine resources it
calls the common heritage of all mankind. Concluded in 1982 and ratified in
1994, the Convention set up the ISA to issue mining leases and
regulate how minerals and other resources outside of national
economic zones can be harvested. (Mining within territorial or archipelagic waters or
Economic Exclusive Zones, which extend for 200 miles off of coastlines, is within national jurisdiction.
Island nations are already scrambling to figure out how to oversee and profit from mining projects. For
signatories to the Law of the Sea, the ISAs regime will be a guidepost.) Right now, were flying in the

the current system has a number of unresolved issues, Ardron

ISA doesnt coordinate with the international bodies that
oversee other ocean industries, such as fishing and shipping. Without
communication, it will be hard to know when areas are being
overtaxed. Likewise, the ISAs current method for protecting what it calls
Areas of Particular Environmental Interest is not proactive : first
mining leases are assigned, then certain areas outside those leases
are protected. Right now, were flying in the dark, Ardron says. We dont
know if these leases are in ecologically important places or not and
its too late by the time theyre handed out. There are also concerns
about the transparency of the approval processgenerally we dont
know what leases are up for discussion until theyve already been
approved, Ardron points outas well as about how future infractions will be dealt with. Because no
dark. But
says. The

projects have gone into production yet, he argues its not too late to push for stronger reporting,
transparency, and compliance guarantees: The door hasnt closed yet. But with the rush for mining
leases on, it is beginning to close. And at stake is a strange world we have only barely begun to
understand.

UNCLOS would negatively efect the FGs capability to

sea-bed mine
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
The Senate should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While today the United
States recognizes UNCLOS as custom - ary international law, ratifying this treaty would increase the
ability of U.S. policymakers to promote the rule of law and freedom of navigation around the world and

the United States

cannot play a full role in the Arctic Council because it has not
ratified UNCLOS, and its position of promoting the rules enshrined in this treaty rings hollow to
international audiences. Since American concerns over seabed mining informed
the initial refusal to ratify this treaty, these issues are likely to
also to participate in important dis - cussions about critical minerals. Today,

resurface in any debates about UNCLOS. To date, eforts toward

UNCLOS ratification have stalled out of a misguided notion that the treaty would
Elements of Security Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals JUNE 2011 26 |
negatively affect U.S. sovereignty, as it recognizes exclusive economic zones for countries around the
world.

LOST is not required for resource extraction in fact it

cuts profits in half killing business confidence
Tennant 12 - not the Doctor (Michael, 27 June 2012, "Will Our Freedoms

Be LOST at Sea?," www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreignpolicy/item/11824-will-our-freedoms-be-lost-at-sea, ADL)

U.S. accession to LOST, then, will have a significant number of negative
consequences. But what about the treatys alleged benefits? LOST backers claim the treaty will secure certain
navigational rights for U.S. military and commercial shipping. However, the United States already enjoys such rights as a
matter of customary international law. Moreover, America has for decades been a party to the International Maritime
Organization, which establishes international laws with regard to shipping. Thus, to the extent LOST codifies navigational

The treatys fans also argue that it will secure U.S. rights
to extract natural resources from its continental shelf. As with navigational
rights, the United States already exercises sovereignty over its continental
shelf to a distance of 200 miles from shore; and other countries, after initially contesting
the U.S. claim, adopted the policy themselves. America could similarly claim rights over
its continental shelf beyond 200 miles and work out its diferences
with the individual nations afected by such a claim. By ratifying
rights, it is redundant.

LOST , however, it

cedes such authority to the ISA and, in addition,

is forced to surrender

half the royalties earned from mining and drilling in the extended
continental shelf . Although LOST supporters say U.S. accession to
the treaty is necessary for American companies and their investors
to feel confident that their claims to deep seabed mining sites will
be recognized internationally, Rabkin observed, It remains a fair question
whether a complex U.N. regulatory bureaucracy especially one
that counts international wealth redistribution as one of its
functions is a reassuring presence for investors . Knowing that the
seemingly profitable site in which they are considering investing stands a good chance of being stolen by the Enterprise

profits generated from the site the company is allowed to mine not to mention
may be similarly confiscated, why would
investors take such a risk?
and that any

any new technologies employed

Ratification limits Navy jurisdiction-Cant solve Heg

Zenko 3/24/14-Micah, Douglas Dillon fellow with the Center for Preventive
Action at the Council on Foreign Relations (How to Avoid a Naval War with
China, Foreignpolicy.com,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/24/how_to_avoid_a_naval_war_
with_china) patel
Most countries, including the United States, agree that territorial waters
extend 12 nautical miles from a nation's coastline, while EEZs extend much
further -- usually up to 200 nautical miles. There is also consensus that while
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established
EEZs as a feature of international law and gives coastal states the right to
regulate economic activities within them, it does not provide coastal states

the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs beyond their 12nautical-mile territorial waters. However, China and some other countries like
North Korea interpret UNCLOS as giving coastal states the right to regulate all
economic and foreign military activities within their EEZs.

The treaty hurts the US

-Sovereignty
-Environmentalists
-Naval Rights
-Intelligence
Schaeffer et al 7 Brett D., Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs (9/1/7, Heritage, The Top Five Reasons Why
Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N.Convention on the Law of the Sea,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/09/the-top-five-reasons-whyconservatives-should-oppose-the-un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea) patel
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings this week on
whether the United States should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
Sea. Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty-and
rightly so. Today, the convention remains a threat to American interests.
Reason #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty. President
Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 and cited several
major deficiencies, none of which have been remedied. Reagan was
concerned that the U.S., though a major naval power, would have
little influence at the International Seabed Authority that the
convention created. Although the Authority is supposed to make decisions
by consensus, nothing prevents the rest of the "international community"
from consistently voting against the United States, as regularly occurs in
similar U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly. In addition, President
Reagan was troubled by the fact that the International Seabed
Authority has the power to amend the convention without U.S.
consent. That concern has also not been remedied in the intervening years.
Another issue is that the convention requires states to transfer
information and perhaps technology to mandatory dispute resolution
tribunals. Under the convention, parties to a dispute are required to
provide a resolution tribunal with "all relevant documents, facilities
and information." This amounts to a blanket invitation for unscrupulous
foreign competitors to bring the U.S. and American companies before a
tribunal for the sole purpose of obtaining sensitive data and technologies that
would otherwise be unavailable to them. The safeguards against such
practices that President Reagan demanded have never come to pass. Reason
#2: The Treaty Will Become a Back Door for Environmental Activists.
The Executive Director of Greenpeace International, Thilo Bode, has explained
how the environmentalist movement plans to leverage the treaty to
advance its agenda, which often runs counter to U.S. interests:
"Global warming is likely to have a big impact at sea. Solving the
environmental problems facing the oceansis one of the greatest
challenges facing humankind. No single action or region can do
this alone: It will require comprehensive international cooperation as
required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
President Clinton-a major supporter of the treaty-did not mince his words

when he stated that the convention was "the greatest environmental treaty
of all time." Indeed, the treaty states that convention participants must
"takeall measures consistent with this Convention that are
necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source," (Article 194). This provision goes on to
require that such measures address "all sources of pollution of the marine
environmentincluding those from land-based sources, from or through the
atmosphere, or by dumping." Signatories are also required to "adopt laws
and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from or through the atmosphere" (Article 212). The
convention's provisions and mandatory dispute resolution
mechanisms will create new opportunities for environmental
activists and like-minded governments to bring action against the
U.S. for violating the Kyoto Protocol, even though America is not a
party to that accord. American opponents of the Kyoto Protocol should be
under no illusion: U.S. accession to this convention risks embroiling the U.S.
in a plethora of legal actions, even if the Senate does not ratify Kyoto. Reason
#3: America Should Not Participate in Yet Another U.N. Bureaucracy.
International institutions created by multilateral treaties spawn
unaccountable international bureaucracies, which in turn inevitably infringe
upon U.S. sovereignty. The convention creates a bureaucracy known as
the International Seabed Authority Secretariat. Like all international
bureaucracies, the Secretariat has a strong incentive to enhance its
own authority at the expense of state sovereignty. When international
bureaucracies are unaccountable, they-like all unaccountable institutionsseek to insulate themselves from scrutiny and thus become prone to
corruption. The International Seabed Authority is vulnerable to the same
corrupt practices that have riddled the U.N. for years. The United Nations Oilfor-Food scandal, in which the Iraqi government benefited from a system of
bribes and kickbacks involving billions of dollars and 2,000 companies in
nearly 70 countries, is a prime example. Despite ample evidence of the U.N.'s
systemic weaknesses and vulnerability to corruption, the U.N. General
Assembly has resisted efforts to adopt serious transparency and
accountability reforms. Reason #4: American Participation Will
Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations. Under the
convention, the United States assumes a number of obligations at
odds with its military practices and national security interests,
including a commitment not to collect intelligence. The U.S. would
sign away its ability to collect intelligence vital for American security
within the "territorial waters" of any other country (Article 19).
Furthermore, U.S. submarines would be required to travel on the
surface and show their flags while sailing within territorial waters
(Article 20). This would apply, for example, to U.S. submarines maneuvering
in Iranian or North Korean territorial waters; they would be required to sail on
the surface with their flags waving. Reason #5: The U.S. Does Not Need the
Convention to Guarantee Navigation Rights. The U.S. enjoys navigation
rights by customary international practice. The fact that the U.S. is
not a convention member does not mean that other states will begin
to demand notification by U.S. ships entering their waters or
airspace. Indeed, the U.S. is not a signatory to the convention today

and yet has freedom of the seas because current participants are
required to grant the U.S. navigation rights aforded by customary
international practice. In addition, these states have reciprocal
interests in navigation rights that will discourage them from making
such demands on American ships in the future.

UNCLOS does not deter South China Sea conflict

Haidfer 14 Ziad, Attorney at White & Case LLP (4/10/14, Foreign Policy,
Nine-Dash-Mine,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/10/beijing_should_let_law_reign
_south_china_sea) patel
Tensions continue to roil Asia's waters, but they are now also finding
their way into international arbitration. The perilous churn in the
South China Sea, dubbed "Asia's Cauldron" by one leading strategic
analyst, stems from the overlapping claims of six states -- Brunei,
China, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam -- over a body of
water vital to global trade, which contains energy resources and
abundant fish stock in its vast depths. Negotiations over a maritime
Code of Conduct to stabilize interactions in the South China Sea have been
outpaced by the jockeying of ships between China and the Philippines. In the
wake of a dangerous and asymmetric two-month standoff over the disputed
Scarborough Shoal beginning in April 2012, Manila has rightly sought
recourse in international law to manage the dispute through arbitration. For
the sake of regional stability and its own interests, Beijing should follow suit.
The legal wrangling started in January 2013, when the Philippines
notified China of its intent to bring a challenge under the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treaty
governing the rights and responsibilities of states in their use of the
oceans and seas. (Both China and the Philippines are parties to
UNCLOS, while the United States has yet to ratify it.) The Philippines
argued then that China's so-called "nine-dash line," which
encompasses virtually the entire South China Sea, was unlawful and
contrary to UNCLOS. China's response was to reject the Philippines'
notification letter altogether, noting Beijing had opted out of
UNCLOS procedures for settling disputes that involve sovereignty
claims or maritime boundaries. Beijing must now take a clear and hard
look at the merits of abstaining any further. Beijing must now take a clear and
hard look at the merits of abstaining any further. While it may have a legal
basis to abstain, acting on it could be strategically shortsighted. Given
Beijing's assertions that its nine-dash line is grounded in international law, a
greater show of confidence would be to defend its position before a neutral
tribunal. Beijing will have the chance, if it chooses. Despite China's
protestations, a five-member Arbitral Tribunal was assembled to
hear the Philippines' claims; on March 30, the Philippines announced
that it had filed its brief, here called a Memorial, elaborating its
challenge. (Intriguingly, Beijing may have asked Manila to delay filing its
Memorial in exchange for a mutual withdrawal of ships from the contested
Scarborough Shoal.) China's willingness to abide by international norms
would not only telegraph confidence, but could help offset the growing
anxiety generated by its military modernization and maneuverings among

neighbors who fear the Beijing doctrine may be veering toward realpolitik. For
its part, the United States has expressed its support for the Philippines'
submission. President Barack Obama's visit to the Philippines in late April will
provide an opportunity to reafrm the importance of such a rules-based
approach to managing the dispute. Yet that largely depends on how Beijing
responds. To be sure, nationalist public sentiment stoked by Beijing may have
painted China into a corner. Hours after the Philippine Foreign Secretary
announced the Memorial's submission on March 30, the Chinese Foreign
Ministry responded that it did not accept the Philippines' submission of the
dispute for arbitration and called on the Philippines to return to bilateral talks.
With its Foreign Minister stating that China will never accede to
"unreasonable demands from smaller countries" in the South China
Sea, its Defense Minister stating that China will make "no
compromise, no concessions," and official media outlets wading in
with criticism of the Philippines' "unilateral" actions in filing its
Memorial, it will be that much harder to backtrack. Yet submitting to
an international tribunal is by no means beyond the pale for Beijing.
China regularly engages in the WTO dispute settlement system and
has a relatively strong compliance record in the face of adverse
rulings, largely due to the reputational costs of non-compliance.
Arbitrating the South China Sea dispute is assuredly more fraught
than commercial disputes, grating as it does on China's rawest
nerve: territorial sovereignty. That is why it must be complemented by all
claimant states exploring the equivalent of an amicable settlement: shelving
questions of who owns what and focusing on joint development of resources
for which compelling precedent exists. For now, however, Manila's lawyers
have staked out important legal ground in the South China Sea. Beijing
should consider meeting them there.

Ratification undermines US proliferation eforts and Navy

data intelligence

Rabkin 6 Jeremy, professor of law at George Mason University School of

Law, attended Harvard University, Cornell University (6/1/6, CEI, The Law of
the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America, http://cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf)patel
The United Nations did not invent the law of the sea. There has been a law of
the sea in effect for many centuries. When Spanish and Portuguese explorers
fi rst charted new sea routes to the Americas and Asia, their governments
imagined that they could lay claim to all the ocean vastness in between.
Successful challenges by new maritime powers, especially Britain and
Holland, soon established the principle that the high seas should be open to
all. In the early 17th century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius published an
extremely learned treatise which summed up the new approach in a catchy
phrase: freedom of the seas. To secure freedom on the seas, there had to
be rules applicable to most situations that also acknowledgedand thereby
constrainednecessary exceptions. These rules were developed over
centuries in a process of mutual accommodationand occasional challenge
by war at seaamong major maritime powers. Nearly all of this law was
customary law, meaning that it refl ected actual practice among maritime
statesincluding particular agreements among particular stateswithout
being set down in any formal document. The conventions of 1958 had

somewhat more ambitious goals. They sought to secure general

agreement on precisely defi ned rights of innocent passage
through coastal waters, specifying a 12-mile limit on territorial
claims at sea (where the national laws could be enforced by coastal
states). They laid down rules for charting the seaward boundaries of coastal
waters when the actual coastline has an irregular or interrupted pattern.
Almost all nations ratified these conventions within a few years, though not
all observed their terms. The treaties did not address some matters on which
there remained important disagreements, such as the status of fishing and
mining rights outside territorial waters. These issues might have been
addressed in a third convention fashioned along similar lines as its
predecessors. But instead, UNCLOS III set out on a very diferent
premisethat what belongs to no one must belong to everyone. Yet
serious statesmen have never embraced this idea of a world
authority on boundaries, empowered to make definite decisions on
all disputed borders. This is partly because too many affected nations
would not accept the decisions of such a world authority and other nations
are not prepared to provide troops on an open- ended basis to back up such
decisionsespecially considering the conflicts that arise over border
disputes. Yet this is the idea at the core of the new law of the sea treaty. It
sets out relatively precise rules about who can claim what as national waters,
then establishes an international "Authority" to regulate the unclaimed areas
under the high seasand a new tribunal to resolve any and all disputes about
these rules. Most risks posed by the "Authority" are somewhat
hypothetical at present, because mining on the floor of the deep
seas has not yet been attempted. But the tribunal presents
immediate problems for the United States because the U.S. Navy is,
right now, very much present on the high seas. The United States is
already committed, by its own policies, to abide by UNCLOS rules on
transit rights and wants other nations to do so as well. The
difficulties concern exceptions or the handling of exceptional
circumstances. The question is. Who decides on the exceptional cases? The
answer provided in UNCLOS III is a new international tribunal, most of whose
judgeselected by the usual U.N. formulas to assure geographical and
political "balance" cannot be expected to have much sympathy for
American concerns. The law of the seas most pertinent rule is that no
nation can interfere with the ships of other nations on the high seas.
The UNCLOS treaty acknowledges exceptions, such as when a ship is
suspected of involvement in piracy or in the slave trade or
falsely flying the flag of the intervening state.2 But UNCLOS
acknowledgement of these exceptions is superfl uous in these cases because
interventions on these grounds were already well established in the early
19th century, when these evils were of major concern to naval powers.
Meanwhile, UNCLOS makes no provision for contemporary concerns. In
particular, it makes no provision for intervention against ships
operated by terrorists or ships transporting weapons of mass
destruction to rogue states. Terrorists have obvious reasons to take
their operations out to sea. An attack on an oil tanker, for example,
could do vast environmental damage and have a sizable impact on
international oil markets. Seaborne shipping may be used to

transport missiles and other weapons components not easily

sneaked through airports. Currently, the United States does not claim the
right to stop any and all ships on the high seas, merely on general suspicion.
Since 2004, the United States has encouraged other nations, under
the American-led Security Proliferation Initiative (SPI), to sign
agreements authorizing American naval patrols to inspect merchant
ships fl ying their fl ags when there is reason to fear the ships are
engaged in illicit activities. While more than half the ships engaged in
international commerce are covered by these agreements, many are not.
American policy implicitly acknowledges that stopping other ships
on the high seas would usually be improper. But special
circumstances might justify exceptional measures. UNCLOS III
provides that, if a ship or its crew are seized on the high seas, the fl
ag state can appeal to the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, for a prompt decision on the
legality of the seizure.3 The treaty allows states to opt for other forms of
arbitration on other disputes, but other forms of arbitration require all nations
involved to agree on a specifi c panel of arbitrators. The only important
category of dispute where one party can force another to answer before
ITLOS is when a ship has been detained on the high seas and the complaining
party seeks its immediate release. Seizing a ship on the high seas without the
consent of its home government would inevitably trigger a diplomatic
confrontation. But in the right circumstances, the United States or its
allies might feel obliged to act first and try to handle the diplomatic
protests later. If intelligence gives reasonably firm indications of an
imminent terror attack to be launched from a particular ship, the
U.S. could insist on intervening, claiming a right of self-defense that
supersedes the general rules of the road at sea. Alternatively, the
United States might claim that a ship operated by terrorists was so
closely analogous to a pirate ship that intervention could be justifi
ed under the UNCLOS exemption for piracy. In still another variant, the
United States might interpret a bilateral agreement with the fl ag state as
covering a particular intervention, while the fl ag state insisted on a different
interpretation. In any of these cases, the fl ag state would likely sit on the
sidelines while the ships operators pursued a claim on their own initiative,
on behalf of the fl ag State, as UNCLOS allows.4 It is easy to imagine
situations in which U.S. intervention might trigger a complaint to ITLOS. It is
hard to imagine situations in which ITLOS would be other than a complicating
factor in ensuing U.S. diplomacy toward the fl ag state. Nor is there much
consolation in the prospect of appealing to ITLOS against the seizure of an
American ship, since the most vulnerable American ships would be small
craft, gathering intelligence near the coasts of unfriendly states. UNCLOS
couples transit rights with provisions for national regulatory measures in
coastal waters, including the right of the coastal state to prohibit intelligence
gathering in these waters. Suppose an American ship were seized
outside the territorial waters of a hostile state, on the claim that it
had earlier traversed these waters for illicit purposes and then been
pursued into contiguous watersas UNCLOS allows, for a belt of
water extending twelve nautical miles beyond the twelve mile reach
of territorial waters.5 The United States being required to

document for ITLOS exactly what its ship was doing in exactly which
waters could very well compromise sensitive U.S. intelligence
gathering operations. It is not even clear that the United States
would benefi t from having the option to pursue its own claims. In a
direct confrontation over a seizure, the United States has considerable
resourcesnaval, diplomatic, and economicto unilaterally pursue
its demands for immediate release. But having subscribed to
UNCLOS, the United States would have much more difficulty wielding
such pressures, if the state which efected the seizure insisted that
the matter should be taken to ITLOS for resolution. UNCLOS seems to
provide protection against these concerns by stipulating that states may opt
out of its compulsory arbitration requirements when disputes concern
military activities...by government vessels and aircraft engaged in noncommercial service.6 At its narrowest reading, this provision might mean
only that ITLOS will avoid intervening in full-scale confrontations between
opposing battle fleetsa situation that would create problems far beyond
those of dispute resolution. At its broadest, this exemption might mean that
any seizure could be excluded from ITLOS review, since seizures are never
effectuated by unarmed commercial vessels, which would entirely negate the
provision bestowing mandatory jurisdiction on ITLOS for seizures at sea. So
which is it? The only thing certain is that it will be up to ITLOS to
decide how far it wants to intrude into U.S. naval strategy. The State
Department has proposed ratification with an understanding that
the military exemption will be read broadly. (Sec. 2, Par. 2 of Text of
Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification, printed with Treaty Doc.
103-39 in Hearings on the Un Convention on the Law of the Sea, Ot. 21, 2003,
along with Statement of William H.Taft, Legal Adviser to the Department of
Stat) But UNCLOS itself stipulates that states may not attach reservations
to their ratifi cation.7 Again, it will be up to ITLOS to decide what signifi
cance, if any, should be accorded such unilateral U.S.
understandings. And the courts composition is not encouraging. As
of September 2005, a clear majority of the courts 21 judges were
from states that cannot be supposed to be friendly to American
naval actionincluding Russia, China, Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana,
Senegal, Cape Verde, Tunisia, Lebanon, Grenada, and Trinidad. The
earlier round of UNCLOS negotiations in the 1950s proposed, in addition to
specifi cations of transit rights and delimitations of coastal waters, a separate
treaty obliging signatories to refer disputes about these matters to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, the Netherlands. The United
States welcomed clarifi cation of the basic rules but successfully resisted the
proposal that all disputes be referred to the ICJ. In the mid-1980s, infuriated
by the ICJs handling of a case launched by the Marxist Sandinista
government in Nicaragua, the U.S. withdrew its previous commitment to
respond to claims before the ICJ by any state which agreed to open itself to
all such claims in turn. And, of course, the United States has resisted
urgings to submit its military personnel or any other U.S. citizens to
judgments of the International Criminal Court. UNCLOS has packaged
improved rules for the seas with the requirement that major
disputes about these rules will go to a permanent international
court, thus deemphasizing freedom of the seas in favor of claims

of collective ownership. As a result, states with little involvement in

maritime commerce will help to determine how these rules will be
interpreted and applied to nations with a lot at stake in international
commerce.

UNCLOS requires payments and mitigates any benefits

Rabkin 6 Jeremy, professor of law at George Mason University School of
Law, attended Harvard University, Cornell University (6/1/6, CEI, The Law of
the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America, http://cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf)patel
The best provisions in UNCLOS are those setting down rules for economic
development in areas extending up to 200 nautical miles beyond the
shorelines of coastal states. In addition to their territorial waters of up
to 12 miles, coastal states can also claim control over fi shing and
drilling in this exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The United States
claimed such rights in 1945 for the continental shelf adjacent to its
shores. This action provoked a variety of conflicting claims by other states,
since the continental shelfwhere waters are relatively shallowdoes not
extend nearly as far beyond coastlines elsewhere. The UNCLOS formula of a
200-mile limit for all coastal states was a compromise quite acceptable to the
United States. Therefore the United States has asserted that this portion of
UNCLOS should now be regarded as settled customary law, binding on all
states whether they ratify this particular treaty or not. In fact, most coastal
states have already claimed an exclusive economic zone in accord with
UNCLOS provisions. However, the actual treaty insists that in return for
the acknowledgement of such claims, coastal states must provide
compensation to the rest of the world. The most blatant application
of this concept concerns mineral extraction on the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile limit. UNCLOS allows claims to the limit of the
continental shelf or up to 350 miles from the shoreline, whichever is less.8
However, to claim such additional drilling rights the state must fi rst
accept delineation of its continental shelf by a special Commission
on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, established by UNCLOS with a
requirement that the Commissions membership show for equitable
geographical representation in its membership.9 If it chooses to
exercise drilling or mining rights in this area beyond its EEZ, a state
must provide a portion of revenue derived from such activity
increasing at 1 percent a year up to a rate of 7 percent per yearto
the Deep Seabed Authority, an agency established by UNCLOS for general
supervision of deep sea development.10 The United States government
already provides sizable contributionsoften over extended periodsto
international aid organizations for programssuch as vaccination, schooling,
and road buildingwhich it considers likely to improve conditions in
developing countries. UNCLOS does nothing to advance this. Instead, it
requires states that are able to extract mineral wealth from the seas
to compensate those that are notwhile the non-extracting state
contributes nothing to the equation. Moreover, money extracted
from drilling eforts on the continental shelf goes to an entity that is
not equipped to administer development assistance to developing
countries. The Seabed Authority is not even charged with doing that.
UNCLOS instead makes all mining operations in the deep seasbeyond the

continental shelf or the 350 mile limit of coastal statessubject to approval

by this agency. The Authority is not only authorized by UNCLOS to regulate
mining operations to guard against environmental and safety concerns, it is
also authorized to enforce the treatys assertions that resources [of the deep
seabed] are the common heritage of mankind11 and that all rights in
[these] resources are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf [the
Authority] shall act.12 The original treaty, negotiated during the heyday of
socialist enthusiasm, contemplated that the Authority would serve
mankind by reserving a considerable share of mining operations
to an internationalized public production entity, to be known as the
Entity. By the late 1970s, many Third World governments had
nationalizedi.e. forcibly seizedmines and oil wells developed
by foreign companies and were eager to form OPEC-style
international cartels to boost the prices they could obtain for raw
material exports by limiting their supply in world markets. While
nothing came of this effort, UNCLOS enshrines one aspect of it. UNCLOS
provides for an Economic Planning Commission to monitor factors affecting
supply, demand and prices of minerals.13 Relying on Planning Commission
reports, the Authority is then directed to adjust its permits for deep
seabed mining to assure just and stable prices remunerative to
producers and fair to consumers.14 The idea is to assure that mining
from the deep seabed does not provide too much competition to mines on
land. The Reagan Administration emphasized objections to the regulatory role
of the Authority when it rejected U.S. participation in UNCLOS in 1982. Most
European countries also withheld their approval at the time. A decade later,
with communism in collapse and the benefi ts of the free market
widely acknowledged, the Clinton Administration joined with
Europeans in negotiating revisions to UNCLOS. A supplementary
agreement, completed in 1994, does go far in correcting the treatys most
egregious provisions on deep seabed mining. The agreement directs that
mining in the area controlled by the Authority should be pursued in
accordance with sound commercial principles and neither subsidized nor
protected by special tariffs. One revision eliminates enforced contributions to
the Entity and stipulates that its activities be regulated on the same terms as
private fi rms. The treaty also signals a repudiation of cartel planning by
folding the Economic Planning Commission into a separate Legal Commission.
All of this is to the good. It might also be seen as bowing to reality. Mineral
extraction from the deep seas has turned out to be much more
expensive and diffi cult than Third World diplomats imagined in the
1970sin fact, no fi rms have expressed serious interest in such
projects. Since its establishment in 1995, the Authority has authorized a
handful of exploration efforts but has received no bids for actual mining
projects. It remains a fair question whether a complex U.N. regulatory
bureaucracyespecially one that counts international wealth redistribution as
one of its functionsis a reassuring presence for investors. The 1994
Agreement does not actually abolish the Planning Commission, but simply
suspends its operations until the regulatory council of the Authority decides
otherwise.15 The Seabed Authority still proclaims, on its offi cial website,
that it will oversee action to protect land-based mineral producers in the
third world from adverse economic effects of seabed production. The 1994

Agreement seems to give at least tacit support to this notion in

empowering the Authority to provide economic assistance to
developing countries which sufer serious adverse efects on their
export earnings from deep seabed mining.16 The Authority can still
direct proceeds from mining or drilling approved for the continental
shelf to compensate afected developing land-based producer
States. If the world wants to encourage mining in the deep seabed,
this is no way to do it. Further, this approach carries an immediate
risk to U.S. national security. Allegedly to ensure that the benefi ts
of deep sea mining are properly shared, UNCLOS requires all states
to cooperate in promoting the transfer of technology and scientifi c
knowledge relevant to exploration and recovery activities in the
deep seas.17 The 1994 supplementary agreement endorses these
provisions, qualifying them only with vague assurances that technology
transfer should be conducted on fair and reasonable commercial terms and
conditions, consistent with the effective protection of intellectual property
rights.18 It remains to be seen whether the Authority will assert claims to
impose technology transfers in this fi eld. It could do so by making such
transfers a condition for approving permits for exploration or recovery by
Western fi rms, since all such activity requires approval of the Authority.19 Yet
even without direct demands from the Authority, the Chinese government, by
invoking these provisions, managed to obtain microbathymetry equipment
and advanced sonar technology from American companies in the late 1990s.
China claimed to be interested in prospecting for minerals beneath the deep
seas. Pentagon offi cials warned against sharing this technology with China,
given its potential application to anti-submarine warfare. But other offi cials in
the Clinton Administration insisted that the United States, having signed
UNCLOSeven if not yet having ratifi ed itmust honor UNCLOS obligations
on technology sharing. Future administrations may be more vigilant, but the
Authority may, in the future, be more insistent. That is the logic of a treaty
that makes mining by fi rms in one country contingent on the approval of the
governments in other countries.

LOST undermines the US Naval power and risks war with

China

Bolton and Blumenthal 11 John and Dan (9/29/11, Time to Kill the Law of
the Sea TreatyAgain, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405311190483610457656093
4029786322)patel
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)signed by the U.S. in 1994 but never
ratified by the Senateis showing some signs of life on Capitol Hill, even as
new circumstances make it less attractive than ever. With China emerging
as a major POWER , ratifying the treaty now would encourage SinoAmerican strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to
resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims. At issue is
China's intensified efort to keep America's military out of its
"Exclusive Economic Zone," a LOST invention that afords coastal
states control over economic activity in areas beyond their
sovereign, 12-mile territorial seas out to 200 miles. Properly read, LOST

recognizes exclusive economic zones as INTERNATIONAL waters, but China

is exploiting the treaty's ambiguities to declare "no go" zones in regions
where centuries of state practice clearly permit unrestricted maritime activity.
Take the issues of INTELLIGENCE , surveillance and reconnaissance,
both by air and sea. LOST is silent on these subjects in the exclusive
zones, so China claims it can regulate (meaning efectively prohibit)
all such activity. Beijing also brazenly claimsexploiting Western
green sensibilitiesthat U.S. naval vessels pollute China's exclusive
zone, pollution being an activity the treaty permits coastal states to
regulate out to 24 miles. China wants to deny American access to its
nearby waters so it can have its way with its neighbors. Beijing is
building a NETWORK of "anti-access" and "area denial" weapons
such as integrated air defenses, submarines, land-based ballistic
and cruise missiles, and cyber and anti-satellite systems designed to
make it exceedingly hazardous for American ships and aircraft to
traverse China's exclusive zone or peripheral seas. If the Senate
ratifies the treaty, we would become subject to its dispute-resolution
mechanisms and ambiguities. Right now, since we are the world's major
naval power, our conduct dominates state practice and hence customary
INTERNATIONAL lawto our decided advantage. This dispute is not really
about law. China simply does not want the U.S. military to gather
INTELLIGENCE near its shores. And other nations quietly support
China's position, including Russia, Iran, Brazil and India. Given China's
incessant incursions into the exclusive zones of other Asian nations such as
Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, these states may seek to restrict
international maritime activities in their exclusive zones as well, further
complicating U.S. efforts. All Washington wants is to continue doing
what it has been doing since it became a maritime POWER : use its
Navy to enhance international peace and security, deter conflict,
reassure allies, and collect intelligence. LOST undercuts these
strategic imperatives, and that is why it has always been a bad idea
for the U.S.a formula for endless legal maneuvering and the submission of
conflicting claims to the treaty's international tribunal, where our prospects
are uncertain at best. One hopes India and Japan will stop reflexively
supporting LOST. They have significant alternatives to check China's growing
power, including closer cooperation with the United States. The treaty is not
an answerit is only a beguiling, flawed escape hatch from the hard work
America and others must do to meet China's challenge. That hard work
must include properly funding and equipping the Navy and
exercising it in China's exclusive zones, including especially on
intelligence missions, based on long-established state practice.
Together with diplomacy to PREVENT nascent conflicts from
escalating, these steps will reassure allies of full U.S. support in
resolving disputes with China

Resource extraction will only fund terrorist groups

Rumsfeld 6/12/12 Donald (Why the U.N. Shouldn't Own the Seas,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230376810457746089
0850883780) patel

Thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan asked me to meet with world
leaders to represent the United States in opposition to the United Nations Law
of the Sea Treaty. Our efforts soon found a persuasive supporter in British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Today, as the U.S. Senate again considers
approving this flawed agreement, the Reagan-Thatcher reasons for opposition
remain every bit as persuasive. When I met with Mrs. Thatcher in 1982, her
conclusion on the treaty was unforgettable: "What this treaty proposes is
nothing less than the INTERNATIONAL nationalization of roughly twothirds of the Earth's surface." Then, referring to her battles
dismantling Britain's state-owned mining and utility companies, she
added, "And you know how I feel about nationalization. Tell Ronnie
I'm with him." Reagan had entered ofce the year before with the treaty
presented to him as a done deal requiring only his signature and Senate
ratification. Then as now, most of the world's nations had already approved it.
The Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations had all gone along. American
diplomats generally supported the treaty and were shocked when Reagan
changed America's POLICY. Puzzled by their reaction, the president was said
to have responded, "But isn't that what the election was all about?" Yet, as
the Gipper might have said, here we go again: An impressive coalition
including every living former secretary of Statehas endorsed the Obama
administration's goal of ratifying the treaty. The U.S. Navy wants to "lock in"
existing and widely accepted rules of high-seas navigation. BUSINESS groups
say the treaty could help them by creating somewhat more certainty. Can so
many people, organizations and countries be mistaken? Yes. Various
proponents have valid considerations, but none has made a
compelling case that the treaty would, on balance, benefit America
as a whole. Though a 1994 agreement (signed by some but not all
parties to the treaty) fixed some of its original flaws, the treaty
remains a sweeping power grab that could prove to be the largest
mechanism for the world-wide redistribution of wealth in human
HISTORY. The treaty proposes to create a new global governance
institution that would regulate American citizens and businesses
without being accountable politically to the American people. Some
treaty proponents pay little attention to constitutional concerns about
democratic legislative processes and principles of self-government, but I
believe the American people take seriously such threats to the foundations of
our nation. The treaty creates a United Nations-style body called the
"International Seabed Authority." "The Authority," as U.N. bureaucrats
call it in Orwellian shorthand, would be involved in all COMMERCIAL
activity in international waters, such as mining and oil and gas
production. Pursuant to the treaty's Article 82, the U.S. would be required to
transfer to this entity a significant share of all royalties generated by U.S.
companiesroyalties that would otherwise go to the U.S. Treasury. Over
time, hundreds of billions of dollars could flow through the Authority
with little oversight. The U.S. would not control how those revenues
are spent: The treaty empowers the Authority to redistribute these
so-called INTERNATIONAL royalties to developing and landlocked
nations with no role in exploring or extracting those resources. This
would constitute massive global welfare, courtesy of the U.S.
taxpayer. It would be as if fishermen who exerted themselves to catch fish

on the high seas were required, on the principle that those fish belonged to
all people everywhere, to give a share of their take to countries that had
nothing to do with their costly, dangerous and arduous efforts. Worse still,
these sizable "royalties" could go to corrupt dictatorships and state
sponsors of terrorism. For example, as a treaty signatory and a
member of the Authority's EXECUTIVE council, the government of
Sudanwhich has harbored terrorists and conducted a mass
extermination campaign against its own peoplewould have as
much say as the U.S. on issues to be decided by the Authority.
Disagreements among treaty signatories are to be decided through
mandatory dispute-resolution processes of uncertain integrity. Americans
should be uncomfortable with unelected and unaccountable tribunals
appointed by the secretary-general of the United Nations serving as the final
arbiter of such disagreements. Even if one were to agree with the principle of
global wealth redistribution from the U.S. to other nations, other U.N. bodies
have proven notably unskilled at financial MANAGEMENT. The U.N. Oil for
Food program in Iraq, for instance, resulted in hundreds of millions
of dollars in corruption and graft that directly benefited Saddam
Hussein and his allies. The Law of the Sea Treaty is an opportunity
for scandal on an even larger scale. The most persuasive argument for
the treaty is the U.S. Navy's desire to shore up INTERNATIONAL navigation
rights. It is true that the treaty might produce some benefits,
clarifying some principles and perhaps making it easier to resolve
certain disputes. But our Navy has done quite well without this
treaty for the past 200 years, relying often on centuries-old, wellestablished customary international law to assert navigational
rights. Ultimately, it is our naval power that protects international
freedom of navigation. This treaty would not make a large enough
additional contribution to counterbalance the problems it would
create. In his farewell address to the nation in 1988, Reagan advised the
country: "Don't be afraid to see what you see." If the members of the U.S.
Senate fulfill their responsibilities, read the Law of the Sea Treaty and
consider it carefully, I believe they will come to the conclusion that its
costs to our security and sovereignty would far exceed any benefits.

Ratification means CP cannot solve for the affirmative- the

theory is flawed
Bandow 4 Doug, Senior Fellow at Cato, holds a J.D. from Stanford University,
writes for many journals and papers, focuses on civil liberties and political
science (3/15/4, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty, Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty) patel
President Bush has demonstrated his willingness to stand alone
internationally. Yet for little better reason than go-along, get-along
multilateralism, the administration is now pushing the Senate to ratify the
Law of the Sea Treaty, which was just unanimously voted out of Richard
Lugars Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At a committee meeting in
February, Lugar noted a wide range of support from American interests for
U.S. accession to be COMPLETED swiftly. However, the treaty is a flawed
document, and there would be serious costs from accepting it. The
Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United

Nations redistributionist agenda known as the New International

Economic Order. The convention covers such issues as fishing and
navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In
essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth
and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.
Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan ignored criticism of
American unilateralism and refused to sign the treaty. U.S.
leadership caused the Europeans and even the Soviet Union to stay
out. Many Third World states eventually acknowledged the treatys many
flaws. But treaties attract diplomats as lights attract moths. The first Bush
and Clinton administrations worked to fix the treaty, leading to a revised
agreement in 1994. Washington signed, leading to a cascade of ratifications
from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton
administration from pushing for ratification. Now George W. Bush has stepped
in where Bill Clinton feared to tread. Unfortunately, the revised treaty retains
many of its original flaws. There is still a complicated multinational
bureaucracy that sounds like an excerpt from George Orwells 1984: At its
center is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority (as it
calls itself) supervises a mining subsidiary called the ENTERPRISE,
ruled by an Assembly, Council, and various commissions and
committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized and could
discriminate against American operators. Companies that are
allowed to mine would owe substantial fees to the Authority and be
required to do surveys for the Enterprise, their governmentsubsidized competitor. A mandatory transfer of mining technologies
to Third World companies has been watered down. However,
sponsoring states that is, governments of nations where mining
companies are located-would have to facilitate such transfers if the
Enterprise and Third World competitors are unable to obtain
necessary equipment commercially. Depending on the whims of the
Authority, ensuring the cooperation of private miners could look
very much like mandatory transfers. The Authority, though so far of
modest size, would suffer from the same perverse incentives that afflict the
U.N., since the United States would be responsible for 25 percent of
the budget but easily outmaneuvered. Proposals by industrialized
signatories to limit their contributions have so far received an
unfriendly reception. Still, when it signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, the
Clinton administration said there was no reason to worry, because the treaty
proclaims that all organs and subsidiary bodies to be established under the
Convention and this Agreement shall be cost-effective. Right. Presumably
just as cost-effective as the U.N. The treatys mining scheme is flawed in
its very conception. Although many people once thought untold
wealth would leap from the seabed, land-based sources have
remained cheaper than expected, and scooping up manganese
nodules and other resources from the ocean floor is logistically
daunting. There is no guarantee that seabed mining will ever be
commercially viable. Yet this has not dimmed the enthusiasm of the
Authority. Like the U.N., it generates lots of reports and paper and obsesses
over trivia. Protecting the emblem, the ofcial seal and the name of the
International Seabed Authority has been a matter of some concern. Among

the crises the Authority has confronted: In April 2002 the Jamaican
government turned off its air conditioning, necessitating urgent
consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. A year
later Jamaica used the same tactic in an ongoing battle over Authority
payments for its facility. Oh yes, half of the Authority members are behind on
their dues. Were seabed mining ever to thrive, a transparent system
for recognizing mine sites and resolving disputes would be helpful.
But the Authoritys purpose isnt to be helpful. It is to redistribute
resources to irresponsible Third World governments with a sorry
history of squandering abundant foreign aid. This redistributionist
bent is reflected in the treatys call for financial transfers to
developing states and even peoples who have not attained full
independence or other self-governing status-code for groups such
as the PLO. Whatever changes the treaty has undergone, a constant has
been Third World pressure for financial transfers. Three voluntary trust funds
were established to aid developing countries. Alas, few donors have come
forward to subsidize the participation of, say, sub-Saharan African states in
the DEVELOPMENT of ocean mining. Thus, the Authority has had to dip into
its own budget to pay into the funds. Why, given all this, was the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee eager to sign on? The treaty is not without
benefits. Provisions regarding the ENVIRONMENT, resource management, and
rights of transit generally are positive, though many reflect what is now
customary international law, even in the absence of U.S. ratification. Lugar
notes that law and practice with respect to regulation of activities off our
shores is already generally compatible with the Convention. This would
seem to be an equally strong argument for not ratifying the treaty. Most
influential, though, may be support from the U.S. NAVY, which is enamored of
the treatys guarantee of navigational freedom. Not that such freedom is
threatened now: The Russian navy is rusting in port, China has yet to
develop a blue water capability, and no country is impeding U.S.
transit, commercial or military. At the same time, some ambiguous
provisions may impinge on freedoms U.S. shipping now enjoys. In
Senate testimony last fall, State Department legal adviser William H.
Taft IV noted the importance of conditioning acceptance upon the
understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to determine
which of its activities are military activities and that such
determination is not subject to review. Whether other members will
respect that claim is not at all certain. Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the vice
chief of naval operations, acknowledges the possibility that a Law of the Sea
tribunal could rule adversely and harm U.S. operational planning and
activities, and our security. Moreover, at a time when Washington is
combating lawless terrorism, it should be evident that the only sure
guarantee of free passage on the seas is the power of the U.S. Navy,
combined with friendly relations with the states, few in number, that sit
astride important sea lanes. Coastal nations make policy based on perceived
national interest, not abstract legal norms. Remember the luckless USS
Pueblo in 1968? International law did not PREVENT North Korea from seizing
the intelligence ship; approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have
offered the Pueblo no additional protection. America was similarly unaided by
international law in its 2001 confrontation with China over our downed EP-3

surveillance plane. Nor has signing the Law of the Sea Treaty prevented
Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, and others from making
ocean claims deemed excessive by others. INDEED, last October Adm. Mullen
warned that the benefits he believed to derive from treaty ratification did not
suggest that countries attempts to restrict navigation will cease once the
United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. Critics of
the U.S. refusal to sign in 1982 predicted ocean chaos, but not once has an
American ship been denied passage. No country has had either the incentive
or the ability to interfere with U.S. shipping. And if they had, the treaty would
have been of little help. In 1998 Law of the Sea Treaty supporters agitated for
immediate ratification because several special exemptions for the United
States were set to expire; Washington did not ratify, and no one seems to
have noticed. Now Lugar worries that Washington could forfeit our seat at
the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans.
Yet last October Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that America has had considerable success in
asserting its oceans interests as a nonparty to the Convention. Law of the
Sea Treaty proponents talk grandly of the need to restore U.S.
leadership, but real leadership can mean saying no as well as yes.
Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two
decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no MORE
attractive today.

There is no framework for exploitation which means cp

isnt necessary and mining could occur in US waters

Norton Rose Fulbright 13 (October 2013, Current Issues in Seabed Mining,

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/107981/currentissues-in-seabed-mining) patel
When the International Regime for Seabed Mining was introduced at
the United Nations in 1994, as an amendment to the Law of the Sea
Treaty (the Treaty) the then Secretary General of the International Seabed
Authority (ISA) Ambassador Satya Nandan described the proposed regime as
providing for: "a stable environment for investors in deep - seabed minerals
under a market - oriented regime; it guarantees access to the resources of
the seabed to all qualified investors; it provides for the establishment of
system of taxation which is fair to the seabed miner and from which the
international community as a whole may benefit;" As of 2013 it is fair to ask
what progress has been made towards these goals. The Regime described to
the United Nations by Ambassador Nandan concerned the development of a
Seabed Mining Regime in respect of the ocean floor beyond the territorial
limits of coastal states (the Area). A mining regime within the limits of
the jurisdiction of a country does not involve the ISA; consequently
the development of the necessary relationships to pursue mining are
between the miner and the government of the coastal state.
However, many of the issues are relevant to both mining areas. Activity in
coastal waters has been concentrated in the Southern Pacific. A number of
Pacific Island countries have granted either exploration or exploitation leases
and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community has identified seabed mineral
potential in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati,
Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, Samoa and Niue. In

the Area, the ISA has granted seventeen contracts either directly to
countries or to companies sponsored by a country (this is a
requirement of the ISA). ISA contracts are for exploration; contracts
granted in respect of mining in territorial waters may include rights
to exploit the resource (this is the case with the lease granted by Papua
New Guinea to Nautilus Minerals). The result of all of this is that both
governments and private industry have interests in the development
of seabed mining in territorial waters and beyond. All this interest in
seabed mining arises from a number of sources, two of which are the world
need for more metal (including rare earth metals) and the possibilities of
financial benefits for the countries that possess the metals. Using copper as
an example, the US Geological Survey has estimated that world
consumption of copper over the next 25 years will exceed all of the
copper metal ever mined to date. The average reserve grade of land
based copper projects as of 2009 stood at .61 %. Nautilus has estimated that
the grade available in its Papua New Guinea seabed project is 7.2 %. As a
potential beneficiary the Cook Islands estimate that mining the minerals in
their waters has the potential to increase their GDP a hundred fold. The UN
estimates that the current per - capita income of the Cook Islands is $12,200.
Seabed mining is not unlike other new industries attempting to
establish themselves. In order to prosper there must be a legal
framework in place and industry must have a social license from the
relevant stakeholders. With a new industry in uncharted waters the
attainment of a social license involves the development of a consensus that
the activity is safe and that it does not adversely affect the environment in
which it is conducted. This is frequently a substantial hill to climb for
industries in new areas. The seabed is one such area. Mining for shale
gas faced much the same developmental issues and one expects
that methane hydrate mining will encounter similar hurdles. The
complete legal framework for seabed mining is not yet in place,
what currently exists is a developing framework. There is no
exploitation code for seabed mining in areas regulated by the ISA.
Many ISA exploration licenses expire in 2016 and the current
licensees will require guidance on an exploitation framework. The
ISA has recently published a study describing what might be
included in a regulatory framework for exploitation but currently it is
just that, a study. In the South Pacific very few of the island nations have
mining codes, although some are in progress, such as the Cook Islands. Part
and parcel of the establishment of the regulatory framework is the
development of a taxation/royalty regime to provide certainty for a developer
assessing its risks. For activities in territorial waters this may be negotiated
between the developer and the coastal state. The Finance Minister for the
Cook Islands, Mark Brown, has recently stated that the Cook Islands would
expect to receive stakes in mining companies for free as the price for
granting rights to exploit the resources of the Cook Islands. In the case of ISA
regulated leases one expects that a generic regime, including a royalty
structure, will be developed to cover production in all ISA regulated areas.
This will probably be a regime bereft of any individual negotiation between
ISA and its individual licensees. It will be interesting to see whether the

companies who have leases in ISA areas as a result of state sponsorship have
the staying power to await an ISA articulated mining regime.

2AC AT: LOST (Enviro NB)

There is no guarantee of environmental protection absent
an establishment of a network of marine protected areas
TULLIO SCOVAZZ No date - United Nations Audiovisual Library of International
Law, Professor of International Law at University of Milano-Bicocca,
Milan(THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY,
INCLUDING GENETIC RESOURCES, IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL
JURISDICTION: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/ICP12_Presentations/Scovaz
zi_Abstract.pdf) patel
New challenges are facing States as regards the subject of
conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas
beyond national jurisdiction. This report will focus on the legal aspects of
the subject. It will elaborate on how the present regime, as embodied in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), could
evolve to address some of the new challenges, such as a regime for
genetic resources and the establishment of a network of marine
protected areas. The basic aspect of the high seas regime is freedom.
Today the freedom of the high seas is not absolute, but subject to a number
of conditions, as specified by the relevant rules of international law, including
UNCLOS. Today it cannot be sustained that a State has the right to engage in
specific marine activities simply because it enjoys freedom of the sea,
without it being bound to consider the opposite positions, if any, of the other
interested States. Also the concept of freedom of the sea is to be understood
in the context of the present range of marine activities and in relation to the
other potentially conflicting uses and to interests having a general character,
such as the sustainable use of living resources and the protection of the
environment. The most innovating aspect of UNCLOS is the concept of
common heritage of mankind. It presupposes a regime completely
diferent from both the traditional concepts of sovereignty, which
applies in the territorial sea, and of freedom, which applies on the
high seas. The basic elements of the regime of common heritage of
mankind, applying to the seabed beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction (the Area), are the prohibition of national appropriation,
the destination of the Area for peaceful purposes, the use of the
Area and its resources for the benefit of mankind as a whole with
particular consideration for the interests and needs of developing
countries, as well as the establishment of an international
organization entitled to act on behalf of mankind in the exercise of
rights over the resources. However, the prospects in the field of
mineral resources in the Area remain today uncertain. A number of
factors, including the cost of seabed mining activities, have inhibited
progress towards commercial exploitation of mineral deposits.

Exploitation is inevitable and LOST excludes any

provisions on the environment
TULLIO SCOVAZZ No date - United Nations Audiovisual Library of International
Law, Professor of International Law at University of Milano-Bicocca,

Milan(THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY,

INCLUDING GENETIC RESOURCES, IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL
JURISDICTION: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/ICP12_Presentations/Scovaz
zi_Abstract.pdf) patel
The exploitation of commercially valuable genetic resources may in
the near future become a promising activity taking place beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction. But what is the international regime
applying to genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction?
Neither the UNCLOS nor the Convention on Biological Diversity
provide any specific legal framework in this regard. Some States take
the position that the UNCLOS principle of common heritage of mankind and
the mandate of the International Seabed Authority should be extended to
cover also genetic resources. Other States rely on the UNCLOS principle of
freedom of the high seas, which would imply the freedom of access to, and
the unrestricted exploitation of, genetic resources. In fact, both the divergent
positions move from the same starting point, namely that the UNCLOS is
the legal framework for all activities in the oceans and seas,
including in respect of genetic resources beyond areas of national
jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the UNCLOS is a cornerstone in the field
of codification of international law. Nevertheless, the UNCLOS, as any legal
text, is linked to the period when it was negotiated and adopted (from 1973
to 1982). Being itself a product of time, the UNCLOS cannot stop the passing
of time. While it provides a solid basis for the regulation of many subjects, it
would be illusory to think that the UNCLOS is the end of legal regulation.
International law of the sea is subject to a process of natural evolution and
progressive development which is linked to new needs and involves also the
UNCLOS. In particular, the UNCLOS cannot be supposed to regulate
those activities that its drafters did not intend to regulate for the
simple reason that they were not foreseeable in the period when this
treaty was being negotiated. At this time, very little was known
about the genetic qualities of deep seabed organisms. The words
genetic resources or bioprospecting do not appear anywhere in
the UNCLOS. When dealing with the special regime of the Area and
its resources, the UNCLOS drafters had only mineral resources in
mind. The UNCLOS defines the resources of the Area as limited to all solid,
liquid or gaseous mineral resources in-situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed, including polymetallic nodules. This means that the UNCLOS regime of
common heritage of mankind cannot be automatically extended to the nonmineral resources of the Area. But, for logical and chronological
reasons, the regime of freedom of the high seas cannot apply to
genetic resources either. While establishing specific regimes for
living and mineral resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction,
the UNCLOS does not provide any third regime for the exploitation of
marine genetic resources. A legal gap exists in this regard. Sooner
or later it should be filled (better sooner than later) through a
regime which, to be consistent, should encompass under the same
legal framework the genetic resources of both the deep seabed and
the superjacent waters. However, some general principles of the
UNCLOS should be taken into consideration when envisaging a

future regime for marine genetic resources beyond national

jurisdiction. They include the paramount objective to contribute to the
realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes
into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular
the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or
land-locked (UNCLOS preamble). Also in the field of genetic resources, the
application of the principle of freedom of the sea under a first-come-firstserved approach leads to inequitable and hardly acceptable consequences.
New cooperative schemes, based on a regime for access and the benefit of
all States, should be envisaged in a future agreement on genetic resources
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This is also in full conformity with
the principle of fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the
utilization of genetic resources set forth by the Convention on Biological
Diversity. The scope of the UNCLOS regime of the Area is already broader
than it may be believed at first sight. The legal condition of the Area has
an influence also on the regulation of matters and activities that,
although diferent from minerals and mining activities, are also
located in that space and are more or less directly related to mining
activities, such as marine scientific research, the preservation of the
marine environment and the protection of underwater cultural
heritage. As far as the first two matters are concerned, it is difficult
to draw a clercut distinction between what takes place on the
seabed and what in the superjacent waters. Bioprospecting, that is
what is currently understood as the search for commercially valuable
genetic resources of the deep seabed, can already be considered as
falling under the UNCLOS regime of marine scientific research. Also
bioprospecting is consequently covered by Art. 143, para. 1, of the
UNCLOS, which sets forth the principle that marine scientific
research in the Area shall be carried out exclusively for peaceful
purposes and for the benefit of the mankind as a whole

2AC AT: LOST (Politics NB)

LOST is massively unpopular in both chambers
Tennant 12 - not the Doctor (Michael, 27 June 2012, "Will Our Freedoms
Be LOST at Sea?," www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreignpolicy/item/11824-will-our-freedoms-be-lost-at-sea, ADL)
Although the Obama administration is putting on the drive to get the
Senate to ratify LOST, its success is by no means certain. The House
of Representatives recently voted to deny the administration
millions of dollars in funding for LOST organizations, which suggests that the antiLOST movement is strong and well-organized. Kerry has said he will not bring the
treaty up for a vote before the November election because, according to The Hill, some lawmakers on and
off the committee have candidly told him theyd be more comfortable if they
could avoid having to cast the controversial vote during the
campaign season another indication that the treaty is widely
unpopular. Kerry will likely try to get LOST through the Senate during the lame-duck session after the election.
That may not be easy: At least 27 Senators have signed a letter circulated by Sen.
Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) stating that they will not vote to ratify LOST , and it only takes 34
Senators in opposition to sink its ratification. If the vote is delayed until the next President is inaugurated, it could end up
being opposed from the White House, which would likely prevent ratification. Obamas presumptive Republican opponent,
Mitt Romney, has signaled his unease with LOST; and while the Libertarian Partys nominee, Gary Johnson, does not
appear to have taken a stand on LOST, the party has in the past specifically praised U.S. refusal to join the accord.
America, by rejecting LOST, cannot stop the UN from claiming control over the oceans. But, wrote Greenley, U.S.
ratification would provide that final stamp of legitimacy for the UNs power grab over the oceans and seas and constitute
a major step into world government. The

globalist elites are pushing hard for U.S.

accession to LOST. Those concerned about U.S. sovereignty and fearful of transferring more power to
unaccountable international organizations will have to work just as hard to ensure that if and when the treaty finally does
come up for a vote,

the Senate has the guts to tell the globalists to get lost.

2AC AT: LOST (Conflict NB)

LOST is too vague and not binding
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
In this context, its feared that poor States owning ofshore mineral
resources are undemanding and agree an implementation of this
new industry without precaution. Although scientists have uncertainty
about their actual extent, its obvious that marine environmental hazards would be very

significant. The risk to see this activity starting and developing outside of any international regulation is

This fear reflects the fact that the provisions of

U.N.C.L.O.S. relating to the protection of the marine environment
are too vague and not actually binding on States as illustrated by the
ofshore oil and gas industry development.
unfortunately not negligible.

2AC AT: PIC out of Minerals

Mineral mining is an all or nothing thing --- you cant pick
which ones you mine until they are processed on land --that means either CP doesnt solve the af bc it mines NO
minerals or it links to the net benefit
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American

Security, Elements of Security,

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
Though supply chains differ for every mineral, several steps are common across most
of these supply chains and can help analysts identify potential
points of vulnerability. Once potentially profitable reserves are discovered, companies must
obtain the technology, permits and capital needed for min - eral extraction. Since most minerals
are not pure ores extracted resources typically contain many
diferent materials in various concentrations the minerals must be
processed and separated. Unless the deposits are processed on site, the minerals may be
shipped multiple times before they are ready to use. Many minerals are sold in
commodities markets, which requires additional physical shipment or financial steps. Finally,
the minerals are purchased, shipped to the consumer and used.

2AC AT: Privatization (Capital)

No mining for a decade---start up costs too high
Goodier, 11 Rob, Journalist, Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay
Right Where They AreFor Now,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rareearth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now
John Wiltshire, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, also at the
University of Hawaii, Manoa, puts it even more bluntly. "The truth of the
matter is, nobody's going to mine in the deep sea even if
somebody massively funds this for a minimum of a decade ," he says.
The startup cost could run from $1 to $2 billion .

REE mining requires a lot of capital start up

Anthony, 11 Sebastian, Rare earth crisis: Innovate, or be crushed by
China, Lead editor at Ziff Davis, Inc. Owner at SA Holdings Past Columnist at
Tecca Editor at Aol (Weblogs, Inc) Education University of Essex Extreme Tech,
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/111029-rare-earth-crisis-innovate-orbe-crushed-by-china
Rare earths a block of seventeen elements in the middle of the Periodic Table (pictured below)
arent actually all that rare, but they tend to be very hard to obtain commercially.
Generally, rare earth elements are only found in minute quantities in
mineral deposits of clay, sand, and rock (earths!), which must then
be processed to extract the rare metals an expensive process, and
also costly for the environment as billions of tons of ore must be mined and refined to
yield just a few tons of usable rare earths.

Privates wont distribute equally

Nemeth et al 8 (Stephen C. Nemeth and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell,

Department of Political Science, University of Iowa,Elizabeth A. Nyman and
Paul R. Hensel Department of Political Science, Florida State University,
Ruling the Sea: Institutionalization and Privatization of the Global Ocean
Commons, http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnetphensel/Research/UNCLOS08.pdf) patel
Within their EEZ, states have jurisdiction and are free to manage,
develop, and exploit all resources within the sea, the floor, and subsoil from
their continental shelf with a boundary at 200 nautical miles or to the edge of
the continental margin.6 This idea gained widespread support amongst both
developed and developing states. During the first substantive conference of
UNCLOS in 1974, 100 out of 143 participating states supported the idea (Pratt
and Schofield, 2000: 4). By the time a preliminary text was made ready
in 1977, 29 states had made a formal EEZ claim; by the signing of
UNCLOS in 1982, 59 states had done so (Pratt and Schofield, 2000: 4).
While privatization is an attractive solution, its primary drawback is
the potential for the creation and/or exacerbation of resource

distributional inequities. It has been admitted that the formalization

of EEZs as part of the UNCLOS agreement has increased, rather
than decreased, inequality among states, giving more to the already
well-endowed richer states (Borgese, 1995: 15). One of the most
significant problems is that the subdivision of the commons is not
homogenous. Merely allocating equivalent portions of the commons
does not mean that all users will get an equal share. States may be
tempted to seek larger shares of the commons to put more
resources under their private control; a lack of information about the
resource will also complicate negotiations regarding the distribution
of a resource since a state risks getting a worthless share (Wijkman,
1982). In addition, the migratory nature of fish stocks and the
interconnectedness of the oceans ecosystem mean that resources cannot be
managed solely within the EEZ, leading to problems with fishing fleets
pursuing migratory fish stocks just outside of other states' EEZs (Borgese,
1995; Bailey, 1996).7 Since some resources can move between EEZs,
each state has incentives to exploit the resource before another
does the same.

2AC AT: Privatization (Enviro DA)

Private companies have no regulations---causes
haphazard regulations that only the federal government
harmonizing solves
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
The greatest fear would be this new industry expanding without
being subject to any form of international supervision control or
regulation. The dreadful precedent of the ofshore oil exploitation
evidences that it would be irresponsible to relinquish the regulation
of Deep Sea mining industry under the sole responsibility of the private
companies and the States involved. This regulation obviously involves stakes that exceed the framework
of national policies. The first part of this work deals with the inadequacy of the current international legal framework regarding Deep Sea
activities and particularly Deep Sea mining. Changing this situation and introducing international regulation involves reconsidering the current
conception of the law of the sea, which has remained focused on the sovereignty of coastal States. The second part is related to the
foreseeable issues of Deep Sea mining. Even though environmental protection is a vital challenge, the increasing strategic dimension of raw
materials, especially some rare metals, might counter it. Geopolitical stake of the seabed control could all the more speed the rush to the
abyss. I. INADEQUACY OF DEEP SEA MINING LEGAL FRAMEWORK The E.E.Z. is usually considered as an extension of the States territory.
Such a view tends to impede international regulation. The uncontrolled development of offshore oil and gas industry reflects this almost total
lack of international regulation. It stresses the need to establish an international regulation based on the precautionary principle in order to
avoid a haphazard development of the seabed exploitation. 17. Nautilus would be the first company worldwide to commercially explore thigh
grade massive sulphide deposits on the sea floor. In January 2011 Nautilus was granted a 20 years mining lease by the Government of Papua
New Guinea for the development of the Solwara 1 deposit which lies in the Eastern Manus Bassin on the Bismark Sea at approximately 1600
metres depth. Nautilus planned to produce copper and gold in 2010. However, the company has been embroiled in a dispute with the P.N.G.
Government under a shared funding agreement (http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-11-14/nautilus-project-halted-overdispute- in-png/1045884). 4 A. E.E.Z. Regime Impedes International Regulation Since its recognition by the Geneva Convention of March
29th, 1958, prominence of the coastal State over the natural resources of the continental shelf which is considered as an extent of its
territory has never been challenged. This prominence has even been strengthening through the creation of the 200 miles E.E.Z. under
U.N.C.L.O.S. adoption in Montego Bay in December 10th, 1982. Coastal States have the exclusive rights to exploit, manage and preserve
resources of seawater, and ocean floor beyond their territorial waters, up to 200 nautical miles from their coastline. Furthermore, E.E.Z. can be
expanded under certain conditions (see hereinafter III C.). Following Article 56 (1) (a) U.N.C.L.O.S., the term refers to an area where the
coastal State has sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether
living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed subsoil, and with regard to the other activities for the economic
exploitation of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, current and winds. In this area, the coastal State shall conserve
and manage natural resources. This requirement echoes the duty to ensure the protection and preservation of the marine environment
referred to in Articles 192 to 237 U.N.C.L.O.S. Among these provisions Article 194-3 asserts that coastal States should limit the pollution from
installations and devices used of the exploitation or exploration of the natural resources of the seabed and the subsoil. According to Article
56 (2) U.N.C.L.O.S.: In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State
shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention
.Indeed sovereign rights appear not to be absolute but circumscribed by the rules of international law of the sea. Thus, the coastal State
does not have a plenary jurisdiction as may suggest use of the term "sovereignty". For instance, coastal States must take into account the
rights and freedoms of other States (Art. 72 2 U.N.C.L.O.S.) and do not affect other uses of the sea with respect to the waters and the
airspace above them (Art. 78 1 U.N.C.L.O.S.). For example, the establishment of offshore platforms is normally prohibited in areas where
there is intense fishing activity (Art. 147 2 (b) U.N.C.L.O.S.).Generally, the Convention seeks to find a balance between the rights granted to
coastal States and traditional uses of the sea. Despite the tensions caused by the increasing use of marine resources only a few international
initiatives have been taken18. Ocean governance remains limited. Thus, these last years witnessed the spectacular development of offshore
oil industry in a legal lacuna. Despite the high importance of the subject, the 18. See, Harry N. Scheiber, Economic Uses of the Oceans, in
Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation: IUU Fishing, Oil Pollution, Bioprospecting, Outer Continental Shelf, Davor Vidas, ed.,

This
kind of pollution is expressly referred to in Article 208 U.N.C.L.O.S. which
requires coastal states to adopt laws and regulations in order: "to
Martinus Nijhoff (2010). 5 pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the seabed continues to spark little interest.

prevent , reduce and control pollution of the marine environment

resulting directly or indirectly from the seabed ." It means any activity or operation within
the area under the jurisdiction of a State, that is to say the internal waters, territorial sea, E.E.Z. and the continental shelf. The coastal
State shall regulate in particular the E.E.Z. under its jurisdiction. In
addition, 4 and 5 of Article 208 U.N.C.L.O.S. require eforts to harmonize national
regulations through international organizations, in order to avoid diferences , which
could be reflected by some States introducing more permissive
standards than othe Thus, States wishing to authorize mining activities

underwater must first establish an appropriate legal framework . Then

normally coastal State incurs responsibility in case of damage caused to
the marine environment (Art. 304 U.N.C.L.O.S). However, even if the State is theoretically responsible for its E.E.Z.s
use, there is no binding provision to regulate its action in this regard. In fact, Article 208- 5 U.N.C.L.O.S. invites only
Parties to establish global and regional rules, standards and
recommended practices and procedures to prevent , reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment.

Only federal government and national legislation can

provide the guide and regulation for private companies--solves the environemnt
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental

Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive

Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
The importance of law and policies addressing deep-sea mining
cannot be understated because establishing such regulations allows
all deep-sea mining stakeholders a better command of their
interests . This includes how efective the management of marine
mineral extraction will be and how well the ocean environment is
protected. Therefore, a careful assessment of current and past laws and
regulations of deep-sea mining are addressed such as; international legislation,
national legislation and environmental regulations in PNG, local and state government
legislation in PNG, and the Madang Guidelines and code for environmental
management of marine mining.

Privatizing risks more environmental destruction-this

answers your study

Chris Fred 12/21/13-Associate Editor of the Journal of Applied Ecology (2004-)

Former Editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science (2001-2005) Governor and
member of Council, Marine Biological Association UK (2003-) (Harry Blustein,
Privatizing the oceans is a bad idea,
http://harryblutstein.com/environment/privatizing-the-oceans/) patel
The oceans cover almost three-quarters of the planets surface, and for many
people they represent the last great wilderness. But in fact the seas support
many human activities, and have done for millennia for how much longer,
though, is debatable. And that has raised many suggestions of how to save
them. Marine ecosystems underpin an estimated two-thirds of global
GDP, and seafood makes up around 6% of the worlds total protein
consumption. As the worlds population approaches nine billion by the
middle of this century, the demands on the sea to provide nutrition will
continue to rise. Yet the UN has already acknowledged the failure to ensure
sustainable use of the seas efforts to ensure stocks are fished sustainably
have been underway for more than 100 years in Europe, yet most stocks are
over-exploited with population numbers below safe biological limits. As well
as over-fishing, human activities impact upon the whole marine
ecosystem. The food chain is afected as predator or prey species
are removed in great numbers, causing population shifts and

imbalances. The seas are used as a dumping ground, from household

rubbish to toxic waste. The oceans have also absorbed around half of
all the carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution, which
has raised the oceans acidity levels. This build up of toxins, warming and
acidification all impose great stresses on sea life. So its clear that existing
management schemes are failing to protect the oceans. This has prompted
some to call for a partial privatization of the oceans, with coastal
communities owning areas of the sea. A recent proponent is the World
Bank. Its 21-person panel of experts concludes that the threats to
the ocean are so diverse and difficult for traditional measures to
regulate that large-scale public-private partnerships are the best
hope of delivering sustainable use. The idea that someone who has
ownership of a resource will protect it seems intuitive and proposals
to privatize fisheries have a long history. Private rights do not
themselves deliver sustainability or environmental protection look
at the impact industrialization of agriculture has had on the
countryside, for example. It is legislation that protects woods,
hedgerows and field margins, not the fact that someone owns them.
From an economic point of view, creating a market attributing value to,
buying and selling areas of the sea would contribute to economic indicators
such GDP as these services currently rendered gratis would now be
captured in the trading accounts of companies. But ultimately it would
take something that is the common property of all and sell it (one
assumes governments would sell rather than give) to corporations
and consortia. These would then trade the sea floor like any other
property. From an ecological point of view the proposal is flawed.
The seawater that carries fish larvae, plankton and other foods, and
pollutants too, will wash in and out of these regions without any
regard for boundary lines drawn on maps and charts. Similarly, fish
will swim in and out of the areas without checking in at border
control. These cross-boundary movements would render many of the
possible protective measures inefective. When we own land we
generally erect a fence or wall to keep our livestock in and to prevent others
from gaining access to or damaging or our property. The land ownership
analogy is simply not appropriate in the context of the oceanic world. The UN
Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) follows the principle that the
high seas are international and owned by no nation, and are the common
heritage of mankind (Article 136). A policy of privatisation of the seas
therefore involves setting aside this principle. Human pressures on
the ocean continue to increase and efective action is certainly
needed, and urgently. The idea of ceding parts of the ocean to local
communities, perhaps in partnership with multinational
corporations, is seen as providing a mechanism that would allow the
communities that have a stake in the health of their local
ecosystems to play a part in managing them, using their local
knowledge. Anthropologists are keen to promote examples where
indigenous people develop their own environmental and resource
management practice using traditional ecological knowledge. There are many
examples of such successes in the marine environment particularly in
dynamic, productive ecosystems but where fish are highly mobile such

approaches fail. If your fish move in and out of your patch it will
always pay to catch them now, rather than let them go to be caught
by someone else, or risk them moving to another area and not
returning. The noble savage living in balance with nature is simply a
romantic Victorian construct. Archaeological evidence shows clear over
exploitation of fisheries resources by Stone Age peoples. The worlds
fish catch peaked in the 1980s; even from the 1960s on it was clear
many stocks were severely over exploited. In the 50 years since then
we have seen proposal after proposal to save the seas reduce
pollution, introduce Marine Protected Areas, extend Exclusive
Economic Zones to 200 miles, and others. None has really delivered.
Speaking as an ecologist, the answer is simple we need to reduce fishing.
We need to do this urgently, make a significant change, and in one or two
decades we might have healthier stocks which can then sustain catch rates
similar to now. But talk of privatizing the sea is just another example
of how politicians are unwilling to face the challenge head on.

2AC AT: Privatization (Defense DA)

In the context of defense related minerals, the private
sector wont invest in them and there isnt a reliable
supply --- that collapses defense industries
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
In developing new policies related to minerals, policymakers must
remember that substantial government intervention already exists,
includ - ing permitting exploitation on government lands and regulating environmental impacts. However, policymakers must navigate a market that is not always

the
private sector responded by providing some capital for a domestic
mining operation to resume. This does not always solve the foreign
policy and geopolitical challenges the U.S. government experiences. In particular, for minerals
that private companies will not reliably produce or more defensespecific applications, U.S. government interests may be at stake
easy to predict and in which the need for federal government intervention (or nonin - tervention) is not always obvious. In the recent rare earths case,

while private interests are not To manage circumstances where the

federal government must act to protect U.S. interests against the
threat of supply disruptions , various federal agencies have existing mechanisms that must be preserved and utilized. The
Departments of Defense and Energy already have mechanisms for offering low-interest loan guarantees for busi - nesses in a broad range of strategically important
fields, from semi-conductors to military assets to energy infrastructure. Similarly, these agencies can use loan guarantees to facilitate production or advance research
and development related to minerals, including lending funds to support research on the more efcient use of rare earths, rhenium or lithium in defense or energy
appli - cations.

Only a willingness to use these tools is required

Government is key to obtain the knowledge infrastructure

to protect US interests --- private companies withhold
information to understand the global supply chain --- that
causes protectionism
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
To protect the U.S. governments ability to manage critical minerals
appropriately, Congress should protect the governments role in
analyzing critical mineral vulnerabilities and producing its own
data . As congressional leaders in both political parties strive to reduce spend - ing and seek efciencies, they
should maintain a strong U.S. government capacity for research and
analysis a public good that is both necessary to protect U.S.
interests and undersupplied by the private sector . Without vigilance, the
United States risks being blindsided by regular trade disputes and
supply disruptions , and by countries exerting political leverage.
Improving how the U.S. government handles mineral issues should not require major increases in manpower or

But the administration and Congress must maintain the

existing capacities and preserve the knowledge infrastructure that
the government has redeveloped in the past few years (See Key U.S.
Government Ofces box). In addition to continuing to produce good data, the U.S.
government can do more to leverage its relationships with
contractors. The private sector will continue to withhold important
spending.

information in order to keep information proprietary or because it

could be harmful to the bottom line if shared with the government.
But when DOD, for example, has billion-dollar contracts with suppliers for
critical military assets, it should be able to have contractual
requirements that these companies share information about major
supply chain vulnerabilities that can provide other countries with
leverage over the United States or potentially cause major
disruptions . The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is an important model for
requiring due diligence in understanding and reporting supply chain infor - mation among manufacturers that source
minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo

2AC AT: Recycle CP

Cant sustain our industries --- has little impact
Paramaguru, 13 Kharunya, Rethinking Our Risky Reliance on Rare Earth
Metals, http://science.time.com/2013/12/20/rare-earths-are-too-rare/
Recycling metal has been advocated by some as a possible way of
managing these precious resourcesthe European Parliament adopted a law curbing
dumping of electric waste in 2012, meaning member states will need to collect 45 tons of e-waste for

But Gradael says

that for rare earths, recycling will have little impact until our use of
these materials first plateaus, as there will not be enough in the
recycling stream to keep up with future demand . Instead, Gradael hopes that
product designers, material scientists and engineers will fully take into account
the risks and limitations of relying on such resources in the future
and design new products accordingly. Until that innovation comes, well continue to be
every 100 tons of electronic goods sold in the previous three years by 2016.

exposed to the environmental damage, geopolitical scares and price shocks that come with being reliant
on rare earths.

Most rare earths cannot be recycled

Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American

Security, Elements of Security,

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
The ability to recover and recycle minerals economically can expand
sources of supply . Minerals can be removed from manufactured items that are headed for the
landfill, extracted and then recycled. Lithium, for example, has good recy - cling potential, and
economical recycling and reuse is being researched extensively. Gallium can be recovered and
reprocessed in some cases, as can rhenium, niobium and tantalum. However,

for most rare

earths, very little material can be recycled or recovered

economically given current technologies and methods
Links to environment DA
Marshall 14 (Jessica Marshall is a science journalist for ensia, WHY RARE EARTH
RECYCLING IS RARE (AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT), Ensia, April 7 th, 2014,
http://ensia.com/features/why-rare-earth-recycling-is-rare-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/)

Recycling rare earth elements isnt as easy as recycling glass

or plastic there are challenges at nearly every level . For one thing, the
elements are present in small amounts in things like cell phones . As parts
get smaller, so do the amounts of material used. In a touch screen, for example, the
elements are distributed throughout the material at the molecular scale .
Not Curbside

Its actually getting much harder to recycle electronics, says Alex King of the Ames Lab in Ames, Iowa, and director of
the Critical Materials Institute a U.S. Department of Energyfunded Innovation Hub focused on strategies for ensuring
the supply of five rare earth metals identified by the government as critical. We used to have cell phones where you
could snap out the battery, which is probably the biggest single target for recycling. With smartphones, those things are

Cell phones are typically recycled by

smashing, shredding and grinding them into powder. The powder
can then be separated into component materials for disposal or
recycling. But new cell phones incorporate more elements than ever
built so you cant get the battery out, at least not easily.

 some around 65 in total. (For comparison, all of industry uses only about 85 different elements.)
This makes the powder a more complicated mixture to separate than it was with older phones. Its easier to
separate rare earth elements from rocks than from cell phones , King
says.

To separate these materials often means very aggressive

solvents or very high temperature molten metal processing. Its not

simple, says Yale University industrial ecologist Thomas Graedel. Because of the nasty
materials or large amounts of energy needed, in some cases
recycling could create greater environmental harm than mining for
the metals in the first place. A case by case analysis is needed to decide whether a given product is a good
recycling candidate, Graedel says. The researchers, led by Benjamin Sprecher at the Materials Innovation Institute in

found that shredding hard drives for recycling resulted

in a 90 percent loss of neodymium. The large losses of material
Delft, Netherlands, also

incurred while shredding the material puts serious doubts on the

usefulness of this type of recycling as a solution for scarcity , the
researchers wrote. They propose a method in which hard drives are taken apart by hand as a way to address this issue.

Elements cant be separated and regs stop.

Marshall 14 (Jessica Marshall is a science journalist for ensia, WHY RARE EARTH
RECYCLING IS RARE (AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT), Ensia, April 7 th, 2014,
http://ensia.com/features/why-rare-earth-recycling-is-rare-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/)
When small amounts of rare earths are part of complex mixtures, separation can be too expensive to
justify for these elements alone, leading some to suggest that the even more valuable elements within
electronics, such as gold, palladium and iridium, may make recycling economically worthwhile. It might be
that the rare earths will pay for the price of doing the processing and the gold, platinum and palladium will
be the cash flow, says Eric Peterson of Idaho National Laboratory, who leads the rare earth reuse and
recycling research program for the Critical Materials Institute. To address both environmental and
economic problems with recycling, the Critical Materials Institute and other research groups, including a
European consortium, are testing supercritical carbon dioxide, ionic liquids, electrochemical methods and

Getting the Goods

While the technical challenges of recycling rare earths are
substantial, Graedel says, they are not the main problem. I think its fair
to say that the biggest challenge we have with recycling the rare earths
more as strategies for improving the prospects of rare earth recycling.

and many other things is the challenge of collection , he says. Its

more of a social and perhaps regulatory challenge than a
technological challenge. The existing recycling infrastructure for fluorescent bulbs makes
them good candidates for rare earth recycling, many experts say.With price pressures off, at least for now,
and

few laws requiring recycling, there is little incentive to try to get

the materials back . As of 2011, less than 1 percent of rare earths were recycled. People tend to
Cars , which may have more than two dozen rare-earth-containing
motors in them driving everything from windshield wipers to the rear view mirror adjustment, are not
recovered formally. Many electronics end up in developing countries
hoard or toss their old phones.

where they may ultimately be dismantled in unsafe or inefcient ways. And even fluorescent light bulbs,
which are supposed to be recycled by law because of the mercury in the tubes,

are only recycled

at a rate of around 30 to 35 percent.

The existing recycling infrastructure for

fluorescent bulbs makes them good candidates for rare earth recycling, many experts say. Fluorescent
light bulbs make use of rare earth elements to fill out the color spectrum: the red and green phosphors in
the powder that lines the inside of the lights are the rare earth elements europium and terbium. Recyclers
collect the mercury, the glass and the metal parts of the bulbs,

but they have traditionally

dumped the rare-earth-containing white powder that lines the

tubes.

Some companies are now recovering these. While LED lights may be taking off in popularity,

there will be plenty of fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs in use for decades to come, Peterson
says, so they remain good targets for recycling. LEDs use rare earths, too, but in much smaller amounts
than fluorescent bulbs and in ways that make them more difcult to recycle.

I am not

convinced that it will be possible to extract rare earths from LEDs in

an economical manner, King notes.
No devices to recycle
Marshall 14 (Jessica Marshall is a science journalist for ensia, WHY RARE EARTH
RECYCLING IS RARE (AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT), Ensia, April 7 th, 2014,
http://ensia.com/features/why-rare-earth-recycling-is-rare-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/)

Of course this all assumes a big enough supply of

ready-for-recycling electronics which may not be a safe assumption
Supply and Demand

right now.

Wind turbines, for example, have a 20- to 30-year lifetime,

meaning almost

none is yet ready for recycling . In one recent study, Jelle Rademaker of the Green
Academy in the Netherlands and colleagues calculated the potential for rare earth
recycling from magnets in computer hard drives, hybrid cars and
wind turbines, assuming 100 percent recovery in each case. They found
that the amount available for recycling could be at most 10 to 15 percent of the demand between now and
2015. The

percentage dips even further toward 2020 , as demand takes off but

only computer hard drives are available for recycling.

2AC AT: States

States cannot access the rare earth metals we need

Alex Benkenstein April 14-senior researcher for The Governance of Africas

Resources Programme and South African Institute of International Affairs,
graduated from the University of Stellenbosch with a M.A. in International
Studies (cum laude) (The Governance of Africas Resources Programme,
Seabed Mining: Lessons from the Namibian Experience,) patel
Seabed mining exploration has focused on four main resources:
polymetallic (predominantly manganese) nodules, seafloor massive
sulphides (SMS), cobalt-rich crusts and phosphates. Most of these
minerals occur in the deep-sea regions beyond the continental shelf.
Polymetallic (manganese) nodules occur on the seafloor in abyssal
plains, which generally range from 3 000 m 6 000 m in depth.2 SMS
occur along the mid-oceanic ridges and volcanic arcs that form at
the boundaries of the earths tectonic plates, typically at water
depths ofaround 2 000 m.3 Cobalt-rich crusts form on seamounts (essentially underwater
mountains) at depths of 400 m 7 000 m. Phosphates, conversely, are found in relatively shallow waters,
generally less than 600 m deep.4 Phosphate is an important input in the production of fertilizer and has
become central to modern agricultural production

2AC AT: Substitutes CP

Some rare earth minerals dont have substitutes --- this
collapses heg and is vulnerable to price spikes and
vulnerabilities which links to our protectionism/ trade
advantage
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American

Security, Elements of Security,

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
For many minerals and raw materi - als, consumers have options to
substitute diferent minerals with similar properties if something is unavailable or too
costly. Others possess properties for which scientists and
manufacturers have yet to find substitutes . Rare earth minerals fall
into this category. In many defense applications, for example, certain
rare earths retain magnetism at extreme temperatures to a degree
not readily found in other minerals . Niobium and tantalum can be replaced in some
applications but with reduced effectiveness. For rhenium and lithium, however, there
are a variety of substitutes in use today, with additional substitutes
currently being tested and developed. Gallium can be replaced for many of its uses,
although some substitutes are also vulnerable to disruptions and price
spikes

No reliable source substitute for REEs --- we are still

reliant --- in particular, doesnt solve renewables
Paramaguru, 13 Kharunya, Rethinking Our Risky Reliance on Rare Earth
Metals, http://science.time.com/2013/12/20/rare-earths-are-too-rare/

From our smartphones to our latest weaponry, the technology that underpins modern life would be

The importance of rare earths has only

grown as emerging markets increase their demand for technologies
made with it, as does the renewable energy industry . Now a new
study from researchers at Yale has found that many of the materials
used in high-tech products, including rare earth metals, have no
impossible without rare earth metals.

satisfactory substitutes, underscoring not only our vulnerable

reliance on them,

but also the need to better manage these crucial resources.

***Neg

***Privatization CP

1NC CP
Text: The United States federal government should reform
the cooperate tax system and repeal laws that drive up
company costs
Picking winners and losers fails and turns the af only
reforming policies and regulations solve
U.S. Joint Economic Committee (June 22 2011, "MANUFACTURING IN
THE USA: WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY,"
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg67529/html/CHRG-112shrg67529.htm,
ADL)
What is good for the manufacturing industry is good for all businesses in the U.S.. Our trading
partners are not gaining ground on U.S. manufacturing because our
manufacturing sector is declining; they are gaining ground because
our current economic policies are failing U.S. manufacturers and businesses
in the U.S. We cannot use targeted and excessive regulations and policies
that actively engage in picking winners and losers in the economy in
order to compete globally. If we wish to continue to attract and
retain innovative and successful companies, we need to reform
many of the federal policies that are hampering U.S. companies.

1NC Picking Winners

The Af picks winners and losers that kills

competitiveness and private investment
Loris 12 - Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental
and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage
Foundation (12/13/12, "Blowing More Taxpayer Money for Offshore Wind,"
dailysignal.com/2012/12/13/blowing-more-taxpayer-money-for-offshore-wind/,
ADL)
Higher costs for a technology should not be a signal for the government to
step in and try to lower those costs to make the politically preferred
technology competitive. By attempting to force government-developed
technologies into the market, the government diminishes the role of
the entrepreneur and crowds out private-sector investment. This
practice of the government picking winners and losers denies energy
technologies the opportunity to compete in the marketplace, which
is the only proven way to develop market-viable products. When the
government attempts to drive technological commercialization, it
circumvents this critical process. Thus, almost without exception, it fails
in some way. This is true with renewable technology, fossil fuel technology, or technologies pushed

forward by the DOE to make businesses and homes more energy efcient. The same reasoning holds true
for why Congress should not extend the wind production tax credit. An extension would perpetuate
Americas addiction to energy subsidies and create technological stagnation that adversely affects the
long-term competitiveness of the wind industry. Providing another year of tax credits would be a $12 billion
taxpayer-funded mistake that would further distort the electricity markets and, on net, cause economic
harm by shifting labor and capital toward windmill production and away from more economically valuable

All of these
subsidy programs continually ignore the fact that we are always going to
have a demand for electricityand we have ample supply from a variety of
sources to meet that demand. The resources and technologies that can
most efficiently meet that demand will all almost certainly have one
thing in common: They wont need a government program to be
successful.
investments. If the windmills add value to the economy, they wont need the subsidy.

Picking winners and losers entrenches policy in

protectionism
U.S. Joint Economic Committee (June 22 2011, "MANUFACTURING IN
THE USA: WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY,"
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg67529/html/CHRG-112shrg67529.htm,
ADL)
President Carter's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Charles
Schultz observed: One does not have to be a cynic to forecast that the surest way to
multiply unwarranted subsidies and protectionist measures is to
legitimize their existence under the rubric of industrial policy. The
likely outcome of an industrial policy that
encompassed some
elements of both ``protecting the losers'' and ``picking the winners''
is that the losers would back the
subsidies for the winners in
return for the latter's support on issues of trade protection.

2NC Say Yes

Investors are willing to invest in rare earth elements
Foote 14 (Bill, 1/7/14, "How China Is Creating Rare Earth Investment
Opportunities in the U.S.," www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/07/howchina-is-creating-rare-earth-us-investment-opp.aspx, ADL)

Rebooting U.S. production Molycorp owns a mine in Mountain Pass, CA, that was shut down over 10 years
ago due to soaring extraction and production costs in direct competition with Chinese mining companies.

Molycorp reopened the mine in 2012 and expects to be at its full

capacity of 19,000 tons in 2014. Molycorp also operates a separation plant
and sells rare earth concentrates and refined products from newly
mined and previously mined above-ground stocks. With China
restricting rare earth materials for more domestic consumption, and
with a U.S. domestic demand of about 6,000 tons annually , Molycorp will
be able to export most of its production. If non-Chinese sourced rare earth supplies are tight, then over the

prices should rise, fueling Molycorp's revenue growth, payback

for mine investments, and profit to plow back into more mine
development. Molycorp is not alone, though. Ucore is breaking ground
in its Alaskan Bokan Mountain mine. This mine will not only extract uranium ore, but
next five years

also the heavy rare earths needed in defense, industrial, and consumer goods technology. Within 3-5 years

World supply net of Chinese

production may still be short enough to buoy prices for further mine
and processing expansion. Perhaps there is now enough incentive to
encourage other U.S. companies to join the rare earth business. Until
Ucore could be able to produce 10,000 tons annually.

then, Molycorp and Ucore can enjoy the profits of being the only companies capable of meeting technology
demand in U.S. domestic and export markets.

Investors are looking at rare earth elements too many

projects to pick winners
Hampton 09 (Michael, 11/30/09, "Rare Earths: Is the present hype
justified? Can we pick winners?,"
www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/2009/1130.html, ADL)
What a diference a year makes. There has been a dramatic
transformation for the Rare Earth companies from no hope to big
hopes as the Rare Earths became the latest "hot" sector to capture
investors' imagination. We all know that mining investors are prone to flights of fancy, and the staying
power of dreams will be tested on a long hard road from discovery to production. Metal Events Ltd's5th International Rare
Earths Conference" held in Hong Kong last week, was a great place for a reality check on the current state of the Rare
Earths sector. Despite its history, and an ability to attract the top companies in this growing industry, the conference was
concerned about their numbers. A room had been booked for 70 people, but in March it seemed that the interest level was
too small to attract the usual number of participants. The organizers decided to go ahead with the same size room
anyway, with whatever numbers they could get. When the doors opened on November 18th for the two day conference,
there were 170 delegates, a new record - and the room was groaning with people. The changes in market capitalization of
companies involved in the conference revealed the extent of the turnaround. Picking ten public companies in the audience
with Rare Earth mining projects at various stages of development, the aggregate market capitalization as of midNovember was $1.59 Billion. Using the same number of shares outstanding, and the end-2008 stock prices, the market
cap would have been $518 Million. That's a rise of 206% in 10 1/2 months, far above the general stock indices. One
cannot help but ask, is the present hype justified? Dudley Kingsnorth of Industrial Minerals Company of Australia Ltd put it
well in his presentation. Money is available, he said, but is not infinite. "Perhaps $2 Billion will be available to the Rare
Earths sector," said Kingsnorth. "If it is spread evenly over the 57 existing projects, it will be squandered." The industry
will need to advance the right projects, and advance them quickly; it is to prevent a destructive price squeeze in a few
years time. The crunch may arrive as early as 2014 or 2015. Both China and the US have seized on green technologies as
a way out of the present global slump. But we are unlikely to get to a brighter greener future without the special qualities
of rare earth metals. They are an essential part of magnets, batteries, glass, and other components, making them smaller,
lighter, and more heat resistant. An alphabet soup of obscure elements on the periodic table, with odd names like
Lanthanum, Europium, and Dysprosium, the 17 rare earth elements (REE) are used in critical applications. For instance,
Rare Earths permit the manufacture of small permanent magnets, capable of operating at a wide range of temperatures.

Few, if any, substitutes are available. Where there are substitutes, it is commonly one REE replacing another. Consider the
applications and you get an idea of the potential for future growth in the market. Each typical disk drive has two magnets
utilizing an alloy of Neodymium (Nd), a rare earth. According to Takehisa Minowa, of Shin-Etsu Chemical Co Ltd, a
conference presenter, 500 million drives are sold each year. That's 1 billion magnets, for a single high tech product. Rare
earths are also needed in air conditioners, wind turbine generators, and hybrid cars. The motor for the Prius hybrid car
uses 1 kilogram of Nd, and the battery uses 10-15 kg's of Lanthanum (Ln), another rare earth. Multiply that by a car
market which may potentially reach 5 to 6 million hybrid cars by 2018, an optimistic figure in a presentation by Olivier
Touret, Rhodia Electronics, and you have a very big demand number. On top of that, new applications are being
discovered every year, as technological innovation constantly requires smaller and lighter components. Overall annual
growth rates in consumption have mostly fallen in the range of 9% to 22% per annum, according to Baotou Research
Institute of Rare Earths (BRIRE.) In a paper prepared by Ms. Song Honghang, Director; and presented by her colleague
Wang Yan, a review of 60 years of history showed China's remarkable role in taking production from just 1,000 tons 1978,
to 2,500 in 1980, and then 20,000 in 1989. After that rapid pace, and a slowdown in 1990 from the Asian Crisis, growth
resumed. From 1991 to 1995, growth was again back over 20% per annum. Over the past decade, growth has been much
closer to 10% annually, which is still rapid on this bigger base. Total demand for Rare Earth Oxides was near 130,000
tones in 2008. While 2009 is a clear down year, thanks mainly to a big destocking in Japan, the potential for high growth
over the rest of this decade is excellent. Our green dreams cannot be realized without ongoing growth in production of
these unique metals. The political reality (which I discussed in an article last year*) is that the world is highly dependent
on China for Rare Earths. Something like 90% of annual production comes from that country, and that the Chinese are
using more domestically and tightening their export quotes. BRIRE's figures show that Rare Earth Oxide ("REO") exports
peaked at 55,000 tons in 2005, and have been falling as quotas are tightened. (REO figures are slightly deceptive, since
the oxide is about 5-10% heavier than its REE content.) Some industry sources estimate that as much as 10,000 tons of
"gray" material leaves the country outside the quotas. But this is conjecture, and the Chinese government is aiming to
restrain this. This nervousness over supply sources has brought about a race for new sources of production. Manufacturers
in Japan, Europe, and the US all want to see diverse sources for these critical elements, as they launch new products with

Prices are down year-on-year, but a mania for the Rare Earth
miners was ignited by story coming out of one of the Chinese
ministries in the Spring of 2009 that China was considering a complete ban on
the export of certain rare earths in their raw form , preferring export value-added
products and keep growing the jobs in China. This report was later "clarified" in the summer, but it was
followed by recommendations from various stock brokers and
analysts that Rare Earth related mining stocks were a good way to
play the emerging green energy boom, since new mines were needed to counter a possible
stranglehold by the Chinese. In fact, with a 2008 demand for 130,000 tons of REO, a
resumption of 10% plus growth could add 15,000 - 20,000 tons annually to
demand. That would essential require perhaps one new world class
Rare Earths mine being added each year for the foreseeable future.
REE content.

Fortunately, there are two giants waiting in the wings, and they are both outside China. Lynas Corp's (LYC.au) Mount Weld
deposit in Western Australia is a high grade carbonatite deposit. According to the presentation from the company's Vice
President, Matthew James, the project is progressing well again. The key step was raising A$450 Million to fund remaining
construction costs. In late April, China Non-Ferrous Metals agreed to invest A$252 Million for a majority stake. But the
terms were not approved by the Australian government. So the company turned to the equity markets, and completed a
financing at A$0.45 in October. This will allow them to complete the mine and related infrastructure, and build a large
processing facility in Malaysia, where they will have access to cheaper power. Mr. James expects production to commence
in the first half of 2011, initially at an annual rate of 11,000 tons. Later, they will ramp up to 20-22,000 tons, which would
give them perhaps 14% of the global market in REO. The second major project in the pipeline is a mine reopening for
Molycorp Minerals.

Eight private equity investors backed the company,

including Goldman Sachs, Traxis Partners, and Resource Capital
amongst others, allowing Molycorp to buy the large Mountain Pass
project in California from Chevron in September 2008. The mine was a historic

producer and holds a 30 year mining permit, and a completed environment impact statement, needing only minor
revisions. But prior to full reopening, a new state-of-the-art processing plant is being built at a cost of $250 million or
more. The plant will permit far higher recoveries, with less waste, and 99% purity. Once in full operation in 2012, they will
have 1,000 employees and production of 20,000 tons of REO per annum, which is almost fully covered by long term sales
contracts. The higher efciencies and better recoveries may allow production to be ramped up to 40,000 tons without a
new mining permit. Geoff Bedford of Neo Material Technologies (NEM.v) spoke about the "rollercoaster ride" of 2009, and
how some market participants may have over-reacted to some misinformation about falling Chinese export quotas. He
does not expect a full ban on any REO exports, but rather that the Chinese will accomodate changes in demand. He also
spoke of his company's involvement in the Pitinga project in Brazil, where his company is assisting a mining company,
Taboca, in investigating whether their existing producing tin mine will undergo some changes in its extraction and

Several other projects are

competing with each other to meet demand growth needs beyond
2012. Avalon Rare Earths has a promising project at Thor Lake which has
separation methods to allow production of heavy rare earths.

reached about halfway "on a 5 to 10 year journey to production." The company finished a scoping study in 2007, and
undertook extensive delineation drilling in 2008. They have a deposit of 64 million tonnes, with 20% Heavy Rare Earth
Elements (HREE), at over a 2% grade, with a 1.6% cutoff. This appears to be commercial, but there are still tests
underway to see if transport and processing methods are workable. After a capital investment of $300 - 400 million, it
could be in production by 2012 - 2013.

Donald Ranta of Rare Element Resources (RES.v)

has the Bear Lodge carbonatite deposit in Wyoming, which will be the subject of a
scoping study in 2010. Also at an advancing stage is Arafura's (ARU.au) Nolans project, which Chairman Nick Muir spoke
about. They have an approximate 30 million ton deposit, right in the "center of Australia." They have a pilot plant funded
by the government, and are facing a capital expenditure of perhaps A$400 million to put a mine into production. They will
be replacing their CEO, who has recently resigned, and seeking possible strategic partners. Ian Chalmers of Alkane
Resources (ALK.au) described his company's Dubbo project in New South Wales, which is a Zirconium and HREE project,
which was the subject of a feasibility study in 2002, and has also received a government grant to build a pilot plant, which
went into operation in 2008. Prospective buyers are presently evaluating output products. The economics of starting up an
enlarged mine will be improved if zirconium, niobium, and yttrium prices line up, and allow them to sign long term offtake
agreements at prices which will permit construction of an expanded mine. Brief presentations were also given by:
privately-owned Frontier Minerals which has the high grade Zandkopsdrift arbonatite deposit, in the Northern Cape
province of South Africa, Greenland Minerals (GGG.au) with its Kvanefjeld deposit in the country with the same name,
privately-owned Mongol Gazar with a deposit in Mongolia, and Trevor Blench spoke about his company's "small but very
high grade" project at Steenkampskraal in South Africa which needs a renewal of a mining license to be restarted.

Beyond these, but not presenting are dozens of companies, with Rare Earth
projects. Industry expert, Dudley Kingsnorth mentioned that there
were 57 Rare Earth projects on the go, but another conference delegate told me that is figure was over 120
projects, including some newly added ones, which are based upon only "a handful of grab samples." If history is any
guide, and the market stays keen, a number of the new companies will raise enough
capital to progress their projects. But how can anyone, especially an
investor new to this sector be expected to pick the winners , in what is
becoming a crowded field at the early stage end? The old formula: go for size and grade may not work, because the
development of RE deposits is a highly complex matter. Evaluating the potential for a gold deposit with straightfoward

picking
winners in the Rare Earths sector may be the most difficult games of
all. That is because there are so many diferent elements involved each
with their own supply, demand and pricing dynamics . And then there are the
metallurgy is relatively easy. A poly-metallic deposit which complex metallurgy is more difcult, but

problems which begin as you mine the deposit. The rare earths must be extracted and separated from each other. But
then there is the "dirty secret" of rare earths, virtually every deposit is radioactive with a significant concentration of
thorium or uranium bound up with the Rare Earths. This makes the separation and handling of the materials even more
complex and critical and is why the price tags for capital expenditures are so very high. The other problem is the timeline.
It can take 5 to 10 years to bring one of these deposits into production. Dudley Kingsnorth provided a list of 10 steps to
production, showing that it is longer and more expensive than most think. Compared with other mining projects, there are
some added steps, like: defining the extraction and separation process, and running a pilot plant. And because of the
radioactivity, the environmental approvals can be difcult to obtain. Kingsnorth estimates the cost of a pilot plant and
preparing a banking feasibility study could be in the region of $40 to 60 Million. And that is for a project that will only have
"proven" itself on a benchtest, and so there is a risk that the money may be wasted. A typical process might involve as
many as 1,000 steps. And even when the pilot plant is operating well, prospective buyers will want to evaluate the output
products from the plant, and see how well they can be incorporated into their own manufacturing process. Running a pilot
plant can take years ("5 - 6 years" is the figure I have in my notes), until buyers are found that are willing to sign the long
term offtake agreements that banks may require to provide financing for capital expenditures. With such long time

There is
no doubt that the Rare Earths mining sector has a bright future. The
frames, Kingnorth's notion that the limited capital must be allocated selectively takes on special urgency.

usual gold rush that we saw after the nickel discovery at Voisey's Bay and the uranium price boom of 2007 may come to

But if too many early stage companies are floated, a

large number of investors in these new companies are going to be
disappointed.
Rare Earths at well.

2NC Solvency
Private interest in Mining exists now, only a question of
funding and regulations
Vic Kolenc, Reporter referencing an interview, $8 billion worth of rare earth

minerals in Sierra Blanca area mountain, company says, El Paso Times, 1-262014, http://www.elpasotimes.com/business/ci_24993344/8-billion-worthrare-earth-minerals-sierra-blanca//BDS
A fledgling Sierra Blanca company is trying to raise $20 million to
continue developing plans for its proposed open-pit mine on a
mountain near the West Texas town to produce billions of dollars of rare
earth minerals that federal agencies have deemed critical to make cleanenergy products and weapons. "We're going to put Hudspeth County on the
map," said Anthony Marchese, 50, a New Jersey investment banker and board
chairman for Texas Rare Earth Resources Corp., which trades on the Over-theCounter, or penny, stock market under the TRER symbol. "This could be a
very large opportunity for the area, including El Paso." China supplies
more than 90 percent of the world's rare earth minerals. Besides, energy and
defense applications, the minerals also are used in electronic devices, lasers,
in oil and gas drilling, water treatment, and other uses. Texas Rare Earth
Resources holds two state leases to explore and develop a 950-acre
rare-earth minerals deposit in the almost mile-high Round Top
Mountain, located eight miles northwest of Sierra Blanca and about 85 miles
southeast of El Paso. The company this month released an updated
economic assessment, which estimated Round Top could produce about $8
billion worth of rare earth minerals over a 20-year mine life. It would cost
almost $293 million to build the mining facility and go into
production, the assessment concluded. The company has spent more
than four years and about $20 million so far in developing its plans,
Marchese reported. It's now trying to raise about $20 million, which could be
done by attracting a partner, Marchese said. It needs about $13 million to do
a year-long feasibility study. The goal is to have the mine operating in three
years, Marchese said. Nick Pingitore, 69, a geologist at the University of Texas
at El Paso, said the mountain's resources have been known for about 30
years, but they didn't become important until recent years. "The demand
for rare earth materials was very small in the past and now they are
incredibly important in the modern world in various applications," he said.
Pingitore and Phil Goodell, another UTEP geology professor, are Texas Rare
Earth shareholders and members of the company's board of directors. The
minerals are called rare, not because they are hard to find, but because they
are found in small concentrations that are difcult and often costly to extract
from the ground. There are 17 rare earth elements divided into two groups
light, and heavy. The heavy group of elements are in shorter supply and thus
considered more valuable, Marchese said. Round Top has 10 heavy and five
light rare earth minerals, he reported. The Sierra Blanca company isn't the
only one trying to cash in on the rare earth market. Molycorp Inc., a Denverbased mining company, has spent more than $1 billion in recent years to
reopen, modernize and expand its rare earth mining facility at Mountain Pass,

Calif., Molycorp financial documents show. It also has rare earth mining
facilities in China. The California mine has been producing light rare earth
minerals, and in 2012 the company reported it began operating new facilities
at Mountain Pass to produce heavy rare earth minerals. Marchese said he
doesn't see Molycorp competing against Texas Rare Earth because, he said,
Round Top has a larger heavy rare earth deposit than he's seen reported by
Molycorp for its California mine. Molycorp's heavy rare earth minerals are
coming from its China operations, he said. Australia also has mines producing
rare earth minerals. Texas Rare Earth has identified five other rare
earth mining projects proposed by companies in the United States
and Canada. But those projects are either not in good locations or are on
federal property, which makes getting mining permits difficult, Marchese
said. Hudspeth County Judge Mike Doyal said poor and sparsely populated
Hudspeth County needs an economic boost, but, he said, he also wants to
make sure the mine wouldn't hurt residents' health. "They're talking about
some low-grade uranium there, which raises some concern about dust, and
everything they pull out of there will use an acid wash to purify it," Doyal
said. "I can't say one way or the other about the operation. I don't know
enough about it." That's why he invited the company to make a presentation
at Hudspeth County Commissioners Court on Tuesday. UTEP's Pingitore said
Round Top has a small amount of uranium, which is found in "virtually any
rare earth deposit." "The uranium is a sellable material if we can separate it"
from the rock, he said. Laura Lynch, 55, a Texas Rare Earth executive, board
member, and shareholder, whose family has operated a ranch in Hudspeth
County for more than 70 years, said she has yet to find opposition to the
mine. Almost 90 people attended an open house at its Sierra Blanca ofces
this month, she reported. Jim Suydam, a spokesman for the Texas General
Land Ofce in Austin, which in 2011 granted Texas Rare Earth two, 19-year
leases for Round Top, said the company's proposed mine has great
potential. But the agency doesn't study a lease holder's plans except to
make sure it follows applicable state and federal laws, he said. Marchese said
the state would get about $490 million over 20 years if the mine operates as
proposed. Money from state mineral leases goes into the state's education
fund. Texas Rare Earth raised $17.5 million from a stock offering several years
ago when the stock was at $2.50 per share, Marchese said. But the stock has
dived to around 40 cents per share today. The drop is largely due to New York
investment fund Libra Advisors, which held almost 10 percent of the
company's stock, selling most of its shares last year as part of its plan to
liquidate the fund, he said. The fund now holds about 2 percent of the
company's shares. The company has about 700 shareholders, Marchese said.
Almost 40 percent of its stock is owned by eight board members and three
executive ofcers, two of whom are also board members. The company
recently hired KLR Group, a New York investment bank, to help identify
financing for the project. Texas Rare Earth CEO Daniel Gorski, with more than
40 years experience in the mining industry, said in a recent conference call
with investors that all financial options are being considered. Those include
joint ventures, and the "outright sale of the company," he said. UTEP's
Pingitore said he bought shares in the company about three years ago but
got heavily involved with the company after he became unhappy with its very
expensive plan for extracting the rare earth minerals from rocks. He is

involved with research at UTEP on the much less-expensive heap leach

process the company now plans to use to extract the microscopic rare earth
minerals from rocks. UTEP's findings are double checked by the company with
independent labs, he noted. The plan is to crush rocks from the mountain, lay
them out in big piles on a football-size field, and use a sprinkler system to
dribble acid onto them to get the rare earth minerals out, Pingitore said. A
ground liner system would protect the ground. "It's not like a vein of gold. You
can't just follow a vein," he said. "You have to process the whole rock
somehow." The rare earth mineral ends up in a powder form, he said.

Private sector is on the cusp of thorium mine

development only funding is needed
Boyle 11 (Rebecca, March 10th, The electronic future is buried under the
ground in Missouri, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/rareearth-mine)
Mountain Pass now produces about 3 percent of the world's rare earth
supply, and Molycorp hopes to increase that to 25 percent , producing 40,000 metric
tons a year by 2013. Mountain Pass will be the country's leading rare earth mine ,
but it won't be able to produce many of the so-called heavy rare earths, like dysprosium, which is used to

One analyst suggested this week that Molycorp

should diversify by buying up companies with claims on heavy rare earth
deposits. Pea Ridge has them in abundanc e, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
make computer memory and lasers.

Despite their name a holdover from the 1800s and early 1900s rare earths aren't particularly rare;
they're much more common than gold, and some are nearly as common as lead. They're found in relatively
low concentrations, however, requiring the processing of lots of rock. Ten states are known to have
significant rare-earth deposits, according to a 2010 study by the USGS. Most are in the western U.S., but
the Pea Ridge deposit has the highest grade of any site in the country, averaging 12 percent rare earth

Mountain Pass has much more tonnage, but at an average of

only 8 percent concentration (and the vast majority is "light" rare earths). Given its resources
oxide concentration.

and existing infrastructure, why isn't Pea Ridge already producing rare earths? There's a catch. Along with

heavy rare earths at Pea Ridge are found intermingled with thorium, a
radioactive element that requires special processing and cleanup . Hoping to turn
iron, the

this into a positive, Kennedy is drumming up support for thorium as an alternative energy source, namely
powering molten salt reactors that could be scattered throughout cities. " When

you mine for rare

earths, you get the thorium for free," he said. Kennedy, a former Army Special Forces soldier
and investment banker, has become an outspoken evangelist for rare earths and thorium, speaking to
members of Congress, mining groups and engineers he just gave a presentation at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory about the problem of Chinese dominance and the potential for American resurgence. He is

to establish a public-private cooperative to

come up with $1 billion to build a rare earth refinery in Missouri, and he is
hoping to spur a new thorium energy industry . For now, his plans center on iron
pressing lawmakers in Missouri and Washington

production. He wants to build a pipeline to ship iron ore to the Mississippi River 44 miles to the east, where
he already has a permit for a processing facility and barge port. Pea Ridge will be the only domestic
producer of merchant pig iron, which is used to make steel. Currently, American mills import pig iron from
countries like Brazil and Sweden. Just like in its past, iron will be the mine's main motivation, Kennedy said.
But the almost-forgotten rare earths could be the icing on the cake.

2NC Solves Picking Winners

Reforming policy is the best way to solve competitiveness
and private investment
U.S. Joint Economic Committee (June 22 2011, "MANUFACTURING IN
THE USA: WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY,"
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg67529/html/CHRG-112shrg67529.htm,
ADL)
As we listen to testimony today from distinguished lawmakers, economists, and business leaders, my

instead of a Washington-centric industrial manufacturing

policy, Congress should instead adopt progrowth economic policies
that raise the competitiveness and opportunity for all economic boats in our
country: 1 ) To ensure businesses do not bear higher tax costs, Congress
thought is that,

should adopt a comprehensive plan to reduce federal spending

reform our entitlement

relative to the size of our economy,

and gradually bring the federal

To increase competitiveness around the globe,

programs to make them sustainably solvent,

budget back into balance.

2)

Congress should reform our corporate tax system . The United States has
the second highest corporate income tax rate in the world.
Congress should reduce the after-tax cost of
new investment by
expensing most equipment and shortening the depreciation
schedules for
buildings. Congress should move to a territorial
tax system. Until then, Congress should act now to allow
U.S.
corporations to repatriate stranded American profits to invest
in new jobs, research, investment,
and financial stability here
at home.
3) To find new customers for American manufacturers, farmers,
and service companies, Congress should immediately approve the
three outstanding free trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama,
and South Korea and seek more opportunities to open growing
4) To reduce unit costs and keep American
companies located in America, Congress should repeal laws that
markets to American workers.

drive up costs --such as the new national health care law and unnecessary federal
regulations. To help erase the estimated 18 percent disadvantage in costs for U.S. manufacturers
compared to their

global competitors, Congress should act now to modernize our

patent system and

these
economic policy changes would benefit U.S. manufacturers, their
customers, their suppliers, and their workers far more than any
national manufacturing strategy.
reform our tort system to reduce the

excessive costs of frivolous lawsuits. I believe adopting

2NC AT: Links to Politics

Reforming tax law is bipartisan
RATE - A lobby in Washington (Reforming America's Taxes Equitably,
"Democratic and Republican Platforms Agree: Corporate Tax Rate is Too High,
Needs Reform," ratecoalition.com/pressreleases/democratic-and-republicanplatforms-agree-corporate-tax-rate-is-too-high-needs-reform/, ADL)
WASHINGTON, D.C. The recently released Democratic and Republican
platforms both include language calling for corporate tax reform
with the aim of increasing job creation, economic growth and
competitiveness through a lower corporate tax rate and broader tax
base. RATE Co-chairs Elaine Kamarck and James P. Pinkerton released the following statements regarding
the common goal of the two parties: At a time of hyper partisanship and few
policy agreements, the agreement in the Democratic and Republican
platforms on corporate tax reform shows much promise that
something will be done to reform our corporate tax rate, which is far
too high, said James P. Pinkerton, Co-Chair of the RATE Coalition and former White House domestic
policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Having the highest corporate tax rate
in the world hurts economic growth and increases job losses at a time when both parties are looking boost

Such agreement bodes well for policymakers

aiming to reform our corporate tax code. Democratic and
Republican lawmakers agree that corporate tax reform that lowers
the rate and broadens the base is key to economic growth and
drastically lowering the unemployment rate, said Elaine Kamarck, Co-Chair of the
the economy and job creation.

RATE Coalition and former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. In
1986 Democratic and Republican leaders worked together to enact tax reform that led to more than a
decade of strong economic growth. Policymakers have another such opportunity today to create jobs and
once again make the United States the top nation in which to grow a business. The corporate tax reform

Democratic Platform:
committed to reforming the corporate tax code to lower tax
rates for companies in the United States, with additional relief for those locating
sections of the Democratic and Republican platforms can be found below.
We are also

manufacturing and research and development on our shores, while closing loopholes and reducing
incentives for corporations to shift jobs overseas. There is more to do. We Democrats support lowering
the corporate tax rate while closing unnecessary loopholes, and lowering rates even further for

manufacturers who create good jobs at home. Republican Platform: American businesses now
face the worlds highest corporate tax rate. It reduces their worldwide competitiveness, encourages
corporations to move overseas, lessens investment, cripples job creation, lowers U.S. wages, and fosters
the avoidance of tax liability-without actually increasing tax revenues. To level the international playing

call for a reduction of the corporate

rate to keep U.S. corporations competitive internationally, with a
permanent research and development tax credit, and a repeal of the
corporate alternative minimum tax. We also support the recommendation of the
field, and to spur job creation here at home, we

National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, as well as the current Presidents Export Council,
to switch to a territorial system of corporate taxation, so that profits earned and taxed abroad may be
repatriated for job-creating investment here at home without additional penalty.

Lobbies shield the link to politics

CTJ 13 - citizens for tax justice (August 21 2013, "Corporate-Backed Tax
Lobby Groups Proliferating," ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/08/corporatebacked_tax_lobby_groups_proliferating.php#.U78JBvldU6w, ADL)
In recent years, the corporate tax reform debate in the nation's
capital has been invaded by an army of acronyms such as T.I.E.,

A.C.T. and R.A.T.E., representing different businesses and corporate interest groups. These
groups seek to rebrand and build momentum for a corporate tax
reform that benefits corporate rather than public interests . In this report
we identify the nine lobby groups most actively and publicly advocating
for business interests in the corporate tax debate: the Alliance for
Competitive Taxation (ACT), Businesses United for Interest and Loan
Deductibility (BUILD), Campaign for a Home Court Advantage (a campaign by
the Business Roundtable), Coalition for Fair Efective Tax Rates, Fix the Debt,
Let's Invest for Tomorrow (LIFT) America, Reforming America's Taxes
Equitably (RATE), Tax Innovation Equality, and the WIN America
Campaign. We also identify the ten U.S. corporations most aggressively pursuing tax reform through
these groups based on each of the companys participation in four or more such coalitions. Though the
specific goals of these groups vary, there are common threads between them. For example, five of the nine
groups explicitly support moving to a territorial tax system, which would exacerbate corporate tax
avoidance overseas and promote the offshoring of jobs. Four of the groups explicitly support revenueneutral tax reform. And, the WIN America Campaign, BUILD, and TIE each support either protecting or
implementing very specific tax breaks that would benefit their corporate backers. For a full inventory of
the groups' policy positions see Table 1. Based just on the lists of corporate members released by these

they represent at least 359 diferent

corporations and 186 diferent trade associations. Further, 87 of the
groups (many remain private),

corporations are actually supporters of two or more of these corporate tax lobbying efforts, with 31
supporting as many as 3 or more of these groups. See Table 2 for breakdown of the most active
corporations and which groups they belong to.

***States CP

2NC Follow-On
States can successfully shape federal law
Carlson and Mayer, 13 Ann E. Carlson is the Shirley Shapiro Professor
of Environmental Law and the co - Faculty Di rector of the Emmett Center
on Climate Change and the Environment. Andrew Mayer is a 2012 graduate
of the UCLA School of Law and is currently an associate at a law fi rm. We
thank Rich Ambrose, William Boyd, Megan Herzog, Jon Michaels, Jon Varat,
Jonathan Z asloff, participants in workshops at the University of Colorado -
Duke Environmental Roundtable and the UCLA School of Law School, and
research assistant Will Marshall, Reverse Pre-Emption,
http://www.boalt.org/elq/documents/Carlson_Mayer_Reverse_Preemption.pdf
Many states appear to use their reverse preemption power under
the CZMA robustly and successfully to challenge federal actions as
inconsistent with their coastal plans. Although states find that
proposed projects are consistent with the applicable CZMP about
95 percent of the time, findings of inconsistency have been used to
block a significant number of large energy infrastru cture projects . Even when a
consistency finding is appealed as described above, 131 many appeals are settled before final

these settlements are likely to be

on terms favorable to the state. Thus, for large pro jects with significant effects on the
determination. Given the lengthy appeals process,

coastal zone, the consistency requirement can be an effective tool for states to bargain for mitigation, or
even to block the project altogether

2NC AT: Licenses

States have the capacity to issue licenses for federal land
CGOPLR, 2 Governor's Ofce of Planning and Research, State of California,
INDUSTRIAL USES, http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/preemption/Part2c.html
States are permitted to impose environmental controls on mining
activities on federally owned land, according to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In
this case, the high court held that the California Coastal Commission
could require a company to obtain a permit for its limestone mining
operations in the Big Sur region of the fede rally owned Los Padres National
Forest. The decision represented a victory for states , particularly western
states with substantial acreage owned by the federal government. It allows states to impose
environmental regulations upon private mining operations
conducted on federal lands. The decision may have a far broader reach, for the Court
has distinguished "land-use decisions" from "environmental
regulation," noting that states may impose "environmental
regulations" even where they have no authority to make "land-use
decisions" (California Coastal Commission, et al. v. Granite Rock Company, (1987) 107 S.Ct. 1419;
Curtin, p. 66)

***LOST CP

1NC Solvency
LOST is a prerequisite to gaining access to resources and
space especially in the artic
Langer 12 (Andrew Langer is the president of the Institute for Liberty, The
Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, November 28, 2012,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_
of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272-2.html) patel
Russia and China, two of Americas most powerful strategic foes, are actively
exploring the Arctic and Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral riches. The
U.S. is not. Why? Because, Russia and China have ratified the Law of the Sea
Treaty and the U.S. hasnt. Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no
standing to apply for mining and drilling permits under international
law. Bottom line: there is a new Cold War taking place, and America is not
winning. The seabed holds trillions of dollars of mineral resources. According
to RT, a Russian/English news channel, Russian Foreign Ministry ofcial
Alexander Gorban last month stated his hope that there will never be a war
for resources or an even hotter conflict in the Arctic Region. In the
next breath, he then went on to reiterate that Russia is indeed "trying to
fight for the Arctic shelf Gorban is a close Putin ally and his
acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is possible demonstrates the global
stakes in play. Russia is not alone in recognizing the value of the LOTS
in the fight for global resource dominance. Five countries border the
Arctic: Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark
(via Greenland). However, only one country is ineligible to mine or
drill those resources -- the U.S. Thats because the U.S. is not a
member of the international body that grants title, or property
rights, to countries to engage in the exploration of seabed
resources. That body is called the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Admittance into that body is accomplished via ratification of the Law of the
Sea Treaty. China is also utilizing LOTS and the ISA to aggressively
pursue the wealth of the Arctic. According to a report by Elisabeth
Rosenthal in the New York Times last month, The Arctic has risen
rapidly on Chinas foreign policy agenda in the past two years, said Linda
Jakobson, East Asia program director at the Lowy Institute for International
Policy in Sydney, Australia. So, she said, the Chinese are exploring how they
could get involved. China is already playing the role of the Russia of
the Pacific. Right now, China is exploring U.S.-based mineral claims
in the Pacific and there is nothing the U.S. can do about it. China is
acting within the framework of international law and the U.S., because we
have not ratified LOTS, has no standing in the International Seabed Authority
to challenge Chinas abuses. Another concern about Russia and China centers
on rare earth minerals which are found in abundance in the seabed. The U.S.
requires an incredible number of military products for which rare
earth minerals are essential. Those products have historically been
manufactured here in the U.S., and ought to be. The U.S. also faces a
serious munitions problem: today, a tremendous number of our
bullets are manufactured in Chinameaning that if we find ourselves
cross-wise with the Chinese, they can cut of our supply of bullets.

When it comes to high-end military hardware, it is essential that

America be self-reliant, not reliant on China and Russia for the
minerals needed for our own defense products and national security.
Over 160 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty during the past 20
years. The U.S. now stands alone with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and sad
smattering of third world and disreputable nations in turning our backs on the
greatest opportunity for wealth creation available on the globe today. In
doing so, the U.S. is not losing jobs and economic opportunity to
BRIC nations and the rest of the world, we are surrendering them.
The Senate still has time to act to ratify LOTS and to set things right. This is
the most important economic agenda item the Congress can take up and
they can still do it before the end of the year. With one vote, the United
States Senate has the power to unleash staggering economic growth and jobs
creation.

2NC Solvency
The CP provides the legal certainity necessary for
companies
Clinton 12 Hilary (5/23, Clinton's Testimony on the Law of the Sea
Convention, May 2012, http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/clintonstestimony-law-sea-convention-may-2012/p28340) patel
U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to
explore this area. But they have made it clear to us that they need
the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or
could make the substantial investments, and, we believe, create
many jobs in doing so needed to extract these far-ofshore
resources. If we were a party to the convention, we would gain
international recognition of our sovereign rights, including by using
the convention's procedures, and therefore be able to give our oil
and gas companies this legal certainty. Staying outside the
convention, we simply cannot. The second development concerns
deep seabed mining, which takes place in that part of the ocean
floor that is beyond any country's jurisdiction. Now for years,
technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only
theoretical; today's advances make it very real. But it's also very expensive,
and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on
having a secure title to the site and the minerals that it will recover. The
convention offers the only effective mechanism for gaining this title. But only
a party to the convention can use this mechanism on behalf of its companies.
So as long as the United States is outside the convention, our companies are
left with two bad choices either take their deep sea mining business to
another country or give up on the idea. Meanwhile, as you heard from
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, China, Russia, and many other countries
are already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining for
valuable metals and rare earth elements. And as you know, rare earth
elements are essential for manufacturing high-tech products like cell phones
and flat screen televisions. They are currently in tight supply and produced
almost exclusively by China. So while we are challenging China's export
restrictions on these critical materials, we also need American companies to
develop other sources. But as it stands today, they will only do that if they
have the secure rights that can only be provided under this convention. If we
expect to be able to manage our own energy future and our need for rare
earth minerals, we must be a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The
third development that is now urgent is the emerging opportunities in the
Arctic. As the area gets warmer, it is opening up to new activities such as
fishing, oil and gas exploration, shipping, and tourism. This convention
provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities.
We are the only Arctic nation outside the convention. Russia and the other
Arctic states are advancing their continental shelf claims in the Arctic while
we are on the outside looking in. As a party to the convention, we would have
a much stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic
region. The fourth development is that the convention's bodies are now up
and running. The body that makes recommendations regarding countries'

continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles is actively considering

submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a U.S.
commissioner. The body addressing deep seabed mining is now drawing up
the rules to govern the extraction of minerals of great interest to the United
States and American industry. It simply should not be acceptable to us that
the United States will be absent from either of those discussions. Our
negotiators obtained a permanent U.S. seat on the key decision-making body
for deep seabed mining. I know of no other international body that accords
one country and one country alone us a permanent seat on its decision
making body. But until we join, that reserved seat remains empty. So those
are the stakes for our economy. And you will hear from Secretary Panetta and
General Dempsey that our security interests are intrinsically linked to
freedom of navigation. We have much more to gain from legal certainty
and public order in the world's oceans than any other country. U.S.
Armed Forces rely on the navigational rights and freedoms reflected
in the convention for worldwide access to get to combat areas,
sustain our forces during conflict, and return home safely all without
permission from other countries. Now as a non-party to the convention,
we rely we have to rely on what is called customary international law as a
legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. But in no other situation
at which in which our security interests are at stake do we consider
customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to
the operation of the United States military. So far we've been fortunate, but
our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries' behavior
should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available,
including in critical areas such as the South China Sea. I'm sure you have
followed the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although
we do not have territory there, we have vital interests, particularly freedom of
navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to
the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the
convention's rules and a greater ability to enforce them. Now, I know a
number of you have heard arguments opposing the convention. And let me
just address those head-on. Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty
under this treaty. But in fact, it's exactly the opposite. We would secure
sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources, including our 200-mile
exclusive economic zone and vast continental shelf areas extending off our
coasts and at least 600 miles off Alaska. I know that some are concerned that
the treaty's provisions for binding dispute settlement would impinge on our
sovereignty. We are no stranger to similar provisions, including in the World
Trade Organization which has allowed us to bring trade cases; many of them
currently pending against abusers around the world. As with the WTO, the
U.S. has much more to gain than lose from this proposition by being able to
hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules. Some critics
invoke the concern we would be submitting to mandatory technology transfer
and cite President Reagan's other initial objections to the treaty. Those
concerns might have been relevant decades ago, but today they are not. In
1994, negotiators made modifications specifically to address each of
President Reagan's objections, including mandatory technology transfer,
which is why President Reagan's own Secretary of State, George Shultz, has
since written we should join the convention in light of those modifications

having been made. Now some continue to assert we do not need to join the
convention for U.S. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in deep
seabed mining. That's not what the companies say. So I find it quite
ironic, in fact somewhat bewildering that a group, an organization,
an individual would make a claim that is refuted by every major
company in every major sector of the economy who stands to benefit
from this treaty. Under current circumstances, they are very clear.
They will not take on the cost and risk these activities under
uncertain legal frameworks. They need the indisputable,
internationally recognized rights available under the treaty. So
please, listen to these companies, not to those who have other
reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. These companies
are refuting the critics who say, "Go ahead, you'll be fine." But
they're not the ones the critics being asked to invest tens of
millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining
the convention.

LOST provides jurisdiction for U.S. companies to drill

Bellinger 12-John, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National
Security Law (CFR, June 14,2012, Should the United States ratify the UN Law
of the Sea?, http://www.cfr.org/treaties-and-agreements/should-unitedstates-ratify-un-law-sea/p31828) patel
The Convention would also codify U.S. legal rights to exploit vast oil
and gas resources on our extended continental shelf of the coast of
Alaska (an area the size of two Californias), to mine valuable minerals on the
deep seabed, and to lay and service submarine telecommunications cables.
U.S. companies are not willing to invest the billions of dollars
necessary to exploit Arctic resources unless they have the clear
legal rights guaranteed by the Convention. As a result, the treaty is
also strongly supported by the U.S. business community, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, major oil companies, the shipping and fishing
industry, and telecommunications companies. Unfortunately, some
Republican Senators have blocked Senate approval of the Law of the Sea
Convention based on myths and misperceptions about the treaty, including
concerns that president Reagan opposed the treaty when it was originally
drafted in 1982, and that it might now infringe on U.S. sovereignty. But the
flaws identified by president Reagan were fixed by amendments to
the treaty in 1994 (which led all other major industrial countries to join the
treaty). And far from infringing on U.S. sovereignty, joining the Law of the
Sea Convention would codify U.S. sovereignty over vast new oil and
gas resources in the Arctic. Other countries have benefited greatly
by joining the Convention, and the United States is losing out by
remaining on the sidelines.

The tech is ready- companies are waiting for ratification

Pincus 12 Walter, reports on intelligence, defense and foreign policy for The
Washingon Post covered numerous subjects, including nuclear weapons and
arms control, politics and congressional investigations, awarded the 2002
Pulitzer Prize for national reporting, other honors were the 1977 George Polk

Award for articles exposing the neutron warhead, a 1981 Emmy from writing
a CBS documentary on strategic nuclear weapons, and most recently the
2010 Arthur Ross Award from the American Academy for Diplomacy for
columns on foreign policy (5/28/12, The Washington Post, Fine Print: Treaty
on the seas is in rough Senate waters,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-treaty-onthe-seas-is-in-rough-senate-waters/2012/05/28/gJQAzCyFxU_story.html) patel
Supporting the latter argument, she said, previously U.S. energy
companies werent technologically prepared to take advantage of
the provisions that allow a country to claim economic sovereignty to
600 nautical miles from its coasts. Thats far beyond the current 200
nautical miles. U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing
and able to explore this area, she said, but they need
international legal certainty from the treaty before they will or
could make the substantial investments ... needed to extract these
far ofshore resources. Clinton described arguments against the treaty as
being based on ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence or the
consequences of continuing failure to accede to the treaty. For example,
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) raised the prospect that under this treaty,
any country could sue the United States in the International Tribunal Law of
the Sea, not in the U.S. courts, or take the U.S. before binding arbitration,
under provisions designed to reduce and control pollution of the maritime
environment. Inhofe went on to cite an article by William C.G. Burns which,
he said, named the United States as the most logical state to bring action
against. Burns, however, in his 2006 article, adds that the convention does
not impose an absolute prohibition against pollution and that it would be
difcult to succeed with such legal action. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) raised
another concern, repeating an argument that the treatys language about
abating air pollution would enforce the Kyoto Protocol, which the United
States has not ratified. A lot of people believe ... the administration wants to
use this treaty as a way to get America into a regime relating to carbon, since
its been unsuccessful doing so domestically, Corker said. Clinton responded,
It is our legal assessment that there is nothing in the convention that
commits the U.S. to implement any commitments on greenhouse gases under
any other regime. ... It doesnt require adherence to any specific emission
policies. Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) raised one of the critics major
arguments: money paid to the International Seabed Authority as royalties for
extraction of resources from the deep sea are to be distributed by the
authority. Why do we as Americans, give up our taxing authority, handing
money over to the United Nations to develop some kind of formula that we
have no idea what its going to? Risch said. Clinton noted that its not a tax
but a royalty arrangement, similar to those that exist on land and sea. The
royalty doesnt start for five years, she added, then rises at 1 percent each
year until it caps at 7 percent. One of the 1994 modifications to the
convention gives the United States a permanent seat on the Council of 36
signatories that sets the policies for royalties as well as approves their
distribution. Those decisions must be made by consensus, meaning
unanimous approval. We would have a permanent veto power over
how the funds are distributed, and we could prevent them from
going anywhere we did not want them to go, Clinton said. She later

added that consensus is necessary to deal with any decision that

would impose an obligation on the United States or any country.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) repeated several criticisms then added that the
signatories also help get to define the rules of engagement for the U.S. Navy
all over the world. Dempsey diplomatically responded, Where in the treaty
do you see our rules of engagement or our activities limited, because theyre
not limited in any way. One main selling point, emphasized by Clinton, is
that the largest single portion of the U.S. extended continental shelf is in the
Arctic, where Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark, through its ownership
of Greenland, are already establishing their claims. As Palin wrote in her
2007 letter, If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, the
opportunity to pursue our own claims to ofshore areas in the Arctic
Ocean might well be lost. As a consequence, our rightful claims to
hydrocarbons, minerals, and other natural resources could be
ignored. Perhaps its time for conservative Republicans to listen to
Palin on something she knows about firsthand.

American companies and the Navy want certainty before

proceeding

Abrahams 12 Joseph (3/12/9, LOST and Found: Senate Moves Toward

Ratification of U.N.'s 'Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/lost-senate-moves-ratificationuns-law-sea-treaty/) patel
The U.N. began working on LOST in 1973, and 157 nations have signed on to
the treaty since it was concluded in 1982. Yet it has been stuck in dry
dock for nearly 30 years in the U.S. and never even been brought to
a full vote before the Senate. But swelling approval in the Senate
and the combined support of the White House, State Department
and U.S. Navy mean LOST may be ready to unfurl its sails again. Sen.
John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during
a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We
are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the
Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key
here is just timing -- how we proceed." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told
Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our
State Department and in our administration." LOST apportions
"Exclusive Economic Zones" that stretch 200 miles from a country's coast and
establishes the International Seabed Authority to administer the communal
territory farther out. The treaty's proponents say it clears up a murky
legal area that has prevented companies from taking advantage of
the deep seas' wealth. "American firms and businesses want legal
certainty so they can compete with foreign companies for marine
resources," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and
diplomacy at the Center for American Progress. Without the clearly
defined authority established by the treaty, "there's confusion -- a
lot of businesses don't want to take that risk." The American military
is looking for another kind of certainty from LOST -- a guarantee of
safe passage through all seaways, a right China sought to deny an
unarmed Navy vessel Monday in its own Exclusive Economic Zone in

the South China Sea. "The Convention codifies navigation and overflight
rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our
armed forces," the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a June 2007 letter to Senate
leadership. LOST has even managed to unify environmental groups and deepsea miners, who both see something to gain in the treaty. "We gain
sovereignty, we gain territory, we gain access to places that we have
not had access to as easily," said Don Kraus, president of Citizens for
Global Solutions, a group that advocates strengthening international
institutions. "We don't stand to lose anything."

The CP provides legal certainty for mining and drilling

Adams 12 Shar, EPOCH staff writer (5/23/12, Ratifying Law of the Sea
Urgent, Says Clinton, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/unitedstates/ratifying-law-of-the-sea-urgent-says-clinton-241708.html) patel
WASHINGTONThe need for the United States to sign onto a maritime treaty
is a matter of utmost security and economic urgency, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton told a Senate hearing Wednesday. The U.N. Law of the Sea
Treaty (LOST) has become the leading accord in dealing with international
maritime disputes, offering guidelines on a range of issuesincluding free
passage through worlds seaways, jurisdiction of ocean beds, and passage for
underwater telecommunication cables. Whether to join the international body
has been a point of discussion in the U.S. Senate for over 20 yearsbut to
date, the United States remains one of the few major countries that has not
signed up. Currently, 160 nations, including Russia and China, are members.
Clinton said, Twenty years ago, ten years ago, maybe even five years ago,
joining the convention was important, but not urgent. That is no longer the
case. The race for resources is a big contributor to the urgency. The
convention allows nations to claim economic sovereignty over their
continental shelf to a distance of around 200 nautical miles from
shore. That would extend U.S. territory by at least one-and-a-half
times the size of Texas, maybe more, Clinton said. Before, oil and gas
companies did not have the technology to drill in such areas. Yet,
now that they do, without the treaty they do not have the legal
certainty of jurisdiction. Similarly, mining companies now have the
technology to mine deep waters, beyond the continental jurisdiction,
but without the mechanism the Treaty provides to ensure secure
title, companies are hesitant to make expensive investments. As long
as the United States is outside the convention, our companies are left with
two bad choices: either take their deep-sea mining business to
another country or give up on the idea, Clinton said.

Even if the treaty hurts the US companies are ok with it

Bower and Poling 12 Ernest, Gregory (5/25/12, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Advancing the National Interests of the United States:
Ratification of the Law of the Sea, http://csis.org/publication/advancingnational-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea)patel
The Law of the Sea has been ratified by 162 countries, including every other
member of the UN Security Council and every other industrialized nation on
the planet. It undergirds the modern international order in the maritime
domain, an order built by the United States and its allies. It is the only

comprehensive treaty recognized worldwide that lays out the rules for vessels
on the high seas. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, recognizing its
value, operate under its guidelines even in the absence of
ratification. So why has it repeatedly failed to receive Senate approval?
Opponents have presented four general arguments: The Law of the Seas
restrictions would interfere with U.S. military interests. The International
Seabed Authority (ISA), which determines rights to seabed mining, would
block U.S. economic interests. The Law of the Seas taxation scheme for
exploitation of resources within a nations exclusive economic zone would
redistribute revenues unfairly. The treaty would limit U.S. sovereignty.
Fortunately for the laws proponents, each of these ideological battles has
been fought and won, especially following the treatys renegotiation. The
first objection has largely been dropped in the face of more than two
decades of overwhelming support from every branch of the U.S.
military. The second is clearly not a concern to the U.S. industries
actively pushing U.S. ratification. The ISAs 39 staf and narrow
jurisdiction have little chance of bullying the United States or
anyone else. U.S. mining interests meanwhile are sitting on the
sidelines while the oceans resources are claimed by others, and U.S.
telecom companies lack the protections and dispute resolution
mechanisms for undersea cables that all their international
competitors enjoy. Regarding the third concern, the taxation on
resource extraction in exclusive economic zones amounts to just
over 2 percent on average, a price that mining and hydrocarbon
companies have signaled they are willing to pay as the worlds
energy markets hunger for new resources and prices of commodities
climb. As for revenue redistribution, opponents too often overlook
the fact that following renegotiation of the Law of the Sea, the
United States is guaranteed the only permanent veto on how funds
are distributed. It is also exempt from any future amendments to the
treaty without Senate approval. In other words, the United States
would enjoy a position of unequaled privilege, not unfair treatment,
within UNCLOS. The final, and currently most prominent, argument against
ratification surrounds sovereignty. Opponents say that, by limiting itself to a
200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and whatever extended
continental shelf it can claim, the United States is restricting its jurisdictional
sovereignty. What this argument misses, however, is that the United
States continental shelf is the largest of anyup to 600 miles
ofshore in the Arctic alone. John Norton Moore of the University of
Virginia School of Law has argued that ratification would massively
increase [U.S.] sovereign jurisdiction by more than the size of the
Louisiana Purchase and Alaska combined. The arguments against
ratification have been steadily weakened in the last three decades
and were overwhelmingly addressed in 1994. The most important
reason, however, for U.S. accession has remained unchanged for 30 years: a
rules-based international order is in the United States interests. The current
global order and the U.S. preeminence within it are built upon legal norms
and rules. Those rules do not unfairly constrain the United States. They
constrain those that would overturn the system, and they prevent a return to
an earlier era of great-power competition and might-makes-right diplomacy.

General Dempsey said May 9 at a forum on the Law of the Sea, Force of
arms should not be our only national security instrument. [A] stable legal
framework has never been more important to the United States.

All your arguments are hype- the CP solves and EVERYONE

is on board

Hurst 13 Isaak, an attorney with the International Maritime Group, PLLCa

boutique law firm that provides legal services to Alaskas maritime, oil and
gas, mining, and international business communities (11/1/13, The Law of
the Sea and Its Effects On Offshore Mining,
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/November-2013/The-Lawof-the-Sea-and-Its-Effects-On-Offshore-Mining/) patel
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seathe US military
backs it, the oil industry loves it, and Senators Murkowski and
Begich support it. Hell, even the environmentalists are behind this
piece of legislation. So why wont Congress ratify this treaty and put
this issue to bed? Despite the majority of worlds nations adopting this
treaty (84 percent), the United States still believes accession to this treaty is
not in its best interest. The argument: the treaty contravenes the
nations economic ideology and it erodes US sovereignty. These
arguments are misguided, and non-ratification has begun to stem
ofshore mining projects by US companies due to the uncertainty
over clear legal title to the resources extracted. This article will
examine the Law of the Sea Convention and the fierce political debate
surrounding ratification. The Law of the Seathe Early Years Introduced in
the late 1960s by UN member states to prevent conflicts over maritime rights
between nations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also
known as UNCLOS or the Convention) is a treaty designed to govern the
navigation, fishing, and exploitation of resources in the worlds oceans. The
Conventions primary value is it provides legal clarity to the worlds maritime
boundaries and clarifies the rights nations have to the exploitation and
development of resources within those boundaries. Of the worlds 196
nations, 166 have ratified UNCLOS. One country, however, has been
noticeably absent from adopting the Conventionthe United States.
The United States had its first opportunity to adopt UNCLOS in 1982 under
the Reagan Administration. Reagan, however, had serious reservations about
UNCLOS. First, Reagan believed the language in UNCLOS conflicted with
Americas economic ideology and its free market principals. Under UNCLOS,
deep-sea resources are classified as the common heritage of mankind; may
only be mined for the benefit of mankind as a whole; and a percentage of
the royalties generated from these projects must be shared with the worlds
developing and landlocked nations. Naturally, the Reagan Administration
balked at this language, calling it fundamentally flawed. Reagans
secondary concern was that accession would erode US sovereignty. Under
UNCLOS, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is tasked to
manage and control certain aspects of deep-sea mining, including
the permitting of these projects. Reagan saw the ISA as an unelected,
unaccountable international bureaucracy that had no business controlling the
affairs of the United States or its offshore mining companies. Reagans
reservations were enough to convince congress not to ratify the Convention,

and his disapproval now forms the political backbone against UNCLOS
ratification. The Law of the SeaModern Debate In June of 2012, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an array of hearings on
UNCLOS to drum up congressional support for the Conventions
ratification. Senator John Kerry lead the charge and invited key
players from the oil and gas, telecommunications, ofshore mining,
manufacturing, shipping, environmental, and tourism industries.
Their argument was straightforward: without a universally
recognized legal regime governing the exploitation of the mineral
resources of the deep-sea beyond the zones of national jurisdictions,
US companies would not assume the investment rights associated
with such projects until it was clear who had clear legal title to the
resources extracted. Uniformly, these industry leaders testified that
accession to UNCLOS would provide such clarity, which would
subsequently create jobs, protect the environment, and ultimately
lead to a stronger US economy. To drive the point home, Kerry also
invited senior members from every branch of the US armed forces to testify
that accession would increase national security. The US military supports
the Convention because it ensures unimpeded access to travel
through and over the worlds oceans. Even former Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta support ratification
declaring accession will increase the United States sovereign right
to the outer continental shelf, which, in Alaska, extends six hundred
miles ofshore, instead of the current two hundred-mile limit. Yet,
despite the overwhelming support and expert testimony of our
nations military, industrial, and political leaders, the Senate pushed
back. Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina
and prominent figure of the Tea Party movement, led the opposition. DeMint,
armed with Reagans reservations about UNCLOS, resurrected congressional
fears that accession will erode US sovereignty by subjecting it to the
authority of the ISA. DeMint also propagated Reagans ideological concerns
over the deep seabed mining provisions, which DeMints supporters tagged
as socialist. DeMint and his fellow conservatives even promoted the slogan,
What would Reagan do? By playing the Reagan card, DeMint secured the
signatures of thirty-four other Senators, which scuttled Kerrys attempt to
ratify the Convention. Why UNCLOS Matters Now DeMints concerns are
noble, but they are misguidedaccession to UNCLOS will not erode
US sovereignty, but solidify it. First, under UNCLOS, the United
States is entitled to permanent seat on ISAs Council, which provides
the United States with veto power over any decisions or policies it
finds objectionable. This seat at the table is a seat the United States
does not have but desperately needs. Countries like China and Russia
are now aggressively pursuing ofshore mining leases within the
parameters of the Convention. As of September of 2013, China is
now the only nation authorized by the ISA to explore the deep
seabed for as many as three major types of minerals. Would the
United States have allowed such a sweeping grab of minerals rights
if it were a member of the ISA Council? Likely not, but without UNCLOS
membership, the United States has no voice. Second, there is no universally
recognized legal regime governing the navigational rights of nations beyond

the zones of their respective jurisdictions. This issue is of particular concern

as China continues to exploit this international law loophole by engaging in
naval operations and fishing expeditions in the territorial waters of other
nations (Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, and Vietnam). Under UNCLOS,
such activities are explicitly prohibited. Indeed, to curtail Chinas lackadaisical
stance on maritime borders and resources of other countries, the United
States needs to ratify this treaty. Moving Forward The United States
is one of the last remaining countries that has not ratified UNCLOS
along with Iran, Libya, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Burundi.
Embarrassing political associations aside, non-ratification is
curtailing ofshore development as US companies are afraid of the
legal risks associated with such projects due to the lack of clear
legal title to deep-sea resources. To combat this issue, Congress
should look past the political hyperbole and understand that
accession will expand US sovereignty by solidifying the worlds
maritime borders and provide US entities with the legal confidence
necessary to engage in deep-sea mining projects.

Companies are waiting for ratification- Only the

counterplan accesses solvency of the af

Lobe 12 Jim, American journalist and the Washington Bureau Chief of the
international news agency Inter Press Service (U.S.: Law of the Sea Treaty
Ratification Faces Unsettled Waters,
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2012/06/05/13919)patel
Successive administrations both Democratic and Republican led
negotiations for the treaty from the late 1960s onward. But when
completed in 1982, then-President Ronald Reagan, under pressure
from big U.S. mining and ENERGY COMPANIES, rejected it, citing its
provisions for deep-sea mining, particularly its requirement that
mining claims be regulated by a Jamaica-based International Seabed
Authority (ISA). Nonetheless, Reagan ordered the government to abide by
all other sections of the treaty, which amounted essentially to a codification
of existing international customary and maritime international law. In 1994,
the seabed provisions of the treaty were amended to satisfy
Reagan's objections. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - the
latter, however, only in his second term - subsequently supported its
ratification. In 2007, it was approved by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee by a lopsided 17-4 vote but was never sent to
the floor for final action. After Obama took ofce in 2009, his
administration listed LOST as one of a half-dozen treaties, including the 1979
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (which has
been ratified by 185 countries), as priorities for ratification. None, however,
have yet made any headway on Capitol Hill due to opposition by Republicans,
a growing number of whom have argued that international treaties unduly
constrain Washington's freedom of action in the world and threaten its
sovereignty. All branches of the U.S. armed services, particularly the
Navy, have long supported the treaty because of its recognition of
navigation rights for vessels engaged in military activities. In
addition, the same U.S. mining and energy interests that had
previously opposed the treaty because of its possible interference

with deep-sea drilling or mining have also now lined up in favour. It

was Pentagon chief Leon Panetta who launched the new ratification campaign
at a Law of the Sea symposium May 9 and who later appeared with the chiefs
of all four armed services, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to
testify in favour of the treaty before Kerry's committee two weeks later.
'(T)his treaty is absolutely critical to U.S. national security the
longer we delay, the MORE we undermine our own national security
interests,' said Panetta, who this week urged Washington's Asian allies
worried about China's territorial claims in the South China Sea at the ShangriLa Defence Dialogue in Singapore to speak out in support of ratification.
Similarly, U.S. oil, gas, and mining industries that have developed
new technology to exploit the deep seabed, as well as
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES that rely on undersea cables,
have come out strongly for ratification, insisting that U.S. adherence
to the treaty would not only ofer them greater security in
undertaking such expensive investments, but also give Washington
a voice in managing the ISA

The CP solves the entirety of the case and gives further

jurisdiction

-heg
-manufacturing
-economy
-access to minerals
Grady et al 12- Jim, CEO of LighTec Inc. in Merrimack, Republican state Sen.
Gary Lambert of Nashua is a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Larry
A. Mayer is director of the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping at the
University of New Hampshire (Sea treaty a must for U.S.,
http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/4218363-95/kellyayottejeanneshaheen-lawoftheseetreaty)
Commissioned by President John Adams in 1800, the Portsmouth Navy Yard
has built the ships that delivered more than a century of U.S. maritime
dominance. New Hampshire was also at the forefront of America's industrial
revolution, and the Granite State remains home to a vibrant high-tech and
manufacturing ECONOMY. U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte have
an unprecedented opportunity to advance New Hampshire's industry and
help maintain U.S. sea power by supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea
Treaty. Currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, this U.S.initiated treaty would help drive investment, economic growth and
job creation in New Hampshire and across America. By ratifying the
treaty, America would gain exclusive sovereign commercial rights to
the full U.S. outer continental shelf, which, in some areas, extends
up to 600 miles beyond the coast - three times the current 200-mile
limit. The University of New Hampshire's own Center for Coastal and Ocean
Mapping has been deeply involved in mapping unexplored regions of the
Arctic seafloor in support of potential U.S. claims under the Law of the Sea
Treaty. UNH is home to some of the world's leading experts in hydrographic
and seafloor mapping, and they've spent months at sea in support of
expanded U.S. claims that can only be realized if the country becomes a

party to the treaty. Former U.S. senator Judd Gregg was instrumental in
ensuring UNH researchers had the resources they needed to pursue their
exploration. With ratification, U.S. companies would gain exclusive
access to vast oil, gas and mineral resources in the deep seabed of
America's shores - including rare earth minerals that New
Hampshire's high-tech manufacturing businesses depend on. These
minerals are used in a wide spectrum of high-tech products that will
be increasingly important to the Granite State's ECONOMY. On the
national security front, perhaps no one stated the benefits of the
treaty better than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staf, General
Martin Dempsey, who explained to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in May how Law of the Sea would affirm critical
navigational freedoms and reinforce the sovereign immunity of U.S.
warships as they conduct naval operations around the world. The
Law of the Sea would guarantee international legal recognition of
the right of America's armed forces to move unencumbered
throughout the world's oceans. Moreover, ratifying the treaty would give
the United States access to an internationally recognized system for resolving
commercial disputes in foreign waters while protecting America's exclusive
right to address military disputes directly and on its own terms. Opponents
of the treaty argue that it would somehow weaken U.S. military
strength and that U.S. companies could reap the benefits of the
deep seabed without it. Those arguments don't hold water - and the
people who would know - our military and business leaders - have
made that clear. The treaty strengthens our military posture and
ofers additional protections to our armed forces overseas. That is
why all living former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state, as well
as current and former Army, Marine and Air Force generals and Navy
and Coast Guard admirals, have endorsed ratification. No American
company will make an investment in deep seabed mineral recovery
without international legal recognition of its right to do so. Thomas
Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testifying
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June said, 'Accession
benefits the U.S. economically by providing American companies the
legal certainty and stability to do what they do best: putting people
to work by creating new and innovative goods and services.' Jay
Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers,
testifying before the same committee said, 'Other nations are actively
seeking to knock us from our mantle of economic leadership, yet, too often,
we remain on the sidelines. Manufacturers can't aford for the U.S. to
sit on the sidelines when it comes to the Law of the Sea.' American
companies have President Ronald Reagan to thank for the treaty's extremely
favorable deep seabed mining provisions. Reagan's efforts to secure a better
deal for America led to changes that granted the United States a permanent
seat - with veto authority - on the council that governs seabed mining.
Reagan held out for amendments that eliminated mandates that would have
required the United States to share technology and revenue from deep
seabed mining. But the U.S. Senate must act to secure all of these important
economic and national security benefits for America. Without treaty
ratification, America stands to lose out to claims from nations that are

parties to the treaty and want to encroach upon the vast seabed
mineral wealth of U.S. shores. By endorsing the Law of the Sea
Treaty, Shaheen and Ayotte can help support the Granite State's
high-tech and manufacturing industries - and create jobs for New
Hampshire workers - while strengthening American sovereignty and
providing important legal recognition for the navigation rights of
America's armed forces

Ratification allows for licensing and the GOP House is on

board

Gupta 14 Sajata (1/24/14, Professional Mariner, Critics: U.S. missing the

boat in failing to endorse Law of the Sea,
http://www.professionalmariner.com/February-2014/Law-of-the-Sea/) patel
Thousands of meters below the oceans surface lie nodules and hydrothermal
vents essentially underwater volcanoes rich in precious metals, such as
silver, gold, manganese, copper, cobalt and zinc. As new technologies have
made exploration and extraction of these metals feasible, companies from
various countries have been queuing up for access to the spoils. To date, the
International Seabed Authority, which was established by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has issued
almost 20 licenses for prospecting of these mineral deposits and is
considering several more. Mining could begin as soon as 2016. When
UNCLOS went into effect in 1994, it essentially codified maritime law,
covering issues such as safety at sea and pollution. To date, MORE than 160
countries have ratified the treaty. Despite playing a central role in its
creation, the United States has not followed suit. Oddly, the treaty enjoys
broad bipartisan support with both Republican and Democratic
presidential administrations pushing for its ratification in the
Senate, which is all that is needed for the U.S. to take its seat at the
table. Yet some conservative senators have said the treaty will threaten U.S.
sovereignty on the high seas and have repeatedly blocked the measure. The
ramifications of this opt-out are far-reaching. Angling its way into the deepsea gold rush, said Larry Mayer, director of the Center for Coastal and
Ocean Mapping at the University of New Hampshire, would require the U.S. to
break the law. In a document titled Why the United States Needs to Join the
Law of the Sea Convention Now, Lockheed Martin Corp. wrote: Timing is
critically important if U.S. industry is to undertake exploitation of
the deep seabed for valuable rare earth and other mineral
resources. Other countries are already moving quickly and
aggressively to secure internationally recognized rights to these
resources. ... U.S. companies cannot use this countrys technological
leadership to pursue, with the sponsorship of the United States
government, a leadership position in this strategically important
EMERGING MARKET. Besides limiting deep-sea mining, failure to ratify the
treaty could stymie Americas ability to drill for oil in the Arctic. There,
receding ice caps are providing access to oil-rich seabeds, which are thought
to hold up to a quarter of the worlds undiscovered reserves. UNCLOS
establishes that a country has full jurisdiction over resources within 200 nm
of its seashore, an area referred to as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Countries can petition to extend their reach by showing that their continental

shelf extends beyond the EEZ. By joining the treaty, the U.S. could extend its
EEZ off the coast of Alaska by 400 nm. Russia has already submitted a claim
for half of the Arctic, and Canada intends to put forth a large claim that could
encroach upon the U.S.s EEZ. We believe that it is now time for action on
the Law of the Sea (Convention). The U.S. can no longer aford to wait to
secure access to the vital resources that lie within its extended
continental shelf, Jack N. Gerard, president and chief executive of
the American Petroleum Institute, wrote in a letter to Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, then the Republican senator from Alaska, in 2011. Until
recently, seafarers followed a general set of ethical guidelines on the open
ocean, said Caitlyn Antrim, executive director of the Rule of Law Committee
for the Oceans in Washington, D.C. It was generally accepted, she said, that
ships could sail anywhere without interference from neighboring countries.
That system worked well for hundreds of years, but President Harry Truman
muddied the waters in 1945 when he laid claim to Americas entire
continental shelf for oil and gas exploration. Hundreds of other countries soon
followed suit, both to gobble up underwater oil reserves and to protect their
fisheries. The first Law of the Sea conference was held in 1958, but delegates
couldnt figure out how to best carve up the ocean, so they let the question
hang. By the mid-1960s, a more comprehensive solution was clearly needed.
After almost a decade of negotiations lasting from 1973 to 1982,
delegates drafted a comprehensive document laying out how
member countries should use the worlds oceans and established the
framework for the EEZ. Article 87 codified key freedoms on the high
seas, including a countrys right to navigate and fly over the worlds
oceans, lay cables and pipelines, fish and conduct scientific
research. Articles 192 through 237 spelled out extensive rules on
pollution prevention and protection of the marine environment.
UNCLOS established an international tribunal to moderate disputes
between countries. UNCLOS was simply intended to be the suitcase, if you
will, that you could put a lot of (maritime) topics in, said Clay Maitland,
chairman of the North American Marine Environment Protection Association
and former delegate to the Law of the Sea Convention. When UNCLOS first
came up for Senate ratification in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan
laid out six areas of concern. He was particularly worried that the treaty did
not adequately protect U.S. mining interests in the deep sea. As it stood,
any country could hire a company to scope out areas in the high
seas thought to be rich in precious metals. That meant that one
country could pay for all the prospecting only to have another
country come in and start mining right next to them. By the 1990s,
policymakers had addressed all of Reagans concerns. Notably, the
U.S. was guaranteed a permanent seat with veto power on the
International Seabed Authority, the agency responsible for
governing actions, including mineral extraction, in the deep sea. By
then, after garnering the necessary 60 votes, the treaty was already
in efect globally. But the Senate has never been able to muster the
67 votes (two-thirds majority) necessary for ratification. In 2007,
Antrim and others went to scores of senators offices pushing the
case for ratification. Backers of ratification included industry reps
from mining and oil and gas companies, various environmental

groups, and the U.S. COAST GUARD. But conservative senators

blocked the vote. Right-to-life groups partnered with the antiinternationalist groups, Antrim said, and proponents faced a broad
coalition of no. UNCLOS came up for consideration again in 2012.
That year, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
COAST GUARD Commandant Adm. Robert Papp Jr. said that ratifying
UNCLOS would help sustain Americas leadership as a maritime first
responder, protect American prosperity and ensure Americas Arctic
future. For decades, we have largely acted in accordance with a treaty that
we have no ability to SHAPE and without the additional benefits that come
from being a party, Papp wrote. We need to lock in the favorable
navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on. We
need to be a party as the best way to secure international recognition of our
sovereign rights over our extended continental shelf. We need to be a party
to influence and lead the further development of the international rules
governing the oceans. Without the U.S. at the table, said Mayer,
companies will remain unwilling to explore and extract on our behalf.
The reason why all the industry wants this why all the oil companies want
this is because of certainty. They hate uncertainty. Theyre not going to
invest a billion dollars in an oil rig if theyre not certain who has the rights to
it. That shared distaste for uncertainty has created strange bedfellows.
Besides oil and gas and mining companies, several environmental agencies,
including Oceana, World Wildlife Fund and Ocean Conservancy, are pushing
for ratification. Clear guidelines ensure that all countries are following
established environmental protocols, Mayer said. Ive never in my life sat on
a panel that will have Greenpeace, THE MILITARY and the oil companies all
agreeing, he said. With the U.S. forfeiting its role as a leader in international
maritime issues, UNCLOS has started to show its age. Most of its provisions
were set forth in the 1970s, Maitland said. They did not cover issues related
to piracy or environmental advocacy on the high seas. In a recent high profile
case, Russia, which is party to UNCLOS, seized a Greenpeace ship carrying
two journalists and 28 individuals protesting the development of the
countrys first offshore oil platform in the Arctic. Russia has refused to
participate in a case being heard at the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea. What do we do with all these situations that are cropping up now,
and the Greenpeace situation is one of them that are not covered in
UNCLOS at all? Maitland asked. Congress shows little to no interest in any
international maritime matters. Treaties automatically come up for
reconsideration every two years. The Senate may vote on UNCLOS
during the lame-duck session in 2014 or in 2015. However, unless
Senate opponents of the treaty fail to get re-elected, ratification
remains unlikely.

The US is behind- ratification is the only guarantee of

extraction

Dr. Maurin 13 - Legal Consultant at the Applied Geoscience and Technology

Division (SOPAC) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Suva SubRegional Ofce, Fiji (4/22/13, Islands business, Pacific region faces seabed
mining challenge,

http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/environment/950/pacific-region-facesseabed-mining-challenge/) patel
Minerals, such as rare earth metals, are increasingly becoming an
important commodity in a resource-constrained world economy. As a
result new frontiers both onshore and offshore, to the depths of the ocean,
are emerging around the world. The Pacific region stands at the forefront of
this pioneering venture. Yet concerns abound about the environmental
impacts of future offshore mining projects on deep sea ecosystems. With
limited experience in managing extractive resources and embryonic
capacities to oversee offshore activities, Pacific Island governments must
remain cautious in making decisions about whether to engage with seabed
mining activities, and consider how to do so in the best and long-term
interest of their nations. Conscious of the opportunities but also the risks,
states in the Pacific Islands region have recently embarked on a regional
initiative. This initiative is the development of policy and legislative
regimes to manage seabed mining activities, with the assistance of
the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the European Union.
Seabed minerals: a new frontier The recent discovery of rare earth
elements in the deep seabed by Japanese interests, and the granting
by Papua New Guinea of a pioneering ofshore mining license for
seabed mineral deposits 1500m below sea-level, has drawn renewed
international attention to the Pacific region. Resource competition
continues to intensify for rare earth metals critical to the new hightech and ''green'' economies, whereas China still maintains a near
monopoly on current world supplies. Global demand for various
other metals found within deep seabed mineral resource samples copper, gold, manganese, cobalt, nickel and other strategic metals is on an upward trend, sustained by the industrialization of the
BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and
other emerging economies. Since the discovery of polymetallic
nodules in the abyssal plains of ocean basins in 1873, the deep
seabed has been viewed as a potential new mining frontier. Marine
mineral exploration in the 1970s and 1980s highlighted two additional
seabed mineral types: cobalt-rich crusts found on the flanks of submerged
volcanic islands and seamounts throughout the world's oceans (at depths of
400 - 4,000 meters), and seafloor massive sulfides (SMS) (or 'black smokers')
that form along seabed ridges in water depths ranging from 450 to 5,000
meters. A 21-year seabed mineral prospecting program run by the
government of Japan in collaboration with the South Pacific Applied
Geoscience and Technology Commission (SOPAC) investigated the
seabed minerals potential in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of
12 countries in the Pacific region. A number of Pacific Island
countries (PICs) have since issued exploration licenses within their
EEZs to exploration companies. In a pioneering move, in January 2011,
the government of Papua New Guinea granted Canada's Nautilus Minerals Inc
the rights to extract SMS deposits containing gold, copper, silver and zinc
from the Bismarck Sea under its ''Solwara 1'' tenement: a world-second
deep sea mining license to be issued. The copper grades of SMS are
found to be several times the grades currently mined onshore. From
the early 2000s, increase in metal prices on global markets have

reignited commercial interest in deep sea mineral potential, and

have encouraged advances in subsea mining technology, building on
methods used for ofshore gas and oil, relatively shallow marine
diamond mining, and sand and gravel dredging. Pioneer state-owned
entities from Japan, Korea, China and France now share the ground with
private entities enticed by the estimated commercial value of seabed
recoveries. Significant new investments in exploration activities presage
prospects for a long term source of revenues for PICs. The economic
development potential of this new offshore mining industry, enormously
attractive for developing nations like the PICs, remains however to be
balanced against the risks to the marine environment (that could impact on
other essential industries), and existing capacities to monitor such
developments and mitigate adverse impacts. Initiated by PICs governments,
with the support of the Metal Mining Association of Japan, the Pacific Islands
Forum and SOPAC, a Workshop on Offshore Minerals Policy was convened in
February 1999 in Papua New Guinea, which led to the adoption of some
principles for the development of national offshore mineral policies (Madang
Guidelines, December 1999). Building on this initiative a decade later, PICs
requested technical support from SOPAC to assist with the development of
policy and legislative regimes to manage their deep sea mining potential.
With funding from the European Union, SOPAC, now a Division of the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), launched in 2011, the
''Deep Sea Minerals Project'' to provide relevant assistance to 15
Pacific ACP states. A dual regime for DSM activities The UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) divides the ocean space
into maritime zones and prescribes rights and responsibilities within
those zones, including conferring sovereign rights to coastal states
over the seabed minerals within their EEZs and an overriding shared
responsibility by all states for the protection and preservation of the
marine environment. Beyond the limit of national jurisdiction the seabed is
known as ''the Area''. State parties to UNCLOS recognize the seabed
resources of the Area to be the ''common heritage of mankind.'' UNCLOS
established a body - the International Seabed Authority (ISA) - to organize
and control seabed minerals activities in the Area. States, through their own
agency or through sponsorship of private contractors, can carry out activities
in the Area under the control of the ISA and in accordance with its
regulations. A special regime applies to developing countries, who are given
preferential access to 'reserved areas'. The ISA's regulations currently cover
exploration only. Regulations for exploitation are aimed to be completed by
2016. Developing such a regime while so many scientific ''unknowns'' remain
is challenging, and there is concern whether the ISA organs will have
sufcient teeth to monitor contractors' performance and enforce compliance
with the regime.Whether state party consensus on the exploitation
regulations can be achieved remains also to be seen. The ISA has already
approved 17 contracts for exploration in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific
oceans. Lying between the Line Island Group of Kiribati and Mexico in the
international waters of the Pacific Ocean, the Clarion Clipperton Fracture
Zone, known for its elevated abundance of polymetallic nodules, is currently
subject to 13 exploration licenses, including three sponsored by developing
small island states, all from within the Pacific region: Nauru, Tonga and

Kiribati. Potential for development in PICs With some of the world's largest
EEZs and known seabed mineral potential, Pacific Island countries stand at
the forefront of this new industry. But concerns are voiced regarding
national regulatory capacities, particularly given the lack of
scientific consensus on the risks to marine ecosystems and
biodiversity associated with deep sea minerals. To secure national
development from resource extraction, a range of factors are at play
including efective macroeconomic management and high quality
governance institutions characterized by transparency and the rule
of law. Comprehensive and well implemented legal and regulatory
frameworks for deep seabed mining are a requirement of UNCLOS,
and equally important to attract responsible foreign investors into a
state jurisdiction. For projects that entail such high risks, consistency of
regulation and security of tenure would be a prime expectation for any
creditable operators in this pioneering field. How states (and the ISA)
formulate fiscal regimes for seabed mining taxes and royalties will also be
key. Facilitating a viable industry must be balanced against securing
appropriate return to the states (or for ''mankind'' in general) whose
resources are being exploited. As the SPC-EU Deep Sea Minerals Project
assists PICs with the development of legal and regulatory frameworks to
govern deep sea minerals activities, prospects are taking shape for a new
economic opportunity for the Pacific region. But lessons must be learnt from
history: from decades of negative social and environmental impacts from illmanaged onshore mining operations, and from failure to maximize returns to
the state from the exploitation of other natural resources - on-land mining,
logging and fisheries. Pacific states now have the opportunity of a new start,
developing well-thought-out, precautionary, proactive policies and dedicated
seabed minerals legislation before any mining activities commence. The Cook
Islands and the Kingdom of Tonga have taken the lead amongst PICs to
establish national legislative regimes to complement the ISA's efforts at the
international level - designed to uphold international law standards, minimize
adverse social or environmental impacts, and the realization of economic
benefits. All parties recognize, however, that the implementation of such
regimes will be a challenging ''ask'' of small island governments. Looking
ahead, and building on the work of the regional SPC-EU Deep Sea Minerals
Project, there is conceivable benefit to PICs adopting a collaborative approach
at the regional level. Strengthening regional capacity to oversee and assist
with legal and technical matters, and the setting of minimum standards on a
regional basis, for the management and monitoring of DSM activities is
recommended. A coordinated negotiating bloc of PICs, using pooled capacity
for regulatory mechanisms, could support equitable and sustainable
development across the region, rather than mere exploitation of those nonrenewable resources. A different kind of ''race to the bottom'' could be
avoided if PICs coordinate, rather than compete, to attract investors.

US needs LOST to contribute to decisions

Stratfor 7 (3/29/7, The Law of the Sea: Climate Change in the Arctic and
Washington,
http://www.stratfor.com/law_sea_climate_change_arctic_and_washington#axz
z370UYwyUR) Patel

Leon Panetta, the chairman of the U.S. government's Joint Ocean

Commission Initiative, told a Washington audience March 29 that
Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is a national imperative. Panetta, a former congressman and
chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton, pointed to a number of concerns
raised by the United States' nonparticipation in the treaty. By speaking out,
Panetta adds his voice to a growing chorus of politicians and interest groups
that have decided that UNCLOS ratification should be a national priority.
Ratification of the treaty has enjoyed general support among policymakers
since the treaty was re-crafted in 1994 to meet U.S. concerns about
sovereignty, but staunch opposition from conservative and libertarian
senators has stifled ratification. The metaphorical tide is turning, however, as
more and more conservative interest groups come to see UNCLOS as, at
worst, a necessary evil. Climate change and its impact on the Arctic is
the most significant factor pushing UNCLOS ratification toward a
tipping point. As the polar ice melts, a number of heretofore
unimaginable situations have developed. These include the possible
emergence of the Northwest Passage as a major shipping route and
the fear that the newly accessible resources of the Arctic will spur
significant battles over seafloor boundaries. The debate over U.S.
UNCLOS ratification is a familiar one. It focuses on whether it is better for
the United States to be inside a flawed, sometimes troublesome international
system where Washington can exert power to minimize the damage the
organization can do, or to remain outside such an organization, unfettered by
the agreements others are making. Since the Reagan administration, the
United States has generally followed the latter approach, one favored by
politically conservative factions. The emerging Arctic-related issues
challenge this prevailing approach, however. Being outside UNCLOS
has reduced U.S. ability to influence debates that are increasingly
relevant to the country's primary interests. In response, a powerful
coalition of industries, environmentalists and hawkish foreign policy groups
and the Bush administration have aligned in support of the treaty -- though
not yet in a coordinated manner. Traditionally conservative political groups
are coming to view the price of nonparticipation as growing in relation to the
sacrifices of signing on. As a result, entrenched interests aligned against the
treaty are shrinking, and the question increasingly appears to be one of when
UNCLOS will be ratified, not whether. Treaty participation always has been a
double-edged sword. By definition, treaties demand the abdication of some
sovereignty. In return, countries get a seat at the table where the
treaty's language is interpreted and refined. Because the reward is
one of having power within an organization, smaller and lesspowerful countries that otherwise have no voice in international
afairs are strong boosters of international treaties. Powerful counties,
conversely, lose power by joining treaty organizations. The reward for the
larger players is the ability to tailor discussions and limit the range
of options considered by the treaty parties. The use of power within
a treaty is now most visible in Europe's new strategy on climate
change, where the Continent is using its hegemony over the climate
regime to adjust the treaty to suit its own long-term geopolitical
needs. Despite all the talk about climate change, the discussion has

largely been about a theoretical problem: the efects of climate

change. The actual warming of the planet until recently largely has
been ignored. This is changing, however, particularly in light of the
unexpectedly swift retreat of the ice cap near the North Pole. The
visible changes in the Arctic brought by global warming will have
numerous implications. Most important, the Arctic will come to stand
as a symbol of climate change, as visible evidence that the Earth is
warming. Scientists and interest groups will battle strenuously over
the question of how much of the warming is caused by human
activities and about whether the warming is necessarily a bad thing.
In all likelihood, most will come to see the Arctic as a symbol of the
efect of human activities. Those who view the melting polar ice as a
symbol will doubtless see irony in the fact that the shrinking cap
could make it cheaper to get to hydrocarbon deposits that were
previously uneconomical to produce. A much-quoted study released in
2000 by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the unexplored Arctic
contains as much as one-quarter of the world's remaining hydrocarbon
reserves. In November 2006, however, the consulting firms Wood Mackenzie
and Fugro released a report that argues the recoverable reserves are closer
to 3 percent. Either way, the Arctic has lots of oil to exploit. The Wood
Mackenzie study asserts that three fields in the Arctic contain more than 10
billion barrels of oil -- Russia's South Kara Yamal Basin, East Barents Sea and
the Kronprins Christian Basin off Greenland's northeastern coast. Alaska's
North Slope has an estimated 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent in
undiscovered reserves. The rules defining which country has economic
control over access to mineral reserves fall under UNCLOS. The
treaty gives countries exclusive rights to resources within 200
nautical miles (nm) of their shorelines. In addition, if the continental
shelf extends beyond the 200 nm limit, countries have exclusive
rights to minerals either as far as the shelf extends or until the
furthest of two absolute limits it met: 350 nm or 100 nm from the
2,500-meter depth line. The Arctic Ocean is very shallow, and the
region's continental shelves extend far beyond 350 nm before an
average sounding of 2,500 meters is met. Though not a party to the
treaty, the United States respects these definitions of mineral rights.
By not being a party, however, Washington lacks significant
influence on an important aspect of drawing the boundaries. Under
the treaty, countries must submit claims of the extent of their
continental shelves to the New York-based Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a group that approves the science
behind countries' continental shelf claims. Countries that ratified
UNCLOS in 1994 or before have until 2009 to submit their claims.
Unsurprisingly, countries' claims overlap throughout the Arctic. From
the U.S. perspective, the crucial issue is not merely the minerals
that it can claim, but the potential for a major shift in the relative
mineral wealth of Russia vis-a-vis its neighbors. A growing dispute
between Russia and Norway is perhaps the most important of these. In 2001,
Russia submitted its definition of its continental-shelf borders. Russia's claim
is widely considered a significant overreach, since it claimed a shelf
extending almost to the North Pole and it made territorial claims that

impinged on oil- and natural gas-rich Norwegian claims (claims that have long
been widely, if informally, acknowledged as belonging to Norway) in the
Barents Sea. Though Norway's claim, released in late 2006, is in some ways
more realistic, it appears to have been drafted to meet Russia's aggressive
claim in kind. With Russia increasingly aggressive in its use of oil and
natural gas as a lever against Europe, it will fall in part to UNCLOS
(and possibly the CLCS) to make decisions that will afect the
reserves and production potential of Norway and Russia. As it stands
now, the CLCS is highly unlikely to support one side over the other, and it will
throw the decision over the extent of continental shelf ownership to the two
countries to negotiate, a resolution that bodes ill for Norway. Treaty
advocates say this would not necessarily be the case if the United States
were involved in the organization. National security-focused advocates in the
United States say the country's nonparticipation in UNCLOS shuts out
Washington from being able to meaningfully influence how UNCLOS resolves
the disputed claims. Industry, from oil and natural gas producers to their
major customers in the chemical and transportation industries, also wants the
United States to have a seat at the table.

1NC Enviro NB
LOST provides environmentally friendly standards

Alex Benkenstein April 14-senior researcher for The Governance of Africas

Resources Programme and South African Institute of International Affairs,
graduated from the University of Stellenbosch with a M.A. in International
Studies (cum laude) (The Governance of Africas Resources Programme,
Seabed Mining: Lessons from the Namibian Experience,) patel
The UN Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS) provides the central
framework for determining rights and responsibilities in terms of the
exploration and exploitation of seabed minerals. UNCLOS grants
states the right to undertake exploration and exploitation activities
for marine minerals on their continental shelves, a zone which
generally extends up to 200 nautical miles from the states coastline.7 The
seabed beyond areas of national jurisdiction is defined by UNCLOS
as the Area, and this zone and its resources are declared to be the
common heritage of mankind, in which exploration and exploitation
of marine minerals are to be carried out for the benefit of mankind
as a whole.8 The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established
through UNCLOS in order to develop and oversee regulations governing the
prospecting, exploration and extraction of deep-sea minerals in areas beyond
national jurisdiction.9 All rules, regulations and procedures established by the
ISA to govern seabed mining are collectively referred to as the ISA Mining
Code. To date the ISA has only issued contracts for exploration activities,10
but it has recently indicated that contracts for the exploitation of polymetallic
nodules may be issued as soon as 2016.11 The ISA Mining Code
establishes a number of central principles on environmental
safeguards for seabed mining, including requirements to: prevent,
reduce and control pollution and other hazards to the marine
environment, applying a precautionary approach and best
environmental practices; gather environmental baseline data
against which to assess the likely efects on the marine
environment; establish comprehensive programmes for monitoring
and evaluating environmental impact; include proposals for
impact reference zones (areas that are sufficiently representative
to be used for assessment of impact on the marine environment);
and include proposals for preservation reference zones (areas in
which no mining shall occur to ensure representative and stable
biota of the seabed in order to assess any changes in marine
biodiversity). 12 While the ISA Mining Code is aimed primarily at governing
seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction, a number of UNCLOS
provisions are also of relevance to national jurisdictions. Article 192 of
UNCLOS creates a general obligation for states to protect and preserve the
entire marine environment, both within and outside areas of national
jurisdiction.13 Perhaps the central legal obligation for states with regard to
seabed mining is the determination by the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that state laws and regulations
governing seabed mining must be no less effective than international rules,
regulations and procedures such as the ISA Mining Code.14 Moreover, the

Seabed Disputes Chamber notes that states have a direct obligation

under international law to ensure that seabed mining activities are
governed in accordance with the precautionary approach, employing
best environmental practice and conducting prior environmental
impact assessment.15 However, an efective state response to these
obligations ultimately requires an appropriate national legislative
framework.

1NC Multilat NB
Ratification supports a multipolar world

Scott G Borgerson May 2009 former Liuetenant of Coast Guard, fellow for
ocean governance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and an adjunct
senior research scholar at Columbia Universitys Center for Energy, Marine
Transportation, and Public Policy (Council on Foreign Relations, The National
Interest and the Law of the Sea,
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf)
patel
In many ways, the arguments surrounding the treaty are emblem- atic of the
broader debate about the role of U.S. diplomacy in the post- 9/11 world.
Skeptics of the convention believe it is not needed, given the
hegemonic strength of the U.S. Navy. And, they ask, why does the
United States need to join this international agreement if it has
gotten along fine so far without it? They also worry that the United
States will undermine its sovereignty by incurring additional treaty
obligations to international bodies established within the United Nations'
svstem. In a fast-changing world, with new threats confronting the
United States all the time, this camp holds that the United States
needs to be able to respond as nimbly as possible, unencumbered by
lengthy legal conven- tions that might restrict its freedom of action.
Supporters of the convention counter that the principles embodied
in the treaty are the cornerstone of U.S. naval strategy and create
the rule of law for prosecuting pirates and the growing number of
other threatening nonstate actors. They argue that the convention is
impor- tant for economic reasons as well, as it creates legal
certainty for all kinds of commercial ocean uses, from ofshore oil
and gas to undersea cables to deep-seabed mining, that favor U.S.
interests. They also argue, from an ecological perspective, that the
convention helps the United States assume a leadership position for
dealing with collapsing fishing stocks, pollution from land-based
sources and ships, and the growing danger of ocean waste.
Convention advocates highlight how oceans are, by their very
nature, international and thus require a regime of international law
and collaborative approaches to their management. They point to the
1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement as a prime example of how a carefully
constructed international accord negotiated within the framework of the
convention can provide for a legally binding conservation regime.
Recognizing the utility of this specific fisheries management tool, the United
States rapidly ratified this additional instrument as soon as it was possible to
do so in 1996. Lastly, supporters ask that if the United States is not
willing to accede to a convention that it requested, funda- mentally
shaped, and subsequently caused to be modified in order to address
its own concerns, then why in a multipolar world should other
countries follow its diplomatic leadership? In such a context, how
will expressions of U.S. commitments to the rule of law abroad be
heard?

Multilat is key to hegemony

David A Lake, 10 Professor of Social Sciences, distinguished professor of
political science at UC San Diego ( Making America Safe for the World:
Multilateralism and the Rehabilitation of US authority,
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~dlake/documents/LakeMakingAmericaSafe.pdf) patel
The safeguarding of US authority requires multilateralism that is
broader and certainly deeper than in the 1990smore like NATO than
the ad hoc coalitions of the new world order. Indeed, absent the constraints
exerted by competition with the Soviet Union, the institutional fetters through
which the United States must bind its own hands will have to be even
stronger than those in NATO. 47 The great paradox of contemporary
international politics is that the unprecedented international power of
the United States requires even more binding constraints on its
policy is fit to preserve the authority that it has built over the last
half-century and extend it to new areas of the globe. The advanced
military capabilities of the United States will make it a key actor in any
such multilateral institution and will allow it to set the collective
agenda. Since it is highly unlikely that anything will happen in the absence
of US involvement, as in Bosnia where the Europeans dithered until the
United States stepped to the fore, 48 Americans need not be overly
concerned about runaway organizations or global mission creep.
At the same time, if any organization is to be an effective restraint on the
United States, other countries will have to make serious and integral
contributions to the collective effort. Both sides to this new multilateral
bargain will need to recognize and appreciate the benefits of a stable
international order to their own security and prosperity and contribute to its
success - 480 Making America Safe for the World. The United States will
need to continue to play a disproportionate role in providing
international order, even as it accepts new restraints on its freedom
of action. Other countries, however, must also contribute to the provision of
this political order so that they can provide a meaningful check on US
authority. Americans are likely to resist the idea of tying their hands more
tightly in a new multilateral compact. After six decades, US leadership and
its fruits security, free trade, economic prosperityhave developed
a taken-for-granted quality. It is hard for average Americans to tally
the myriad benefits they receive from the countrys position of
authority, but it is relatively easy for them to see multilateral institutions
constraining the countrys freedom of action. Precisely because unipolarity
makes coercion and unilateralism possible, and for some attractive, any
constraints on US foreign policy may appear too high a price to bear. 49 But
if the United States is to remain the leader of the free world and
possibly beyond, it must make its authority safe for others. To
sustain US authority over the long term, it must be embedded in
new, more constraining multilateral institutions. Americans trust
their government only because of its internal checks and balances.
Although there may be disagreements on exactly where the appropriate
scope of government authority ends, nearly all Americans agree that limited
government is the best form of government. This same principle extends
abroad. If the United States is to exercise authority over other states,
and enjoy its fruits, that authority must be checked and balanced as

well. The height of hubris is not that the United States might govern the
world, at least in part. This is a fact of international politics. Rather, hubris
arises in the belief that the virtue of its people and leaders will
restrain the United States sufficiently such that other peoples will
voluntarily cede a measure of their sovereignty to it. 50 Politicians and
peoples may occasionally be saintly, but it would be folly to rely on this
quality at home or abroad. Recognizing the universal need to
restrain authority, the United States should, in its own self-interest,
lead the way to a new world order.

2NC Multilat NB
UNCLOS shows commitment to multilateralism

Scott G Borgerson May 2009 former Liuetenant of Coast Guard, fellow for
ocean governance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and an adjunct
senior research scholar at Columbia Universitys Center for Energy, Marine
Transportation, and Public Policy (Council on Foreign Relations, The National
Interest and the Law of the Sea,
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf)
patel
Opponents or the convention argue that there is no need to join the treaty
because, with the world's hegemonic navy, the United States can treat the
parts of the convention it likes as customary international law, following the
convention's guidelines when it suits American inter- ests and pursuing a
unilateral course of action when it does not. They also argue that the
convention is an unforgivable forfeiture of U.S. sovereignty to states that
mean American interests harm. Supporters counter by saying that the
convention expands the rule of law over the vast expanse of the
world's oceans and contains provisions that could actually extend
U.S. sovereignty. They also believe that shunning the convention is a
tone-deaf response to the spirit of multilateralism and that, beyond
undermining specific ocean policy issues and freezing the United
States out of the convention's decision-making bodies, it tar- nishes
America's diplomatic reputation at a critical moment in international relations.

UNCLOS sustains multilat and US leadership in order to

fulfill our role in the international community

Scott G Borgerson May 2009 former Liuetenant of Coast Guard, fellow for
ocean governance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and an adjunct
senior research scholar at Columbia Universitys Center for Energy, Marine
Transportation, and Public Policy (Council on Foreign Relations, The National
Interest and the Law of the Sea,
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf)
patel
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea may seem an obscure agreement
to nonexperts. That is not the case. The convention is a care- fully
negotiated international agreement numbering several hundred
pages that covers a host of measurable national security, economic,
and environmental issues of vital strategic importance to the United
States. By remaining a nonparty to the convention, the United
States not only forfeits these concrete interests but also undermines
something more intangible: the legitimacy of U.S. leadership and its
international repu- tation. For example, American pleas for other
nations to follow pollu- tion and fishing agreements ring empty when
the United States visibly rejects the Law of the Sea Convention.
Remaining outside the con- vention also hurts its diplomatic hand in
other international forums, as well as the perceptions of other states
about U.S. commitments to multilateral solutions. As former

Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor has noted, "The decision
not to sign on to legal frameworks the rest of the world supports is
central to the decline of American influ- ence around the world."2
Given the unprecedented challenges, threats, and opportunities the
United States currently faces, it is as important as ever at this
critical juncture to strengthen American influence and diplomatic
leadership. Historically, one of the underlying foundations of U.S. global
leadership has been a perceived commitment to the international rule of law
and willingness to build international institutions that create a predictable
international order from which all peace-loving countries can benefit.
Acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will help undergird
contin- ued U.S. leadership, by sending a tangible signal that the
United Statesremains committed to its historic role as an architect
and defender of world order. From this perspective, acceding to the
convention is low-hanging fruit to advance a much broader U.S.
foreign policy agenda. It has the broadest bipartisan domestic
support; supplies the most direct national security, economic, and
environmental benefits for the United States; and has genuine
global reach. A committed political effort to join the convention during 2009
will provide a highly visible demonstration to a world audience that U.S.
leadership has the resolve to match words with actions, especially when
domestic follow-through means expending political capital. Breaking the
fifteen-year stalemate in the Senate on the convention will be a
strong signal that the United States is committed to multilateral
agreements, especially those whose development both Republican and
Democrat presidents and a strong bipartisan caucus in Congress cham- pion.
Therefore: 1. The central and strongest recommendation of this report is that
the Senate should exercise its constitutional authority by offering its consent
for the United States to formally join the 1982 Convention on the Law of the
Sea.In doing so, the Senate should consider the carefully worded and
painstakingly crafted text resolution of advice and consent sub- mitted as
part of the SFRC Executive Report in December 2007 (Appendix III). This draft
resolution chooses arbitration for dis- pute settlement and makes other
important declarations, under- standings, and interpretations that safeguard
U.S. interests. These details are not insignificant, specifying U.S. exemption
from man- datory dispute settlement in certain cases; requiring legislation for
implementation in U.S. waters and to guide interpretation in U.S. courts; and
preserving Senate oversight over any future amend- ments to the
convention. If the Senate takes the convention up again this year, it
would also have another opportunity to revisit this text of advice
and consent and could make additional decla- rations,
interpretations, and understandings needed to safeguard U.S.
sovereignty. For the reasons listed in this report, the president should
consider making U.S. accession to the convention a leading foreign policy initiative in 2009.

2NC AT: Perm do both

The regime must come before we divide up the ocean,
otherwise it becomes a geopolitical concern and causes
fights
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
In order to prevent the ofshore mining industry from sufering the
same fate, it would be necessary to introduce international
requirements into E.E.Z.s legal regime upstream before Deep Sea
mining takes of . This would be a crucial step in Ocean governances
strengthening. However, growing strategic issues related to the control of raw materials constitute a major

It is feared that the control of the bottom of the oceans shall

become a growing geopolitical concern in the coming years.
obstacle.

Unilateralism means the plan doesnt claim territorial

rights

Panchyson 13- Dorian (12/19/13,UNCLOS-er than ever; why the U.S. should
learn to stop worrying and love the law of the sea
http://www.nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/unclos-er-than-ever-why-the-u-sshould-learn-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-law-of-the-sea/) patel
Preliminary studies indicate the U.S. extended continental shelf totals close to
one million square kilometers an area approximately double the size of
California, with a large portion in the Arctic Sea north of Alaska. As
knowledge of these areas expands through ambitious mapping
projects such as Ballards and other joint-government projects, the
U.S. is likely to encounter increasingly tense negotiations over
disputed areas. Without the adjudication mechanism ofered by
UNCLOS, the U.S. may be forced to settle disputes through
diplomacy, or alternatively, assert the claims unilaterally. Given that
all other Arctic Council member countries have ratified UNCLOS, the U.S.
should make UNCLOS ratification a key security priority moving forward.
Presidential Proclamation granted the U.S. sovereignty over its marine
holdings rather than international law. In 1983, President Reagan signed
Proclamation 5030, declaring sovereignty over the 200 nautical miles
extending from the continental U.S., as well as its overseas territories and
protectorates. This came a year after the U.S. declared it would not ratify
UNCLOS, as Part XI was seen to be unfavorable to free-markets and counter
to U.S. security interests. Despite support from both the Clinton and George
W. Bush administrations, ratification was unreachable as a result of
Congressional resistance. However, a recent support has been driven by
recognition that UNCLOS could be in the national interest in a variety of
areas. Supporters cite the need to establish additional mechanisms
to counter Chinas increased unilateralism in the South China Sea,
while securing rights for U.S. commercial and naval ships, amongst

others. Perhaps most importantly, ratifying UNCLOS would provide a

legitimate mechanism for adjudicating national claims to extended
EEZs, especially in contested areas such as the Arctic. Sea. Secretary
of Defense Chuck Hagel recently released the Pentagons Arctic Strategy,
which prioritizes the ability to detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats,
allowing the U.S. to exercise sovereignty in and around Alaska. However,
any claims that extend beyond the 200-mile nautical limit would be
negotiated without the legitimacy of the diplomatic channels ofered
through UNCLOS. Although the U.S. has partnered with Canada in
mapping the continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea, bilateral
negotiations may become increasingly difficult if U.S. is forced to
engage non-allied countries in resource disputes. Critics maintain
that UNCLOS would commit the U.S. to a dispute-resolution
mechanism that has traditionally been unfavorable to its interests.
Further, UNCLOS has been recognized as customary international law,
thereby encouraging adherence to its provisions, regardless of ratification.
Others suggest the U.S. should continue to pursue unilateral
options, engaging partners through traditional diplomatic channels
only when necessary. With the largest continental shelf in the world,
a lot is at stake for U.S. interests moving forward. By some
estimates, there are more than 100,000 underwater mountains
containing a variety of strategic and valuable minerals within the
borders of the U.S. EEZ. However, these areas and those just
beyond the 200 nautical mile limit remain unexplored. As the areas
are mapped, UNCLOS provides the legal framework for the U.S. to
make claims on maritime territory within the extended continental
shelf area. This would allow U.S. companies to apply for exploration licenses
in the deep seabed where no country has sovereign rights. Ratifying UNCLOS
is not without its costs. Much like any international treaty, countries are
forced to adopt provisions that may be counter to national policies, while
relinquishing a degree of sovereignty in exchange for a body of law with no
enforcement mechanism. However, with such a vast, unexplored continental
shelf, the U.S. could leverage UNCLOS to extend maritime claims beyond the
200-mile nautical limit. Asserting these claims under the auspices of
international law would allow for easier dispute resolution with partner
countries, while providing access to valuable extractive resources. Without
UNCLOS, the U.S. may be forced to adopt an increasingly aggressive
unilateral stance a decision that is likely to prove counter to longterm national security interests.

The perception of the CP sends a multilateral signal that

avoids the unilateral signal of the plan

Borgerson May 2009 Scott G former Liuetenant of Coast Guard, fellow for
ocean governance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and an adjunct
senior research scholar at Columbia Universitys Center for Energy, Marine
Transportation, and Public Policy (Council on Foreign Relations, The National
Interest and the Law of the Sea,
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf)
patel

Opponents for the convention argue that there is no need to join the treaty
because, with the world's hegemonic navy, the United States can treat
the parts of the convention it likes as customary international law,
following the convention's guidelines when it suits American interests and pursuing a unilateral course of action when it does not.
They also argue that the convention is an unforgivable forfeiture of U.S.
sovereignty to states that mean American interests harm. Supporters
counter by saying that the convention expands the rule of law over
the vast expanse of the world's oceans and contains provisions that
could actually extend U.S. sovereignty. They also believe that
shunning the convention is a tone-deaf response to the spirit of
multilateralism and that, beyond undermining specific ocean policy
issues and freezing the United States out of the convention's
decision-making bodies, it tar- nishes America's diplomatic
reputation at a critical moment in interna- tional relations. Debating
the wisdom of whether to enter into international agree- ments is as old as
the nation itself. Stung by the controversy over the 1794 Jay Treaty and the
emergence of bitter partisanship between anglophile Federalists and
francophile Democratic-Republicans (who felt the United States betrayed its
French midwife when negotiating with the British in light of the 1778 treaties
of Amity and Commerce), George Washington warned in his 1796 farewell
address against "per- manent alliances." In the centuries that followed,
two distinct camps emerged in the American foreign policy tradition:
one was isolation- ist, seeking to hide behind the Monroe Doctrine
and remain aloof from corrupt, European deal-making; the other was
more internationalist, seeking a more active United States in world
afairs.1'' Debates for and against the convention roughly fit within
these two categories. Proponents of the convention, who can be assumed
to include almost all Democrats and moderate Republicans (by most
accounts, a large enough bloc to achieve a two-thirds majority, as required by
the Constitution for the United States to join the convention), have
been frustrated to date by a passionate minority that strongly
believes it is not in U.S. interests to join the convention. Opponents of
the treaty argue that the convention unnecessarily commits the United States
to follow rules designed by states hoping to constrain American free- dom of
action. Their specific objections to the convention are crystal- lized in the
minority views submitted for the record the last time the convention was
favorably voted out of the SFRC in December 2007: "[CJertain provisions of
the [convention], particularly those dealing with navigation, have merit," but
overall and especially in regard to the dispute resolution, "[i]t is puzzling why
we would want to submit to a judicial authority selected by the United
Nations, given the organiza- tion's corruption scandals, and the fact that of
the 152 countries Party to the treaty, the median voting coincidence with the
United States in the General Assembly was less than 20 percent. This treaty
subjects the United States to a governing body that is hostile to American
inter- ests." 16 Other provisions found objectionable included "taxes"
assessed to outer continental shelf activities; fear of judicial activism by the
Law of the Sea Tribunal, especially with regard to articles relating to landbased sources of pollution that are called a "backdoor Kyoto Protocol"; and a
belief the convention will severely curtail U.S. intelligence-gath- ering

activities.On an item-by-item assessment, however, these arguments are

found to be lacking (Appendix I in far greater detail addresses the
convention's opponents' critical concerns). With regard to dispute
settlement, the United States has indicated that it would choose
arbitration as stated in the draft resolution of advice and consent; it
cannot be forced into any other dispute settlement mechanism.
Specifically, Article 287 of the con- vention reads: "[I]f the parties to a dispute
have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it
may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the
parties otherwise agree." Under no circumstances can the United
States be subjected to any dispute resolution procedures without its
consent. Also, the con- vention does not assess a "tax" but, rather, includes
modest revenue- sharing provisions from exploitation of oil and gas
from the seabed beyond the EEZ that have been supported by every
president since Richard Nixon, including Ronald Reagan. These
resources were far outside any earlier claim made by the United States, and
the agreement to the modest payments was part of a package deal that
included will- ingness to recognize extension of U.S. control over the
resources on the continental margin beyond two hundred nautical miles,
which may encompass well over a million square kilometers of potentially
exploit- able minerals. That the payments are, indeed, modest is attested to
by the support of the U.S. oil and gas industry for these convention provisions. With regard to a "backdoor Kyoto Protocol," Bush administration
ofcials testified before the SFRC that the convention does not apply the
Kyoto Protocol to the United States, either directly or indirectly. The
convention's provisions include no cause for legal action regard- ing landbased sources of pollution; they only represent agreement that states are
responsible for addressing pollution under their own laws and enforcement.
Lastly, the heads of the U.S. Navy and intelligence agencies have testified
before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the convention does not
impede intelligence-gathering activities; on the contrary, the rights afforded
to the United States by the convention significantly empower U.S.
intelligence-gathering abilities.On balance, the arguments in favor of the
convention far outweigh those opposed, which is the reason the convention
has attracted such a diverse and bipartisan constituency. As presidents
Clinton and George W. Bush forcefully argued in their written communications
with the Senate (Appendix II), objections to the 1982 convention were
substan- tively addressed in the 1994 agreement on implementation.
Continu- ing to treat most parts of the convention as customary international
law, as the United States does now, literally leaves it without a seat
at the table in important decision-making bodies established by the
con- vention, such as the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (CLCS); weakens the hand the United States can
play in negotia- tions over critical maritime issues, such as rights in
the opening of the Arctic Ocean; and directly undercuts U.S. ability
to respond to emerg- ing challenges, such as increasing piracy in the
Indian Ocean. Joining or not joining the convention is more than an
academic debate. There are tangible costs that grow by the day if the United
States remains out- side the convention. The majority view of the SFRC and
the opinion of every major ocean constituency group is that joining the

convention is in America's foreign policy interests. Debating the merits of

internationalism versus unilateralism is a great U.S. tradition, but
the irony is that the conventionactually allows for an expansion of
U.S. sovereignty: freedom of move- ment for a powerful navy; a legal tool
for U.S. forces to combat scourges at sea, such as piracy, drug trafcking,
and human smuggling; and a pro- cess for extending U.S. jurisdiction over a
vast amount of ocean space equal to half the size of the Louisiana
Purchase.As the next section of this report details, acceding to the convention would advance a long list of national security, economic, and environmental issues of strategic importance to the United States. Beyond
establishing the rules for territorial seas and exclusive economic
zones, the convention establishes regimes for managing shipping
fleets, fish, and pollutants that do not abide by national boundaries.
The Law of the Sea Convention includes specific provisions
guaranteeing free- dom of navigation for merchant fleets and
navies, and sets firm limits on jurisdiction to prevent "creeping
sovereignty" by a few aggressive coastal states eager to unilaterally
extend their authority seaward. The convention is used to prosecute
pirates and is the basis for the Prolif- eration Security Initiative (PSI)
to interdict weapons of mass destruc- tion (WMD). In addition to
these traditional geostrategic issues, the conven- tion is also
germane to a host of other ocean uses, some traditional and others
new. It governs commercial activities on, in, and under the world's oceans.
With one-third of the world's oil and gas alreadv pro- duced offshore, this is
especiallv important, as the future of hydrocar- bon extraction is in everdeeper waters. The convention establishes the jurisdictional framework for
rules governing this industry operating on the extended continental shelf.
Deep-seabed mining is also an emerging industry, and the convention
establishes, together with the 1994 agree- ment on implementation, the legal
regime for extracting resources from the ocean floor. The International
Seabed Authority (ISA), cre- ated by the convention, introduces
chambered voting, a permanent seat for the United States in the
executive decision-making bodies, and the power to block adoption
of rules and budgets that are counter to U.S. interests. The
convention is also crucial for helping to manage commer- cial uses
yet to be envisioned. Innovation and new technologies have played
an essential role in sustaining U.S. prosperity and preeminence, and
American entrepreneurs will undoubtedly discover future opportunities in the oceans.

Perm cant solve-the CP eliminates the unilateral signal

and only ISA can grant mining rights to companies

Bates 6 Candace L. (UNC law review, U.S. Ratification of the U.N.

Convention on the Law of the Sea: Passive Acceptance Is Not Enough to
Protect U.S. Property Interests ,
https://www.law.unc.edu/components/handlers/document.ashx?
category=24&subcategory=52&cid=669) patel
The revised Agreement limits the full application of the deep seabed regime
to the point of economic viability.127 U.S. companies were not certified
as having the ability to participate as pioneer investors in the

Agreement entering into force because the United States has not
signed UNCLOS. 128 Pioneer investors are those states that are
signatories to UNCLOS III and have the opportunity to explore the
deep seabed.129 The new agreement allows U.S. companies to have
the same rights as pioneer investors if they meet certain technical
requirements.130 In this instance, the United States was put in the same
position as potential deep seabed-mining states.131 The United States is also
guaranteed a position on the Council should it sign UNCLOS. There are
many misconceptions as to what the signing of UNCLOS would mean
for the United States and deep seabed mining. It is argued that by
ratifying UNCLOS, including the Agreement, states will inevitably
have to discontinue their unilateral attempts at deep seabed
mining.133 However, this is unfounded as the law of the deep seabed was
intentionally not settled in order to produce solid negotiations of the sort that
resulted in UNCLOS.134 Most, if not all, of the potential deep seabed mining
nations are dedicated to the adoption of UNCLOS and the Agreement.135
The potential deep seabed mining countries understand that there is
a lack of economic viability in the present deep seabed mining
industry, and it is inconceivable that the necessary financial
markets would support unilateral mining if it is contrary to the
principles of UNCLOS.136 The other issue that could present slight
problems in the deep seabed mining framework is the dual regimes
developed under UNCLOS and the Agreement.137 Some states
adopted the original Part XI, whereas others, such as the United
States, negotiated and adopted the 1994 Agreement.138 However,
the dual system is unlikely because most nations supported the
1994 Agreement and no state voted against it.139 The only
possibility of a dual regime will arise if the United States fails to
ratify the Agreement and then unilaterally attempts to subsidize its
own industry.140 The question then arose as to the accessibility of the
nodules of the deep seabedparticularly the unlimited access of private
entities not signatories on UNCLOS.141 The fear was that such unlimited
access would create a shift in the market, eroding the stability of the
seabed market.142 Developing nations were opposed to the limited
access provisions because they would drive a technological and
economic gap between the developed and developing nations.143 In
this instance, those nations already producing land-based minerals would
most likely choose to protect themselves from the unlimited supply of deep
seabed minerals by lowering the prices of the land-based minerals.144 Most
of the G-77 considered political control of economic activity to be the solution
to the instability of the seabed market; many nations consequently requested
production controls.145 However, those countries already involved in mining
supported a free market system because of the uncertainty in the deep
seabed potential market.146 The rift in the negotiations occurred when the
potential miner nations feared great political constraints to limit the
possibility of failure would create a less friendly market.147 However, other
nations feared that ocean mining would be overburdened and force mineral
prices to fluctuate.148 Because of this fear, these nations required a limited
market in which the political entity would rule on the matter as circumstances
arose, leaving the political entity rather than the demand for the minerals as

the driving force in the market.149 Part XI of the Convention pertains directly
to individual seabed mining companies.150 If a company is sponsored by
a member state, state sponsorship presupposes some general
supervisory duties, allowing a company to apply for exclusive or
exploitation rights to mine along the international seabed.151 The
private property rights of those companies depend on the authority
of international law to grant these exclusive and/or exploitation
rights.152 Granting of these rights was in response to the position
that exclusive mining rights over a particular length of time and area
are a necessary precondition to private investment in the
development of nonliving resources found in the seabed.153 The
grant of private access to international organizations for the
attainment of mining rights induces more provisions for property
and economic rights of the private entities.154 In order to explore
the continental shelf, mining companies must acquire exclusive
mining rights of a specific area through a contract.15

***NEPA CP

2NC Squo = Circumvent

Current processing and refining methods of REEs causes
massive environmental pollution only the CP allows for a
reassessment of those practices

Weng et al 13 (S. M. Jowitt, G. M. Mudd and N. Haque, June 1 st, Assessing

rare earth element mineral deposit types and links to environmental
impacts,
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/p
dfviewer?sid=f35e17a-eedd-436a-8a4b82d011441848%40sessionmgr4001&vid=2&hid=4206)
The mining, processing and refining of the REEs has the potential to cause
major environmental problems that arc closely linked to the deposit type, processing methods
used and there extent of pollution control adopted to mitigate environmental impacts. There are, however,
very few published detailed studies on the actual impacts of RHE processing. This lack of comprehensive
studies limits the understanding of potential and actual risks, especially when considering the various REE
deposit types and project configurations. In general, common concerns (as outlined by Chen et
aiy 2005; Mudd, 2008; Qifan et aL, 2010; Pillai et a!.9 2010; Wen et al., 2013; IAEA, 2011) include: (i)

significant use of chemicals (e.g. acids, alkalis, solvents) (ii) the presence of significant Th
concentrations in REE ores and concentrates, and to much a lesser extent U, and the radioactive nature of

corrosive fluorine-bearing gases (iv)

occupational and public health risks from potential chemical and radiation
exposures (both perceived and actual)These issues are exacerbated by the high-tech end-uses of the
some refinery wastes (especially gypsum wastes) (iii)

majority of the REEs; their uses mean that the majority of REE demand is for high-purity single REEs.
Hence, the processing of REE ores does not simply involve the concentration of ore minerals such as
sulphides or native metals (as is the case for many base and precious metals), but instead required the
selective separation of each individual REE from the hosting minerals and subsequent production of a
single clement concentrate or product. The highly variably nature of REE minerals (e.g. Table 2), again
sharply contrasts with both base and precious metal resources where commodities of interest are hosted

variety of REE
minerals means that the REE extraction and processing is problematic and
can be time-consuming. This, combined with the fact that the REE are chemically similar (i.e. have
similar properties and behaviors) means that REE mineral processing techniques are both
energy and chemically intensive. The difculties and expenses in REE extraction and
processing also means that these processes can have significant environmental
impacts. The relatively small and somewhat poorly documented (compared to, for
example, Cu processing by smelting or Au processing using cyanide , both of which are
harmful but with more well-known and more easily remediated impacts) nature of global REE
production means that little research to date has focused on the life cycle
environmental impacts of REE production, including the impacts of REE mine site,
by one or two relatively easily processable minerals in any given deposit. The

processing, production, manufacturing and recycling (or lack thcrcoi) processes on the environment. In

REE mineralization is often associated with enrichments in the

radioactive elements U, Th and K, as well as a wide variety of other harmful
(and biologically active) elements; all these elements can potentially cause
significant environmental and public health problems during processing and
waste disposal. The difculties inherent in processing these ores are evidenced by a report in the
addition,

China Daily (Jiabao and Ji, 2009). This report indicates that the production of a single tonne of refined REE
oxide from Bayan Obo, the world's most important REE deposit, also produced 63 000 m3 of harmful Sand F-bcaring gases, 200 m3 of acidic water, and 1 -4 t of radioactive waste (especially Th-related
wastes).

The safe disposal of these wastes, especially the radioactive wastes

that are often produced during REE production, is a significant problem that
needs to be overcome during REE mine planning and remediatio n. Rare earth
element mining and processing also involves a wide range of occupational hazards such as

pneumoconiosis as well as potential occupational poisoning from Pb, Hg, benzene, and phosphorous.
In addition, the costs and likelihood of successful rehabilitation of affected mining and processing sites
need to be considered during mineral exploration and within feasibility studies; to date, these have not
been significant factors given the low number of REE mines globally, although the increased demand for
the REE means that these impacts need to be considered in detail in the very near future. At present, there
is a dearth of literature linking REE deposit mineralogy, processing routes and waste management
methods to environmental risks through formal methodologies such as life cycle impact assessment (LCA).

By first developing a more comprehensive understanding of the key

mineralogical and geological differences in REE deposits, this study should
facilitate more thorough life cycle impact assessments in the future . This
facilitates better understanding of the real and perceived environmental risks
from the whole REE production chain, and all of these factors should be quantified in an
urgently needed comprehensive LCA for REE mining and processing. Currently, LCA is the
primary methodology used to quantify environmental impacts of material
extraction, refinery, and processing for most base metals mining activities, such as Au, Al, Cu and
Fc (e.g. Norgate and Haquc, 2010; Norgate and Jahanshahi, 2010; Northcy et a/., 2013). As outlined above,
REE deposits arc geologically and mineralogically diverse. This means that evaluation of the impacts of
REE extraction and processing requires specifically focused LCAs. The distribution of the REEs in both value
and in terms of allocation of mass of HREEs and LREEs within an individual deposit is also crucial to
determine the effectiveness of inputs and outputs within an LCA. For example, LREE-dominant deposits
require different processing and refinery routes than HREE-dominant deposits, and the added complexity of
the production of multiple co-products such as U. Nb, Ta, Zr and Fe (e.g. Dubbo-Toongi, Bayan Obo) also
needs to be taken into account during LCA analysis. Here, we compare the

2NC Solvency
CP is a pre-requisite to deep sea mining and causes a spur
of technological innovation critical to Af solvency
Halfara and Fujita 02 (Jochen and Rodney, Marine Policy, Volume 26
Issue 2 pg. 103-106,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/science/article/p
ii/S0308597X01000410) It is well known that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems can

be disrupted, damaged, or destroyed by terrestrial mining operations. Relative to terrestrial and

aquatic systems, deep-sea ecosystems are much less understood and more difficult to monitor. Until and unless a better
understanding of these ecosystems has been reached, the threats posed by deep-sea
mining will be uncertain but potentially serious. The current consumption rate and the projected increase of
consumption of minerals may increase incentives to proceed with deep-sea mining. Because the environmental
impacts of deep-sea mining are uncertain but potentially serious, a prudent policy approach
would consist of: (1) conserving mineral resources, (2) increasing the recycling of minerals, and (3) exploiting land based
mineral resources with much greater efficiency and more stringent environmental regulation. Mining on land has
caused environmental devastation, certainly, but environmental risks of terrestrial mining are better known and perhaps could be more
easily contained than those of deep-sea mining. Environmental impacts associated with terrestrial mining should be reduced before
deep-sea mining is allowed to proceed. Once

these concerns are addressed, comprehensive risk

assessment for commercial deep-sea mining can be conducted. A precautionary approach
can create incentives for reducing uncertainty and minimizing ecological impacts
associated with deep-sea mining. A presumption that deep-sea mining will have adverse ecological impacts until
compelling evidence shows that it will not creates a strong incentive to conduct credible research on impacts. We therefore
recommend the establishment of marine protected areas around hydrothermal vents to facilitate monitoring and regulation of all
activities in these zones. Conditions on the expansion of a mining operation from pilot phase to commercial phase and a mechanism to

Since less developed

nations may lack adequate environmental regulations or sufficient funds for
environmental studies, mining within the EEZs of the above countries could cause
serious marine environmental degradation. Incentives and financial resources to study and reduce environmental
halt mining if adverse impacts are detected create incentives for minimizing ecological impacts.

impacts related to the mining activities will likely be needed. New discoveries of rich and massive mineral deposits could spur a great
deal of investment in deep-sea mining. Historically, environmental regulations have followed the development of new technologies
and industries, rather than anticipating and guiding them. Massive

investment in economic activities tends to

result in resistance to environmental regulation. Performance standards and other types of
regulations that anticipate potential environmental impacts have the potential for guiding
technological innovation and industry operations toward the goal of minimizing such
impacts. Lack of regulation within EEZs could result in harm to deep-sea ecosystems rich in species. Presently, a window of
opportunity exists for the international community to implement scientific, technological, and legal measures to minimize negative
environmental impacts before a sudden rush to commercialization (and attendant opposition to regulation) develops.

2NC AT: Perm do Both

We should have environmental review---this needs to
happen before we deploy the deep sea mining otherwise
it causes our environment disturbances impact
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental
Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive
Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
***DSM = Deep Sea Mining
Many uncertainties surround deep-sea mining and one of the most
significant is the potential impacts to the surrounding environment .
To better understand and identify the potential impacts, a brief
review of nodule DSM experiments was completed. Information
gathered from these studies and other research studies focused on SMS mining led to the
identification of potential impacts from exploration and extraction of
SMS deposits. These impacts were categorized as follows: direct physical
disturbances , sediment plumes , acoustic impacts , waste

water

disposal , and machinery leaks or malfunctions. In order for the

industry to determine the extent of impacts environmental
assessments will need to be conducted. It is suggested that a
Before After Control Impact Paired Series field assessment be conducted. This will
allow for a comprehensive and targeted environmental monitoring
program in the dynamic deep sea environment. Placer Dome may be the first
company to conduct a full scale deep-sea mining operation; it is essential that they use a
sampling method that will identify impacts and quantify the
magnitude of vi these impacts. The assessment method they choose will need to be
rigorous so that it stands up to outside review and critique by scientists and stakeholders.

2NC AT: Normal Means

1. NEPA EIS isnt normal means in the context of mining
operations
Kasperowicz 12 (Pete, 7/12, House votes to streamline federal mining
permit process, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/237551-housevotes-to-streamline-federal-mining-permit-process)
The House approved legislation Thursday that would require federal agencies
to take no longer than 30 months to make decisions related to mining
permits, and limit the ability of groups to mount legal challenges against
these permits. Members voted 256-160 in favor of H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical
Minerals Production Act. Twenty-two Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of
the bill, after several Democrats argued during debate that the bill would unacceptably ease
environmental rules. Under the bill, federal agencies would have to make an effort to
minimize delays in the mining permitting proces s. This includes making a
finding that proposed projects should not be subject to National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards, if it can be determined that
agency guidelines and/or state guidelines are enough to "ensure that
environmental factors are taken into account." It would also require civil suits
against granted permits to be filed within 60 days after they are granted .
Republicans said these changes are needed to help the United States keep pace with the rest of the world
in producing minerals seen as key to manufacturing and national security.

***Misc CPs

Substitutes CP
Text: The USFG should provide incentives to develop
substitute and recycling technology for REMs
CP solves the price disruptions by reducing demand
Parthemore, 11 Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, Elements of Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf
The U.S. government should create incentives to reduce
consumption when its interests are on the line. This report focuses
primarily on the nature of current and potential supply challenges,
but solutions must also include reducing demand for minerals that
see major disruptions or erratic prices . Policymakers can maximize
the potential of substitution and recycling by clearly identifying the
minerals for which U.S. government interests are afected most
directly, and then ofering incentives to develop substitutes for
these minerals. Developing efcient solutions, however, will require addressing the daunting
information chal - lenges discussed earlier

Recycling CP
The United States Federal Government should expand its
e-recycling programs for rare earth collection.
E-recycling solves short term market problems and avoids
the link to the DA
Cho 12 (Renee Cho is an environmental writer for the Earth Institute, Rare Earth Metals:

Will We Have Enough?, 9/19/12, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metalswill-we-have-enough/)

I

would like to see more exploration and research to make sure we

know whats there and what the challenges are of going after it , said
Graedel. I dont think we know if well have the resources to meet
future demand. He also wants material scientists to aim their product design and lab
investigations at the most common elements, rather than the scarcer ones. Some companies, including
GE, Toyota and Ford, are trying to use less rare earth metals in their products, limit waste and/or develop

recycling ewaste cannot satisfy the rapidly growing demand for rare earth
metals, it is one way to help alleviate the shortage . Recycling and
reusing materials also saves the energy used in mining and
processing, conserves resources, and reduces pollution and
substitute metals. E-waste recycling in Ann Arbor, MI. Photo: George Hotelling Though

greenhouse gas emissions . The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 2009,
2.37 million tons of electronics were discarded, but only 25 percent was recycled. The
European Union recently enacted new e-waste recycling rules requiring member states to recycle 45
percent of all electronic equipment sold starting in 2016, rising to 65 percent by 2019. (Find out where you
can recycle your e-waste.)

to rare earth elements are the only viable option

Worthington 11 (David Worthington, Feb 18 2011, Experts: U.S. cannot
mine enough rare earth minerals,
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/experts-us-cannot-mineenough-rare-earth-minerals/, ADL)
The U.S. government must fund new research into alternatives to
rare earth minerals if it is to forestall supply shortages, experts say.
The U.S. cant dig its way out of its rare earth minerals shortage .
Instead, increased government investments are necessary to foster the
development of alternatives, experts groups concluded in a joint study. The
American Physical Society (APS) and Materials Research Society were
unanimous in calling for broader research into new materials and increased

electronics recycling. The study was released to lawmakers today. Ask as they may, the U.S. House of
Representatives seems unlikely to oblige. The House majority's FY 2011 discretionary budget proposal
dramatically reduces government spending for the sciences by 33 percent, the APS reports. House
Republicans have committed to cut US$100 billion in government spending, with the possibility of further
cuts to come. Washington's nascent austerity politics puts the experts at loggerheads with policy makers:
the study saw no away around greater government involvement. The Associated Press quoted Robert Jaffe,
co-chair of the joint study group and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as saying, "We do
not recommend economic stockpiling, which we believe is a disincentive to innovation and has backfired in
the past." Jaffe continued, "After all,

many of these elements are not even found

in significant deposits in the United States so mining independence
doesn't even make sense. The Obama administration called on Congress take action to
diversify sources of supply for the U.S. and its allies. There has been a slight uptick in domestic supply in

response. In December, a rare earth mine reopened in California. Rare earth minerals belong to a family of
elements that are used to manufacture many staples of the modern world - ranging from electronics,
hybrid cars, solar panels and wind turbines to guided missiles. China is the worlds leading source of rare

China has used

export bans to put the squeeze on Japan and the United States in
political disputes. However, China is also reliant upon on imports for sourcing its solar
earth metals, the rest of the world lags far behind its production capacity.

technology, the study's authors noted.

***China DA

1NC China DA
Current Chinese monopoly over the REM industry is
critical to maintain stable control of Clean Tech
Leadership

Labrutoa 13 (Leslie Hayes, Simon J.D. Schillebeeckx, Mark Workman, Nilay

Shahd, Contrasting perspectives on Chinas rare earths policies: Refraining
the debate through a stakeholder lens, http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/S0301421513007805/1-s2.0S0301421513007805-main.pdf?_tid=a1077004-0782-11e4-940d
00000aab0f01&acdnat=1404922015_d6c9c9f884a2ea2cf247a1220417ee0b)

This sparked significant investments in China's knowledge and

technology base (Hannon et aL, 2011; Haxel et aL, 2002; Hurst, 2010; Seaman. 2010), which has
led to what is sometimes called "China's rare- earth stranglehold" as shown in Fig. 1 (Plumer. 2011).

China has thus become the de facto producer, user, and exporter of
REEs (Kingsnorth. 2011), with the USA. Japan. Germany and France as the key
importers (see Fig. 2) (BGS. 2011; UN Comtrade, 2009) . The problematic nature of this importdependency is accentuated by China's questionable control of corruption, regulatory quality political
stability, voice and accountability as measured by the worldwide governance indicators, where China ranks
between the 25th and 50th percentile, with an average of 29.7/100 (Kaufmann et al., 2010). Based on such

nations have started to stress the importance of diversified

rare earth metal portfolios for domestic imports. Secondly, REEs have no known
alternatives or substitutes (Hoenderdal, 2011; Holliday et al., 2012), which in combination
with high lead times for mine development (Kidela Capital Group, 2010) and the lack of
production and refining capability outside of China, reinforces the
power-dependence relationship between China and the ROW (Humphries,
2012). The appeal of REEs lies in their unparalleled electrical, optical, magnetic, and catalytic
applications that significantly improve energy efciency and aid in miniaturization
thereby decreasing environmental impacts, which is why they are used in many hightech, cleantech and precision applications as shown in Tables 1 and 2 (Angerer etal.,
2009; BGS, 2011; US Department of Energy, 2011; USGS, 2011; Wouters and Bol, 2009). Thirdly, there
is considerable uncertainty about the quantity and location of rare
earth reserves. The following figure compares the data on anticipated REE reserves as produced by
information,

the Chinese Society of Rare Earths and UK-based Roskill (Zhanheng, 2011) with data from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) on proven reserves (Long et al., 2010). While the definition of proven and
anticipated reserves differs, the various sources seem to distribute responsibility in different ways through
the use of different reserves definitions. Following Zhanheng (2011) China holds less than 23% of global
reserves and Brazil holds almost 32.5%. Long et al. (2010) argue that China holds about 36% of global REE
reserves and attribute only 0.05% to Brazil. Korinek and Kim (2010) discuss the reserve base for rare
earths as well as state that 57.71% is to be found in China, 13.62% in FSU and 9.1% in the USA. This
suggests a varying distribution of responsibility from the actors involved. China's data suggest that Brazil's
anticipated reserve quantities have the potential to be exploited, thus reducing the current reliance on

The USGS data, on the other hand, suggests that China's proven
reserve dominance warrants their role as global provider of rare earths
(Long et al., 2010; see Fig. 3). Despite these differences, it is unanimously agreed that
China produces 95-97 percent of REEs used in downstream end-user
products. It is also generally accepted that the deposits in China are plentiful in heavy rare earths, and
estimated to contain 80 per cent of the world's heavy rare earth element s
(BGS, 2011; Long et al.. 2010; USGS, 2011). With the relatively recent boom in the use of
China.

REEs, especially driven by rapid development of clean technologies

and high-tech applications, REE usage is likely to increase in the future (Alonso et al., 2012;
Ayres and Talens-Peiro, forthcoming; Buchert, 2011; Hoenderdal, 2011). This estimated demand
increase for resources with unique, hard-to-imitate-and-substitute properties can
create a sustainable competitive advantage for the resource owner
(Barney, 1991), while countries and organizations that need such resources
end up in a position of dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). This power-dependence
relationship (Emerson, 1962) is fundamental to understanding

China currently is outpacing American green technology

but an increase in their domestic competiveness trades
of with Chinas industry
Eisen 2011 (Joel B. The new energy geopolitics? China, Renewable Energy, and
the Greentech Race, http://www.heinonline.org.turing.library.northwestern.edu
/HOL/Page?page=9&handle=hein.journals %2Fchknt86&collection=journals#14)

The prevailing concern seems to be that Chinese firms will dominate

the global greentech market if current growth rates continue. However, it is by no
means clear that they will. Some signs in the past year point to overbuilding and overcapacity in the wind industry, and a possible retrenchment and
consolidation of existing firms. In mid-2010, concern about the failure of nations to agree on a climate
change agreement and projections of slowing demand in China for wind energy made for an uncertain
business climate for wind energy companies.72 One China-based research analyst wrote, "it's a tough
situation to be a wind turbine manufacturer anywhere in the world right now, including in China."7' On the
other hand, there were reports that the top three IPOs in 2010 in global greentech were by Chinese
companies.74 Other firms moved forward with their offerings,75 but a planned initial
public offering for one firm had to be scrapped in mid- 2010 due to unfavorable market conditions.76

There is also evidence that Chinese firms are not yet competitive in
certain market segments. Some provincial utilities in China have
chosen Western wind turbines over products from domestic firms due to
superior control systems and longer experience with manufacturing larger turbine sizes.77 The
quality of some Chinese greentech is often not yet as strong as that of
foreign products.78 As recently as 2009, Chinese wind turbines were less
capable than their foreign counterparts,79 as measured by lower capacity factors (the
percentage of time that the turbines operate to generate electricity).80 One article on the wind industry

observes, "Western producers lead in the high performance segments,

while the Chinese lead in lower- performance, price-driven segments."81
Chinese firms have grown quickly in manufacturing high-volume products but often do not hold key

Chinese
firms have grown rapidly through acquiring manufacturing equipment
and capitalizing on advantages such as their lower cost of labor.83 As a
technology patents that would enable them to develop more sophisticated equip- ment.82

result, they have quickly ascended into a leadership position in "downstream" areas of the PV production
chain, including cell production and module assembling, but lag behind in "upstream" areas requiring more

Chinese
companies have a rapidly increasing number of patents, but to date,
the companies are "relatively weak" in terms of the patents they hold
on more sophisticated technology.85 A Chinese observer notes that "[i]n quantity, China
has become a great solar energy patent country but power does not mean technical power."86 In 2009 ,
American companies held the top ten cited patents worldwide in solar
technological skill, such as silicon purification, ingot, and wafer manufacturing.83

technology.87 Government research and development support is aimed at closing this technology
gap.88 However, funding from the central government may be inefcient because it focuses too little on

it is only a matter of
time before Chinese greentech improves through the well-known
Chinese propensity to grow domestic companies by innovating, based at
first on importing foreign technology and assimilating it . As energy policy analyst Julian
basic research.89 Still, many who are familiar with China believe that

Wong observes: One of the historical features of China's technology innovation is the role of foreign

China's
government has adopted a model of "import-absorb-digest-reinnovate." Thus, the early stages of all technology development include heavy reliance on foreign
technology in the innovation chain. To achieve its goals of indigenous innovation,

technologies.90 Over time, much as Japanese and Korean automakers have evolved over the past few

Chinese greentech firms may eventually close the gap and sell
more sophisticated products. Even if Chinese solar and wind technology improves, however,
the greentech industry in the United States is hardly standing still. Unlike
decades,

a moribund Rust Belt industry ripe for trampling by foreign companies, it is growing and providing more
products to the domestic and global markets.91 The cost advantages of Chinese firms may eventually
fade,92 or the gap may close. Chinese workers increasingly are demanding higher wages and better
working conditions.93 Foreign firms are increasingly taking another strategy to cut costs: building their
own manufacturing plants in China 94 Some greentech, like the larger components of wind turbines, is
heavy and expensive to transport.*5 In the American market, the costs of shipping large turbines from

And American greentech firms enjoy

other cost advantages, such as preferential tax policies.96 On the whole, then,
Chinese firms are not yet invincible juggernauts displacing their foreign
counterparts. To assert that as a fact is simply erroneous. Further, while predictions of dominance
China might outweigh higher domestic labor costs.

may or may not be accurate, the real question may be whether it matters. Americans may perceive, rightly
or wrongly, that Chinese firms are about to dominate this sector. There is obvious concern at the highest
levels of the United States government, as the USTR investigation and high-level discussions and trade
missions involving the American and Chinese governments suggest.97 Some retort that fear of Chinese
firms is as overblown as rhetoric in the 1980s claiming that mighty Japan was about to dominate the world
economic scene 98 Who is correct? The picture is muddled and leaves room for arguments based on fear
of what the Chinese firms might do. Setting up China as an economic bogeyman has a potential drawback:

American
companies' biggest fear is being shut out of the Chinese green- tech
market, portraying Chinese companies as participants in a competition
can easily lead to an arms race where each nation erects protectionist barriers to the
other's firms. In this zero sum game, there may be one winner. or none at
all. Some have argued that for this reason alone, it would be best to drop the rhetoric about a green
it could imperil the bumpy economic relationship between the two nations. If

energy race."

Chinese clean tech leadership is key to their economy,

internal stability, and solves extinction
Delinger, 10 Paul consultant specializing in the China market who is based
in Hong Kong, 7/20/10, Why China Has To Dominate Green Tech,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/07/20/why-china-has-to-dominategreen-tech/
On the policy level, the Chinese government has to perform a delicate

balancing act , it has to balance the desire of many Chinese to live a Western lifestyle, together
with its high energy consumption and waste, with the need to preserve the environment, since China,
and the world , would sufer enormous damage if 1.3 billion people
got all their energy needs from coal and oil, the two most widely used fossil fuels.

Chinas political and social stability depends on finding the right

balance, since the party has an implicit mandate: it will deliver economic growth to the Chinese
people. This is why the Chinese government has chosen to invest in
developing new green energy technology . The country is very fortunate in that
most of the discovered deposits of rare earths used in the development of new technologies are found in
China. While these deposits are very valuable, up until recently, the industry has not been regulated much
by the Chinese central government. But now that Beijing is aware of their importance and value, it has
come under much closer scrutiny. For one, Beijing wants to consolidate the industry and lower energy
waste and environmental damage. (Ironically, the rare earth mining business is one of the most energywasteful and highly polluting industries around. Think Chinese coal mining with acid.) At the same time,
Beijing wants to cut back rare earth exports to the rest of the world, instead encouraging domestic
production into wind and solar products for export around the world. With patents on the new technology
used in manufacturing, China would control the intellectual property and licensing on the products that
would be used all over the world. If Beijing is able to do this, it would control the next generation of energy
products used by the world for the next century. That is the plan. It would be like if the oil-producing
nations in the 1920s and 1930s said that they didnt need Western oil exploration firms and refineries to
distribute oil products; they would do all the processing themselves, and the Western countries would just
order the finished oil products from them. This is how China obviously plans to keep most of the valueadded profits within Chinas borders. Before any Western readers snap into evil Chinese conspiracy to
take over the world mode, its worth pointing out that Chinese rare earth experts and government ofcials
have repeatedly warned Western visitors that this policy change would be introduced. Unfortunately, these
warnings have gone largely unheeded and ignored by the Western media and politicians who, it seems,
have been largely preoccupied by multiple financial crises and what to do about the Wests debt load.

The debt crisis in the West means that it is very hard for Western
green energy companies to find financing for their technologies , then
to market them as finished products. New energy technologies are highly
risky, and initial investments are by no means guaranteed. Because they
are considered high-risk and require high capital expenditure (unlike Internet technologies which are very

cheap and practically commoditized), banks are reluctant to finance them unless they
are able to find government-secured financing. Because most U.S. banks are recapitalizing their businesses

there are very few, if any western banks who will

finance new green energy technologies. This has opened a window
after the debt bubble burst,

of opportunity for the Chinese government to finance, and for

Chinese technology companies to develop,

then manufacture

these new

green products. But just making these technologies is not enough;

they need to be competitive

against traditional fossil fuels. When it comes to the amount

of energy released when coal or oil is burned, the new green technologies are still way behind. This means
that, at least in the early stages of adoption, Chinese businesses will still be reliant on coal and oil to
bridge that energy chasm before the new energy technologies become economically competitive. Much
depends on how much the Chinese government is willing to spend to promote and incentivize these new

Because of Chinas growing energy

demands, we are in a race for survival . The 21st century will be
technologies, first in China, then overseas.

remembered as the resurgent coal and oil century, or as the century

humanity transitioned to green technologies for energy consumption. While
China is investing heavily now in green tech , it is still consuming
ever larger amounts of coal and oil to drive its economic growth. Right now, we
all depend on Chinas success to make the transition to green
energy

this century. For all practical purposes,

were all in the same boat .

Chinas economic rise is good --- theyre on the brink of

collapse --- causes CCP instability and lashout --- also
tubes the global economy, US primacy, and Sino relations
Mead 9 Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S.

Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, Only Makes You Stronger,
The New Republic, 2/4/9, http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=571cbbb92887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too
far, too fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the
turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn . The Chinese financial
system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of
Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset
bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle
class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest --and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that
blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the
West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their money
out of the country, further

slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness . Thanks to a generation

has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of
modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops .
of rapid economic growth, China

2NC Uniqueness
Chinas leading the globe in clean tech competitiveness
Yu 12 Hongyuan, professor and deputy director of the Institute for
Comparative Politics and Public Policy, Shanghai Institutes for International
Studies, 12/28/12, A revolution is here, and clean energy is the spark,
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-12/28/content_16065380.htm
Technological innovation is critical in the energy structure and, furthermore, nextgeneration energy will determine not only the future of the international economic system but shifts
in political power. Since the modern international system was set up, the energy chain has undergone two
important changes. The first was during the Industrial Revolution in the 1860s, ushered in by Britain, which was marked by
a transition from the era of fuel-wood, or the bio-fuel era, to the era of coal. The second change was the second industrial
revolution, in the United States in the 1920s, which saw a transition from the era of coal to the era of oil. Today we are in
the midst of a third revolution, a transition to an era of clean and low-carbon energy. Under the long-cycle theory, the

ownership and use of new energy is closely related to national

technological and institutional advances. Countries with a dominant
position in new energy must have an institutional and technical
advantage stemming from their possession and use of new energy. They have to break through constraints
imposed by previous economic structures, which leads to big changes in the global industrial chain, allocation of resources

new-energy powerhouses
will ultimately change the global distribution of power through
international competition. As history shows, every significant structural change in the international
and national competitiveness. There is every reason to believe that those

system has been due to a revolution in energy. The country or non-state entity that seized a new energy chain or part of it
was challenging the status quo. As the world debates collective action against climate change, most countries have
found that economies based on new and clean energy and on low-carbon and clean energy hold the keys to the future.
The European Union's carbon aviation tax aimed at boosting the bloc's competitiveness and promoting climate
negotiations could also boost its creativity and competitive edge. The Low Carbon Economy Report by the Royal Institute
of International Affairs says that the EU promoted climate negotiations not just because it was a pioneer in low-carbon
economics, but because it also wanted to predominate in global governance and lay the foundations for the future

Considering China's huge economy and the rapid growth in its

emissions, it clearly matters when it comes to energy and climate
change . China is developing many energy resources, and putting in place a system
that supplies stable, economic and clean energy . It is working hard to develop a
economy.

recycling economy so it can garner the highest possible economic and social benefits using the least energy possible.

China has been promoting clean, renewable energy to try to

balance growth and environmental concerns and ultimately to reduce its
reliance on coal . In 2010 it set the goal of meeting 15 percent of its primary energy consumption through

Since the late 1990s

non-fossil fuels by 2020. It is targeting the development of non-fossil energy including wind power, solar power, biomass
energy, solar energy, and thermal and nuclear power equivalent to 480 million metric tons of standard coal by the end of
2015, according to the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) for the renewable energy industry issued recently by the National
Energy Administration. Hydropower is the leading source of renewable energy. It provides more than 97 percent of all
electricity generated by renewable sources. The dams and hydropower plants also play an important role in water
resource planning, in preventing flooding, making rivers navigable, solving irrigation problems and creating recreation
areas. During the 12th Five-Year Plan China will begin building more than 60 key hydropower projects, and the aim is to
have 430 GW of total hydropower installed capacity in the country by 2020. However, debate about the negative impacts

By the end of
2015 the country's wind power capacity is expected to reach 100
million kW , with annual electricity output of 190 billion kW/h, the plan says. China's wind power will reach 100
million kilowatts by 2015 and annual wind power generation will be 190 billion kilowatt hours. Of that, ofshore
wind power will account for 5 million kilowatts ; solar power will be 15 million kilowatts
of dams and hydropower plants is heated, most of it focused on environmental problems.

and annual solar power generation will hit 20 billion kilowatt hours. China enjoys many advantages in developing solar
energy. It has become a world leader in photovoltaic cell production. The demand in the country for new solar modules
could be as high as 232 mW each year from now until 2012. The government has announced plans to expand the installed
capacity to 1,800 mW by 2020. If Chinese companies manage to develop low-cost, reliable solar modules, then the sky is
the limit for a country that is desperate to reduce its dependence on coal and oil imports as well as the pressure on its

China has overtaken the US to become the

largest producer of zero-carbon energy. The US is the hegemony and China is the rising
environment by using renewable energy.

clean energy will create a new paradigm for relations between

the US and China in energy. Cooperation between the two on clean
energy is noteworthy , and both countries are leading the world in investing in renewable energy and
power, but

should seek to resolve trade disputes and eliminate protectionist trade policies. The US should closely look at sales of
Chinese renewable energy products in the US market and seek to reduce trade barriers. The difculty lies not in new
ideas, but in escaping from old ones. Whatever the outcomes and motivations, in order to deal with the energy-water-food
nexus, China should understand it is in its economic and national interest to move ahead with clean and zero-carbon

China's clean energy

development marks a sea change in the reform of the international
system .
energy development. Together with recently announced plans,

China has control over the REM industry but overheating,

structural failures, and overproduction has left Chinas
industry weak
Morrison and Tang 12 (Wanye and Rachel, April 30th, Chinas Rare Earth Industry and
Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85418/m1/1/high_res_d/R42510_2012Apr
30.pdf
Overheated rare earth production in China during the 1990s and the early 2000s
generated a fragmented industry with thousands of mines, many
engaging in reckless mining and illicit production. In order to maximize profits,
these small companies often ignored safety and environmental
regulations and fiercely competed with each other for export deals. In addition to environmental
degradation in China, this overcrowded rare earth sector and often intense
competition sharply drove down rare earths prices and. therefore, further pressed
producers to cut corners in order to secure their already thinning profit margins. Local governments, which

In addition to illicit rare earth

production, smuggling also became widespread, which exacerbated
resource depletion and kept prices low. According to China Business News, about
20.000 tons of rare earths were smuggled from China in 2008. Which
was estimated to have accounted for one- third of the total volume of
rare earths leaving China that year. This smuggling is often the main reason behind the
often had vested interests, often tolerated these practices.34

discrepancies between the ofcial statistics and the actual data of rare earth production and exports in

Chinese policymakers and industry experts have voiced concerns

over the perceived rapid depletion of their exhaustible rare earth
resources. They contend that the rare earth deposits in China account for less than half of total global
reserves; however, the country mines and provides over 95% of the global
supply Rare earth production in China has far outpaced the sustainable level which makes Chinese
China.

ofcials concerned that such a disproportionately high level of output could soon deplete their resources.

The Chinese government is also concerned that overproduction and

illegal mining often came at the cost of environmental degradation safety or environmental protection is often ignored in pursuit of revenue potential.36 The Chinese
media have repeatedly exposed incidents of water system and
farmland contamination in rare earth mining areas, from Inner Mongolia to
southern provinces such as Guangdong and Jiangxi.37 hi the southern provinces, rare earths can be found

saw an
explosion of the number of poorly constructed and maintained local
in high concentration in clays and soil a few feet underground. As a result, the 1990s

mines that were both polluting and wasteful, leaving behind

contaminated soil and water. In November of 2011, during a product quality inspection,
China's General Administration of Quality Supervision found that 19 of 85 tea products contained excessive
levels of toxic rare earths, including a batch of Lipton tea produced and sold in China by Unilever. Unilever
later stated that the rare earth metals had come from the soil where the tea was grown and had nothing to

China currently argues that it is now moving to

consolidate production and put supplies of a critical and exhaustible
resource on a more sustainable footing. China maintains that rare earth export prices
have been too low to reflect its virtual monopoly position. Moreover, such dominance, in view
of the Chinese industry experts and policymakers, should assist China
to move up the supply chain and engage in rare earth application and
end products, not just being the world's supplier of raw materials.39 hi
recent years, China has put in place a series of industry and trade policies,
aiming to capitalize on its dominance of rare earth supply
do with its production process.38

China Rare Earth dominance is critical to sustaining Clean

Tech Leadership
Eichner 12 (Andrew W, Tech & Poly 257, More Precious than Gold: Limited Access
to Rare Elements and Implications for Clean Energy in the United States,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals
/jltp2012&div=14&id=&page=)

China is the world's leading producer of rare earths, making the

country one of the most important suppliers of materials in the global
clean energy movement.54 When compared with the rest of the global supply, Chinese
ownership of rare earth deposits far overshadows any other country,
with China controlling 36% of the world's total rare earth reserves. 5 By
comparison, the next greatest supply, held by the Commonwealth of Independent States, is only 19% of

United States remains a distant third, controlling

only 13% of reserves.57 Furthermore, not only does China hold the greatest
concentration of the world's rare earth reserves, the country is also the
world's biggest producer of rare earth materials, providing between
95% and 97% of the global supply.58 The combination of these factors makes China
the most dominant country in today's rare earths market. A similar, though
the global reserve total.56 The

less extreme, situation exists with the global lithium supply. Chile holds approximately 76% of the world's
currently accessible lithium reserves,59 dwarfing Argentina and Australia, which hold a combined total of
14% of the world's reserves.60 Additionally, recent findings in Bolivia suggest that there may be a massive
supply of lithium located underneath the country, causing some "Bolivians ... to speak of their country
becoming 'the Saudi Arabia of lithium.'"

2NC Link
China monopoly on REE key to maintain tech companies
which is key to their economy
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate

Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International

Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
After the low cost of labor has allowed the relocation of traditional
industries in China, rare earths are used as a lever to encourage the
relocation in China of research and technology industries. This
transition from an economy mainly based on the industry is at the
heart of the economic development plan of China . Rare earths
monopoly is used as a lever to achieve this goal . High-tech
companies wishing to ensure a steady supply of rare metals are thus
encouraged to relocate their production there , or to grant technology transfer.
"With

this program planned asphyxia, China is in a position to turn

into a great power on the high-value segment of high-tech

industries ." 46

Chinese monopoly key artificially raising global prices and

forcing companies to move to China for production
Perry, 4/14 Bill, Perry was an attorney with the Ofce of General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), and Ofce of Chief Counsel and
Ofce of Antidumping Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce., US
CHINA TRADE WAR DEVELOPMENTSTRADE, IP, ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES,
http://uschinatradewar.com/us-china-trade-war-developments-trade-ipantitrust-and-securities/
The Chinese export restraints challenged in this dispute include export duties and export
quotas, as well as related export quota administration requirements. These types of export restraints can

skew the playing field against the United States and other countries
in the production and export of downstream products. They can
artificially increase world prices for these raw material inputs while artificially
lowering prices for Chinese producers. This enables Chinas
domestic downstream producers to produce lower-priced products
from the raw materials and thereby creates significant advantages
for Chinas producers when competing against U.S. and other
producers both in Chinas market and other countries markets. The
export restraints can also create substantial pressure on foreign
downstream producers to move their operations, jobs and
technologies to China.

Chinese monopoly of REEs is key to clean tech

development

Reuters, 10 (Reuters, Analysis: Rare earth monopoly a boon to Chinese

clean tech firms, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/12/us-chinarareearth-idUSTRE67B0BT20100812)
In the race to build hybrid cars and wind turbines to feed
growing demand for green technology, China has one clear
(Reuters) -

advantage , it holds the world's largest reserves of rare earth metals

Wind turbines, made by No.2 wind turbine
maker Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology, and hybrid cars, being
developed by Warren Bufet-backed Chinese automaker BYD are
among the biggest guzzlers of rare earth minerals, which analysts
say are facing a global supply crunch as demand swells . This little-known
and dominates global production.

class of 17 related elements is also used for a vast array of electronic devices ranging from Apple's iPhone
to flat screen TVs, all of which are competing for the 120,000 tons of annual global supply. China controls
97 percent of rare earth production. "Rare earth for China is like oil to the Middle East," said Yuanta

Worldwide demand for rare earth is expected to

exceed supply by some 30,000 to 50,000 tons by 2012 unless major new
Securities analyst Min Li.

production sources are developed, say ofcials at Australian rare earth mining company Arafura

China has curbed exports of the mineral since 2005 through quotas and duties,
saying it needs additional supplies to develop its domestic clean
Resources.

energy

and high-tech sectors. On Wednesday, it said it would cut export quotas in 2010 by 40

percent. "Export restrictions may provide an advantage to Chinese turbine makers, again because of the

Chinese green companies would

have priority in securing supply of the metals over international
peers and their proximity to sources of the minerals ensures quicker
and cheaper long-term supply. China's domestic consumption of the
metals poses the biggest threat to global supply . The country, which holds a
cost advantage," said CIMB analyst Keith Li. He said

third of the world's reserves, eats up to 60 percent of global rare earth supply for a wide range of
applications from consumer gadgets and medical equipment to defense weapons. For related factbox
click: China's trading partners have grown increasingly vocal about its move to cut its export quotas, but
Beijing is determined to control the rare earth market. "Foreign companies could be facing some material
supply risks, unless they decide to move production to China," warned Yuanta's Min Li. NO GUARANTEES
But while China may ensure its first-tier green companies are given access to the rare elements, analysts
agree this alone is unlikely to guarantee success for the Chinese clean tech firms. New technologies free
of rare earth elements could emerge that may undermine China's advantage, while further cuts in rare
earth quotas could trigger a political backlash which could force the nation to keep supply open for its
trading partners. "Chinese technology needs to develop quickly enough to make full use of that
advantage," said CIMB's Li. "That window closes if its existing technologies fail to evolve." Still China will
have the upper hand in the global rare earth market for a while yet. There are currently many new mine
projects outside of China in the pipeline but few will be able to compete with it on price unless

Low prices for rare earth metals from

China have undermined production and led to closure of several
mines overseas. Lax environmental rules and cheap labor also allow China to sell rare earth metals at
governments offer production subsidies.

low prices. Also, the development of new rare earth mines could take as many as 10 years. China's
leading rare earth company, Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare Earth Hi-Tech Co., is building 200,000
tonnes in rare earth oxide reserves, and state media reported that the company is joining forces with

If supply becomes
extremely tight as experts suggest, Chinese green companies may
take upon themselves to secure the mineral by getting involved in the actual
Jiangxi Copper Corp to set unified prices for rare earth metals.

process of making rare earth products, analysts said. BYD is scouting for new sources of lithium, an
important ingredient for its high-performance batteries.

Chinese monopoly is necessary to maintain low cost

Morrison and Tang, 12 (**Wayne, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance,
AND **Rachael Analyst in Asian Affairs, Chinas Rare Earth Industry and
Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42510.pdf)
China has been restructuring its domestic rare earth
industry while putting more restrictions on rare earth exports, which has
greatly afected the price and quantity of rare earths available in
the global market. This has caused concern among businesses and foreign governments about
In recent years,

potential business risks and geopolitical implications. Such concerns became more acute when China
reportedly suspended shipments of rare earths to Japan, due to a months- long diplomatic crisis with
Japan in September of 2010

Its independently key to chinese economy and tech

transfer for green industries --- low costs are key

Morrison and Tang, 12 (**Wayne, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance,

AND **Rachael Analyst in Asian Affairs, Chinas Rare Earth Industry and
Export Regime: Economic and Trade Implications for the United States,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42510.pdf)
Chinas rare earth policies are part of a complex web of
Chinese government industrial policies that seek to promote the
development of domestic industries deemed essential to
To many observers,

economic modernization . In the late 1980s, the United States was the global leader in rare
earth production. However, preferential policies by the Chinese government and lax
environmental standards there quickly enabled China to become a
dominant, low-cost producer of rare earths by the late 1990s. Many analysts contend
that Chinas recent actions to consolidate its rare earth production
and restrict exports are intended to promote the development of
domestic downstream industrie s, especially those engaged in high
technology and

green technology industries , by ensuring their access to

adequate and low-cost supplies of rare earths . It is further argued that

Chinas rare earth export policies are intended to induce foreign rare
earth users to move their operations to China, and subsequently, to
transfer technology to Chinese firms. China denies that its rare earth policies are
political, discriminatory, or protectionist, but rather, are intended to address environmental concerns in
China and to better manage and conserve limited resources.

2NC Zero Sum / IL

China Clean Tech Leadership zero-sum- companies are
shoring up markets and dominance is key to securing
them

Caperton et al, 11 (Richard W., Kate Gordon, Bracken Hendricks, Daniel J.

Weiss, Helping America Win the Clean Energy Race, Center for American
Progress, February 7, 2011, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/ces_brief.pdf, )

we have seen cutting-edge solar

power manufacturing companies begin to close their doors, either
permanently or to move to other countries with strong and dedicated
clean energy markets. Evergreen Solar Inc., for example, recently
announced plans to close its Massachusetts plant to put more funds
into solar panel manufacturing in China. Hie company followed on the heels of
This is no way to build a modern industry. Already

SpectraWatt Inc. in New York and Solyndra Inc. in California closing some of their facilities. As General
Electric Co.s chairman and chief executive, Tefflmmelt, said at last year's ARPA-E summit, t hose

countries with strong demand for renewable energy products will

naturally pull these companies into their borders because "innovation
and supply chain strength gets developed where the demand is the greatest."
Similarly, wind manufacturers in Iowa, once a state leader in this industry, are laying off workers as new

Leading global financier Deutsche Bank decided to

move billions of investment dollars out of the U.S. clean energy
market, and into China and Europe as soon as it was clear there would be no comprehensive
climate and energy legislation coming out of the 111th Congress. China and our other
economic competitors in Asia, Europe, and emerging markets are not
waiting for America to regroup. These stories share a common theme: investment dollars
orders fail to materialize.

leaving the United States to be deployed among our global competitors who have fully embraced the
economic and environmental imperative to enter a new era of cleaner, more sustainable and domestic

China is the most striking example. In 2009, even as the United

States was installing more wind turbines, China driven by stable longterm demand for its products, became the worlds largest
manufacturer of wind power systems. It was already the worlds largest solar
energy.

manufacturer and developer of efcient nuclear and coal technologies. But China isnt alone. Not by a long
shot. Germany is not far behind in linking strong clean energy policies to market growth and manufacturing
leadership, as the leading global manufacturer of solar invertersa key part of solar power systemsand
has made huge strides in energy storage solutions that will further accelerate the widespread adoption of
renewable power. Denmark, Japan, and the United Kingdom are also global clean energy leaders with

countries have comprehensive programs in

place to spur robust and stable demand for low-carbon energy, which
then creates a market for businesses to manufacture and install the
technologies to meet that demand. Last June, China announced its plan to
meet a renewable energy standard of 20 percent by 2020, matching the
thriving domestic markets. All these

European Unions target. Germany has set a target of 60 percent by 2050. The country already gets 16
percent of all its power from renewables, well on its way to meeting this ambitious goal, and some think it
may reach 100 percent by 2050. Denmark has gone a step further, actually announcing its intention to
become 100 percent independent of fossil fuels by 2050, something that at least one of its islands has
already achieved. This occurred in a country that in 1970 was almost completely dependent on foreign
fossil fuels. These countries prove that strong clean energy standards build growing economies. But even
more than that, strong clean energy standards are now imperative if we are to compete on the same
playing field as China and Europe. America over the course of the 20th century took command of the

Industrial Revolution and the communications revolution, and then led the world into the Information Age.
It is time for us to lead the clean-tech revolution, too. Today, others are beating us to the punch, not
because we lack the technology and innovation to lead this new revolution, but because we are not
providing the market signals needed for our private-sector entrepreneurs need to invest over the long
haul. This clean energy investment gap is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to Americas technology
leadership.

U.S. competition would stonewall Chinese foreign markets

and cripple innovation which kills af solvency
Economy et al. 10 (Elizabeth, Micheal Levi, Shannon ONeil, Adam Segal, Globalizing
the energy revolution: how to really win the clean-energy race,
http://go.galegroup.com.turing.library. northwestern.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CA246715577&v=2.1&u=northwestern&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1)
The world faces a daunting array of energy challenges. Oil remains indispensable to the global economy,
but it is increasingly produced in places that present big commercial, environmental, and geopolitical risks;
greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere; and the odds that the world will face
catastrophic climate change are increasing. These problems will only worsen as global demand for energy
rises. Environmental advocates and security hawks have been demanding for decades that governments
solve these problems by mandating or incentivizing much greater use of the many alternative energy
sources that already exist. The political reality, however, is that none of this will happen at the necessary
scale and pace unless deploying clean energy becomes less financially risky and less expensive than it
currently is. This is particularly true in the developing world. yyyyyyyyyyyyyA massive drive to develop
cheaper clean-energy solutions is necessary. Indeed, many claim that it has already begun--just not in the

the United States is losing a generation-defining cleanenergy race to China and the other big emerging economies. They are right that the United
States is dangerously neglecting clean-energy innovation . But an energy agenda built
on fears of a clean-energy race could quickly backfire. Technology advances most rapidly
when researchers, firms, and governments build on one another's successes .
When clean-energy investment is seen as a zero-sum game aimed primarily
at boosting national competitiveness, however, states often erect barriers.
They pursue trade and industrial policies that deter foreigners from
participating in the clean-energy sectors of their economies, rather than adopting
approaches that accelerate cross-border cooperation. This slows down the very innovation
that they are trying to promote at home and simultaneously stifles innovation
abroad. To be sure, clean-energy innovation alone will not deliver the energy transformation the world
United States. They warn that

needs. It can drive down the cost of clean energy and narrow the price gap between clean and dirty
sources, but it is unlikely to make clean energy consistently cheaper than fossil fuels anytime soon.
Government policies will still need to tip the balance, through regulations and incentives that promote the
adoption of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Possible alternatives for Rare Earth Metals make Chinas

Clean Tech leadership uniquely vulnerable to U.S.
competition
Yale Global 10 (11/15, YaleGlobal Online Magizine, Chinas Chokehold On
Rare-Earth Minerals Raises Concerns,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinas-rare-earth-minerals)
Chinas moves have sent major
consuming countries scurrying to secure sources of supply outside China:
building stockpiles, providing incentives for domestic firms to mine and
process rare earths, and finding alternative ways of make high-tech products
However, Beijing may have overplayed its hand.

that reduce reliance on rare earth s. The US Geological Survey says that substitutes are
available for many applications, but generally are less effective. Still, Japan announced earlier
this month that it had developed the first high-performance motor, free of
rare earths, for petrol-electric hybrid vehicles. The House of Representatives in Washington recently
approved legislation to support revival of the once leading-edge rare-earths industry in the US, while the

Energy Department says it will release a plan this autumn for developing
more rare-earth metal supplies, in part by encouraging US trading partners to hasten

expansion of production. Yet China could keep its dominant grip on the rare-earths industry for
some years. It holds 35 percent of global reserves, but supplies over 95 percent of demand for rare-earth
oxides, of which 60 percent is domestic, according to Industrial Minerals Company of Australia, a

Chinese companies, many of them state-controlled,

have advanced in their quest to make China the world leader in processing
rare-earth metals into finished materials. Success in this quest could give China
a decisive advantage not just in civilian industry, including clean energy, but also in military
consultancy. Just as important,

production if Chinese manufacturers were given preferential treatment over foreign competitors. Cerium is
the most abundant of the 17 rare earths, all of which have similar chemical properties. A cerium based
coating is non-corrosive and has significant military applications. The Pentagon is due to finish a report
soon on the risks of US military dependence on rare earths from China. Their use is widespread in the
defense systems of the US, its allies, and other countries that buy its weapons and equipment. In a report
to the US Congress in April, the Government Accountability Ofce said that it had been told by ofcials and
defense industry executives that where rare-earth alloys and other materials were used in military
systems, they were responsible for the functionality of the component and would be difcult to replace
without losing performance. For example, fin actuators in precision-guided bombs are specifically
designed around the capabilities of neodymium iron boron rare-earth magnets. The main US battle tank,
the M1A2 Abrams, has a reference and navigation system that relies on samarium cobalt magnets from
China. An ofcial report last year on the US national defense stockpile said that shortages of four rare
earths lanthanum, cerium, europium and gadolinium had already caused delays in producing some

The surge in
Chinese rare-earth output initially flooded the market, cutting prices and
stimulating new applications. Now with China seeking to capitalize on its advantage, the US
and other advanced economies are trying to rush alternative rare-earth
mines into production to reduce reliance on China and improve security of
supply. While demand is forecast to increase by around two thirds over the next five years, the US
weapons. It recommended further study to determine the severity of the delays.

Geological Survey says that undiscovered resources are thought to be very large relative to expected

And although the

GAO report said that rare-earth deposits in the US, Canada, Australia and
South Africa could be mined by 2014, rebuilding the US rare-earth supply
chain might take up to 15 years. Meanwhile, China will hold sway and serve a cautionary note
demand. However, bringing new mines into production will take several years.

on global interdependence and reliance of high technology.

2NC Brink
China has devoted their energy capacity to renewable
technology, restrictions to clean coal development have
left their energy sector vulnerable to U.S.
Hjalte 8

(Krister-Lund University School of Economics, The Clean Tech Development Mechanism in

China, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1335711&fileOId=1646654)

China has promoted renewable energy as center of the focus. Yet

insufcient attention has been paid onto other sectors that would have greatly contributed to China's

Chinese government has barred lending

to steel and cement companies. This is to postpone the unrestrained expansion of heavy
industry. This is considered crude generalized industrial policy. Yet its efciency in blocking
clean energy finance is considerable. Bankers are not supporting
energy efciency projects as they expect too high transaction costs to
work-around such investment control. Furthermore higher efciency in industrial
energy would stem from shutting down old factories that are often characterized
sustainable development benefits otherwise.

by poor management and outmoded technology, and replacing them with new, modem and efcient ones.
However, the idea is difcult to put into action. This is because of high political barrier to closing them;
most of them are owned and operated by local government (Chandler &Gwin 2008: 9 ).

The
investments in coal energy sources have also been impeded. Due to
the restructuring of the State Power Corporation environmental goals
have been set aside and foreign investors are being redirected only
when local partners tail to keep up with the agreements within the
power sector. Unclear definition of baseline, methodology and justification of additionally has been a
major barrier as well (Zeng 2006: 83; Ojner 2007: 46). Similarly, the growing sector as transportation
raises pressing emission problem. China is expecting more than 140 million cars on its roads by 2020,

the sector is less

financially attractive, mainly due to high monitoring costs (Bueninterview).
The wider coverage of strong market mechanism support to lower transaction
costs, as provided for renewable sectors, may result in greater
sustainable development to China.
seven times higher than now (Vennemo et al 2006: 255). However,

International Competition means that China needs Clean

Tech Leadership to maintain stability
Pernick 7 (Ron, June, The Clean Tech Revolution,
http://web.mit.edu/cron/project/urban-sustainability/Old%20 files
%20from%20summer%202009/Ingrid/Urban%20Sustainability
%20Initiative.Data/Clean%20Tech%20Revolution.pdf)
And it isn't just China that is embracing clean tech. Across the globe
developing nations in Asia, Africa, and South America view cleanenergy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels not as niche novelties
environmentalist-motivated "alternatives" but as a critical, urgent, a growing piece of
a diversified energy mix needed to fuel their rapid developing
economies and middle classes. With the hypercharged economies of China and
India both growing 5% to 9% annually, there's a palpable feeling of

wanting to deploy and use any energy source they can % their hands
on. There's less of a perceived conflict between establish' energy sources and newer, cleaner options.
Wind, solar, small hydroelectric, biogas, biofuelswe need all of those, these nations seem to
say as much as possible, as soon as possible, and above all, as cheaply
as possible. This adds up to unprecedented opportunity for clean-tech manufacturers and investors in
meeting the power and water needs of billions people. The profit opportunity to serve the
emerging markets in China and countless other nations is expanding for both
large corporations are emerging start-ups. That's why today the
worlds leading wind, solar, and other clean-tech providers are already
moving into the Chinese mark via joint ventures with local companies
and other avenues. Tapping these markets won't be easy, but the growing, energy-hungry middle
classes of developing nations require massive new water energy infrastructure projects, be they wind
farms off the Indian corn ethanol plants in China, or desalination facilities in Algeria. And nr communities,
which still represent nearly 50% of the global population, are in desperate need of finding creative ways to
meet the resource needs of their residents. In India, some 56% of the population's 700 million rural
residents lack reliable access to electric power. The nation wants deliver electricity to all of them by 2020
5O% of it from renewal sources including wind, solar, and biofuels.

2NC Impact
Chinese growth fueled by clean tech is key to global sustainability
Wu, 12 Changhua Greater China Director, The Climate Group, July 2012,
CONSENSUS AND COOPERATION FOR A CLEAN REVOLUTION,
http://thecleanrevolution.org/_assets/files/TCG_ChinaCC_web.pdf
This transformation, together with growth of other emerging economies, is
reshaping the world. Along with the likes of India and Brazil, Chinas growing
economic power has a direct impact on a range of global
sustainability issues , from climate change and resource use, to
international trade and responsible business investment. With the worlds
second largest economy and the largest population, Chinas actions now have global
repercussions

for good or bad. Policy and decision makers in China understand this. This is why,

China has started to restructure its

economy and transform the way it grows. This means working to decouple energy and
after three decades of rapid economic growth,

resource use from economic growth and reduce

greenhouse gas

emissions . But this is not being done simply for altruistic reasons. The biggest driver for
change

is energy and resource security , along with the recognition that global climate

change, if left unchecked, has the potential to undermine much of what China has achieved. Over the
next five to ten years,

China intends to make green development the engine

room of its economy . By doing so, Chinas aim is not only to address its energy and resource
to develop and lead the clean industries that will be at
the heart of low carbon 21st century economies. And as policies and measures
laid out in last years 12th Five Year Plan demonstrate, Chinas plans are more than just
rhetoric. But success is by no means guaranteed. In the absence of a proven
concerns, but also

road map or uniform template for green economic growth, a learning-by-doing approach is necessary.
Because this means mistakes may be made,

China is seeking greater consensus and

cooperation in finding systemic solutions to the sustainability

problems it shares with the rest of the world. These solutions will
require that issues of equity and inclusiveness are addressed. They will also depend on the willingness
of all parties to move away from fixed positions, as well as display
greater reciprocity.

Chinas renewable dominance is key to combating climate

change, reducing pollution, increasing food and water
security, and eliminating oil dependency
Lo 13 (Kevin, June 3rd, A critical review of Chinas rapidly developing renewable
energy and energy efciency policies, http://ac.elscdn.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/S1364032113006655/1-s2.0S1364032113006655 -main.pdf?_tid=61bc6f90-0619-11e4-91d100000aab0f6c&acdnat=1404766861_72a7dae949cc9b2e2c6a0d9bf789d119)

Renewable energy and energy efciency (REEE) policies relate to five

significant issues in China. First among these is energy security , defined as
"unimpeded access or no planned interruptions to sources of energy" China's sustained economic
development over the past three decades has accompanied a rapid rise in energy demand, which, at

China's increasing
dependence on oil imports is also a concern. China has changed from an oil
times, has contributed to widespread electricity shortages [2].

exporting country in the early 1990s to one of the largest oil importing countries in the world, with an oil

Oil imports are perceived as susceptible

to interruption because most oil imported to China must pass through
the Malacca Strait, a chokepoint wedged between Indonesia and Malaysia that is
vulnerable to maritime blockage |4|. Climate change is the second
issue affecting China's commitment to REEE policies. Despite its status as a
developing country and its historically low emissions, China faces international pressure
to control its carbon emissions, which has intensified since China
surpassed the United States as the world's largest carbon polluter [5].
import dependency rate of more than 50% [3j.

Domestic concerns about the impact of climate change also contribute to the urgency of climate mitigation
[6]. Third, REEE policies affect economic competitiveness.

energy products

The manufacturing of renewable

(e.g., wind turbines and photovoltaic cells) has been designated as a pillar

hopes that China will become a global leader

and exporter of green technologies |7,8j. Therefore, REEE policies can be understood as
both economic and environmental policies. Pollution is the fourth issue. The burning of
fossil fuels is associated with air, water, and soil pollution, which have
serious implications for health, water security, and food security. Finally,
industry by the government which

human livelihood is the fifth issue affecting China's adoption of REEE policies. Despite rapid development,
many Chinese rural households still depend heavily on traditional biomass energy for heating and cooking
[9). Renewable energy, such as photovoltaic and solar water heating, can
significantly improve the livelihood of people from underdeveloped areas in China. Due to the salience of

Chinese government has expended considerable effort to

develop and implement REEE policies, manifested in an array of major policy initiatives
these issues, the

since 2005. However, as this critical review demonstrates, China's REEE policies are still far from

Chinese REEE policies are

differ from those of the United States, where the federal government
has been slow to act and instead relies on state-level policy
experiments (10), and Europe, where a supranational body (the European Union) plays a significant
role in REEE policy- making [ 111. In China, the central government is the key
policymaking body [12], and central-level policies are therefore the focus of this study. REEE
policies span a wide spectrum and are very diverse. For example, policies designed to
improve industrial energy efciency differ significantly from policies
aiming at improving energy efciency in buildings or promoting the
deployment of renewable energy. To ensure comprehensive coverage, this critical review
comprehensive, and significant room for improvement exists.

is organized into five parts: electricity, industry, transport buildings, and local government.

Rare Earth Metals and Clean Tech Leadership key to

Stable Chinese Economy
Seaman 10 (John, Rare Earths and Clean Tech Analyzing Chinas
Upper Hand, IFRI)

The rare earth industry is now a cornerstone in a wider restructuring of

the Chinese economy bent on increasing domestic wealth and consumption. After all, China's
emergence as the world's dominant rare earth producer did not happen by accident. Its leaders recognized
early on that its wealth of mineable deposits constituted a strategic advantage. As production ramped up,
Deng Xiaoping, China's leader and Communist Party Chairman famously made the revealing correlation in

Chinese leaders also

recognized that the resource advantage could be translated into a
boon for economic development and the competitiveness of Chinese
industries. In 1999, Jiang Zemin, Chinas President and Dengs successor, would explain the logic:
Improve the development and application of rare earth and change the
resource advantage into economic superiority."42 Today, global REO production is
worth an estimated $1.3 billion, but the industries that rely on these elements are reportedly
worth over $4.8 trillion.43 Downstream industries hold the majority of
the jobs and wealth. China is hoping to use its resource advantage and
the growth in projected demand of rare earth applications not simply to sell more raw materials, but to
develop the country's production capacity of the high tech applications
themselves. Profits from this higher-earning production would then
benefit Chinese companies and create more, higher earning jobs at
home. At a time when upward pressure is being put on wages in China and masses of young,
unemployed graduates are scouring the job market in search of skilled work, growth spurred on
by a well-planned management of rare earth resources could help to
ease social tension. As Dudley Kingsnorth explained for the South China Morning Post, "China
dominates the rare earth supply and only employs, for argument's sake, hundreds of workers to
get it out of the ground. To refine it further, they employ thousands
more workers. But to get the real value added and produce the end products - the
phones, cars and hard disks - then China can employ millions. And China will need to
1992 that "there is oil in the Middle East; there is rare earth in China." But

supply 300 million [extra] jobs by 2020."44 This also plays into a broader economic strategy designed to
rebalance China's economy. For decades China has been dependent on export-driven growth. Western
leaders have long decried trade imbalances and Chinese policies that favor exports at the expense of its
internal consumption. In the aftermath of the global economic crisis, the need to rectify global imbalances

China is now determined to spur consumption at

home.45 A key to generating this consumption is to increase domestic
wealth, and one important element in creating this wealth is capturing value- added steps in the
is all the more evident, and

production ladder. This affects rare earths in two ways. First, curbing the export of REO promotes the
development of higher value-added levels of rare earth-related production in China. Rather than simply
being content with selling oxides and refined rare earth metals, restricting exports of these products
supports the development of local manufacturers of rare earth applications and industries further
downstream. After all, why be content with selling REO when you can eventually sell the electric cars and

Secondly, mastering value-added production

of rare earth-related technologies in China also requires foreign
expertise and technology. As mentioned above, restricting REO export quotas
is meant in part to encourage foreign manufacturers of rare earth-dependant
technologies to move to China, bringing with them highly specialized
knowledge and innovation that could give Chinese companies an advantage over the purely
wind turbines that depend on them?

foreign competition.

China rise is Good- Economic contraction causes global

depression, Taiwanese invasion, and democratic
backsliding
Lewis 7 [Dan, 4-19, World Finance, The Nightmare of a Chinese Economic
Collapse, http://www.worldfinance.com/news/137/ARTICLE/1144/2007-04-19.html]
According to Professor David B. Smith, one of the Citys most accurate and respected economists in recent

far more serious though is the impact that Chinese

monetary policy could have on many Western nations such as the UK.
Quite simply, Chinas undervalued currency has enabled Western governments
to maintain artificially strong currencies, reduce inflation and keep
interest rates lower than they might otherwise be. We should therefore be very worried about
years, potentially

how vulnerable Western economic growth is to an upward revaluation of the Chinese yen. Should that

and the euro

would quickly depreciate, rates in those currencies would have to rise
substantially and the yield on government bonds would follow suit. This
revaluation happen to appease Chinas rural poor, at a stroke, the dollar, sterling

would add greatly to the debt servicing cost of budget deficits in the USA, the UK and much of Euro land.
A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a decline in Chinas economic

to keep Chinas society stable

ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating
unemployment - the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than
growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that

that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population from the country to the cities becomes

This is when real discontent with communist party rule

becomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesnt end there. That will at best bring a
global recession. The crucial point is that communist authoritarian states have
at least had some success in keeping a lid on ethnic tensions so far. But
when multi-ethnic communist countries fall apart from economic stress
and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they dont
become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. Theres a very real chance that
China might go the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union chaos,
civil unrest and internecine war. In the very worst case scenario, a Chinese
government might seek to maintain national cohesion by going to war
with Taiwan whom America is pledged to defend. Today, people are looking at
unsustainable.

Changs book again. Contrary to popular belief, foreign investment has actually deferred political reform in

China today is now far further from democracy than

at any time since the Tianneman Square massacres in 1989. Changs
the worlds oldest nation.

pessimistic forecast for China was probably wrong. But my fear is there is at least a chance he was just
early.

2NC World Tech Impact

China accesses a better i/l to clean tech leadership their
innovation methods and R&D are critical to global
development
Tan 2010 (Xiomci, Energy Policy 38, Clean Technology R&D and innovation
in emerging countries- Experience from China,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510000315)

failure to acquire wind energy technology has motivated

the Chinese government to back domestic turbine producers' R&D and
innovation. Through the 863 and 973 Programs (2005, 2008), the central government has
provided a significant amount of research funding to domestic turbine
manufacturers. China's top five wind turbine manufacturers all have a
large R&D center. They play a key role in the acquisition, localization, diffusion and re-innovation
The joint-ventures'

of wind energy technology in China. For instance, Xinjiang Coldwind Science & Technology Company
(Coldwind), the largest turbine manufacturer in China, started its R&D operation by undertaking the
National Key Science and Technology Project in the 9th Five-Year Plan to develop 600 kW wind power
generating sets in 1998. One year later, Coldwind successfully developed China's first 600 kW wind power
generating set, with a localization rate of 90%. During the 10th Five-Year Plan period, Coldwind was
granted three National Science and Technology Projects, one of which was to develop 1.2 MW direct-driven
permanent magnet wind turbine. Four years later the first two 1.2 MW magnet turbines were erected. Their
localization rate, again, reached 90%. So far Coldwind has acquired independent R&D capacity and
proprietary IPR for 1.5 MW and is currently testing its 3 MW model. And the design and development of 5

This paper has examined an array of

complementary policy measures that China utilizes to spur domestic
R&D and innovation in clean technology. These measures include designing a
national level-S&T strategy prioritizing clean energy; establishing direct
funding programs to support clean energy R&D; incentivizing the
private sector to undertake a leading role in R&D and innovation; and capitalizing on
public-private synergies to bring together multi-sector expertise. In addition to direct
R&D funding assistance from the central government, Coldwind has also
MW wind turbine is in the conceptual design stage.

received much support from the government of Xinjiang Autonomous Region. The local government
designated a high-tech development zone for Coldwind and also provided matching R&D funds to some of
the 863 and 973 grants. In terms of favorable policy, Coldwind enjoys an up to 15% income tax deduction
for the year 2001-2010. This benefit is supported by two regulations promulgated by the National
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC): the Catalog for the Guidance of Industrial Structure
Adjustment (2005) and the Circular on Preferential Tax Policy Issues for Developing the Western Region

described the
totality of China's clean technology development efforts as an example
of the approaches that can be taken in crafting effective, countryspecific clean technology policy and development. For developing
countries, the bulk of technological progress comes from the adoption and
adaptation of pre-existing but new- to-market technologies, and through the spread
(2001). The paper did not seek to provide a critique of these measures. Rather, it

of technologies across firms, individuals, and the public sector within a country (World Bank, 2008). In the

most of the growth in global energy demand90% by 2030will

come from emerging countries. If greenhouse gas emissions are to be
constrained, and a low carbon economy achieved, large-scale clean technology
deployment is therefore especially vital for the developing world. Also
critical is crafting an innovation model that caters to particular conditions and needs of
decades ahead,

China's comprehensive efforts laying the groundwork

both to achieve a domestic clean energy economy, and to assist other
developing countries to do so, indicate its commitment to becoming a
global leader in the clean technology revolution. The China experience also
developing countries.

provides policy approaches and funding and partnership models from which other emerging and
developing countries can learn.

Chinas Clean Tech dominance is key to global stability

and solve the af through tech difusion
Wu 12 (Changhua, The Climate Group, Consensus and Cooperation For a
Clean Revolution,
http://thecleanrevolution.org/_assets/files/TCG_ChinaCC_web.pdf)
This transformation, together with growth of other emerging economies, is reshaping the world. Along with

China's growing economic power has a direct impact

on a range of global sustainability issues, from climate change and
resource use, to international trade and responsible business investment. With the
the likes of India and Brazil,

world's second largest economy and the largest population, China's actions now have global repercussionsfor good or bad. Policy and decision makers in China understand this. This is why, after three decades of
rapid economic growth, China

has started to restructure its economy and

transform the way it grows. This means working to decouple energy and resource use from
economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But this is not being done simply for altruistic

reasons. The biggest driver for change is energy and resource security , along
with the recognition that global climate change, if left unchecked, has the potential to undermine much of

China intends to make green

development the engine room of its economy. By doing so, China's aim is
not only to address its energy and resource concerns, but also to
develop and lead the clean industries that will be at the heart of low carbon 21st
what China has achieved. Over the next five to ten years,

century economies. And as policies and measures laid out in last year's 12th Five Year Plan demonstrate,
China's plans are more than just rhetoric. But success is by no means guaranteed. In the absence of a
proven road map or uniform template forgreen economic growth, a learning-by-doing approach is

China is seeking greater

consensus and cooperation in finding systemic solutions to the sustainability
problems it shares with the rest of the world. These solutions will require that issues of
equity and inclusiveness are addressed. They will also depend on the willingness of all
parties to move away from fixed positions, as well as display greater reciprocity. China today is
embarking on a new period of economic, social and environmental
transformation. This change is likely to be as profound -and probably even more so- than the
extraordinary two decades it has just witnessed. This clean revolution will be a journey
measured in decades, not years. It will require China to constantly learn, experiment
and explore. But like many of China's other endeavors, success in achieving a green development
necessary. Because this means mistakes may be made,

pathway will help reshape the world.

***Politics

1NC Politics
Plan unpopularempirics

Doggett 10 (Tom Doggett is an economist of Reuters, 9/30/14, "U.S. aims to end China's
rare earth metals monopoly, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-earth-metals-rareidUSTRE68T68T20100930)

Legislation has been introduced in both the Senate and House of

Representatives to increase investment and production of the rare metals in the United States,
including providing extraction companies with federal loan guarantees.
However, the legislation is not expected to clear the Congress this
year.

2NC Politics
Environmentalists hate the plan

Cox 13 (Ramsey Cox is a bill analyst for the Hill, July 3rd, 2013, House bill aims to
streamline permits for mining rare earth elements, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/house/309177-house-bill-aims-to-streamline-permits-for-mining-rareearth#ixzz375uEe916
Decade-long permitting delays are standing in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local
communities, Amodei said. This bill would streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation's

In May,
the House Natural Resources Committee marked up the bill and
voted to advance it on a 24-17 vote. Only one Democrat on the
vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic and environmental concerns.

committee supported the bill

Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.). Some

Democrats have

argued that streamlining mining permits could be harmful to the

environment and should be thoroughly reviewed before mining is
allowed. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to work
with state and local governments to expedite the permitting process in order to keep the United States
competitive with other mining countries, such as China and India.

Plan is unpopular
Topf 13

(Andrew Topf is a exclusive writer for Rare Earth Investing News, 9/23/14, House Passes Critical Minerals
Act, Rare Earth investing News, http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/16395-house-passes-critical-minerals-act.html)

Opponents voted against the bill because they said it would erode
environmental protections and because it includes a broad definition of
strategic minerals, The House reported. The bills classification of critical
minerals is so broad that even sand and gravel and other such
things can fall under its definition, said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J. ).
Attempts by House Democrats to narrow the definition of strategic
minerals were unsuccessful. Not surprisingly, the bill was applauded by the US mining
industry. Without compromising our rigorous environmental standards, this bi-partisan legislation carefully
addresses the inefciencies of our underperforming system by incorporating best practices for improving
coordination among state and federal agencies, clarifying responsibilities, avoiding duplication, setting
timeframes and bringing more accountability to the process, National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn

However, while the bill has the blessings of House

Republicans and industry, it is unlikely to gain the support of a
said in a statement.

majority of lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled Senate. A similar

version of the legislation died in the the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources in 2012, Mineweb reported.

***Environment DA

1NC Environment DA
Mining disrupts the ocean floor---thats critical to food
security and ocean biodiversity
Goldenberg, 14 Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Marine

mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat
The problem is much remains unknown not just about what exists
on the ocean floor but how ocean systems operate to keep the
planet habitable. The ocean floor was once thought to be a marine desert, but
oceanographers say the sediment is rich in marine life , with thousands of
species of invertebrates at a single site. "It's tampering with
ecosystems we hardly understand that are really at the frontier of
our knowledge base," said Greg Stone, vice-president for Conservation International. "We are
starting mining extracting operations in a place where we don't fully understand how it works yet. So that

our concern disturbing the deep sea habitat ." Most of the models
rely on being able to produce 1 million tonnes of ore a year . Stone said
the seabed authority was putting systems in place to protect the
is

ocean floor , but other scientists said there still remained enormous
risks to the sediment and the creatures that live there. " It is going
to damage vast areas of the sea floor ," said Craig Smith, an
oceanographer at the University of Hawaii who served as an adviser
to the International Seabed Authority. "I just don't see any way [in]
mining one of these claims that whole areas won't be heavily
damaged." Earle expressed fears about how mining companies will
deal with waste in the high seas. "Mining is possible," she said. "But the 20,000ft
question is what do you do with the tailings ? All of the proposals involved
dumping the tailings at sea with profound impacts on the water
column and the sea floor below. The Seabed Authority initially proposed to set aside 1.6m
sq km of the ocean floor as protected areas, or about 20% of its territory. But those reserves are under
review. As economic pressures rise, there are fears that commercial operations would begin to erode those
protected areas. "I think it is certain that within a year or two there will be more claims covering these
areas and there won't be enough room left to develop these scientifically defensible protected areas,"
Smith said. Some have argued that with all the unknowns

there should be no mining at

all and that the high seas should remain out of bounds for mineral
extraction and for shipping. Jos Mara Figueres, a former president of Costa Rica and cochair with the former British foreign secretary, David Miliband, of the Global Ocean Commission, an

leaving all of the

high seas as a no-go area for commercial exploitation (apart from shipping).
"Do we know enough about the seabed to go ahead and mine it?" said Figueres. " Do we
understand enough about the interconnection between the seabed,
the column of water, the 50% of the oxygen that the ocean produces for the
world, the 25% of the carbon that it fixes in order to go in and disrupt the seabed in way
that we would if we went in and started mining? I don't think so, not until we
independent entity charged with developing ideas for ocean reform, suggested

have scientific backing to determine whether this is something good or bad for the planet." World

leaders are

mobilising to address concerns, not just about seabed mining,

but about how to safeguard ocean systems which are increasingly recognised as critical
now

to global food security and a healthy planet. US secretary of state John Kerry,
in a video address delivered to a high-level ocean summit hosted by the
Economist and National Geographic last week, invited leaders to a two-day summit in Washington that
will seek ways of protecting fishing stocks from overexploitation and
protecting the ocean from industrial pollution , plastic debris and
the ravages of climate change.

The stakes have never been higher, scientists said.

The oceans are becoming increasingly important to global food

security . Each year more than a million commercial fishing vessels extract more than 80m metric
tonnes of fish and seafood from the ocean. Up to three billion people rely on the sea for a large share of
their protein, especially in the developing world. Those demands are only projected to grow. "If

you
look at where food security has to go between now and 2030 we
have to start looking at the ocean . We have to start looking at the proteins coming
from the sea," said Valerie Hickey, an environmental scientist at the World Bank. That makes it all the
more crucial to crack down on illegal and unregulated fishing, which is sabotaging efforts to build
sustainable seafood industries. Two-thirds of the fish taken on the high seas are from stocks that are
already dangerous depleted far more so than in those parts of the ocean that lie within 200 miles of the
shore and are under direct national control. Estimates of the unreported and illegal catch on the high seas
range between $10bn and $24bn a year, overwhelming government efforts to track or apprehend the
illegal fishing boats. The illegal fishing also hurts responsible fishing crews.

Food insecurity triggers wars

Trudell 5 (Robert H., Fall, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. &
Com. 277, Lexis)
2. But, Is It Really an Emergency? In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill
dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security
problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one,
largely because history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in
part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This may be so. However, as the events in
Rwanda illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when

food insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices .
103 Furthermore, as Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation
and land scarcity can contribute to a breakdown of society itself. 104 Mr. McNeill's assertion closely
resembles those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g.,
environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the
problem long before any calamity sets in. 106 This wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of
which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today, with up to 300,000
child soldiers fighting in conflicts or wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the very fabric of society is

under increasing world-wide pressure. 107 Genocide, anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic
throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose problems threaten global security and challenge all of
humanity. 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary general of the World Social Summit, said: "We've
replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part
of the fuse burning to set that bomb off. It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is
too late.

Mining destroys the biod---that causes extinction

Goldenberg, 14 Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Marine
mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat
But with rising demand from China and India for rare earth metals like copper,
and deep-sea surveys having now found concentrations of minerals
four to five times those on land, it has returned but this time in the unregulated
territorial waters of PNG, conveniently close to the Asian markets. Ecologists say the PNG government is
allowing Nautilus to go ahead with the first ever commercial deep-sea mining project without properly
considering the environmental impacts or local opposition. Nautilus investors include the mining giant
Anglo-American which is ignoring indigenous opposition to a gold and copper mine in Alaska. Cradle of

As well as being metal-rich, the volcanogenic hydrothermal

deposits which Nautilus plans to mine are home to a unique ecosystem that is
life on earth

largely unknown to scientists since being discovered in the late 1970s.

the deep sea was thought to be full of soft sediment and little
else but the discovery of hydrothermal vents on the seabed, which
produce the deposits, revealed a completely novel ecosystem ,
still

Initially,

unreliant on photosynthesis. Its the cradle of life on earth , explains Dr

Rod Fujita from the Environmental Defense Fund and author of studies looking into deep-sea mining, and

There are species there that are found

nowhere else on earth . Its not like any land habitats we are used to; in fact you have to have
your perspective altered to appreciate this deep-sea world, he says. The mining process in
PNG will take the top 20-30m of the seabed at a depth of 1,500m and lift it up
to the surface before transferring it by barge to processing sites on land. You will destroy
the only one that does not depend on sunlight.

fauna

just by lifting the land,

says deep-sea ecologist Professor Paul Tyler, from the

National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University. It is possible you might mine at a distance

mining close by you will afect the flow and

the vents might switch of and then all the animals die you lose a
[from the hydrothermal vents] but by

huge biomass . 'Flimsy' environmental report Nautilus has attempted to fend

off these criticisms by publishing an environment assessment, co-produced by a respected deep-sea

Van Dover. In it they admit the impact to vents and seafloor

habitats will inevitably be severe at the site scale and that they
biologist Dr Cindy

will take many years to recover. However, other ecologists say the assessment is
flimsy and fails to give a full account of the potential damage mining will cause. Professor Richard
Steiner, from the University of Alaska cites the incompleteness of classification of species found at the
sites and an inadequate assessment of the risks associated with sediment and waste rock disposal. He also

the efects of increased light and noise in the deep ocean

environment and the toxicity of the dewatering plume [the process of
removing water from the mined deposits] to deep-sea organisms, which will not be able to
differentiate between food and junk sediment. Of particular concern are the hundreds of
cites

thousands of tonnes of waste

that

will be produced by the mining

process, which Steiner compares to that of a giant underwater

tractor and which will be pumped onto deeper seabeds nearby. Dr Fujita
said the physics of water as well as weather and currents made it
difficult to predict or contain any spill and that deep-sea mining had
the capacity to produce pollution that could travel across into
international waters. A smoking hydrothermal vent on the ocean seabed Exploitation or
financial gain? I dont think the project would be allowed to proceed anywhere else in the world based on
such a poor analysis of risks, says Steiner. The USA is known to have similar deposits off the coast of
Washington as has Canada but mining is not thought to be imminent. Dr Fujita suggests Nautilus is just the
latest overseas mining giant to take advantage of lax regulations in the country. In PNG they have a poor

record of mining on land resulting in lots of poor conditions and that bad record and lack of oversight is
now moving from land to sea, he says. Only this week the PNG government was accused by Greenpeace
of allowing rampant logging and failing to respect the rights of indigenous groups who depend on the
forests. Nautilus has reportedly suggested the country would benefit by more than $200 million from the
mining but Steiner says the benefits to local people or the economy of PNG were likely to be
disproportionately low compared to the scale and risk of the project. While the project could gross almost
$1 billion USD in its 30-month lifetime, it expects to provide only $41 million in total taxes and royalties to
the government, a $1.5 million development fund and a few dozen jobs at most to PNG nationals, he
said. Prof Steiner is also acting as a science advisor to Mas Kagin, a group formed in 2008 to give a voice
to coastal indigenous people in PNG oppose any commercial mining. The group says it depends on the
coastal waters for their livelihood, culture and way of life and has a right to oppose the seabed mining. In
a campaign video community groups from two provinces expressed their fears. When we first heard that
Nautilus was going to mine the seabed using technology that had never been used anywhere else it felt as
though we were becoming a science laband our very lives part of an experiment to test this new
technology, it says. Nautilus conducted workshops with local villages to explain its proposals but rejected
calls to set up a permanent citizens advisory council. The company also declined to respond to concerns
raised in this article but has previously said it took great pride in leading the mining industry into the deep

Opening the floodgates It has estimated several billions tons of

copper could be extracted from seafloor sites around the world. Dr Tyler
ocean.

acknowledges that the deep-sea has not even had its surface scratched with what it might contribute to
the economy but

fears PNGs decision to approve Nautilus mining plans will open the

floodgates before proper assessments have been made of the

impact. China is known to be seeking to mine similar deposits in the South-West
Indian Ocean. Deep-sea fishing is a good example. We can ring alarm bells but there
is no regulation of it. If I had my way the whole area of deep-sea
would become a protected area and people who want to exploit it
would have to apply to a body who can ensure that they were doing
a proper environmental analysis before they were allowed to exploit it. At the
moment there is no requirement at all and we end up looking at the
damage done, he says. Steiner agrees and says there is too much wrong with the PNG project:
the way this first deep-sea mine proceeds will set the tone for all others, and this is a very,
very bad start . He argues investment in reusing copper and gold made more sense than
continuing to pay mining companies to take bigger risks in an efort
to dig up more.

1NC Midterms
Plan popular boosts economy and supplies
Kilzer 11

(Lou Kilzer, 1/30/2011, Trib Live, U.S. control of 'rare earth' minerals slipping,
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/nation-world/s_720470.html#axzz376Xqz8zU)

Those minerals, called "rare earths," shape a modern nation's

defense and economy. Your iPhone and hybrid car won't work without
them, nor will your laptop computer. The Pentagon needs them for
its precision-guided "smart" bombs. China has locked up the supply
stripping the United States of its dominance. U.S. lawmakers in
both parties blame China's "mercantilist" policies state interference in
international trade. Yet, the United States and other nations also were
caught napping, according to members of Congress, lobbyists and
industry experts. Consider: China produces 97 percent of the rare earths used in high-tech

items such as fiber optics, flat-panel monitors and televisions, and electricity-generating wind turbines.
Through export policies and tariffs, China forces foreign companies to manufacture there in order to remain
competitive. And where manufacturing goes, research and development often follow. China dominates
more than rare earths. It leads the United States (or even the rest of the world combined) in key elements
such as germanium, indium, antimony, zinc, manganese, tungsten, magnesium, cadmium, pig iron,
graphite and fluorspar. Those materials, used to make alloys, feed China's surging steel industry. A decade
ago, China and the United States produced roughly equal amounts of steel; in 2010, the United States
produced about 90 million metric tons to China's 630 million. China is acquiring even more foreign
resources. While most of the world fell into recession in 2008, China went on a spending spree: It bought
all or part of 184 foreign mining assets for $37.2 billion, according to the U.S. accounting firm Ernst &
Young. Recently, Shanghai Securities News reported that China may create a strategic stockpile of rare
earths, tungsten, antimony, molybdenum, tin, indium, germanium, gallium, tantalum and zirconium. In
contrast, the United States began selling its reserves in the 1990s. China has positioned itself to surpass
the United States in purchasing-power parity a closely watched measure of an economy's real size
next year, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit international business association. 'Free market
isn't working' The situation leads some analysts to stark conclusions. "The free market isn't working right
now," says Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., who intends to sponsor legislation to re-stockpile strategic

'We want to be a manufacturing

country. There are critical components to that in terms of raw
materials, and we're going to make sure that we have unfettered
access to those supplies.' "And now it's (their) goal as a country not to export those raw
materials. China, he says, "had the foresight to say,

materials. It is to export finished products." John Pike, a defense expert and director of GlobalSecurity.org,
a Virginia-based website analyzing military and intelligence matters, says "we cannot pretend there's a
free market when there's not." Ronald Ashburn, executive director of the Association for Iron & Steel
Technology, a Warrendale-based nonprofit promoting industrial research, says China controls

"huge

aspects of the world capacity for many materials." Congressional staffers,

speaking on background, agree. "China is going to produce, whether they are making a profit or not," says
a Democratic staffer who has studied the issue for years. Its mining companies "are willing to get

A Senate Republican stafer

says the federal government has backed American firms, but "people
didn't like it. But they do like jobs and mining jobs are good jobs."
Three bills countering China's rare-earths policies were introduced in
the last Congress by Coffman, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Dhammered" financially in order to gain control over markets.

Erie, who lost re-election in November. Each bill involved some degree of government intervention. None
won approval. Dahlkemper's bill emerged at a sensitive moment during China's brief rare-earths
embargo on Japan in September. A spooked House passed it, 325-98, but the bill lost momentum as the
midterm election neared and China relented. Like Coffman, Murkowski plans to try again. Many
Republicans, however, caution against going too far, too fast. In a statement, 10 GOP congressmen on the
committee that sent Dahlkemper's bill to a House vote said federal loans "should be restricted to those
areas not undertaken by the private sector," to avoid "favoring certain companies ... and potentially

Congressional Republicans generally

favor trimming regulations to spur rare-earth mining.
crowding out further private-sector investment."

2NC BioD Link

Seabed mining kills animals and their natural habitats

Allsopp et al 13 Michelle, researcher at Greenpeace (Review of the Current

State of Development and the Potential for Environmental Impacts of Seabed
Mining Operations, Greenpeace Research Laboratory,
http://www.greenpeace.to/greenpeace/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/seabedmining-tech-review-2013.pdf) patel
There are many environmental concerns regarding these projects
and other prospective deep sea mining activities these are identified
and discussed in this report. The habitats targeted and the probable impacts
from mining may be summarised as follows: Hydrothermal vents host a
unique community structures with many species of animals being exclusively
native to these habitats. Mining would remove thousands of vent
chimneys completely, flattening the seabed. Resident animals would
be killed. As part of its developments in Papua New Guinea, Nautilus plans
to try and transfer animals to other sites but this is scientificallyuntested and
could also disturb other ecosystems. It is unknown whether habitats would
recover or if animals would return if vent chimneys reformed. Seamounts
studied to date show there is an abundance of life associated with
these structures, including corals and sponges and huge
aggregations of fish. Seamounts have been described as underwater
oases and they appear to be important habitats for migrating
species. Mining in the vicinity of these structures will destroy corals
and sponges which grow on the seamounts and recent studies
indicate that recovery times would be in decades to centuries.
Manganese Nodules extraction would remove some of the only hard
substrate on the abyssal deep sea floor resulting in habitat loss and
mortality of resident animals. Manganese nodules themselves take
millions of year to form so these habitats could be completely lost
from large areas of seabed. There are concerns that noise from any
deep sea mining operations would travel over large distances and
could negatively impact on deep diving whales and deep sea fish
which use sensitive acoustic changes for communication and
navigation. There are also fears that exclusion zones around mining
areas in coastal waters will reduce fishing areas impacting on local
peoples livelihoods. Furthermore, the deep-sea has high intrinsic and
potentially commercial value in the form of marine genetic resources,
including perhaps the pharmaceutical basis for new treatments and
therapies., There are concerns that mining may destroy genetic resources
before they are even investigated. Mining is thus certain to cause some
irreversible damage and negative impacts to unique deep sea
habitats. To protect marine habitats Greenpeace is calling for the
implementation of a global network of Marine Reserves which would protect
at least 40% of the worlds oceans including particularly vulnerable areas
such as seamounts, and hydrothermal vents.

It causes biodiversity loss and slow rates of recovery

EPA 12 ( Interim Report: Seabed Mining in the Northern Territory,
http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/144039/SeabedMining-Report.pdf) patel
Based on an extensive review of dredging and offshore mining studies,
Penney et al. (2008) found benthic recovery to be most rapid (< 2 years) in
the intertidal and shallow subtidal zone (around 5 m depth), where finegrained sandy sediments are affected by high wave action and strong current
effects that allow removed or disturbed sediments to be rapidly replaced,
redistributed and restratified. Penney et al. (2008) noted recovery to be
slower in coarse gravel-type sediments and slowest in deep-sea
areas, where it takes approximately 40 years for substantial
recovery (Figure 5, Appendix 11). Penney et al. (2008) also found
natural benthic recovery rates, following cessation of seabed mining
in Namibia, to be substantially faster than recovery of vegetation
communities following cessation of land-based mining (Figure 5,
Appendix 11). They illustrated this point by comparison with the arid
Namibian desert where natural recovery processes are extremely slow,
potentially taking decades before vegetation communities show significant
signs of recovery, with some impacts still obvious after a century or more. In
contrast, the turbulent, high-energy nearshore marine environment, with its
benthic components well-adapted and robust to high levels of natural
disturbance, supports much faster recovery processes. In some cases, a
markedly diferent benthic community may recolonise the disturbed
seabed area following the cessation of mining or dredging,
particularly if sediment characteristics have been altered. Sand
extraction, for example, can result in reduced sediment depths or exposure of
different seabed sediments that support a different benthic community
structure (Penney et al. 2008). Consideration needs to be given to
difering recovery rates between diferent biological components of
the marine environment. For example, nearshore benthic recovery rates
may be relatively rapid (Penney et al. 2008) but recovery times for seagrass
beds may be relatively slow (D. Parry, pers. comm., 29 Oct 2012). Differing
recovery rates will need to be factored into seabed mining impact mitigation
and rehabilitation programs.

Deep seabed mining exploits the habitats of life and

results in biodiversity loss
Craw 13 Alicia, Head of Campaigns at World Animal Protection, Studied the
Legal Writing and Media Training (Greenpeace, Deep Seabed Mining,
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2013/07/DeepSeabe
dMiningReport.PDF) patel
The deep sea is a place of myth and mystery, filled with weird and
wonderful life forms, and vital to the survival of our planet. But now,
this mostly unknown world is facing large-scale industrial
exploitation as mining of the deep seabed for minerals fast
becomes reality. As land-based minerals become depleted and prices
rise, the search for new sources of supply is turning to the sea floor.
This emerging industry, facilitated by advances in technology, poses
a major threat to our oceans, which are already sufering from a

number of pressures including overfishing, pollution, and the efects

of climate change.1 A growing number of companies and governments2
including Canada, Japan, South Korea, China and the UK are currently
rushing to claim rights to explore and exploit minerals found in and on the
seabed, such as copper, manganese, cobalt and rare earth metals. There are
currently 17 exploration contracts3 for the seabed that lies beyond national
jurisdiction in the deep seas of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans,
compared with only 8 contracts in 2010. Contract holders will be able to
apply for licences to carry out commercial mining in the high seas as soon as
regulations for exploitation are developed anticipated as early as 2016.4
There is also significant exploration interest within national waters,
particularly in the Pacific Ocean, and one licence to mine the deep seabed
has already been granted in Papua New Guinean waters. However, very little
is known about deep-sea habitats, or the impact that mining operations will
have on ecosystems and the wider functioning of our oceans. Once
thought to be relatively lifeless, scientists now recognise that the
deep sea is actually a species-rich environment5, with many species
still to be discovered. Because deep-sea species live in rarely
disturbed environments and tend to be slow growing and late
maturing, with some unique to their particular habitat types (such
as hydrothermal vents) or even specific locations, they are highly
vulnerable to disturbance or even extinction.6 Deep seabed mining
could have serious impacts on the ocean environment and the future
livelihoods and wellbeing of coastal communities. Only 3% of the
oceans are protected and less than 1% of the high seas7, making them
some of the least protected places on Earth. The emerging threat of
seabed mining is an urgent wake-up call: the worlds governments
must act now to protect the high seas, including by creating a global
network of marine reserves8 that will be crucial sanctuaries at sea for marine
life and the ecosystems which we all rely on for our survival. An international,
multi-sector approach to management and protection is needed, if we are to
ensure the health and sustainable use of our oceans. The remote deep and
open oceans host a major part of the worlds biodiversity, and are
vital for our survival on Earth.9 The deep sea plays an important role
in regulating planetary processes, including regulation of
temperature and greenhouse gases.10 It supports ocean life by
cycling nutrients and providing habitat for a staggering array of
species.

Animals who cannot escape will die and result in

biodiversity loss-not knowing the impact makes it worse

Craw 13 Alicia, Head of Campaigns at World Animal Protection, Studied the

Legal Writing and Media Training (Greenpeace, Deep Seabed Mining,
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2013/07/DeepSeabe
dMiningReport.PDF) patel
Seabed mining poses a major threat to our oceans. All types of
seabed mining will kill whatever cant escape the mineral extraction
operations. Organisms that grow on the seabed will be smothered as
a result of sediment disturbance and the discharge of waste. The
current lack of scientific knowledge on the deep-sea environment,

and the lack of knowledge of the technology employed, limits our

ability to predict the environmental impacts of mining operations
and to determine whether habitats can ever recover from the
disturbance.15 We know that deep-sea species from many habitats,
such as seamounts and abyssal plains, are particularly vulnerable
due to their slow growth rates, their low resilience to changes in
their environment, and slow recovery rates after disturbance.16
Some hydrothermal vent communities may be more resilient to impacts
because of the high natural levels of turnover of these ecosystems, although
this is dependent on the underlying geology and biogeography of the
individual systems.17 Mining licences for hydrothermal vents have already
been granted to Nautilus Minerals by the Papua New Guinean government to
mine for sea floor massive sulphides in national waters 1,500 metres under
the sea, despite significant environmental concerns and community
opposition. A study at the mining site found 20 new species, with more
species likely to be found in the future.18 The impacts on the actual
mining site will be very high, but the resilience of this system is
unknown, as are the efectiveness of the proposed eforts to assist
natural recovery. The wider impacts of the mining operation on
surrounding ecosystems are also unknown.19

Mining pollutes the waters and creates higher risk for

death

Craw 13 Alicia, Head of Campaigns at World Animal Protection, Studied the

Legal Writing and Media Training (Greenpeace, Deep Seabed Mining,
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2013/07/DeepSeabe
dMiningReport.PDF) patel
The release of sediment plumes20, clouds of potentially toxic
particles that will smother species and habitats, and could expose
seabed communities to heavy metals and acid, is a major concern.21
Even if they manage to survive the direct mining impact, filterfeeding organisms will have their feeding apparatus clogged by
these sediments, causing starvation. Some plumes are likely to be
nutrient rich, which could cause algal blooms and reduce oxygen
concentrations.22 It will be hard to predict how these plumes may spread. It
is likely to be impossible to restrict impacts from tailings, or the
release of metals to a local area, due to the very nature of ocean
currents.23 Impacts that spread far away from the original site could
potentially lead to international disputes. Pollution from dewatering,
the removal of water from metals removed from the seabed, may
contain heavy metals and other pollutants, which will be resuspended if discharged into the water column.24 Potential
contamination of the food chain? Metals and other contaminants
mobilised during mining or processing operations, as well as some
processing chemicals themselves, could accumulate in the tissues of
marine organisms, including fish. It is not clear how significant any
increases above background contamination might be in any one case, and
concerns have been raised by scientists and fishing communities in
areas targeted for prospecting and mining, regarding the potential
for tainting of fish or even the introduction of harmful levels of

contaminants into the food chain.25 Noise and light pollution Deep-sea
communities live in relative silence, and in the dark. Studies have
shown that deep-sea fish communicate at low sound frequencies26,
and are sensitive to acoustic changes to sense food falls the fall of
organic matter that provides an important source of nutrients to the
deep sea27. Whales rely on sound for communication and
navigation, and when encountering increased noise, change their
vocalisation patterns and behaviour, and move away to new areas.28
Studies show that baleen whales experience chronic stress when
exposed to increased shipping noise.29 Low-frequency mining noise
could travel far from the mining site, with one estimate suggesting that
noise from the Nautilus operation near Papua New Guinea could travel up to
600km from the site.30 This could have negative impacts on deep
diving whales in the area. Mining will also introduce bright light into
an environment that, but for bioluminescence, is constantly dark,
impacting species that are adapted to these conditions, such as
deep-sea vent shrimp, which have been shown to be blinded by the
lights used by researchers.31

Mining results in catastrophic destruction of the natural

habitat and biodiversity loss

Craw 13 Alicia, Head of Campaigns at World Animal Protection, Studied the

Legal Writing and Media Training (Greenpeace, Deep Seabed Mining,
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2013/07/DeepSeabe
dMiningReport.PDF) patel
The impacts of seabed mining are expected to change species
diversity and density in the mined area, resulting in changes to the
food web, with potential impacts on ecosystems and fish populations
of unknown duration. The extraction of minerals from the seabed
will destroy seabed habitat, and depending on the location and the
mining technique used, leave a flatter, compressed surface that
could be unsuitable for recolonisation and habitat recovery, or
smother habitat in mining tailings. On seamounts, mining will cause
the destruction of centuries-old coral and sponge communities and
change complex seabed topography into a flattened and rubble and
sediment strewn sea floor. Seabed mining could cause fish mortality,
due to habitat loss and a decline in food sources. For example,
phosphate extraction proposed in shallow water near Namibia is
expected to impact fish populations through habitat and food source
removal, with mining operations set to take place within migratory
routes and spawning grounds.39 Similarly, within the deep sea,
mineral deposits often occur in habitats that support important and
diverse fish populations. For example, cobalt-rich crusts are often
located on the flanks and summits of seamounts, underwater
mountains that host a great abundance of species. These include
slow-growing fish species such as orange roughy, grenadiers and
redfish, the status of which in the cases where data exist is
generally considered already overexploited or depleted by deep-sea
fishing.40 In cases where seamounts have been severely destroyed
by bottom trawling, there has been no sign of recovery of large

bottom-dwelling fauna five years after trawling stopped,

highlighting the vulnerability of these communities.41 Research
suggests that it will take many decades or more for seamount
communities to recover from such trawling.42 Greenpeace has been
calling for a ban on deep-sea bottom trawling to stop the potentially
irreversible impacts of this destructive fishing practice on sensitive deep-sea
habitats and species. The impacts of mining in these areas would be
even more devastating to the already threatened fragile ecosystems
of the deep ocean.

Mining kills unique species

Tom Levitt 10/28/10 journalist (Ecologist, How deep-sea mining could
destroy the 'cradle of life on earth',
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/653840/how_deepsea_minin
g_could_destroy_the_cradle_of_life_on_earth.html) patel
Deep-sea hydrothermal vents systems may be where life first evolved on earth It was perhaps only a matter of time
before mining the deep seas took off. Following in the footsteps of deep-sea fishing and drilling for oil it has been lurking
in the minds of exploration companies like Nautilus Minerals, which is behind a major project in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
The idea of digging up the seabed one mile beneath the ocean surface to extract mineral-rich deposits such as copper and
zinc first emerged in the 1960s. An initial flurry of interest in the 1970s was put off by low metal prices and UN regulations

But with rising demand from China

and India for rare earth metals like copper, and deep-sea surveys
having now found concentrations of minerals four to five times those
on land, it has returned but this time in the unregulated territorial waters of PNG, conveniently close to the Asian
that exist on exploiting resources in international waters.

markets. Ecologists say the PNG government is allowing Nautilus to go ahead with the first ever commercial deep-sea
mining project without properly considering the environmental impacts or local opposition. Nautilus investors include the
mining giant Anglo-American which is ignoring indigenous opposition to a gold and copper mine in Alaska. Cradle of life

As well as being metal-rich, the volcanogenic hydrothermal

deposits which Nautilus plans to mine are home to a unique
ecosystem that is still largely unknown to scientists since being
discovered in the late 1970s. Initially, the deep sea was thought to
be full of soft sediment and little else but the discovery of
hydrothermal vents on the seabed, which produce the deposits,
revealed a completely novel ecosystem, unreliant on photosynthesis.
Its the cradle of life on earth, explains Dr Rod Fujita from the
Environmental Defense Fund and author of studies looking int io
deep-sea mining, and the only one that does not depend on
sunlight. There are species there that are found nowhere else on
earth. Its not like any land habitats we are used to; in fact you have
to have your perspective altered to appreciate this deep-sea world ,
on earth

he says. The mining process in PNG will take the top 20-30m off the seabed at a depth of 1,500m and lift it up to the
surface before transferring it by barge to processing sites on land. You

will destroy fauna just by

lifting the land, says deep-sea ecologist Professor Paul Tyler, from
the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University. It is
possible you might mine at a distance [from the hydrothermal vents]
but by mining close by you will afect the flow and the vents might
switch of and then all the animals die you lose a huge biomass.
'Flimsy' environmental report Nautilus has attempted to fend of
these criticisms by publishing an environment assessment, coproduced by a respected deep-sea biologist Dr Cindy Van Dover. In it
they admit the impact to vents and seafloor habitats will inevitably
be severe at the site scale and that they will take many years to
recover. However, other ecologists say the assessment is flimsy and fails to give a full account of the potential
damage mining will cause. Professor Richard Steiner, from the University of Alaska cites the incompleteness of

classification of species found at the sites and an inadequate assessment of the risks associated with sediment and waste
rock disposal. He also cites the effects of increased light and noise in the deep ocean environment and the toxicity of the
dewatering plume [the process of removing water from the mined deposits] to deep-sea organisms, which will not be able
to differentiate between food and junk sediment. Of particular concern are the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste
that will be produced by the mining process, which Steiner compares to that of a giant underwater tractor and which will
be pumped onto deeper seabeds nearby. Dr Fujita said the physics of water as well as weather and currents made it
difcult to predict or contain any spill and that deep-sea mining had the capacity to produce pollution that could travel
across into international waters. A smoking hydrothermal vent on the ocean seabed Exploitation or financial gain? I dont
think the project would be allowed to proceed anywhere else in the world based on such a poor analysis of risks, says
Steiner. The USA is known to have similar deposits off the coast of Washington as has Canada but mining is not thought to
be imminent. Dr Fujita suggests Nautilus is just the latest overseas mining giant to take advantage of lax regulations in
the country. In PNG they have a poor record of mining on land resulting in lots of poor conditions and that bad record and
lack of oversight is now moving from land to sea, he says. Only this week the PNG government was accused by
Greenpeace of allowing rampant logging and failing to respect the rights of indigenous groups who depend on the forests.
Nautilus has reportedly suggested the country would benefit by more than $200 million from the mining but Steiner says
the benefits to local people or the economy of PNG were likely to be disproportionately low compared to the scale and risk
of the project. While the project could gross almost $1 billion USD in its 30-month lifetime, it expects to provide only $41
million in total taxes and royalties to the government, a $1.5 million development fund and a few dozen jobs at most to
PNG nationals, he said. Prof Steiner is also acting as a science advisor to Mas Kagin, a group formed in 2008 to give a
voice to coastal indigenous people in PNG oppose any commercial mining. The group says it depends on the coastal
waters for their livelihood, culture and way of life and has a right to oppose the seabed mining. In a campaign video
community groups from two provinces expressed their fears. When we first heard that Nautilus was going to mine the
seabed using technology that had never been used anywhere else it felt as though we were becoming a science laband
our very lives part of an experiment to test this new technology, it says. Nautilus conducted workshops with local villages
to explain its proposals but rejected calls to set up a permanent citizens advisory council. The company also declined to
respond to concerns raised in this article but has previously said it took great pride in leading the mining industry into the
deep ocean. Opening the floodgates It has estimated several billions tons of copper could be extracted from seafloor
sites around the world. Dr Tyler acknowledges that the deep-sea has not even had its surface scratched with what it
might contribute to the economy but fears PNGs decision to approve Nautilus mining plans will open the floodgates

China is known to be seeking to

mine similar deposits in the South-West Indian Ocean. Deep-sea
fishing is a good example. We can ring alarm bells but there is no
regulation of it. If I had my way the whole area of deep-sea would
become a protected area and people who want to exploit it would
have to apply to a body who can ensure that they were doing a
proper environmental analysis before they were allowed to exploit
it. At the moment there is no requirement at all and we end up
looking at the damage done, he says. Steiner agrees and says there is too much wrong with the
before proper assessments have been made of the impact.

PNG project: the way this first deep-sea mine proceeds will set the tone for all others, and this is a very, very bad start.
He argues investment in reusing copper and gold made more sense than continuing to pay mining companies to take

The global economy simply does not need the

gold or copper that would be recovered at these deep-sea
hydrothermal vents. We know how to recycle and reuse much of the
copper already up out of the ground, run through the economy, and
discarded in waste dumps. It is a unidirectional waste of resources,
energy and money. And we know better.
bigger risks in an effort to dig up more.

2NC Link / AT: Oversight

Negative impact on aquatic life---regulation diminish
farther out of sea
MacDonald, 12 Alistar, Writers WSJ, Next Frontier: Mining the Ocean

Floor,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230339560457743466
0065784388
Meanwhile, environmental groups have raised concerns about the
possible efect of deep-sea mining on aquatic life. While nations
have specific regulatory authority over the seabed under their
territorial water, that oversight diminishes farther out to sea . Miners
counter the likely environmental impact is less than onshore mining ,
in part because it doesn't require building roads and is far from human
habitation.

2NC AT: Regulation

Its not that drilling causes accidents but that the
fundamental activity is problematic
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate

Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International

Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
However Deep Sea mining could make this situation change for several
reasons. Firstly, because of the increasing public awareness on environmental issues.
Secondly, because compared to ofshore oil or gas industry, environmental
risks are fundamentally diferent in nature. While in offshore oil or gas industry
the environmental risk is mainly accidental, with Deep Sea mining it
comes from the nature of the activity itself . In the first case, the risk is identified,
whereas in the second case it is poorly understood and difcult to assess. The difference is significant:

Deep Sea mining risk is not contained and its extent is just about
unknown.

2NC AT: Van Dover Study

Van Dovers study is wrong
Goldenberg, 14 Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Marine
mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-goldrush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-threat
Nautilus has attempted to fend of these criticisms by publishing an
environment assessment, co-produced by a respected deep-sea
biologist Dr Cindy Van Dover. In it they admit the impact to vents and seafloor habitats will
inevitably be severe at the site scale and that they will take many years to recover. However, other

ecologists say the assessment is flimsy and fails to give a full

account of the potential damage mining will cause. Professor Richard
Steiner, from the University of Alaska cites the incompleteness of
classification of species found at the sites and an inadequate
assessment of the risks associated with sediment and waste rock
disposal. He also cites the efects of increased light and noise in the deep
ocean environment and the toxicity of the dewatering plume [the process
of removing water from the mined deposits] to deep-sea organisms, which will not be able to
differentiate between food and junk sediment.

2NC Impact Calc

The efects on the environment are long lasting and
unpredictable due to untested equipment
Alex Benkenstein April 14-senior researcher for The Governance of Africas
Resources Programme and South African Institute of International Affairs,
graduated from the University of Stellenbosch with a M.A. in International
Studies (cum laude) (The Governance of Africas Resources Programme,
Seabed Mining: Lessons from the Namibian Experience,) patel
As minerals targeted by seabed mining occur in diferent forms and
geological settings, the potential environmental impact - including
on fisheries - should be considered within the particular geological
region and mining methodology proposed. Nevertheless, certain
common efects of seabed mining may be distinguished, such as the
removal of mined material, along with seabed sediments and
associated benthic organisms (organisms living on or under the
seabed); the perturbation of the seabed; and the introduction of new
materials to the environment, such as processing waste or energy in
the form of heat, light and seismic and acoustic waves.5 The recovery
of benthic communities (seabed plants and organisms) depends on a range of
natural processes, but is generally most rapid in the intertidal and shallow
subtidal zone, slower in coarse gravel sediments and slowest in deep- sea
areas, where substantial recovery takes about 40 years. In some cases the
impact of marine seabed mining may be particularly long lasting, for
example, where mining or dredging changes the characteristics of
the seabed, leading to a change in habitat.6 Opponents to seabed
mining emphasise that scientific knowledge of ecosystems in the
deep sea and other marine environments is often poorly developed
and seabed mining relies on untested technologies that may result
in unforeseen impacts on marine ecosystems.

We should utilize the precautionary principle when

evaluating these types of debates---the lack of knowledge
about the efects of mining on the ocean sea bed means
we shouldnt take the risk---this is how legislation and
international law is structured and should shape your
decision calculus
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello
Obviously this kind of risk falls within the scope of the
precautionary principle , which has had a global impact since the 1992
Rio Conference. It has become influential in many fields of
international environmental law and central in the debate on
climate change. Beyond that, the precautionary approach inspires public
policy management especially in the context of sustainable use of

natural resources. The well-known example is the fish stocks

management.
While U.N.C.L.O.S. does not expressly refers to the precautionary principle26it appears more or less
explicitly in other more specialized conventions related to marine pollution. Moreover

formula of prudence and caution

upon the

it is implicitly assumed by the jurisprudence of the

it was invoked against

Japan by Australia and New Zealand in the 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna case. In the
absence of scientific certainty on how to ensure the conservation of
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (I.T.L.O.S.). For instance,

this fish, the Court encouraged the parties to act with caution ,
mentioning explicitly the principle and

without

to take measures to avoid irreparable

damage to existing stocks: Considering that, in the view of the Tribunal, the parties should in the
circumstances act with prudence and caution to ensure that
efective conservation measures are taken to prevent serious harm to the stock of
southern Bluefin tuna. 27

2NC Species IL
Deep sea mining causes disruptions to the benthic layer--causes water toxicity, water columns, zooplankton, food
chain
Troianiello, 12 Antonio, University of French Polynesia, Associate
Professor of Law, 1 Deep Sea Mining, A New Frontier for International
Environmental Law, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1000&context=antonino_troianiello

As stated, the effects of underwater mining are largely unknown and require a precautionary approach.

Specialists and conservationists are nevertheless convinced that the

removal of parts of the seabed will cause disruptions in the benthic
layer, increased toxicity of the water column and suspended
sediment residues. Removing parts of the seabed could cause
permanent disturbances into the habitat of benthic organisms, possibly depending on the
type of mining and location. Among these disturbances fine particles resulting
from the mining could have the greatest impact. They could cause
asphyxiation of several organisms. Depending on particles size and water currents the
plumes could spread over more or less extensive zones , possibly having
an impact on light penetration, zooplankton , which in turn could
afect the food chain.

2NC Vent IL
Drilling hurts the vent ecosystems
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental
Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive
Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
Additionally, it has been suggested that drilling could impact the flow of vent fluid
diverting hydrothermal fluids away from the vent communities
(Interridge, 2000). This could result in a wide range of impacts on the vent
ecosystem , including the possibility of activating a new area at the
drilling location. This may be diverting vent fluid away from
previously active locations resulting in significant short term efects
on the ecosystem . However, the vent ecosystem is well adapted to a changing environment
because of natural tectonic activity as discussed in the environment section so long term impacts may be
less severe over the entire vent field.

The organisms in the bottom of the ocean form the basis

for the food chain
Birney, 6 Kristi, Marine Conservation Analyst for the Environmental

Defense Center (EDC) Potential Deep-Sea Mining of Seafloor Massive

Sulfides: A Case Study in Papua New Guinea
The vent ecosystems are rich in carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
organic carbon compounds, methane, hydrogen, and ammonium .
Mineral rich venting fluid forms the basis for the food web. The bacteria
found in the vent systems are chemoautotrophic and use hydrogen sulfide or
methane as their energy source. The majority of bacteria obtain their energy source from
sulfide. Bacteria are specialized for extreme conditions. Hyperthermophiles can be found in extreme
temperatures over 80C, barophiles survive at high pressure, and acidophiles survive in acidic conditions.

Bacteria can be found living in the subsurface of the vents, on surfaces

surrounding vent openings, on the surfaces of vent animals, and suspended
within the effluent itself (Hessler, 1995). Bacteria and hydrothermal vent organisms
form symbiotic relationships with various animals. The importance of the
symbiotic relationships between these organisms is illustrated by the Giant Tubeworm, Riftia pachyptila,
where the relationship 17 with bacteria is obligatory (essential for both host and symbiont). This
tubeworm is a large animal reaching 1-2 meters in length. The host, Riftia, provides the symbiont, bacteria,
with a stable supply of nutrients from the external environment, and the symbiont supplies the host with a
stable supply of organic carbon (Van Dover, 2000). Riftia pachyptila lacks a digestive system, and relies
exclusively on the chemosynthetic bacteria for energy. The bacteria live inside the trophosome of the

It is imperative
that the higher organisms are able to incorporate the energy
produced by the microorganisms so that they can survive at
hydrothermal vents. Other symbiotic dependent organisms include the
Giant White Clams and the mussel Bathymodiolus. In both cases bacteria live in the gill filaments.
Snails and clams are also known to host symbiotic bacteria. In addition to maintaining symbiotic
relationships, the bacteria also form the basis of the food web as primary
tubeworm, which is a specialized organ to house the sulfide-oxidizing bacteria.

producers . Organisms such as the blind Atlantic vent shrimp, Rimacaris,

feed on the sulfur bacteria directly. Similarly, other worms and polychaetes have
been observed with bacteria in their gut, suggesting they feed

directly on the mats of sulfur bacteria. Larger organisms, such as crabs and
fishes are opportunistic feeders and feed on other vent organisms.
Thus, a food web is established, consisting of primary producers
(chemoautotrophic sulfur bacteria), the

secondary producers

shrimp), and predators (fishes) or detritivores (crabs).

(tubeworms, mussels, clams,

***Solvency

AT: Solvency
5 Reason Af Fails in long term- stabilization; sterilization;
savings; socio-economic growth; and safety
UNEP 12 (United Nations Environmental Programme, Green Economy in a
Blue World,
http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_Economy_Blue_Full.pdf)
The truth is that too often mining revenues have been used not for positive social transformation but for

Sound revenue management will ensure that

the correct balance is narrowly struck between saving revenue for future
generations, and spending current mining revenue on with long-term benefits. In order to better
guide governments in the most appropriate way to collect projects, manage
and disburse natural-resources revenues, five issues are of particular importance and need
to be taken into account to ensure sound revenue management. These issues are stabilization;
sterilization; savings; socio-economic growth; and safety. Stabilization refers
to the need to protect against mineral-resource price fluctuations and require
that incremental revenues be set aside in a Fund when the commodity prices are high and taken
out when the prices drop, so that governments have a stable revenue stream. Sterilization involves
keeping a large part of the revenue collected out of the local economy to
avoid Dutch disease and excessive inflationary pressure. Saving for future generations:
since the resources are limited and will eventually be exhausted , some of the
short-term or focused political agendas.

revenues should be saved in view of intergenerational equity. Examples of savings funds include Norway

Safeguarding revenue: protecting saved revenue is not

always easy. It is necessary to have a separate funding vehicle for savings
which is governed by non-discretionary rules, so that Governments are less tempted to
spend these savings. Socio-economic development: although revenue should
be set aside for future generations, long-term investments in infrastructure
and socio-economic projects should be made while mining is going on . Making
good investments in health, education, roads, technology, etc. is also investing in future generations
One of the main challenges for Governments receiving substantial additional
revenues from mining activity is how to properly manage a significant
increase in budget and to avoid waste . Public demands may put government under pressure
and more recently Timor-Leste

to increase expenditure in various areas. Although some socio-economic projects may have long-term
benefits, spending and investment decisions can become highly politicized. In this climate, short-term
benefit projects, rather than long-lasting ones, can often become the norm.

AT: Tech
Technology is not viable
MacDonald, 12 Alistar, Writers WSJ, Next Frontier: Mining the Ocean
Floor,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230339560457743466
0065784388
But previous attempts at deep-sea mining haven't yet proven
technologically possible or economically viable , despite more than a
century of experience. Efforts date back to the 1870s, when a British research vessel trawled
up manganese nodules from a depth of almost three miles as part of a wider scientific study of the world's

Commercial eforts to raise manganese from the ocean floor in

collapsed amid technical difficulties, among other problems .
Despite recent gains in technology , some mining analysts say the

oceans.

the 1970s

challenges ahead for economic production are still significant . Costs

are still far from clear, and the limits of today's advances in technology are still
largely untested. Last week's announcement from Nautilus came as little surprise to analysts,
who say delays are common in mining and particularly so in projects pursuing new avenues.

AT: Private Companies

No mining for a decade---start up costs too high
Goodier, 11 Rob, Journalist, Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay
Right Where They AreFor Now,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rareearth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now
John Wiltshire, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, also at the
University of Hawaii, Manoa, puts it even more bluntly. "The truth of the
matter is, nobody's going to mine in the deep sea even if
somebody massively funds this for a minimum of a decade ," he says.
The startup cost could run from $1 to $2 billion .

No one wants to mine and mining wont replace China for

a decadecant solve the advantages
Goodier 11

(Rob Goddier is a writer for Popular Mechanics environment and earth column, Popular Mechanics,
Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay Right Where They AreFor Now, 7/8/11,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rare-earth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-arefor-now)
Deep-sea rare-earth deposits aren't new, either. Wiltshire, Sansone and many other researchers have been studying
mineral depositsincluding rare-earth mineral depositson the ocean floor since their careers began. "I published a

first papers that indicated rare-earth minerals go

back 30 or 35 years," Wiltshire says. "People have been talking
about mining manganese nodules since the 1960s," Manganese nodules are
paper on this 25 years ago. The

conglomerates of metallic particlesrare-earth metals and othersstripped from the water over eons, and they were the
hot undersea mining topic of decades past. Manganese nodule mining even provided cover for a bit of Cold War intrigue in
1974, when a $350 million deep-sea drilling ship built by one of Howard Hughes' companies supposedly went looking for a
deposit to develop. In fact, the ship was being used by the CIA to look for a Soviet nuclear sub that had sunk off Oahu in
the 1960s. Today, though, as in the 1970s, cost and time remain enormous hurdles to mining these deposits. Wiltshire

says a proposed deep-sea mine of the coast of Papua New Guinea

illustrates the challenges that would face anyone looking to start a
rare-earth operation in the Pacific Ocean. Nautilus Minerals plans to build a $157 million
ship to support what could be the world's only deep-sea gold and copper mine. The ship, floating about three miles above
the seafloor, will need to be gigantic: 680 feet long, with a deadweight capacity of more than 20,000 tons and bunks for
up to 160 people. Nautilus plans to unleash three remote-controlled devices on the sea floor: two cutters and a collector,
adapted from technologies used in the oil and cable-trenching industries. An as-yet-undesigned pump system will lift the

the boat will be a couple

hundred million," Wiltshire says. "A complete operation for Nautilus will
easily be a billion." The question, then, for any company that would seek to lease these areas (from the
ore from the seafloor to the ship. "They've already spent about $400 million,

Pacific nations which possess the rights) and mine rare earths from the ocean bottom is: Is it worth all this trouble and

At 0.2 percent concentration of rare earths, the deep-sea

deposits pale in comparison to ore deposits on land, which can have
5 to 10 percent concentrations. All things being equal, it's easier to
collect minerals from mud than from ore. But things are not equal,
because this mud is beneath three miles of water. Experts do not
discount the notion that we may someday mine rare-earth metals in
the deep sea; perhaps the buzzwords of the year 2040 will be
"Autonomous Underwater Mining Vehicle." But if you're wondering
where rare-earth components in computer chips and solar cells will
come from for the next decade, the answer is clearChina.
expense?

AT: Leasing
Leasing mechanisms failcompanies hate it and very low
concentrations of minerals.
Goodier 11

(Rob Goddier is a writer for Popular Mechanics environment and earth column, Popular Mechanics,
Why Deep-Sea Rare-Earth Metals Will Stay Right Where They AreFor Now, 7/8/11,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/why-deep-sea-rare-earth-metals-will-stay-right-where-they-arefor-now)

The question, then, for any company that would seek to lease these
areas (from the Pacific nations which possess the rights) and mine rare
earths from the ocean bottom is: Is it worth all this trouble and
expense? At 0.2 percent concentration of rare earths, the deep-sea
deposits pale in comparison to ore deposits on land, which can have
5 to 10 percent concentrations. All things being equal, it's easier to
collect minerals from mud than from ore. But things are not equal, because
this mud is beneath three miles of water. Experts do not discount the
notion that we may someday mine rare-earth metals in the deep sea;
perhaps the buzzwords of the year 2040 will be "Autonomous
Underwater Mining Vehicle." But if you're wondering where rareearth components in computer chips and solar cells will come from
for the next decade, the answer is clearChina.

***Chinese Monopoly Advantage

AT: Chinese Monopoly

Chinese monopoly is over - it will never be consistent and
always fall apart
Wortsall 13 Tim, Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, writer at Forbes
(12/18/13, Forbes, Chinese Rare Earth Metals Surprise, Free Markets Actually
Work, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/18/chinese-rareearth-metals-surprise-free-markets-actually-work/) patel
Chinas virtual monopoly on rare earth elements used in hightechnology applications has been loosened, decreasing the risk that
supplies to U.S. defense contractors could be disrupted, according to
the Pentagons latest assessment of the nations industrial base.
Global market forces are leading to positive changes in rare earth supply
chains, and a sufcient supply of most of these materials likely will be
available to the defense industrial base, said the Pentagon report by Elana
Broitman, the Defense Departments top ofcial on the U.S. industrial base.
Prices for most rare earth oxides and metals have declined approximately 60
percent from their peaks in the summer of 2011. Heres the background:
back 5 years ago 95% of the worlds rare earth production came from
China. The rest was in India and Russia or ex-Soviet states (indeed,
the one I deal with was almost exclusively coming from Russia).
Then China decided that they would limit exports from that nation.
The declared reason was environmental: it is indeed a messy
business. The general assumption was that the reason was rather different.
They limited exports of the raw materials but not of anything made from
them. Neodymium for example, had an export limit (and serious export taxes)
slapped on it, but FeNdB magnets, made from neodymium could be exported
without limits or taxes. So we all assumed that the intention was to attract
the manufacturing to China and thus increase the amount of value added in
that country. So, what actually happened? Well, just what people like me,
those with morethan a passing acquaintance with rare earths and free
markets said would happen (indeed, I said it here in Foreign Policy). Mines
outside China began to open up, exploration for new mines outside
China surged (at one point there were more than 400 such projects
going on) and manufacturers started to consider whether they
really, really, needed to use rare earths or whether something else
would do. Supply went up and demand went down in other words.
Thus was the Chinese monopoly broken and prices fell back. All of
which teaches us something useful about monopolies. Where a monopoly
is contestable we dont in fact have to worry about it very much.
China was selling us all of the rare earths we wanted, at prices we
were happy to pay, for decades. So, they had a monopoly? So what?
As soon as they actually tried to take advantage of that monopoly
then it all fell apart for them. They actually, by attempting to restrict
supply, managed to call into being their own competition. This has
applications in other ares of current concern of course. For example, the
European Union claims that Google is misusing its dominance in search. But
while Google certainly is dominant in search this is a contestable monopoly.
As soon as Google starts to throw its weight around to the detriment of

consumers then consumers will go off and use one of the myriad of
alternatives. And new alternatives will arrive as well. Where monopolies are
natural ones (perhaps because of network effects) or backed by government
licence or regulation the situation is different, but a contestable monopoly
can almost certainly be left alone. Precisely because as soon as anyone tries
to profit from the monopoly that monopoly itself will be contested.

Domestic mine in alaska solves

SEACC, 11 (12/27, Rare Earth Elements in Alaska TRADE OUR SALMON
FOR CLEAN ENERGY?, seacc.org/mining/bokan-mountainmine/RareEarthElementswebsitegarfsFINAL.pdf)
An all - but - forgotten uranium mine on Prince of Wales Island has
is experiencing a renaiss ance of much of the hype and speculation
for developing a domestic source for rare Earth Elements (REEs ) is
focused on a small deposit on Prince of Wa les Island near Bokan Mountain. If
you have missed the rhetoric, China controls 97% of the worlds supply of REEs
and is restricting exports threatening the development of renewable energy and green technologies.

Mining on POW is considered neces sary to break Chinas control.

US companies are investing --- solves 30 percent of the

the global supply

Schneider, 12 (October 26, Howard, Washington Post, Chinas advantage

erodes in a key area: rare earth minerals,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-26/business/35498936_1_rareearth-earth-exports-europium)
Colorado-based Molycorp, along
with firms in Australia and elsewhere, were reshaping the
landscape. Molycorp reopened a rare earth mine in Mountain Pass,
Calif., that had been shuttered a decade ago because the supply of the minerals
coming from China was so cheap. Molycorp President Mark A. Smith said the company,
which has scaled up employment at the mine from 55 to 420 in recent years, aims to produce
Even as the United States was pursuing its WTO claim,

as much as 40,000 metric tons a year by 2013 , accounting for about

30 percent of projected world supply.

Molycorp will solve domestic rare earth shortages

Proctor 13 (Cathy, Oct 2 2013, "Molycorp: The only US rare-earth mine is

ready for prime time,"

www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2013/10/molycorps-onlyrare-earth-mine-in-the.html?page=all, ADL)
The last major elements of the $1.5 billion expansion and modernization of Molycorp Inc.s rare
earth mining and processing facility in Mountain Pass, Calif., are done, according to the
company. Specifically, the mines chloralkali plant is mechanically complete and
work to start up the plant has begun, the Greenwood Village-based mining company
(NYSE: MCP) said Wednesday. Also, the last unit of the mines multi-stage cracking plant also is
mechanically complete and startup procedures have begun, Molycorp said. This means that the final

construction work on the $1.5 billion rebuild of the Mountain Pass facility is complete, Molycorps
spokesman, Jim Sims, told me. The units are now in commissioning and following that theyll go into full-

Molycorp mines rare-earth elements, which are

processed into compounds vital for a number of industrial and military applications, including
scale production, he said.

electronics, oil refining, bombs and special magnets used in wind turbines and electric cars. At Mountain
Pass, Molycorp owns the biggest U.S. deposits of rare earths. The chloralkali plant takes wastewater from
the process that separates mining ore and the rare earth elements and recycles it into feedstocks for the

it
also drives down our production costs, Sims said. Molycorp hopes its
process will be competitive with the lowest cost rare earth
producers in the world, the company said. The mines multi-stage cracking
plant is part of a chemical process that raises the amount of rare
earth elements the facility can get from the ore, speed up the
production process, and also lower costs, the company said. About 8 percent of the
ore you pull out of the ground is rare earths, Sims said. Were getting increasingly
better rates of recovery, and this last unit of the multi-stage
cracking unit will help us increase that even more. Its all about
efficiency, he said.
separation process, Sims said. It greatly reduces the environmental footprint at Mountain Pass, and

China is taking eforts to stabilize prices now: stockpiling

and taxes
Lowder 12 - Sally Lowder of The Critical Metals Report (9/11/12, "China's
Stockpile Effort Could Stablize Rare Earth Metals Prices: Brandon Tirpak,"
www.theaureport.com/pub/na/chinas-stockpile-effort-could-stabilize-rareearth-metals-prices-brandon-tirpak, ADL)

Ultimately, falling prices for the metal commodities or for the rare earth oxides (REOs) directly affect

the Chinese government will take extra

measures to stabilize prices or exert some upward price pressure,
such as new taxes or the stockpiling eforts it recently announced.
TCMR: Tell us more about China's stockpiling plans. BT: This past July, the Chinese
government announced, without elaboration, that it would create a stockpile
of roughly 6 billion (B) renminbi-worth of REEs. That effort will begin within the next several weeks. A
lot of people expect to see some price stabilization as a result, and if
you take note of figures published by Asian Metal, the rate at which
prices are falling has slowed drastically over the last several months .
money flowing into the industry. I think

AT: Monopoly = War

It is empirically denied by the Japan disputes China will go
to war when they stop exports
Sternberg 14- Joseph, editor at the WSJ (1/8/14, Wall Street Journal, How the
Great Rare-Earth Metals Crisis Vanished,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230384810457930825
2845415022) patel
There was a time, not so long ago, when the world feared China was
going to use its dominance of the global rare-earth-element industry
to crush Western economies and militaries in a strategic vise. Those
were the days. Recent developments highlight how wrong those
alarmist predictions were. Rare earths are the metals at the bottom of the
periodic table that are exceptionally useful in many high-tech applications,
from lasers to solar panels to electric car batteries to smartphones. China is
the world's major extractor and only processor of rare-earth ores. Beijing
aroused worries in late 2010 when it apparently limited exports of
the minerals to Japan amid a territorial dispute. The episode stoked
fears that China would use its sole-supplier status for nefarious
ends. Except that it turns out Beijing doesn't have the wherewithal
to execute such a dastardly plan. Consider the new plan Beijing
unveiled last week to consolidate its rare-earth industry into six
large extraction and processing companies. As a start, Inner
Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-Tech Company (yes, that's its
name) is buying nine of its smaller competitors in the north, with
more mergers and acquisitions to come. This is at least the second
time in roughly a decade that Beijing has attempted rare-earth
rationalization. The first foundered when faced by opposition that
included the local officials who so often sponsor projects away from
Beijing's watchful gaze. The consolidation drive is a sign of
weakness, not strength. The impetus is Beijing's need to resolve the
problems its past interventions in the market have created. Export
restrictions kicked in three years ago, ofcially justified by the need to reduce
the pollution caused by mining and processing. Global prices rose
dramatically, creating an incentive for new miners to start production, and an
opportunity for them to profit from circumventing export blocks via endemic
smuggling. Meanwhile, Beijing's economic stimulus policies lowered
the cost of credit, making it easier to fund this investment. But once
the global panic subsided and demand slackened, rare-earth prices
fell by as much as 60% from their 2011 peaks. Oversupply is the new
worry. On a related note, the export restrictions also have not helped Beijing
mitigate the environmental damage caused by the rare-earth industry.
Processing the ores is messy work, and Beijing seems to have hoped that
whatever other mercantilist objective it might achieve, limiting export
quantities would also lead to a cleanup of the industry at home. Not so,
because the restrictions stimulated new mining by small, illegal operators
with even worse environmental practices than the big companies. Now lower
global prices and the resulting thinner profit margins make costly
environmental compliance that much harder. Don't suppose for a minute that

centrally arranged consolidation will solve any of this, since consolidation

doesn't fix the underlying problem with China's approach to rare earths:
Beijing still steadfastly refuses to allow the market to operate. Just ask
yourself, when is the last time that politically allocated capital; administrative
controls on price, production, export or other disposition of an output; and
centrally determined corporate structures resulted in a rational industry, in
China or anywhere else? For guidance on better options, Beijing could look
abroad. The other big rare earths story of the moment highlights the extent
to which Beijing's non-market machinations have triggered helpful market
responses elsewhere. A Pentagon report leaked last month noted that
reliance on Chinese rare-earth metals, while still high, is declining. New
supplies for most rare-earths are coming online, as uncertainty over China's
reliability and a period of higher prices stimulated investment in new mining
projects elsewhere. Greenland and Russia both have opened new tracts
to rare-earths exploration in the past year. China's share of global
production now is down to as low as 80% from 95% in 2010.

AT: Solvency
The US lacks domestic refining capabilitystill get sent to
China
Kennedy 1/29

(Jim Kennedy is an internationally recognized expert on rare earths and Thorium

nuclear energy systems and has been actively involved in consulting, advisory and legislative issues for
the mining and energy industry. He is a leading industry advocate for the development of a fully integrated
rare earth value chain inside the U.S. and promoting the development of Thorium nuclear energy., Investor
Intel, Chinas Rare Earth Monopoly and its formidable impact on U.S. National Defense,
http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/chinas-rare-earth-monopoly-formidable-impact-u-s-nationaldefense/#sthash.gA1R2Gc5.dpuf)
Molycorp recently disclosed

to shareholders that much of its cerium

production cannot be sold, because of the latter materials
oversupply. Cerium and lanthanum oxides, which are typically used by the glass polishing and
petroleum cracking industries, are not critical to weapon systems or high
technology applications. It is my understanding that Molycorp sells most of its lanthanum to
W.R. Grace for use in the chemical catalyst petroleum applications. The remaining 17%* of
high value rare earths that Molycorp produces from Mountain Pass
goes to China for refining and value adding, according to the acquisition
agreement between Neo Material Technologies Inc. and Molycorp.

No domestic refining capability and China is preferred by

US companies.
Kennedy 1/29

(Jim Kennedy is an internationally recognized expert on rare earths and Thorium

nuclear energy systems and has been actively involved in consulting, advisory and legislative issues for
the mining and energy industry. He is a leading industry advocate for the development of a fully integrated
rare earth value chain inside the U.S. and promoting the development of Thorium nuclear energy., Investor
Intel, Chinas Rare Earth Monopoly and its formidable impact on U.S. National Defense,
http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/chinas-rare-earth-monopoly-formidable-impact-u-s-nationaldefense/#sthash.gA1R2Gc5.dpuf)

U.S. mining of rare earths is pointless if it isnt able to refine these

resources into value added DoD ready commodities: China maintains
a global monopoly on all refining, metallurgical, alloy and component
technologies as well as OEM and material science facilities. U.S., Japanese,
Korean and European businesses are relocating to China to secure access to these
materials, including those used by National Defense. For instance, in 2013, GM
1.

established a new Technology Science Laboratory in China. As an example, a Chinese corporation was
granted approval to purchase the assets of A123 battery. A123 was the centerpiece of the Obama
Administrations drive for electric vehicles. The fact that GE moved the last of its medical imaging divisions

Over the last decade nearly every major

multinational relying on REEs has moved its manufacturing
facilities, established subsidiaries and suppliers in China to gain
access to these materials in what is a labor and technology drain that is
to China provides further proof.

undermining our economic future. The U.S. should establish in my opinion a fully integrated REE refinery
value chain in North America.

AT: China Bashing

Currency manipulation causes China bashing
Hsu, 4/21 Sara, Assistant Professor of Economics at the State University of
New York, Are Claims of Currency Manipulation Just China Bashing?,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/are-claims-of-currency-manipulation-justchina-bashing/
Opponents of the idea that China manipulates its currency assert
that this allegation is a type of China bashing , carried out for
political purposes and containing little economic merit. These analysts contend that the
currency manipulation argument becomes a larger issue only when it
is politically convenient, as interest groups in favor of legislation
against China gain ground. They also argue that Chinas chosen type
of crawling peg exchange rate is valid since experience has shown
that other types of exchange rates, particularly a fully liberalized
exchange rate, can be harmful if the currency suddenly changes
value. Some scholars have also found the currency manipulation allegations to be counterproductive, as
they result in a further depreciation of the currency.

AT: Protectionism IL
china tightening its grip on REE increase production of
other REEs and increases innovation for conservation --internal link turns the impact
OR
US will always be able to get REEs even with restrictions
PLumer, 12 (10/19, Brad, Washington Post, Chinas grip on the worlds
rare earth market may be slipping,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/19/chinaschokehold-over-rare-earth-metals-is-slipping/)

in 2010, China decided to restrict its export quota by 40 percent. That

helped drive prices up and suddenly made it economical for other
countries to start boosting their own production again again. Out in
Mountain Pass, Calif., for instance, Molycorp is now reopening and expanding its
massive rare earth metals mine. Meanwhile, Japan has rushed to reduce its dependence
Then

on rare earths over the past few yearsespecially since China has a habit of restricting exports every time

Panasonic has developed a technique to

recycle neodymium from old electronic appliances. Honda is
extracting rare earths from used car batteries. TDK Corp., which creates
magnets for motors, now sprays dysprosium on its motors rather than mixing it in,
in order to conserve. All told, reports the Asahi Shinbun, Japans demand for rare earths dropped
from 31,000 tons in 2010 to 23,000 tons in 2011. So even though China is still the
worlds largest rare earths supplier, its ability to control the global
market has lessened greatly . Within two years, the market adjusted . As a
the two nations get into a territorial spat.

result, Barber notes, China itself also is changing its tune and has announced a higher export quota.

2010 empirically denies the impact --- we dont become

protectionist nor crack down but just find new reserves
Parthemore, 1AC Author, 11 (Christine Parthemore, Fellow at the Center
for a New American Security (CNAS), where she directs the Natural Security
Program and the Natural Security Blog, prolific author, former journalist
writing for The Washington Post, Roll Call, and the Atlanta JournalConstitution, MA from Georgetown University's Security Studies Program,
June 2011, ELEMENTS OF SEUCURITY: MITIGATING THE RISKS OF U.S.
DEPENDENCE ON CRITICAL MINERALS, Center for a New American Security,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore
_1.pdf)
Minerals are a subject of much contention. On one hand, the United States remains less prepared for
supply disruptions, price spikes and trade disagreements related to the global minerals trade than most
experts realize. On the other hand, public concern over reliable access to the minerals required in key
sectors of the U.S. economy, in particular those needed to produce military equipment, is growing. Too
frequently, however, such concerns are based on inaccurate assumptions. A sober and informed analysis
suggests there are real vulnerabilities, which place critical national security and foreign policy interests at
risk. In worst-case scenarios, supplies of minerals that the United States does not produce domestically
may be disrupted, creating price spikes and lags in delivery. Even short of major supply disruptions,

supplier countries can exert leverage over the United States by threatening to cut off certain key mineral
supplies. The United States may also lose ground strategically if it continues to lag in managing mineral
issues, as countries that consider assured access to minerals as far more strategically important are

Chinas rising dominance is at the

heart of this growing public debate. Its 2010 cutof of rare earth
elements2 a unique set of minerals that are difcult to process yet critical to many hightech
applications attracted particular attention. After Japan detained a Chinese trawler
increasingly setting the rules for trade in this area.

captain over a skirmish in the East China Sea, Japanese companies reported weeks of stalled shipments of
rare earths from China amid rumors of an ofcial embargo. This may sound like a minor trade dispute, but
China currently controls production of about 95 percent of the worlds rare earths, which are critical to
building laser-guidance systems for weapons, refining petroleum and building wind turbines. Coinciding

China has also reduced

its export quotas for these minerals. For its part, the Chinese government contended
with possessing this incredible leverage over the rest of the world,

that it did not put any formal export embargo in place, and that its plans to reduce exports simply reflect
the need to meet growing domestic demand for rare earths. Japan-China relations experienced further

many reporters, policy

analysts and decision makers did not foresee this challenge. Feeling
blindsided, some in the United States characterized the situation in a manner that demonized China
strain in their already tense relationship. In the United States,

rather than using the opportunity to better understand the true nature of U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities.

The 2010 rare earths case and others are increasing interest in
critical minerals among U.S. policymakers. Congress held hearings on
the strategic importance of minerals between 2007 and 2010, and the 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act required DOD to study and report on its dependence on rare earth elements for
weapons, communications and other systems.3 During a 2009 hearing on minerals and military readiness,
Republican Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia called minerals, one of those things that no one really
talks about or worries about until something goes wrong. Its at that point the point where we dont have
the steel we need to build MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles] or the rhenium we need to
build a JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] engine that the stockpile becomes critically important.4 In October 2010,

Clinton stated that it would be in our

interests commercially and strategically to find additional sources
of supply for rare earth minerals, and stated that Chinas recent cuts to rare
earth exports served as a wakeup call that being so dependent on only
one source, disruption could occur for natural disaster reasons or
other kinds of events could intervene
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Protectionism now over solar panels

Cardwell, 6/3 Diane, NYT Writer, U.S. Imposes Steep Tariffs on Importers
of Chinese Solar Panels,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/business/energy-environment/usimposing-duties-on-some-chinese-solar-panels.html?_r=0

The Commerce Department on Tuesday imposed steep duties on

importers of Chinese solar panels made from certain components ,
asserting that the manufacturers had benefited from unfair
subsidies. The duties will range from 18.56 to 35.21 percent, the department said. The
decision, in a long-simmering trade dispute, addresses one of the
main charges in a petition brought by the manufacturer SolarWorld
Industries America. While it is preliminary, the ruling means that the United States will begin
collecting the tariffs in advance of the final decision, expected later this year. Today is a strong
win for the U.S. solar industry, said Mukesh Dulani, president of SolarWorld Industries
America, based in Hillsboro, Ore. We look forward to the end of illegal Chinese government intervention in

The
decision comes against a backdrop of increasing trade conflict
the U.S. solar market, and we applaud Commerce for its work that supports fair trade.

driven at least partly by a rapidly evolving industry whose center of

manufacture and installation has shifted over the last decade from
Europe to Asia. Although the European Union settled a similar dispute with China through
negotiation, tensions have still bubbled. And the United States is seeking to challenge India over the local
content requirements for its solar program through the World Trade Organization.

AT: Protectionism Impact

Trade wars wont escalate to real conflict, let alone
protectionism
Ikenson, 09 associate director for the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the
Cato Institute (Daniel, A Protectionism Fling: Why Tariff Hikes and Other
Trade Barriers Will Be Short-Lived, 3/12,
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-037.html
A Little Perspective, Please
Although some governments will dabble in some degree of protectionism, the
combination of a sturdy rules-based system of trade and the economic self
interest in being open to participation in the global economy will limit the risk
of a protectionist pandemic. According to recent estimates from the
International Food Policy Research Institute, if all WTO members were to raise
all of their applied tariffs to the maximum bound rates, the average global
rate of duty would double and the value of global trade would decline by 7.7
percent over five years.8 That would be a substantial decline relative to the
5.5 percent annual rate of trade growth experienced this decade.9
But, to put that 7.7 percent decline in historical perspective, the value of
global trade declined by 66 percent between 1929 and 1934, a period mostly
in the wake of Smoot Hawley's passage in 1930.10 So the potential downside
today from what Bergsten calls "legal protectionism" is actually not that
"massive," even if all WTO members raised all of their tariffs to the highest
permissible rates.
If most developing countries raised their tariffs to their bound rates, there would be an adverse impact on the countries that raise barriers and
on their most important trade partners. But most developing countries that have room to backslide (i.e., not China) are not major importers,
and thus the impact on global trade flows would not be that significant. OECD countries and China account for the top twothirds of global
import value.11 Backsliding from India, Indonesia, and Argentina (who collectively account for 2.4 percent of global imports) is not going to be
the spark that ignites a global trade war. Nevertheless, governments are keenly aware of the events that transpired in the 1930s, and have
made various pledges to avoid protectionist measures in combating the current economic situation.
In the United States, after President Obama publicly registered his concern that the "Buy American" provision in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act might be perceived as protectionist or could incite a trade war, Congress agreed to revise the legislation to stipulate that the
Buy American provision "be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements." In early February,
China's vice commerce minister, Jiang Zengwei, announced that China would not include "Buy China" provisions in its own $586 billion
stimulus bill.12
But even more promising than pledges to avoid trade provocations are actions taken to reduce existing trade barriers. In an effort to "reduce
business operating costs, attract and retain foreign investment, raise business productivity, and provide consumers a greater variety and
better quality of goods and services at competitive prices," the Mexican government initiated a plan in January to unilaterally reduce tariffs on
about 70 percent of the items on its tariff schedule. Those 8,000 items, comprising 20 different industrial sectors, accounted for about half of
all Mexican import value in 2007. When the final phase of the plan is implemented on January 1, 2013, the average industrial tariff rate in
Mexico will have fallen from 10.4 percent to 4.3 percent.13
And Mexico is not alone. In February, the Brazilian government suspended tariffs entirely on some capital goods imports and reduced to 2
percent duties on a wide variety of machinery and other capital equipment, and on communications and information technology products.14
That decision came on the heels of late-January decision in Brazil to scrap plans for an import licensing program that would have affected 60
percent of the county's imports.15
Meanwhile, on February 27, a new free trade agreement was signed between Australia, New Zealand, and the 10 member countries of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations to reduce and ultimately eliminate tariffs on 96 percent of all goods by 2020.

While the media and members of the trade policy community fixate on how
various protectionist measures around the world might foreshadow a plunge
into the abyss, there is plenty of evidence that governments remain
interested in removing barriers to trade. Despite the occasional temptation to
indulge discredited policies, there is a growing body of institutional
knowledge that when people are free to engage in commerce with one
another as they choose, regardless of the nationality or location of the other
parties, they can leverage that freedom to accomplish economic outcomes
far more impressive than when governments attempt to limit choices through
policy constraints.

AT: China Impact

No China war
Robert J. Art , Fall 20 10 Christian A. Herter Professor of International Relations at Brandeis
University and Director of MIT's Seminar XXI Program The United States and the rise of China:
implications for the long haul Political Science Quarterly 125.3 (Fall 2010): p359(33)
The workings of these three factors should make us cautiously optimistic about keeping Sino-American

The peaceful track does not, by any

means, imply the absence of political and economic conflicts in SinoAmerican relations, nor does it foreclose coercive diplomatic gambits by each against the other. What it
does mean is that the conditions are in place for war to be a lowprobability event, if policymakers are smart in both states (see
below), and that an all-out war is nearly impossible to imagine. By the
historical standards of recent dominant-rising state dyads, this is no mean feat. In
sum, there will be some security dilemma dynamics at work in the
U.S.-China relationship, both over Taiwan and over maritime
supremacy in East Asia, should China decide eventually to contest
America's maritime hegemony, and there will certainly be political
and military conflicts, but nuclear weapons should work to mute
their severity because the security of each state's homeland will
never be in doubt as long as each maintains a second-strike capability vis-a-vis the other. If
two states cannot conquer one another, then the character of their
relation and their competition changes dramatically. These three
relations on the peaceful rather than the warlike track.

benchmarks--China's ambitions will grow as its power grows; the United States cannot successfully wage
economic warfare against a China that pursues a smart reassurance (peaceful rise) strategy; and Sino-

American relations are not doomed to follow recent past rising-dominant power dyads--are
the starting points from which to analyze America's interests in East Asia. I now turn to these interests.

***Clean Tech Advantage

AT: Clean Tech (High)

The US is winning the clean tech race and has structural
advantages over China
Bredenberg, 13 Al, writer, analyst, consultant, communicator, and

specialist in the investigation and articulation of complex topics More

Questions Raised About Whether U.S. or China Dominates in Cleantech,
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/03/25/more-questions-raised-aboutwhether-us-or-china-dominates-cleantech/
Conventional wisdom says that, when it comes to cleantech
manufacturing, China is cleaning the United Statess clock . We published a
piece here at IMT Green & Clean Journal a few weeks ago implying exactly that. So you can
imagine our surprise when the Pew Charitable Trusts Environmental
Initiatives group came out with a report this month claiming that the
U.S. actually has a trade surplus over China in solar photovoltaic
(PV), wind and smart energy technologies . The report makes the contrarian
statement: Considering all aspects of the value chain, U.S. exports and
trade to China actually exceeded Chinese exports to the United States by
$1.63 billion in 2011, 2011 being the latest year in which data were available for the purposes of the
report. Overall, says Pew, the U.S. and China, the worlds leading economies, trade more than half a
trillion dollars in goods and services back and forth. In that big picture, China exported $4.00 in 2011 for

reflecting the reality that China is a low-cost

producer and the United States a high-volume consumer of finished
products. But in the area of clean energy technologies, the U.S.
has some advantages that arent reflected in that larger picture. Pew
every $1.00 by the U.S.,

finds that, because

of the countrys expertise in innovation and

entrepreneurship , U.S. firms excel in production and sale of

complex, high-margin and performance-critical goods , while Chinas
strength is more narrowly based on assembly and high-volume
manufacturing.

US Clean tech high and increasing with no signs of

slowing down
Department of Energy 14 ("CLEAN TECH NOW," energy.gov/clean-

tech-now, ADL)
Americas energy landscape is undergoing a dramatic
transformation. According to a new Energy Department report,
falling costs for four clean energy technologies -- land-based wind
power, solar panels, electric cars and LED lighting -- have led to a
surge in demand and deployment. The numbers tell an exciting
story: America is experiencing a historic shift to a cleaner, more
domestic and more secure energy future. That clean technology
revolution is here today -- and it is gaining force. Read the report Revolution Now:
The Future for Four Clean Energy Technologies Watch a video from Secretary Ernest Moniz and learn more about the report

Wind energy is
the fastest growing source of power in the United States, creating
jobs opportunities for thousands of Americans and boosting
Read Secretary's Moniz blog post about the report and the Clean Tech Revolution WIND ENERGY

economic growth. In 2012, U.S. wind capacity topped 60 GW, enough energy to power more than 15 million
homes. America's Wind Industry Reaches Record Highs Wind Farm Growth Through the Years Blades of Glory: Wind

The U.S.
is on the verge of a major shift to solar energy, putting a clean,
renewable energy source within reach of the average American
family. In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost about 1 percent of what they did 30 years ago, and deployment
is skyrocketing. Top 6 Things You Didn't Know About Solar Energy Energy 101: Solar Photovoltaics Energy
Technology Bringing Us Closer To a Clean Energy Future Energy 101: Wind Turbines RESIDENTIAL SOLAR

Department Support Brings Game-Changing Advancements in Solar Energy Finding Solutions to Solar's Soft Cost Dilemma

Before 2010, there was efectively no

demand for electric vehicles. In 2012, Americans bought more than
50,000 plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). And with battery costs falling more than 50 percent in the last
Solar For Milwaukee, By Milwaukee ELECTRIC VEHICLES

four years, 2013 is set to be another banner year for PEVs. In the first half of 2013, Americans doubled the number of
PEVs they purchased compared to the same period in 2012, and last month, PEV sales reached a new record high. More
than 11,000 PEVs were sold in August 2013 -- that's a 29 percent improvement in sales over the previous monthly record.
Top 10 Things You Didnt Know About Electric Vehicles The eGallon: How Much Cheaper Is It to Drive on Electricity?

LED
lighting generates more light than heat and lasts as much as 25
times longer. Once an expensive niche product, LED bulbs are becoming an affordable choice for Americans
looking to reduce their electric bills. In 2012, about 49 million LEDs were installed in the
U.S. -- saving about $675 million in annual energy costs. Switching entirely to LED lights over the
next two decades could save the U.S. $250 billion in energy costs and
avoid 1,800 million metric tons of carbon pollution. Top 8 Things You Didnt Know
Visualizing Electric Vehicle Sales Energy 101: Electric Vehicles LED LIGHTING Unlike traditional incandescent bulbs,

About LEDs LED Lighting Bright Lights and Even Brighter Ideas Energy 101: Lumens A Winning Light Bulb With the
Potential to Save the Nation Billions

US clean tech is at historically record highs

Clean Edge 13 (June 2013, "2013 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index,"

http://cleanedge.com/sites/default/files/CTLI-2013-Report.pdf, ADL)
Yet despite these negative factors, clean-tech deployment in the U.S. showed notable,
and even historic, market momentum during the year. Wind power,
spurred in part by the then-looming expiration of the federal
production tax credit, grew by 28 percent with 13.1 gigawatts of new capacity installed in
2012, bringing the U.S. past the 60 GW milestone in total wind power
capacity for the first time. That made wind energy the nations largest source of new generation
capacity for the year, contributing 41 percent of the total even more than the 33 percent
share of new generation capacity from natural gas. Overall, renewable
energy (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and others) accounted for 49 percent of the
nations added electricity capacity, its largest share ever. Solar PV in
the U.S., spurred by continued price drops and ever-more-innovative
financing options, had its second straight banner growth year.
Installed PV capacity grew by 3,313 MW or 76 percent, with California becoming the first
state to install more than 1,000 MW in a single year. The geothermal power industry
bounced back from recent doldrums, adding more than three times
as much new capacity in 2012 as the two previous years combined.
This growth in clean energy occurred with little significant new federal legislation or Congressional leadership.
But clean-tech leadership at the state and metro level tells a different, and much better, story. As we
detail in the State Index, U.S. states often politically conservative ones are now rivaling the worlds
leading clean- tech nations for preeminence in many areas. Take Iowa and
South Dakota. With each state generating 24 percent of its utility-scale electricity from wind power in 2012, they trail only
the country of Denmark (at 30 percent) for world leadership in this critical clean-tech metric. And Iowa wind farms actually
generate more power than those in Denmark 13,945 GWh in 2012, as compared to 11,637 GWh in Denmark (much less
populous South Dakota generated 2,914 GWh from wind). An April 2013 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists,
Ramping Up Renewables: Energy You Can Count On, presented this type of if states were countries analysis. North
Dakota (with 15 percent of generation from wind) and Minnesota (14 percent) would also make this global top 10, just
below Portugals 17 percent and Spains 16 percent. Global clean-tech powerhouse Germany generated 11 percent of its
electricity from wind last year, but so did Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Germany, with a much larger

population than most U.S. states, has much larger total power from wind 61,204 GWh in 2012. The leading U.S. state in
total wind generation, Texas, reached 31,860 GWh. On peak wind days during the year, wind farms supplied 25 percent of
the juice to the grid in the Midwest, 30 percent to the Southwest Power Pool (Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Texas
Panhandle), and 32 percent in the rest of Texas. The nationwide generation percentage for the U.S., by contrast, was just

The emergence of
states as key global markets for clean-tech products and services
has not been lost on the industry, particularly with some states renewable portfolio standard
three percent, although wind was the largest contributor of new capacity as noted above.

(RPS) mandates, net-metering laws, and other supportive policies under attack from fossil-fuel backed lobbyists and
legislators. The federal PTC is hugely important, but it is state policies that drive our markets, says Susan Innis, senior
manager of public affairs for leading wind turbine maker Vestas North America.

AT: Clean Tech (Low)

Clean tech industry failing --- companies cant keep up
Texier, 14 Maud, analyst on a power trading desk, she studied the market
mechanisms that can develop new demand-response models. She has been
scouting new technologies such as renewables, storage or energy efciency
for a large power utility in Silicon Valley before joining a solar start-up., The
State Of The Cleantech Industry, http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/11/statecleantech-industry/
However, overproduction of solar cells and panels, combined with
rapidly falling prices for that and other reasons, led to the demise
of numerous solar startups. Meanwhile, many European countries, facing a financial
crisis, stepped back and reduced its support for cleantech . The early growing
pains that face all industries as they mature also showed up . That
included some innovators going bankrupt or struggling to make it
to their teenage years . Iconic cleantech companies such as Fisker,
Better Place, and A123 went bankrupt; a lot of other startups had
poor exits as they were struggling raising new funds.

AT: China Race

The Af is just rhetoric the US and China are engaged in
a cooperative framework
World Resources Insitute 12 - An issue convened by The World

Resources Institute in the ChinaFAQs (April 2012, "CLEAN TECHS RISE, PART
II: U.S.-China Collaboration in Public-Private Partnerships,"
www.chinafaqs.org/files/chinainfo/ChinaFAQs_IssueBrief2_PPP.pdf, ADL)
As two of the worlds largest economies, competition between the
United States and China often obscures another reality: As the
globes two biggest users of energy and producers of greenhouse
gases, the two nations have also long collaborated on eforts to
develop and scale-up cleaner energy technologies. U.S. business is
widely engaged with Chinese businesses in private business
relations1 and also in public-private partnerships. Indeed, their
overlapping interests in clean energy have spawned a wide array of
cooperative, public-private projects that are delivering tangible
benefits to both nations and the world at-large, including new markets for U.S.
companies, improvements in clean tech for both countries, lower global costs of controlling pollution and
emissions, and new opportunities for economic growth and jobs.2 A key feature of public-private
partnerships is that U.S. businesses recognize the benefits and are contributing funds to these initiatives.

Government agencies and companies in the U.S. and China have

been collaborating on energy and climate issues for a quarter-of-acentury, notes Mark D. Levine, a senior scientist at the U.S.
Department of Energys Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who has been
involved in U.S.-China energy partnerships for decades.3 China, for
instance, has gained key technical assistance from the U.S. that has
helped it develop energy saving standards for buildings,4 household appliances5
and autos.6 At the same time, U.S. government officials, business executives and
academics have gained extensive insight into Chinas complex energy system and
its approach to policy-making, and have built working relationships with key
decision-makers.7 Both nations are gaining practical, hands-on experience developing and
deploying new technologies from carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) to advanced wind

The lessons learned, experts say, can help build

mutual trust and drive down the costs of these technologies
worldwide.8 This cooperation comes at a critical time for the health
of the global climate. If the Chinese dont dramatically reduce carbon emissions from coal,
turbines due to Chinas rapid economic growth.

theres no way we can make a dent in climate change globally in the time period that matters, says Kelly
Sims Gallagher, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy at Tufts University and ChinaFAQs expert.9
Because the United States and China are the worlds top two greenhouse gas emitters, together
accounting for more than 40% of annual emissions, any solution requires both countries to transition to
low-carbon economies, writes Kenneth Lieberthal, a China expert at the Brookings Institution in
Washington, D.C. U.S.-China cooperation on climate change would have not only bilateral but global

In recent years, the two nations have expanded opportunities

for collaboration through a range of agreements and multilateral
and bilateral organizations. In 2008, for instance, building on a 30-year history of science
and technology collaboration,11 the U.S. and China signed The Ten-Year
Framework Agreement on Energy and Environment, which identifies five areas
benefits.

of cooperation, including clean and efcient electricity production and transmission, and clean
transportation.12 In 2009, the two nations extended the Framework, launching a wide-ranging package of
cooperative efforts between private businesses, various Chinese ministries and U.S. agencies, including
the establishment of three U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Centers (focusing on electric vehicles, clean
coal, and buildings), an Energy Cooperation Partnership (ECP) working to match U.S. clean energy

businesses with Chinese markets, the U.S. China Renewable Energy Partnership, and others.13 Such efforts
reflect the fact that cooperation on clean energy and climate change is now seen in both Washington and
Beijing as a major issue in U.S.-China relations, notes Kenneth Lieberthal. The

world has
awakened, he adds, to the potential for U.S.-China cooperation on clean
energy and climate change.

The clean tech race is just politicized rhetoric more likely

that US and China companies will cooperate
Pricewaterhouse Coppers 11 (January 2011, "The US-China
cleantech connection: shaping a new commercial diplomacy,"
www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/assets/us-china-cleantech-connection.pdf,
ADL)
Competing together Behind the oft-politicized rhetoric of a so-called
cleantech race, there also exists a deepening, increasingly complex
inter-dependence between US and Chinese cleantech firms and the
strong likelihood that more US and Chinese companies are finding
intersections of collaboration. China and the US have become more
dependent upon one another, as greentech becomes more global
with companies from China, the US and EU working more
collaboratively, said Ellen Pao, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a US
venture capital firm which invests in cleantech start-ups in China. The rapid growth of cleantech
industries comes as China shifts as the worlds factory to a maturing market keen on expanding its share
of intellectual property assets and establishing global brands.

Achieving these ambitions in

many cases goes hand-in-hand with enlisting as partners US companies

with the know-how, technology and brands, for example companies offering higher-quality turbine
technology, smart grid infrastructures, and electric vehicle components and charging devices, to name a

Such partnerships are motivated by joint ownerships and codevelopment of intellectual property assets, which could lead to
two-way paths of reciprocal access to markets.
few.

US and Chinese markets are partnering in clean tech

Pricewaterhouse Coppers 11 (January 2011, "The US-China

cleantech connection: shaping a new commercial diplomacy,"

www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/assets/us-china-cleantech-connection.pdf,
ADL)
The US and China have emerged as global leaders of cleantech , each
placing big bets that aggressive backing of emerging industries can achieve multiple goals of
environmental protection, resource conservation and economic growth. Cleantechs quick rise among
national priorities has effectively created new markets for clean energy and efciency technologies. Some

the US and China are

forging ahead with ambitious build-outs in areas such as mega wind
and solar plants, smart electricity grids and green transportation
infrastructures. Indeed, the potential scale and political urgency of these emerging industries
of these may well take years and even decades to mature. Meanwhile,

along with ambitious national targets for roll-outs bear a semblance of the Space Race of the 1960s.

While cleantech companies in both countries are in many cases locked in head-to-head
competition to become major players in these developments, there also exist
intersections where US and Chinese companies are partnering in ways that play to
each others strengths while closely aligning with national clean
energy policies. Successful partnerships could potentially hold significant
growth opportunities both within and beyond US and Chinese
markets.

AT: Warming Impact

No warming and not anthropogenic
Ferrara, 2012 (Peter, 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,
served in the White House Ofce of Policy Development, graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School , 5/31/2012, "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing

natural climate cycles have already

turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already
been declining for more than 10 years , and global temperatures will continue
to decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the
ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because

seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as

serious natural
science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from
government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and
one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured

taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference

you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by

serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to
these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot
defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global
warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, lets see if the alarmists really do have any response. The
speeches are online. What

Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UNs Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate
Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those
Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UNs IPCC.
You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have

20th century temperature

record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the
industrial revolutions upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the
supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead
none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently. Check out the

the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example,
temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The
popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually

natural cycles turned warm and temperatures

rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage.
due around now. In the late 1970s, the

The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land

Every 25 to 30 years the

oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to
replace the warmer water at the surface, and that afects global
temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s
surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000, the
UNs IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science

Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He
publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made
to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don

that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UNs IPCC did not know or did not

results are in, and the winner is

Easterbrook

think significant. Well, the

.Don
. Easterbrook also
spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible? Watch that online and you

All I ever see

from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations,
personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with
admissions that they cant defend their views in public debate. Easterbrook shows that by
will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.

2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a
degree , and the gap was widening . Thats a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same
folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of
Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce
a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations
of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Haydens presentation online as well. Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years,

Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades

or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming
and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the
flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a
surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in
the earths history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the

Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A
Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes). Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from
1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots
during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered
from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and

impacts of the sun on the earths climate were discussed

by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the
Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author
with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun. Easterbrook suggests that the
outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get .
premature death. Such
at the conference

Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton
Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN
and its politicized IPCC.

Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts

Singer et al 2011 Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor
Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a
Member of the International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook
University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher,
marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and
Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical
Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of
American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf)

Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of

human well-being, including the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic
hunger, poverty rates, and deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic
improvement during the twentieth century, notwithstanding the historic increase
in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The magnitude of the impacts of climate change on
human well-being depends on society's adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is
determined by, among other things, the wealth and human resources society
can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain technologies necessary to cope
with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The IPCC
systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take
into account the greater wealth and technological advances that will
be present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated . Even
accepting the IPCC's and Stern Review's worst-case scenarios, and assuming a
compounded annual growth rate of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per
capita in developing countries in 2100 would be double the 2006
level of the U.S. and triple that level in 2200. Thus, even developing
countries' future ability to cope with climate change would be much

better than that of the U.S. today . The IPCC's embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many researchers have found "even the best biofuels have
the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and biodiversity" (Delucchi, 2010). Biofuel production
consumes nearly as much energy as it generates, competes with food crops and wildlife for land, and is

The notion that

warming might cause war and social unrest is not only wrong, but even

unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of the world's demand for fuels.
global

backwards

- that is,

global cooling has led to wars and social unrest in

the past, whereas global warming has coincided with periods of peace,
prosperity, and

social

stability .

***Hegemony Advantage

AT: Naval Power Impact

Naval budget cuts extirpate naval readiness and prove no
threshold exists for their deterrence impact
Eaglen, 12 (Mackenzie, March 15th, Obamas Shift-to-Asia Budget is a
Hollow Shell Game
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/15/crafty-pentagon-budget-showcasesmarquis-programs-while-masking/)
Pentagon plans now retire seven cruisers and two dock landing ships
at the same time as the Navy is revising downward its 30-year
shipbuilding plan. Military leaders have been quick to point to the ten ships planned for
construction over the next fiscal year. The problem is that this figure, as it appeared in the FY 2012 budget,
was supposed to be thirteen, not 10. In fact, in the 2012 budget, the Navy requested 57 ships from 20132017. The new 2013 budget cuts this to 41 ships. It's hard to see how these dramatic cuts in fleet size fit

Naval research and development do not

fare much better. While the Navy is to be commended on a getting some research initiatives right
into the administration's pivot to Asia.

-- such as breaking out a new account for Future Naval Capabilities focusing on advanced research and
prototypes, increasing funding for the Littoral Combat Ship, and increasing funding for the Marine Corps'

many of the Navy's RDT&E decisions do not

appropriately resource the rhetorical emphasis on the Pacific. The
budget slices the Power Projection Applied Research account by
nearly 15%, afecting programs like precision strike and directed
energy weapons. Similarly, Force Protection Applied Research dropped
by 27%, cutting innovation in anti-submarine warfare and hull
assurance. A 28% cut in Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research
afects initiatives such as electronic attack, surface-based anti-cruise
and ballistic missile defenses, and the Surface Warfare Improvement Program, or SEWIP,
Assault Vehicles --

which uses electronic warfare to disarm incoming missiles. Other R&D cuts impact separate initiatives on
anti-submarine warfare, undersea weapons, cyber security, electronic warfare, sensing, SATCOM
vulnerabilities, missile defense countermeasures, S and X-band radar integration, and radar defenses
against electronic attack. These programs form important parts of the Navy's next-generation arsenal,

They are exactly the

type of programs the Pentagon should be protecting if it is serious
about emphasizing the unique challenges of the Asia-Pacific. The fact
especially when it comes to the Pentagon's evolving AirSea Battle concept.

that R&D money declined for these particular Navy programs is a disturbing sign for the overall coherence
of the administration's budget. While the Navy received a $4 billion increase in O&M funding from 2012, it

The Navy has been stretched past the breaking point in

terms of operational readiness, with nearly one quarter of its ships
failing their annual inspection in 2011 and cracks in the aluminum
superstructure of every cruiser in the Navy's inventory. The naval
readiness crisis was so bad in 2011 that Vice Admiral Kevin McCoy told
the House Armed Services Committee that, "we're not good to go." Increased
could not come soon enough.

O&M funding for the Navy helps, but more needs to be done in order to fix the fleet. It certainly does not
help that the Navy is forced to pay nearly $900 million to retire ships early while the fleet size is already

Various defense officials and military chiefs have testified

recently that the services are sacrificing size of the force for either
readiness or quality. Given the rapidly rising levels of risk associated
with the latest defense budget cuts, it is likely both readiness and
quality will decline despite the Chiefs' best eforts.
too small.

Institutional alt causes outweigh

Cropsey 10 - (Seth, The US Navy in Distress, Strategic Analysis Vol. 34 No.
1, January 2010, pgs 35-45,
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Cropsey_US_Navy_In_Distress.pdf)

In February 2009, the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Port Royal ran
aground about a half mile south of the Honolulu airport. The Navys
investigation found that the ships navigational gear was broken and
that the ships fathometer wasnt functioning. In simple terms the
bridge didnt know where the ship was. The investigation subsequently discovered that
the commanding ofcer was exhausted, sleep-deprived, and that
sailors who were nominally assigned to stand watch against such
incidents were assigned elsewhere in the ship to cover manning
shortages. Two months later the Navys iron-willed Board of Inspection and Survey determined that
problems with corrosion, steering, surface ships firefighting systems,
and anchoring were widespread throughout the Navy. Asked by Defense News
to comment on these findings five former commanding ofcers agreed that smaller crews,
reduced budgets, and fewer real-life training opportunities for overworked crews were important causes for this catalogue of affliction. Its
hardly a surprise. The Navy reported last year that 11,300 sailors were supporting ground forces in Iraq

Reduced budgets, efforts to save money by cutting the size

of crews, schemes to take up the slack with shore services, and all
manner of labor-saving devices parallel and reflect the Navys increasingly distressed
and Afghanistan.

fortunes since the end of the Cold War. The US Navy has not been as small as it is today since the
administration of William Howard Taft when the Royal Navy filled the international role that Americas naval
forces eventually inherited and currently possess. As suggested by the past two decades of declining navy
procurement, the rising cost of ships, hints from the Pentagons Quadrennial Review now underway that
previous goals for fleet size are open to question, and the publics focus on the nations land wars in the
Middle East, chances are that US naval shrinkage will continue.

The likelihood of a much

diminished navy coincides in time with every current prediction of
large global strategic change in the foreseeable future. Among National

Intelligence Council estimates, Joint Operating Environment forecasts, the Pentagons Ofce of Net
Assessments studies, the UK Defence Ministrys Development, Concepts, and Doctrine Centre as well as
similar predictive efforts undertaken by French and German national security experts, there is a general

Proliferation, resource scarcity, environmental change, the

emergence of new international power centres including non-state
actors, significant changes in relative US power, failed states, and
demographic change point to an increasingly unstable future and
challenging international strategic environment. The common denominator in
consensus.

managing these problems is maritime power: force that can be applied to the shore from the sea, used to
protect against missile-borne as well as stealthier ocean-borne Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),
marshaled to alleviate the causes of massive immigration, and displayed to reassure allies and dissuade
enemies.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sucked the oxygen out of any
serious effort to understand the connection between the large changes
that strategic planners see in the future, Americans expectations that
they will retain their ability to wield global influence, the Navys role in
maintaining such influence, and the US fleets slow evanescence. No
attempt to connect fleet shape and size to the unfolding strategic environment exists as a referent for

civilian and military leadership maintains in the face of

growing demand for ships to defend against relatively low threats like
public debate. Indeed,

piracy as well as very dangerous ones like the possibility of smuggled WMD reaching our shores that
capability rather than number of ships is key to accurately measuring our naval power.

With very

few exceptions political leaders in both parties do not ask fundamental

questions. What role does naval power have in preserving Americas
position as the worlds great power in the middle of a fluid and
troubling strategic environment? Even with Congress and administration support how can
the nations current maritime strategy achieve its own goals, to say nothing of the global objectives that
Theodore Roosevelt saw so clearly? The cooperative arrangements with foreign navies envisioned by the
Navys current maritime strategy may perhaps moderate problems of failing states and terror. But is this
enough to manage other challenges? Is the Navys current organization capable of addressing both
conventional and asymmetric threats? Can todays highly structured and inflexible system for designing

What,
for example, do globalization, the growing dependence of the United
States on sea-borne transit for strategic resources and minerals, and the likelihood of
more dislocations such as continue from Somali piracy mean for the future of
US national security?
and building ships adapt quickly and cost-effectively to changes in the strategic environment?

AT: Pharma Impact

Lack and R&D means pharmaceuticals fail to create
innovative tech
Kessel 11 (Mark, Janurary 10th, Nature Biotechnology 29, The problems with
todays pharmaceutical business-an outsiders view,
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n1/full/nbt.1748.html)
Is there any doubt that the leading drug companies are in desperate need of
reinvention? Blockbuster drugs are coming off patent or being taken off the
market for safety reasons and there are no replacement drugs on the horizon to make up the
shortfall in profits. Furthermore, healthcare reform is likely to exacerbate the flaws in
big pharma's traditional business model by imposing pay for performance, as is already the

case in Europe. To state the obvious, over the past decade, the pharmaceutical industry has brought few
drugs to market from its own development efforts. Commentators have stressed, and heads of big pharma

that the sector's R&D efforts need to be drastically changed .

decision-making process will be slow
and challenging and will require bold leadership . Recognizing that the R&D engine
cannot be repaired rapidly to fuel growth , big pharma has taken several steps in dealing
have acknowledged,

But alteration of the industry's culture and lumbering

with its diminished R&D productivity. First, it has looked to expand its markets geographically into
developing countries; second, it has increased its emphasis on generic drugs and biosimilars; and finally, it
has sought to diversify by migrating into new product categories. Although the foregoing steps will lessen
the projected shortfall in revenues associated with the expiration of patents in the coming years, the
achievement of sustained growth in big pharma will of necessity depend to a large extent on another
factorits ability to increase the productivity of internal R&D efforts, while at the same time bolstering the

It is clear that from its internal

productivity alone big pharma is unlikely to achieve the growth needed to fuel
revenues. Successful implementation of this pipeline strategy will require the
management at each company to optimize its current internal R&D efforts and its approach to
pipeline with drugs acquired from the biotech sector.

acquiring drugs.

Loss of patents will cause pharmaceutical industry

collapse

Kessel 11 (Mark, Janurary 10th, Nature Biotechnology 29, The problems with
todays pharmaceutical business-an outsiders view,
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n1/full/nbt.1748.html)
A major reason that big pharma must limit the number of compounds it
introduces into its pipeline is that spending on R&D places great pressure on
earnings. The public equity markets relentlessly focus on short-term performance
and unduly punish companies that do not meet quarterly revenue and earnings expectations. It has been

analyst expectations for the industry are so diminished that they

are now hoping that the pharmaceutical industry as a whole will reach a
compounded annual growth rate of 1% of revenues over the next five years. The
loss of patents on blockbusters by big pharma is a major concern. In the next five
reported that

years, of the top 10 best-selling drugs in the world, 9 will go off patent, and of the top 20, 18 will lose

patent protection. As a result, ~$100 billion of sales will be lost during this period. This
number may be understated, given the recent safety issues associated with some blockbuster drugs, such
as GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK; Brentford, UK) diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone). To compensate for these
losses, big pharma has resorted to buying revenues by means of acquisitions to replace declining sales. At
the same time, sales of existing drugs are less likely to benefit from direct-to-consumer advertising.
Indeed, direct-to-consumer advertising will continue to garner greater scrutiny from regulators and have

less of a favorable impact on sales of new and existing products .

The pressure asserted by

generics is causing an ever-steeper decline in returns on marketing and sales
on drugs coming off patent than was the case in the past. It has not gone unnoticed by big
pharma that generics sales have outpaced sales of the pharmaceutical industry over the past ten years.

This has been driven by an increase of demand, the expiration of patents and
cost constraints imposed by governments and third-party payers. The expectation
is that this trend will continue into the future. With the patent cliff looming, generics will have many small-

Although one of the anticipated benefits of healthcare

reform for big pharma will be expanded coverage, pay for performance will
be an increasing issue. This legislation will put added pressure on product pricing from
molecule blockbusters to target.

government and third-party payers. GSK recently has reported a drop in profits, which it attributed to US
healthcare reform and European government 'austerity' measures that have had an impact on the drug
industry1.

Regulations and scandals are an alt cause to the industry

Kessel 11 (Mark, Janurary 10th, Nature Biotechnology 29, The problems with
todays pharmaceutical business-an outsiders view,
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n1/full/nbt.1748.html)
Technology will make regulators and third-party payers better equipped to
measure what benefits patients are deriving from the drugs . The net effect is that
governments and payers will continue to bear down on prices, access, utilization and prescribing patterns.

addition, the pharmaceutical sector is going to be faced with a more

stringent regulatory pathway for approval of new drugs , as well as closer
government scrutiny of the continued marketing of existing drugs . There is little
In

doubt that the regulators are going to focus increasingly on patient safety and benefits when bringing new
drugs to market3. The recent restrictions placed on GSK's Avandia because of data indicating an
association with heart toxicity points in this direction. The manner in which big pharma is perceived in
political circles will also have an impact on its future prospects. The US Congress portrays the industry as
insensitive to consumer safety. Indeed, the Obama Administration publicly vilified big pharma as part of its
health reform initiative (while simultaneously courting its participation in providing funds to close the socalled donut hole, a coverage gap in the 2003 Medicare Part D health plan for prescription drugs ).

Regulatory halting of sales of therapeutics for safety reasons, poorly handled

product recalls and the imposition of unprecedented criminal and civil fines (reaching $2.3 billion in
Pfizer's case), coupled with calls for CEOs to serve jail time for illegal drug
promotion, settlements relating to bilking healthcare programs by inflating
drug prices and investigations of paying bribes to boost sales and the
development and marketing of drugs have also added to the public's
wariness of the sector. The net effect of a plummeting reputationdown in some surveys as low
as the tobacco and oil industrieshas been to hurt the industry across numerous
constituencies that have a bearing on the prospects of its products, including
governments, regulators and consumers . For these reasons, the importance
of disassociation and delineation from big pharma has not been lost on the
biotech industry.

AT: Competitiveness Impact

Even if we lose our competiveness American industry will
still outpace competitors
Qian, 2008reporter of Yale Global [Jiang, February 29th, Is the Sun Setting
on US Dominance? Part II, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?
id=10435]
The proponents of such a "multipolar worldview" often confuse the immense potential of
their favored giants with their actual influences. They often overlook the immense internal
difficulties these rising giants must overcome to realize their potential. Most importantly,
they do not take full account of the strategic interactions between these giants during their
simultaneous rise and the strategic opportunities that such interactions present for the US.
Among the rising powers, the European Union boasts by far the largest economy, with a strong
currency and a comparatively large and prosperous population. However, after a long drive of expansion, Europe faces
a serious cohesion problem. It still suffers from a weak security framework that's dependent on NATO and a
legalistic rather than executive center in Brussels. Although the EU does chase strategic interests in its proximities such as the
central Asia and North Africa, it does so, not for any overreaching vision to compete globally, but mostly for parochial
economic reasons. Europe is not yet competing in any "Great Game," for the simple reason that Europe is not yet unified.
Recent rejections of the EU constitution show that serious resistance remains towards further integration. After recent
stabilization of its economy, a resurgent Russia is often mentioned as a future global power. However, Russia faces

severe long-term internal challenges. Its population is declining and aging, its vast Siberia
territories hollowing out after the end of Soviet subsidies . Extractive industries such as hydrocarbon,
mining and timber account for 80 percent of Russia's exports and 30 percent of its government revenue, whereas its
manufacturing industries are mostly outdated and uncompetitive . Russia therefore will have serious issues

with its self-image as a major world power, finding it hard to forge an assessment of its
global role commensurate with its long-term demographic and economic realities. Japan has a
similar problem of updating its self-image as the most "advanced" nation in Asia for more than 100 years. Today Japan
faces the harsh reality that, after its neighbors catch up, Japan will again find itself a
geographically small, resource-poor island nation dependent on trade, living uneasily
among large, populous continental neighbors. It has a largely pacifist, prosperous
population in a neighborhood still rife with nationalism. Unlike Europe, East Asia has yet to extinguish
historical grievances, border disputes and a taste for raw national powers. As Japan itself proved, economic rises, once
initiated, can be rapid indeed, so its current economic strength does not guarantee its future influence. Furthermore, barring a
rapid re-militarization, Japan's growth in national strengths is bound to be slower than that of its still maturing neighbors,
therefore its relative strategic position in East Asia will only grow weaker. Either re-militarization or an erosion

of its self-perceived leadership in the region is likely to require a profound reassessment of

Japan's postwar consensus of national purposes. India sees itself as an up-and-coming
power, proud to be a democracy yet simultaneously aspiring to more traditional "hard"
powers. As a diverse and still poor country, it faces immense internal challenges. Its
manufacturing base and infrastructure need major overhaul. Beyond these, India is limited
by its geographical constraint in the South Asia and the thorn in its side thats Pakistan.
Sandwiched between Pakistan, Burma and the Himalayas, Indias ambition beyond the
subcontinent could not blossom until its geographical perimeter is secured. China borders
three of the ambitious giants India, Russia and Japan. China's neighborhood is far tougher than that of
either Europe or the US. Like India, China is a large, poor country rife with internal tensions.
Unlike Europe or America, its current form of government does not enjoy wide ideological appeal.
Compared with Russias or even Japans, its military is still modernizing. It has recently
become fashionable in America and Europe to describe Chinese "expansions" in Africa and
South America. But the evidence is mostly economic deals over raw materials. This is not
expansionism, but mercantilism. China is indeed playing an active geopolitical game in its

immediate environment: Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Korea Peninsula. But this only
serves to show that China is still mired in local complexities.

AT: Disease Impact

Disease wont cause extinction
Posner 5

(Richard, Judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Richard, Skeptic, Catastrophe, 11:3,

Proquest)

the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to
assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of
genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been
enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but
none has come close to destroying the entire human race. There is a
biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality;
they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more
likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS
Yet

virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for

there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the

entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would
cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today
than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in
small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of
disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difcult to
localize an infectious disease. The reason is improvements in medical
science. But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist
years maximizes its spread. Yet

prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a first time.

AT: Bioterror
No risk of a bioterror attack, and there wont be retaliation their evidence is hype
MATISHAK 10 (Martin, Global Security Newswire, U.S. Unlikely to
Respond to Biological Threat With Nuclear Strike, Experts Say, 4-29,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100429_7133.php)
The United States is not likely to use nuclear force to
respond to a biological weapons threat, even though the Obama administration
WASHINGTON --

left open that option in its recent update to the nation's nuclear weapons policy, experts say (See GSN,
April 22). "The

notion that we are in imminent danger of

confronting a scenario in which hundreds of thousands of people are
dying in the streets of New York as a consequence of a biological weapons
attack is fanciful," said Michael Moodie, a consultant who served as assistant director for
multilateral affairs in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the George H.W. Bush

Scenarios in which the United States sufers mass

casualties as a result of such an event seem "to be taking the discussion
out of the realm of reality and into one that is hypothetical and
that has no meaning in the real world where this kind of exchange is just not
going to happen," Moodie said this week in a telephone interview. "There are a lot of
threat mongers who talk about devastating biological attacks that
administration.

could kill tens of thousands, if not millions of Americans," according to Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow with
the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "But

in fact, no country out

there today has anything close to what the Soviet Union had in
terms of mass-casualty biological warfare capability. Advances in biotechnology are
unlikely to change that situation, at least for the foreseeable
future." No terrorist group would be capable of pulling of a
massive biological attack, nor would it be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation, he
added. The biological threat provision was addressed in the Defense Department-led Nuclear Posture
Review, a restructuring of U.S. nuclear strategy, forces and readiness. The Obama administration pledged
in the review that the United States would not conduct nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states that are in
compliance with global nonproliferation regimes. However, the 72-page document contains a caveat that
would allow Washington to set aside that policy, dubbed "negative security assurance," if it appeared that
biological weapons had been made dangerous enough to cause major harm to the United States. "Given
the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the
United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the
evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat," the
posture review report says. The caveat was included in the document because "in theory, biological
weapons could kill millions of people," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD
counterterrorism and arms control, said last week after an event at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Asked if the White House had identified a particular technological threshold that could
provoke a nuclear strike, Samore replied: "No, and if we did we obviously would not be willing to put it out
because countries would say, 'Oh, we can go right up to this level and it won't change policy.'" "It's
deliberately ambiguous," he told Global Security Newswire. The document's key qualifications have
become a lightning rod for criticism by Republican lawmakers who argue they eliminate the country's
previous policy of "calculated ambiguity," in which U.S. leaders left open the possibility of executing a
nuclear strike in response to virtually any hostile action against the United States or its allies (see GSN,

experts say there are a number of reasons why the

United States is not likely to use a nuclear weapon to eliminate
a non-nuclear threat. It could prove difficult for U.S. leaders to
April 15). Yet

come up with a list of appropriate targets to strike with a nuclear warhead

following a biological or chemical event, former Defense Undersecretary for Policy Walter Slocombe said
during a recent panel discussion at the Hudson Institute. "I don't think nuclear weapons are necessary to
deter these kinds of attacks given U.S. dominance in conventional military force," according to Gregory
Koblentz, deputy director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at George Mason University in Northern
Virginia. "There's a bigger downside to the nuclear nonproliferation side of the ledger for threatening to
use nuclear weapons in those circumstances than there is the benefit of actually deterring a chemical or

The
nonproliferation benefits for restricting the role of strategic
weapons to deterring nuclear attacks outweigh the "marginal"
reduction in the country's ability to stem the use of biological
weapons, he said. In addition, the United States has efforts in place to defend against chemical and
biological attacks such as vaccines and other medical countermeasures, he argued. " We have
ways to mitigate the consequences of these attacks," Koblentz told the
audience. "There's no way to mitigate the efects of a nuclear
weapon." Regardless of the declaratory policy, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will always provide a
biological attack," Koblentz said during a recent panel discussion at the James Martin Center.

"residual deterrent" against mass-casualty biological or chemical attacks, according to Tucker. "If a
biological or chemical attack against the United States was of such a magnitude as to potentially warrant a
nuclear response, no attacker could be confident that the U.S. -- in the heat of the moment -- would not
retaliate with nuclear weapons, even if its declaratory policy is not to do so," he told GSN this week during
a telephone interview. Political Benefits Experts are unsure what, if any, political benefit the country or
President Barack Obama's sweeping nuclear nonproliferation agenda will gain from the posture review's
biological weapons caveat. The report's reservation "was an unnecessary dilution of the strengthened
negative security and a counterproductive elevation of biological weapons to the same strategic domain as
nuclear weapons," Koblentz told GSN by e-mail this week. " The

United States has

nothing to gain by promoting the concept of the biological
weapons as 'the poor man's atomic bomb,'" he added.

AT: Industrial Base

Lack of experience and structural problems to the
industrial base
Watts 8 (Barry, September 19th, The US Defense Industrial Base: Past,
Present, and Future, http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2008.10.15Defense-Industrial-Base.pdf)

Design and manufacturing experience among companies has declined over

the past few decades because of the decreasing frequency of new starts,
cutbacks in existing programs, retirements from the work force, and reductions in
company elaborate facilities. With declining manufacturing experience and truncate productions runs, it
has become more difcult for companies to estimate accurately the costs of
producing major systems over the course of multi-year production run For example, one
tendency has been to overestimate the savings during production as efciency improves due to learning
from one unit to the next. Learning-cm^ theory, originally based on aircraft production experience during
the 1930s an late 1940s, holds that as the number of units produced doubles, the recurring co: per unit

Optimistic assumption about

manufacturing learning curves present an obvious temptation to low-ba
production costs.> Since at least the 1960s, US companies have been inclined to
over-promise and underbid on major defense progra ms in order to win competitions.
The decline in new starts since the 1980s seems to have accentuated this problem, giving rise to the
term "dysfunctional competitions." As a Defense Science Board task force observed in 2000.
the ''remaining defense-focused companies are competing for fewer new
major programs, limiting their growth potentia l and making each new program a 'must
win'."124 The result has been lower margins, greater risk, and more cost
overruns in major defense programs. Here both the industry and government are at fault
decreases at a fixed rate or constant percentage.123

the former for being unable to resist underbidding programs, and the latter for not exercising more control
over major competitions.

Industry Fails
Watts 8 (Barry, September 19th, The US Defense Industrial Base: Past,
Present, and Future, http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2008.10.15Defense-Industrial-Base.pdf)

While the overall performance of US military technologies and weapon systems has been excellent, the

industry has failed, on more than one occasion, to provide systems with the
promised capabilities, or only done so after following delays , increased costs, or
both. Recent examples of major program failures stemming from cost overruns,
schedule slippage, or performance include termination of the National Reconnaissance
Ofce's (NRO's) Future Imagery Architecture program,"6 termination of Army - Navy Aerial
Common Sensor, and the scrapping of the Coast Guard's Deepwater program to produce the
first new coastguard cutters in more than three decades."7 It is difcult to assess the full extent of these
various program shortfalls because they can often be dealt with by government actions such as making
available additional funding available, altering requirements to avoid acknowledging shortfalls, or
stretching out programs until technical problems have been resolved. Moreover, program terminations
the most glaring manifestation of acquisition difculties can also be chosen by the government to
release funds for other uses or because products are no longer needed. In the case of FIA, however, the
government's assessment of the two proposals was surely questionable. Whereas Boeings proposal for
producing a new generation of electro-optical and radar-imaging reconnaissance satellites was evidently
superior to Lockheed Martin's, the government's judgment about Boeing s ability to match LM's four

decades of experience and success in this area appears, in hindsight, to have been poor. As then-NRO
director Keith Hall later said about the selection of Boeing, "I shouldn't have allowed it to go further.""8 The
dominant criticism of the weapons and systems produced by the defense industry is that programs either
cost too much to start with, or their costs increase during development and production. Studies by the

others have identified a number of causes, including overly

optimistic bidding in proposals, errors in engineering and management,
government changes in performance requirement, and the inherent
complexity of advanced military capabilities that "stretch the boundaries" of
proven technology For example: As much as 40 percent of program cost overruns can be
government and

correlated to changes in annual buys imposed by top-level members of the DoD/Executive branch or
Congress. These factors are generally beyond the control of government or industry program

Significant percentages of cost overruns result from

discrepancies or shortfalls in the program's initial baseline requirements. The
need for such changes can be legitimate responses to evolving threats and enemy capabilities. They
can also reflect bureaucratic difculties such as the lack of coordination or
foresight within the government or contractor team.
managers.119

Industrial base not key to military dominance

Watts 8 (Barry, September 19th, The US Defense Industrial Base: Past,
Present, and Future, http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2008.10.15Defense-Industrial-Base.pdf)

defense industry's ability to support American

military strategy is not without blemishes. The defense industry has exhibited
short- falls in at least two areas. First, in certain cases other nationsincluding the former Soviet
Unionhave produced weapon systems offering comparable, or even superior,
tactical performance at substantially lower unit costs than their US counterparts. Most
Of course, this impression of the US

often mentioned in this regard are small arms, mortars, air defense guns and surface-to-air missiles. For
instance, the 7.62-millimeter Kalashmkov AK-47 assault rifle, initially adopted by the Soviet army in 1949,
was simple and inexpensive to man- ufacture yet provided legendary ruggedness and negligible failure
rates. By compari- son, when the American 5.56-mm XM16E1 (renamed the M16 upon adoption by the US
Army) entered service in Vietnam in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat surfaced almost
immediately, and modifications of the rifle were needed to overcome these deficiencies. Even today,
assault rifles of the Kalaslmikov family are estimated to constitute one fifth of the worldwide supply of
firearms and are found in "practically every theatre of insurgency or guerrilla combat."109 Similarly, the
premier US fighter of the Vietnam era, the technologically more advanced McDonnell Douglas F-4, cost
four times more than the Soviet MiG-21, but the smaller, lighter MiG was a superior dogfighter in
horizontal-plane, turning fights, especially at higher altitudes.110 To defeat the MiG-21's superior turning
ability, F-4 crews had to master the more difcult techniques of maneuvering in the vertical plane so that
they could take advantage of the F-4's superior thrust-to-weight and raw power."1 In the early 1970s,
comparisons such as these led some observers to wonder whether the United States might be pricing itself
out of the competition with the Soviets by emphasizing technologically sophisticated but more expensive

While US combat experience during major operations in 1991,

2001-2002, and 2003 against Iraqi, Taliban, and al Qaeda forces suggest that
the United States produces some of the world's best weaponry the unitacquisition price of the F-22, which is over $300 mil- lion per jet , has limited the
weaponry.112

buy to 175 operational aircraft. Along these same lines, the US Navy's recent decision to limit the planned
buy of seven DDG-1000 Zumwalt-classdestroyers to the first two ships due to unit prices over $3 billion
only reinforces longstanding concerns about the ballooning unit costs of advanced US weapon systems."3

Second, the American defense industry has also been unable to develop
technologies and systems to alleviate some of the most pressing challenges
of ground combat, such as jungle warfare, urban combat, guerrilla or irregular warfare and

peacekeeping. More than 80 percent of all US military personnel killed in combat during the last fifty years
have been in the ground forces of the Army and Marine Corps ."4

Of course, industry's inability

to achieve much greater survivability for American soldiers and marines may
stem more from the inherently complex, messy nature of ground combat than
from a failure to exploit emerging technologies or design better equipmen t.

Nevertheless, this vulnerability, which insurgents and suicide bombers have exploited in Iraq and

has been a significant constraint on US foreign policy and flexibility

since the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; until technologies or weapons
Afghanistan,

capable of eliminating Clausewitzian friction are discovered which seems highly unlikely even in principle
inflicting casualties on US forces will continue to be a viable stratagem for America's enemies."5

AT: Manufacturing
Manufacturing doesnt solve anything- the jobs are poorperforming and they are not capable of competing for
innovation ***Read all highlighting

Yglesias 12 [Matthew Yglesias is Slate's business and economics

correspondent. Before joining the magazine he worked for ThinkProgress, the
Atlantic, TPM Media, and the American Prospect, Slate, Forget the Factories,
April 2012]
While Facebook was buying Instagram on Monday, a couple of my favorite wonky policy journalists
were hailing the White Houses plans to revive American manufacturing .
Specifically, Ed Luce from the Financial Times and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post were both very taken
with National Economic Council director Gene Sperlings recent speech (PDF) that attempted to put some

I
dont share their enthusiasm. The extra effort that went into Sperlings
speech raises the troubling possibility that these ideas will actually guide
policy in a second term rather than simply serve as props in a re-election campaign. It is sensible
analytic meat on the bones of President Obamas manufacturing-heavy State of the Union address.

for public policy to pay attention to the creation of great firms, to strength in specific sectors, and to the
quality of the jobs generated by different economic models.

But it should be obvious that

the path forward for America is to focus on our strengths in

information technology and media, and not compete with the
Chinese for manufacturing supremacy . Kleins gloss on Sperlings argument
is that there's a market failure regarding manufacturing in which an open marketplace is failing to
appropriately price the benefits of manufacturing firms. So America should push for more
manufacturing jobs because such jobs are worth more than they appear to be
worth. Such things can happen. An unregulated market leads to overproduction of air pollution, so you

need to tax it, and underinvestment in childrens education, so you need to subsidize it. If an unregulated
marketplace underproduces manufacturing firms or establishments, then we should subsidize factories just
like schools.

Sperlings case rests on two main legsexternalities associated with

r esearch and d evelopment and externalities associated with whats known

as agglomeration. The basic idea in both cases is that spillovers from manufacturing
benefit the rest of the economy. On the R and D front, its clear that
companies that come up with great ideas cant capture them all . New
inventions prompt imitators and new processes have a way of
leaking out as workers switch jobs . When flat panel high-definition televisions came
onto the market, it wasnt just one company that knew how to make them. Suddenly everyone was making

R and D spillover . Agglomeration spillover helps explain why the

two most successful TV makers are both in South Korea . Its not just a weird
them. Thats

coincidence, its something you see all the time. Sperling notes that researchers have found that spillover
benefits decline with distance, indeed by over half when they are more than 700 miles away and tend not
to cross national boundaries. Thats because spillovers are fundamentally made of peoplegossip over
dinner, workers and managers drifting from one firm to another, casual inspection of the other guys setup,
etc.and people dont move around that much. Long story short, if the awesomest, most innovative
widget-making factory in the world is in your country, that gives you a huge leg up on your odds of

The problem is
that none of this has much to do with manufacturing. If you want to subsidize
R and D, then subsidize R and Dtheres no need for the backdoor of an
across-the-board subsidy to factory owners regardless of how much R and D
they actually do. On agglomeration, the irrelevance of manufacturing per se is even clearer. Its
becoming home to a disproportionate share of the next 10 awesome widget factories.

not a coincidence that Twitter, Apple, Google, and Facebook are all located on
a narrow corridor between San Jose, Calif. and San Francisco, that all the
movie studios are in Los Angeles, or that nonlocal journalism happens overwhelmingly in New
York and Washington, D.C. Industry clusters happen in all sectors. But if you look at Americas
metropolitan areas, its clear that manufacturing-oriented places are
relatively poor . The wealthy clusters in the United States are built around
things like software, biotechnology and medical devices , higher education, finance,
and business services. Places like California, Minneapolis, Seattle, and the Northeast corridor are far richer

if an auto plant opens up,

a Wal-Mart can be expected to follow, but that opening a Wal-Mart doesnt
bring an auto plant. But, again, this highlights the need for communities to have
firms that are competitive in global markets, not manufacturers per se . A global
firmbe it Ford or Amazon or Paramountcalls into being a local economy of shops and barbers. But
the road to a more prosperous America is to learn from the most prosperous
parts of the country, not to imitate Chinese clusters that are even poorer than
Americas industrial hubs. The potential of Americas most productive places is tragically limited
than the factory-oriented Rust Belt and Southeast. Sperling notes that

by restrictive zoning policies that keep the cost of living high and population growth low. The number of
American students getting degrees in computer science and other technical fields is actually falling even
as the number of people going to college grows. Short-sighted politicians are underinvesting in the
transportation infrastructure even as people need to access our most vibrant labor markets. These kinds of
issues dont do as good a job of addressing the anxieties of Midwestern swing state voters as visits to lockmaking factories, but creating new billion-dollar software startups has a lot more to do with the future of

The scary thing about the factory-driven view of the American

future is that its not totally implausible . The insourcing trend where
firms move production back to North America is real enough . The drivers are
rising Chinese wages and falling unit labor costs in the United States . But
American prosperity.

thats just a way of saying that America can regain factory parity with
China by eliminating the prosperity gap between our two countries
a very strange policy aspiration. Most likely theres nothing we can do to prevent some
narrowing of the gap, which will have the consequence of bringing some jobs back. But we should
measure our success by the extent to which this doesnt happen , and we
instead build and expand new industries that push living standards
up and keep factory owners searching abroad for cheap labor.

AT: Food Shortages

New tech and advancements means that food production
will continue to increase.
Zubrin 11 (Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics, Senior

Fellow with the Center for Security Policy WHY ITS WRONG TO AGREE WITH
THE MALTHUSIANS ABOUT ETHANOL May 13, 2011http://www.ilcorn.org/dailyupdate/182-why-it-rsquo-s-wrong-to-agree-with-the-malthusians-aboutethanol/)//
In an op-ed article printed in the Denver Post May 8, editorial columnist Vince Carroll endorsed the view of
population control advocate Lester Brown that the U.S. corn ethanol program is threatening the worlds
poor with starvation. This endorsement is especially remarkable in view of the fact that, as the otherwise

many
previous limited-resources doomsday predictions have proven
wildly incorrect. In fact, Lester Brown is wrong about the alleged famine-inducing potential of
generally astute Mr. Carroll has correctly noted many times in the past, all of Lester Browns

the ethanol program for exactly the same reason he has been repeatedly wrong about the alleged famine-

There is not a fixed amount of grain in

the world. Farmers produce in response to demand . The more
customers, the more grain. Not only that, but the larger the potential
market, the greater the motivation for investment in improved
techniques. This is why, despite the fact that the world
population has indeed doubled since Lester Brown, Paul
Ehrlich, and the other population control zealots first published
their manifestos during the 1960s, people worldwide are
eating much better today than they were then. In the case of Americas
inducing potential of population growth.

corn growing industry, the beneficial effect of a growing market has been especially pronounced, with corn
yields per acre in 2010 (165 bushels per acre) being 37 percent higher than they were in 2002 (120

Not
only that, but in part because of the impetus of the expanded
ethanol program, another doubling of yield is now in sight, as
the best farms have pushed yields above 300 bushels per acre.
bushels per acres) and more than four times as great as they were in 1960 (40 bushels per acre.)

As a result, in 2010, the state of Iowa alone produced more corn than the entire United States did in 1947.
Of our entire corn crop, only 2 percent is actually eaten by Americans as corn, or 12 percent if one includes
products like corn chips and corn syrup. These advances in productivity do not only benefit the United

New seed strains

and other techniques first demonstrated on our most advanced
farms, subsequently spread to average farms, and then go
global, thereby raising crop yields everywhere.
States. Americas farmers are the vanguard for their counterparts worldwide.

There is no plausible scenario for resource wars

Victor, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies the Woods
Institute for the Environment, 2007 (David. What Resource Wars? November 1.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7344601/What-resource-wars-From-Arabia.html)

THE SECOND surge in thinking about resource wars comes from all
the money that is pulsing into resource-rich countries. There is no
question that the revenues are huge. OPEC cashed $650 billion for 11.7 billion barrels of the oil it
sold in 2006, compared with $110 billion in 1998, when it sold a similar quantity of oil at much
lower prices. Russia's Central Bank reports that the country earned more than $300 billion selling oil

and gas in 2006, about four times its annual haul in the late 1990s. But will this flood in rents cause
conflict and war?

There is no question that large revenues--regardless of the

source--can fund a lot of mischievous behavior. Iran is building a nuclearweapons program with the revenues from its oil exports. Russia has funded trouble in Chechnya,
Georgia and other places with oil and gas rents. Hugo Chavez opened Venezuela's bulging
checkbook to help populists in Bolivia and to poke America in ways that could rekindle smoldering
conflicts. Islamic terrorists also have benefited, in part, from oil revenues that leak out of oil-rich

But resource-related
conflicts are multi-causal. In no case would simply cutting the
resources avoid or halt conflict, even if the presence of natural
resources can shift the odds. Certainly, oil revenues have advanced
Iran's nuclear program, which is a potential source of hot conflict and could make future
conflicts a lot more dangerous. But a steep decline in oil probably wouldn't
strangle the program on its own. Indeed, while Iran still struggles to make a bomb,
societies or are channeled directly from sympathetic governments.

resource-poor North Korea has already arrived at that goal by starving itself and getting help from
friends. Venezuela's checkbook allows Chavez to be a bigger thorn in the sides of those he dislikes,
but there are other thorns that poke without oil money. As we see,

what matters is not

just money but how it is used. While Al-Qaeda conjures images of an oil-funded
network--because it hails from the resource-rich Middle East and its seed capital has oily origins-other lethal terror networks, such as Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers and Ireland's Republican Army, arose
with funding from diasporas rather than oil or other natural resources. Unlike modern state armies
that require huge infusions of capital, terror networks are usually organized to make the most of
scant funds. During the run-up in oil and gas prices, analysts have often claimed that these
revenues will go to fund terror networks; yet it is sobering to remember that Al-Qaeda came out in
the late 1990s, when oil earnings were at their lowest in recent history. Most of the tiny sums of
money needed for the September 11 attacks came from that period. Al-Qaeda's daring attacks
against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania occurred when oil-rich patrons were fretting
about the inability to make ends meet at home because revenues were so low. Ideology and
organization trump money as driving forces for terrorism. Most thinking about resource-lubed
conflict has concentrated on the ways that windfalls from resources cause violence by empowering
belligerent states or sub-state actors. But the chains of cause and effect are more varied. For states
with weak governance and resources that are easy to grab, resources tend to make weak states
even weaker and raise the odds of hot conflict. This was true for Angola's diamonds and Nigeria's
oil, which in both cases have helped finance civil war. For states with stable authoritarian
governments--such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, most of the rest in the western Gulf, and perhaps also
Russia and Venezuela--the problem may be the opposite. A sharp decline in resource revenues can
create dangerous vacuums where expectations are high and paltry distributions discredit the
established authorities. On balance, the windfall in oil revenues over recent years is probably
breeding more conflict than would a crash in prices. However, while a few conflicts partly trace
themselves to resources, it is the other pernicious effects of resource windfalls, such as the
undermining of democratic transitions and the failure of most resource-reliant societies to organize
their economies around investment and productivity, that matter much, much more. At best,

THE THIRD avenue

for concern about coming resource wars is through the dangers of
global climate change. The litany is now familiar. Sea levels will rise, perhaps a lot;
resources have indirect and mixed effects on conflict. Climate Dangers

storms will probably become more intense; dry areas are prone to parch further and wet zones are
likely to soak longer. And on top of those probable effects, unchecked climate change raises the
odds of suffering nasty surprises if the world's climate and ecosystems respond in abrupt ways.
Adding all that together, the scenarios are truly disturbing. Meaningful action to stem the dangers is
long overdue.In

the United States over the last year, the traditional security
community has become engaged on these issues. Politically, that

conversion has been touted as good news because the odds of meaningful policy are higher if
hawks also favor action. Their concerns are seen through the lens of resource wars, with fears such
as: water shortages that amplify grievances and trigger conflict; migrations of "climate refugees",
which could stress border controls and also cause strife if the displaced don't fit well in their new
societies; and diseases such as malaria that could be harder to contain if tropical conditions are
more prevalent, which in turn could stress health-care systems and lead to hot wars.While there are

the risk that such dangers could cause

violent conflict ranks extremely low on the list because it is highly
many reasons to fear global warming,

unlikely to materialize. Despite decades of warnings about water

wars, what is striking is that water wars don't happen--usually
because countries that share water resources have a lot more at
stake and armed conflict rarely fixes the problem. Some analysts have
pointed to conflicts over resources, including water and valuable land, as a cause in the Rwandan
genocide, for example. Recently, the UN secretary-general suggested that climate change was

none of these supposed causal

chains stay linked under close scrutiny--the conflicts over
resources are usually symptomatic of deeper failures in
governance and other primal forces for conflicts, such as ethnic
tensions, income inequalities and other unsettled grievances.
Climate is just one of many factors that contribute to tension. The same is true for
scenarios of climate refugees, where the moniker "climate"
conveniently obscures the deeper causal forces. The dangers of disease
already exacerbating the conflicts in Sudan. But

have caused particular alarm in the advanced industrialized world, partly because microbial threats
are good fodder for the imagination. But none of these scenarios hold up because the scope of all
climate-sensitive diseases is mainly determined by the prevalence of institutions to prevent and
contain them rather than the raw climatic factors that determine where a disease might
theoretically exist. For example, the threat industry has flagged the idea that a growing fraction of
the United States will be malarial with the higher temperatures and increased moisture that are
likely to come with global climate change. Yet much of the American South is already climatically
inviting for malaria, and malaria was a serious problem as far north as Chicago until treatment and
eradication programs started in the 19th century licked the disease. Today, malaria is rare in the
industrialized world, regardless of climate, and whether it spreads again will hinge on whether
governments stay vigilant, not so much on patterns in climate. If Western countries really cared
about the spread of tropical diseases and the stresses they put on already fragile societies in the
developing world, they would redouble their efforts to tame the diseases directly (as some are now
doing) rather than imagining that efforts to lessen global warming will do the job. Eradication
usually depends mainly on strong and responsive governments, not the bugs and their physical
climate. Rethinking Policy IF RESOURCE wars are actually rare--and when they do
exist, they are part of a complex of causal factors--then much of the conventional wisdom about
resource policies needs fresh scrutiny. A full-blown new strategy is beyond this modest essay, but
here in the United States, at least three lines of new thinking are needed.First, the United States
needs to think differently about the demands that countries with exploding growth are making on
the world's resources. It must keep their rise in perspective, as their need for resources is still, on a

what matters most is

that the United States must focus on how to accommodate these
countries' peaceful rise and their inevitable need for resources.
per capita basis, much smaller than typical Western appetites. And

Applied to China, this means getting the Chinese government to view efcient markets as the best
way to obtain resources--not only because such an approach leads to correct pricing (which
encourages energy efciency as resources become more dear), but also because it t ransforms

all essential resources into commodities, which makes their

particular physical location less important than the overall
functioning of the commodity market. All that will, in turn, make
resource wars even less likely because it will create common
interests among all the countries with the greatest demand for
resources. It will transform the resource problem from a zero-sum
struggle to the common task of managing markets. Most policymakers
agree with such general statements, but the actual practice of U.S. policy has largely undercut this
goal. Saber-rattling about CNOOC'S attempt to buy Unocal--along with similar fear-mongering
around foreign control of ports and new rules that seem designed to trigger reviews by the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States when foreigners try to buy American-owned
assets--sends the signal that going out will also be the American approach, rather than letting
markets function freely. Likewise, one of the most important actions in the oil market is to engage
China and other emerging countries fully in the International Energy Agency-which is the world's
only institution for managing the oil commodity markets in times of crisis--yet despite wide
bipartisan consensus on that goal, nearly nothing is ever done to execute such a policy. Getting

China to source commodities through markets rather than mercantilism will be relatively easy
because Chinese policymakers, as well as the leadership of state enterprises that invest in natural
resource projects, already increasingly think that way.

against classic resource wars.

The sweep of history points

Whereas colonialism created long, oppressive and

most resources today

are fungible commodities. That means it is almost always cheaper
and more reliable to buy them in markets. At the same time, much higher
often war-prone supply chains for resources such as oil and rubber,

expectations must be placed on China to tame the pernicious effects of its recent efforts to secure
special access to natural resources. Sudan, Chad and Zimbabwe are three particularly acute
examples where Chinese (and in Sudan's case, Indian) government investments, sheltered under a
foreign-policy umbrella, have caused harm by rewarding abusive governments. That list will grow
the more insecure China feels about its ability to source vital energy and mineral supplies. Some of
what is needed is patience because these troubles will abate as China itself realizes that going out
is an expensive strategy that buys little in security. Chinese state oil companies are generally wellrun organizations; as they are forced to pay the real costs of capital and to compete in the
marketplace, they won't engage in these strategies. The best analog is Brazil's experience, where
its state-controlled oil company has become ever smarter--and more market oriented--as the
Brazilian government has forced it to operate at arm's length without special favors. That has not
only allowed Petrobras to perform better, but it has also made Brazil's energy markets function
better and with higher security.Beyond patience, the West can help by focusing the spotlight on
dangerous practices--clearly branding them the problem. There's some evidence that the shaming
already underway is having an effect--evident, for example, in China's recent decision to no longer
use its veto in the UN Security Council to shield Sudan's government. At the same time, the West
can work with its own companies to make payments to governments (and ofcials) much more
transparent and to close havens for money siphoned from governments. Despite many initiatives in
this area, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the now-stalled attempt by
some oil companies to "Publish What You Pay", little has been accomplished. Actual support for such
policies by the most influential governments is strikingly rare. America is notably quiet on this front.
With regard to the flow of resources to terrorists--who in turn cause conflicts and are often seen as a
circuitous route to resource wars--policymakers must realize that this channel for oil money is good
for speeches but perhaps the least important reason to stem the outflow of money for buying
imported hydrocarbons. Much more consequential is that the U.S. call on world oil resources is not
sustainable because a host of factors--such as nationalization of oil resources and insecurity in
many oil-producing regions--make it hard for supply to keep pace with demand. This yields tight and
jittery markets and still-higher prices. These problems will just get worse unless the United States
and other big consumers temper their demand. The goal should not be "independence" from
international markets but a sustainable path of consumption. When the left-leaning wings in
American politics and the industry-centered National Petroleum Council both issue this same
warning about energy supplies--as they have over the last year--then there is an urgent need for
the United States to change course. Yet Congress and the administration have done little to alter
the fundamental policy incentives for efciency. At this writing, the House and Senate are
attempting to reconcile two versions of energy bills, neither of which, strikingly, will cause much
fundamental change to the situation.Cutting the flow of revenues to resource-rich governments and
societies can be a good policy goal, but success will require American policymakers to pursue
strategies that they will find politically toxic at home. One is to get serious about taxation. The only
durable way to rigorously cut the flow of resources is to keep prices high (and thus encourage
efciency as well as changes in behavior that reduce dependence on oil) while channeling the
revenues into the U.S. government treasury rather than overseas. In short, that means a tax on
imported oil and a complementary tax on all fuels sold in the United States so that a fuel import tax
doesn't simply hand a windfall to domestic producers. And if the United States (and other resource
consumers) made a serious effort to contain financial windfalls to natural-resources exporters, it
would need--at the same time--to confront a more politically poisonous task: propping up regimes
or easing the transition to new systems of governance in places where vacuums are worse than
incumbents.Given all the practical troubles for the midwives of regime change, serious policy in this

serious thinking about climate

change must recognize that the "hard" security threats that are
supposedly lurking are mostly a ruse. They are good for the threat
industry--which needs danger for survival--and they are good for the
greens who find it easier to build a coalition for policy when hawks
are supportive.
area would need to deal with many voids.Finally,

iAdvThe auto industry needs more REEs for Hybrids

Daily Tech 4/30/10 (Daily Tech, China's Stranglehold on Rare Earth Metals Could Choke
EV, Hybrids,
http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Stranglehold+on+Rare+Earth+Metals+Could+Choke+
EV+Hybrids/article18274.htm) patel
The auto industry seems to be moving towards embracing hybrids and electric
vehicles. One needs only look at examples like the 2011 Nissan LEAF and 2011 Chevy
Volt, or the the new Chevy Volt MPV5 EV-crossover concept. However, there's growing
concern that the industry is casting a rather blind eye to what exactly the impact
of its leap might be. While about a third of U.S. oil comes from unstable regions like
Nigeria and the Middle East, EVs present perhaps an equally challenging geopolitical
resource problem. According to Robert Bryce, author of the book "Power Hungry: The
Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future", the current thirdgeneration TOYOTA PRIUS uses 25 lbs. (11 kg) of expensive rare-earth metals -approximately twice the amount found in a standard vehicle. That's a big
problem as rare earth metals, known scientifically as lanthanides are almost
exclusively controlled by China. Could this stranglehold slow progress of these
NEW VEHICLES and hasten China's ascent to the world's most dominant
economy? These are concerns that Bryce has been voicing. Bryce
describes,"95% and 100% of the worlds supply of this entire row of the
periodic table [is controlled by China]." The biggest uses of lanthanides are in
the BATTERY PACK and electric motor of hybrids and EVs. Bryce believes that
lanthanide demand will outpace supply as early as 2013, slowing the industry's growth
and allowing China to raise its resource prices. He states, "There are no significant
supplies (of lanthanides) that can come on stream in anything close to the time span the
market need." Currently, 100,000 tons (90,718 t) per year of lanthanides are
manufactured and utilized. That figure is expected to soon rise. Bryce says, "Estimates
are that within two-three years the market demand will be 120,000-130,000
tons (108,862-117,932 t) per year." Worldwide there's 99 million tons (89.8
million t) of rare earth metals, but it's expensive and tricky to tap these
reserves. It also takes time -- up to 15 years. The U.S. currently has no working
lanthanide mines, though it does have lanthanide resources. The bottom line is
that China outguessed the U.S. and the rest of the world, wisely recognizing the
value of the resource in 1980s and early 90s and committing to the expensive up front
investment to harvest them. Now 10 to 15 years later, it is reaping the REWARDS, while
the U.S. is left wondering what to do. China is well aware of its position and plans to fully
exploit it now. Former Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping remarked some time ago,
"There is oil in the Middle East, there are rare-earths in China; we must take full
advantage of this resource." Bryce warns that the rush to EVs and hybrids may put the
U.S. in a bind. He states, "In this headlong rush to go green, we are essentially trading
one type of import reliance for another. We are going to be more dependent on a single
market, where theres no transparency and one dominant market player who happens to
own most of our DEBT already.