2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop

*****Methane Hydrates Aff*****

1AC

Plan

The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of Arctic deep-water methane hydrates

Advantage 1: Environment

Status quo methane hydrate research is insufficient—the plan is key to catalyze effective management and development COL 13 (The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that represents more than 100 of the leading public and private ocean research and education institutions, aquaria and industry with the mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy. This report was prepared for the DOE, “Marine Methane Hydrate Field Research Plan”, December 2013, http://oceanleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/MH_Science_Plan_Final.pdf)//WLChallenges in Methane Hydrate Research The general consensus from the Methane Hydrate Community Workshop was that significant strides have been made in our understanding of the occurrence, distribution, and characteristics of marine methane hydrates, but our knowledge related to the role that methane hydrates may play as an energy resource, as a geologic hazard, and as an agent of climate change remains incomplete. More work is needed to integrate methane hydrate related research efforts, while developing a more complete

understanding of the critical outstanding research issues. The Methane Hydrate Community Workshop identified three integrated methane hydrate science challenges and one technical challenge as the central theme for this Marine Methane Hydrate Field Research Plan: (1) Methane Hydrate Resource Assessment and Global Carbon Cycle, (2) The Challenge of Producing Methane Hydrate, and (3) Methane Hydrate Related Geohazards, and (4) Modeling, Laboratory, and Field System Requirements and Integration. Each of these challenges is further reviewed below along with considerations of how scientific drilling can contribute our understanding of these challenges. 4.1 Methane Hydrate Resource Assessment and Global Carbon Cycle SCIENCE CHALLENGES 4.1.1. What controls the inventories and fluxes of methane carbon in the marine system, and how do these change over time? 4.1.2. How do we construct a robust assessment of methane hydrate occurrence? 4.1.3. How do methane hydrate reservoirs respond to natural and anthropogenic perturbations? All of the challenges explored in this Plan first require a baseline quantification of the amount of methane hydrate stored in Earth’s subsurface. In terms of methane hydrate as a potential energy resource, the concept of a methane hydrate system has been developed to systematically assess the geologic controls on the occurrence of methane hydrates in nature. This concept has been used to guide site selection for numerous recent national and international methane hydrate scientific drilling programs. At the same time, the petroleum system concept has been used to assess geologic variables, such as “reservoir conditions” or the “source” of the gas within a hydrate accumulation, to better understand how they impact the occurrence and physical nature of methane hydrate at various scales. In recent years, significant progress has been made in addressing key issues on the formation, occurrence, and stability of methane hydrates in nature. Much of these efforts focus on describing hydrates as static deposits rather than building a better appreciation of them as part of a dynamic system. Fundamental questions remain as to the residence time of methane hydrates near the seafloor and deeper within the sediment column, the sources and pathways of methane transport, the nature and driving mechanisms for flow, and changes in these variables through time (Figure 1).

Consequently, there is a growing imperative to develop integrated time-dependent models to understand the controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of methane hydrates in nature, as well as the forcing mechanisms that modulate the processes responsible for methane generation, consumption, and potential discharge to the overlying water column. Science Challenge 4.1.1. What controls the inventories and fluxes

of methane carbon in the marine system, and how do these change over time? Methane hydrate is a component of a complex system, with inputs and outputs of methane over time. Ultimately, methane generation is intimately tied to

the inputs of organic carbon, although it is not yet clear how to best evaluate the relationship between the amount and type of organic carbon landing on the seafloor and the quantity of methane hydrate generated. We still need to better understand how much of this carbon is available for methanogenesis, how to parameterize degradation kinetics as a function of the nature of the organic carbon, temperature, and age, as well as the factors that control the amount of organic matter that passes through the sediment oxidative reactors and is buried within the methanogenesis zone (Figure 2). In terms of outputs, it is important to quantify how much methane is lost from the system via naturally occurring gas seeps and how much is consumed by anaerobic methane oxidation (AOM). For the latter, how much of the sulfate is consumed by AOM determines how much organic carbon passes into deep sediment and is available for methanogenesis (Figure 3). It is also important to better understand how methane generated at depth reaches the methane hydrate stability zone, what fraction of the generated gas may remain trapped below the stability zone, what processes determine whether methane migrates as a dissolved or gas phase, and whether migration is diff used or focused, constant, or episodic. Finally, we need a mechanism to validate assumptions and ways to scale from local to global models.

Scenario 1: Warming

Arctic melting releases massive methane deposits causing unprecedented global warming—no other region outweighs—research is key Duarte and Huertas 12 [Carlos Duarte, Director of Oceans Institute at University of Western Australia, Antonio Delgado Huertas, Staff scientist at Spanish Scientific Research Council, “Methane hydrates: a volatile time bomb in the Arctic”, http://theconversation.com/methane-hydrates-a-volatile-time-bomb-in-the-arctic-9891, PS] Accelerating ice loss and warming of the Arctic is disturbing evidence that dangerous climate change is already with us. As I have argued earlier, now that we have realised this our efforts should be directed at managing the situation in the Arctic and avoiding the spread of dangerous climate change elsewhere. The Arctic is a core component of the earth system. Six of the 14 climate change tipping points of the earth system are located in the Arctic region. Whereas the term tipping point was initially introduced to the climate change debate in a metaphoric manner, it has since been formalised and introduced in the context of systems exhibiting rapid, climate-driven change, such as the Arctic. Tipping points have been defined in the context of earth system science as the critical point in forcing at which the future state of the system is qualitatively altered. Tipping elements are defined, accordingly, as the structural components of the system directly responsible for triggering abrupt changes once a tipping point is passed. This is because they can be switched into a qualitatively different state by small perturbations. Of the many tipping elements in the Arctic, that with potentially greatest consequences if perturbed is the vast methane deposit. Methane is a greenhouse gas. A molecule of methane has 20

times t he greenhouse effect of a CO₂ molecule, and the release of methane has been linked to climatic transitions along the history of planet Earth. The Arctic contains vast reserves of methane stored as methane hydrate, a gel-like substance formed by methane molecules trapped in frozen water. The methane hydrate deposits are estimated at between 1,000 and 10,000 Gigatons (109 tons) of CO₂-equivalents as methane, much of which is present in the shallow sediments of the extensive Arctic shelves. This amount of greenhouse gas is several times the total CO₂ release since the industrial revolution. Even moderate (a few

degrees C) warming of the overlying waters may change the state of methane from hydrates to methane gas, which would be released to the atmosphere. If this release is gradual, methane will add a greenhouse effect to the atmosphere. This will only be temporary, as it will be oxidised to CO₂, with a decline in the greenhouse effect of 20-fold per unit carbon. However, if the state shift is abrupt it may lead to a massive release of methane to the atmosphere, which could cause a climatic jump several-fold greater than the accumulated effect of anthropogenic activity. Recent assessments have found bubbling of methane on the Siberian shelf. Models suggest that global warming of 3°C could release between 35 and 94 Gt C of methane, which could add up to an additional 0.5°C of global warming. Moreover, frozen soils and sediments contain large amounts of methane hydrates that can be released to the atmosphere. Indeed, rapid thawing of the Arctic permaforst has been reported to lead to the release of large amounts of methane. In our most recent cruise this summer (June 2012) along the Fram Strait and Svalbard Islands we found concentrations of methane in the atmosphere of about 1.65 ppm. However our equilibrium experiments (air atmospheric with Arctic surface water) reached values that were generally between 2.5 ppm and 10 ppm, with maximum values up to 35 ppm.

These results confirm that this area of the planet is emitting large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Understanding and forecasting the response of Arctic methane hydrate deposits to rapid warming and thawing in the Arctic is of the utmost importance.

Warming is real and anthropogenic--- prefer new evidence that represents consensusSchiffman 9/27 (Richard Schiffman 9/27/13, environmental writer @ The Atlantic citing the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “What Leading Scientists Want You to Know About Today's Frightening Climate Report,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/leading-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-mother-of-all-climate-reports/280045/)The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we thought they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That’s a less than scientifically rigorous

summary of the findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.¶

Appearing exhausted after a nearly two sleepless days fine-tuning the language of the report, co-chair Thomas Stocker called climate change “the

greatest challenge of our time," adding that “ each of the last three decade s has been successively warmer

than the past,” and that this trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. ¶ Pledging further action to cut carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians... It’s science." ¶ And that science needs to be communicated to the public, loudly and clearly. I canvassed leading climate researchers for their take on the findings of the vastly influential IPCC report. What headline would they put on the news? What do they hope people hear about this report?¶ When I asked him for his

headline, Michael Mann , the Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State (a former IPCC author himself)

suggested: "Jury In: Climate Change Real, Caused by Us, and a Threat We Must Deal With." ¶ Ted Scambos, a

glaciologist and head scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) based in Boulder would lead with: "IPCC 2013, Similar Forecasts, Better Certainty." While the report,

which is issued every six to seven years, offers no radically new or alarming news, Scambos told me, it puts an exclamation point on what we already know, and refines our evolving understanding of global warming. ¶ The IPCC , the indisputable rock star of UN documents, serves as the basis for global climate negotiations, like the ones that took place in Kyoto, Rio, and, more recently, Copenhagen. (The next big international climate meeting is scheduled for

2015 in Paris.) It is also arguably the most elaborately vetted and exhaustively researched scientific paper in

existence. Founded in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC represents the distilled wisdom of over 600 climate researchers in 32 countries on changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, ice and seas. It endeavors to answer the late New York mayor Ed

Koch’s famous question “How am I doing?” for all of us. The answer, which won’t surprise anyone who has been following the climate change story, is not very well at all. ¶ It is now 95 percent likely that human spewed heat-trapping gases — rather than natural variability — are the

main cause of climate change , according to today’s report. In 2007 the IPCC’s confidence level was 90 percent, and in 2001 it was 66 percent, and just over 50

percent in 1995. ¶ What’s more, things are getting worse more quickly than almost anyone thought would happen a few years back. ¶ “If you look at the early IPCC predictions back from 1990 and what has taken place since, climate change is proceeding faster than we expected,” Mann told me by email. Mann helped develop the famous hockey-stick graph, which Al Gore used in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” to dramatize the sharp rise in temperatures in recent times. ¶ Mann

cites the decline of Arctic sea ice to explain : “Given the current trajectory, we're on track for ice-free summer conditions in the Arctic in a matter of a decade or two... There is a similar story with the continental ice sheets, which are losing ice — and contributing to sea level rise — at a faster rate than the [earlier IPCC] models had predicted.”¶ But there is a lot that we still don’t understand. Reuters noted in a sneak preview of IPCC draft which was leaked in August that, while the broad global trends are clear, climate scientists were “finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.”¶ From year to year, the world’s

hotspots are not consistent, but move erratically around the globe . The same has been true of heat waves, mega-storms and catastrophic floods, like

the recent ones that ravaged the Colorado Front Range. There is broad agreement that climate change is increasing the severity of extreme weather events, but we’re not yet able to predict where and when these will show up. ¶ “It is like watching a pot boil,” Danish

astrophysicist and climate scientist Peter Thejll told me. “We understand why it boils but cannot predict where the next bubble will be.” ¶ There is

also uncertainty about an apparent slowdown over the last decade in the rate of air temperature increase. While some critics claim that global warming has “stalled,” others point out that, when rising ocean temperature s are factored in, the Earth is actually gaining heat faster than previously anticipated . ¶ “Temperatures measured over the short term are just one parameter,” said Dr Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in an interview. “There are far more critical things going on; the

acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it’s sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet , are dying, it’s such a hugely important signal .

Why aren’t people using that as a measure of what is going on?”¶ Barnett thinks that recent increases in volcanic activity, which spews smog-forming aerosols into the

air that deflect solar radiation and cool the atmosphere, might help account for the temporary slowing of global temperature rise. But he says we shouldn’t let short term fluctuations cause us to lose sight of the big picture.¶ The dispute over temperatures underscores just how formidable the IPCC’s task of modeling the complexity of climate change is. Issued in three parts (the next two installments are due out in the spring), the full version of the IPCC will end up several times the length of Leo Tolstoy’s epic

War and Peace. Yet every last word of the U.N. document needs to be signed off on by all of the nations on earth. ¶ “I do not know of any other area of any

complexity and importance at all where there is unanimous agreement ... and the statements so strong ,” Mike MacCracken, Chief

Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute in Washington, D.C. told me in an email. “What IPCC has achieved is remarkable (and why it merited the Nobel Peace Prize granted in

2007).”¶ Not surprisingly, the IPCC’s conclusions tend to be “ conservative by design ,” Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist with the

Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology told me: “The IPCC is not supposed to represent the controversial forefront of climate science. It is supposed to represents what nearly all scientists agree on, and it does that quite effectively.” ¶ Nevertheless, even these understated findings are inevitably controversial. Roger Pielke Jr., the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder suggested a headline that focuses on the cat fight that today’s report is sure to revive: "Fresh Red Meat Offered Up in the Climate Debate, Activists and Skeptics Continue Fighting Over It." Pielke should know. A critic of Al Gore, who has called his own detractors "climate McCarthyists," Pielke has been a lightning rod for the political controversy which continues to swirl around the question of global warming, and what, if anything, we should do about it. ¶ The public’s skepticism of climate change took a dive after Hurricane Sandy. Fifty-four percent of Americans are now saying that the effects of global warming have already begun. But 41 percent surveyed in the same Gallup poll believe news about

global warming is generally exaggerated, and there is a smaller but highly passionate minority that continues to believe the whole thing is a hoax. ¶ For most climate experts,

however, the battle is long over — at least when it comes to the science. What remains in dispute is not whether climate change is happening, but how fast things are going to get worse.¶ There are some possibilities that are deliberately left out of the IPCC projections, because we simply don’t have enough data yet to

model them. Jason Box, a visiting scholar at the Byrd Polar Research Center told me in an email interview that: “The scary elephant in the closet is terrestrial and

oceanic methane release triggered by warming.” The IPCC projections don’t include the possibility — some scientists say likelihood — that huge quantities of methane

(a greenhouse gas thirty times as potent as CO2) will eventually be released from thawing permafrost and undersea methane hydrate reserves. Box said that the threshhold “when humans lose control of potential management of the problem, may be sooner than expected.” ¶

Box, whose work has been instrumental in documenting the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet, also believes that the latest IPCC predictions (of a maximum

just under three foot ocean rise by the end of the century) may turn out to be wildly optimistic, if the Greenland ice sheet breaks up. “We are heading into uncharted territory” he said. “ We are creating a different climate than the Earth has ever

seen. ” ¶ The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, speaks for the scientific consensus when he says that time is fast running out to avoid the

catastrophic collapse of the natural systems on which human life depends . What he recently told a group of climate

scientist could be the most chilling headline of all for the U.N. report: ¶ "We have five minutes before midnight."

That makes extinction inevitable—effects are under-estimated IPCC 07 (“Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-4-11.html) ELConsiderable progress has been made since the TAR in key fields that allow projection of future climate change impacts on species and ecosystems. Two of these key fields, namely climate envelope modelling (also called

niche-based, or bioclimatic modelling) and dynamic global vegetation modelling have provided numerous recent results. The synthesis of these results provides a picture of potential impacts and risks that is far from perfect, in some instances apparently

contradictory, but overall highlights a wide array of key vulnerabilities (Figures 4.2; 4.4; 4.5, Table 4.1). Climate envelope modelling has burgeoned recently due to increased availability of species distribution data , together with finer- scale climate data and new statistical methods that have allowed this correlative method to be widely applied (e.g., Guisan

and Thuiller, 2005; McClean et al., 2005; Thuiller et al., 2005b). Despite several limitations (Section 4.3 and references cited therein) these models offer the advantage of assessing climate change impacts on biodiversity quantitatively (e.g., Thomas et al., 2004a). Climate envelope models do not simulate dynamic population or migration processes, and results are typically constrained to the regional level, so that the implications for biodiversity at the global level are difficult to infer (Malcolm et al., 2002a). In modelling ecosystem function and plant functional type response, understanding has deepened since the TAR, though consequential uncertainties remain. The ecophysiological processes affected by climate change and the mechanisms by which climate change may impact biomes, ecosystem components such as soils, fire behaviour and vegetation structure (i.e., biomass distribution and leaf area index) are now explicitly modelled and have been bolstered by experimental results (e.g., Woodward and Lomas, 2004b). One emerging key message is that climate change impacts on the fundamental regulating services may previously have been underestimated (Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.10, Figures 4.2; 4.3; 4.4). Nevertheless, the globally applicable DGVMs are limited inasmuch as the few plant functional types used within the models aggregate numerous species into single entities (Sitch et al., 2003). These are assumed to be entities with very broad environmental tolerances, which are immutable and immune to extinction. Therefore, underlying changes in species richness are not accounted for, and the simultaneous free dispersal of PFTs is assumed (e.g., Neilson et al., 2005; Midgley et al., 2007). The strength of DGVMs is especially in their global application, realistic dynamics and simulation of ecosystem processes including essential elements of the global C-cycle (e.g., Malcolm et al., 2002b). Thus, it is reasonable to equate changes in DGVM-simulated vegetation (e.g., Figure 4.3) to changes in community and population structures in the real world. What overall picture emerges from the results reviewed here? It appears that moderate levels of atmospheric CO2 rise and climate change relative to current conditions may be beneficial in some regions (Nemani et al., 2003), depending on latitude, on the CO2 responsiveness of plant functional types, and on the natural adaptive capacity of indigenous biota (mainly through range shifts that are now being widely observed – see Chapter 1). But as change continues, greater impacts are projected, while ecosystem and species response may be lagged (Sections 4.4.5, 4.4.6). At key points in time (Figure 4.4), ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration may cease, and even reverse (Figure 4.2). While such ‘ tipping points’ (Kemp, 2005) are impossible to identify without substantial uncertainties, they may lead to irreversible effects such as biodiversity loss or, at the very least, impacts that have a slow recovery (e.g., on soils and

corals). Figure 4.4 Figure 4.4. Compendium of projected risks due to critical climate change impacts on ecosystems for different levels of global mean annual temperature rise, ΔT, relative to pre-industrial climate (approach and event numbers as used in Table 4.1 and Appendix 4.1). It is important to note that these impacts do not take account of ancillary stresses on species due to over-harvesting, habitat destruction, landscape fragmentation, alien species invasions, fire regime change, pollution (such as nitrogen deposition), or for plants the potentially beneficial effects of rising atmospheric CO2. The red curve shows observed temperature anomalies for the period 1900-2005 (Brohan et al., 2006, see also Trenberth et al., 2007, Figure 3.6). The two grey curves provide

examples of the possible future evolution of temperature against time (Meehl et al., 2007, Figure 10.4), providing examples of higher and lower trajectories for the future evolution of the expected value of ΔT. Shown are the simulated, multi-model mean responses to (i) the A2 emissions scenario and (ii) an extended B1 scenario, where radiative forcing beyond the year 2100 was kept constant to the 2100 value (all data from Meehl et al., 2007, Figure 10.4, see also Meehl et al., 2007, Section 10.7). In the two simulations presented in Figure 4.2 (warming of 2.9°C and 5.3°C by 2100 over land relative to the 1961-1990 baseline), the DGVM approach reveals salient changes in a key regulating service of the world’s ecosystems: carbon sequestration. Changes in the spatial distributions of ecosystems are given in Figure 4.3 (where it must be stressed that the figure highlights only key vulnerabilities through depicting appreciable vegetation type changes, i.e., PFT change over >20% of the area of any single pixel modelled). In the B1 emissions scenario (Figure 4.3b) about 26% of extant ecosystems reveal appreciable changes by 2100, with some positive impacts especially in Africa and the Southern Hemisphere. However, these positive changes are likely to be due to the assumed CO2-fertilisation effect (Section 4.4.10, Figure 4.3). By contrast, in mid- to high latitudes on all continents, substantial shifts in forest structure toward more rain-green, summer-green or deciduous rather than evergreen forest, and forest and woodland decline, underlie the overall drop in global terrestrial carbon sequestration potential that occurs post-2030, and approaches a net source by about 2070 (Figure 4.2; 4.3). In the A2 emissions scenario, roughly 37% of extant ecosystems reveal appreciable changes by 2100. Desert amelioration persists in the regions described above, but substantial decline of forest and woodland is seen at northern, tropical and sub-tropical latitudes. In both scenarios the current global sink deteriorates after 2030, and by 2070 (ΔT ~2.5°C over pre-industrial) the terrestrial biosphere becomes an increasing carbon source (Figure 4.2; see also Scholze et al., 2006) with the concomitant risk of positive feedback, developments that amplify climate change. Similar results were obtained by using a wide range of climate models which indicate that the biosphere becomes consistently within this century a net CO2 source with a global warming of >3°C relative to pre-industrial (Scholze et al., 2006). On the other hand, it must be noted that by about 2100 the modelled biosphere has nevertheless sequestered an additional 205-228 PgC (A2 and B1 emissions scenarios respectively) relative to the year 2000 (Lucht et al., 2006). Climate envelope modelling suggests that climate change impacts will diminish the areal extent of some ecosystems (e.g., reduction by 2-47% alone due to 1.6°C warming above pre-industrial,

Table 4.1, No. 6) and impact many ecosystem properties and services globally . Climate impacts alone will vary regionally and across biomes and will lead to increasing levels of global biodiversity loss , as expressed

through area reductions of wild habitats and declines in the abundance of wild species putting those species at risk of extinction (e.g., 3-16% of European plants with 2.2°C warming (Table 4.1, No. 20) or major losses of Amazon

rainforest with 2.5°C warming above pre-industrial, Figure 4.4, Table 4.1, No. 36). Globally, biodiversity (represented by species richness and relative abundance) may decrease by 13 to 19% due to a combination of land-use change, climate change and nitrogen deposition under four scenarios by 2050 relative to species present in 1970 (Duraiappah et al., 2005). Looking at projected losses due to land-use change alone (native habitat loss), habitat reduction in tropical forests and woodland, savanna and warm mixed forest accounts for 80% of the species projected to be lost (about 30,000 species – Sala, 2005). The apparent contrast between high impacts shown by projections for species (climate envelope models) relative to PFTs (DGVMs) is likely to be due to a number of reasons – most importantly, real species virtually certainly have narrower climate tolerances than PFTs, a fact more realistically represented by the climate envelope models. DGVM projections reveal some increasing success of broad-range, generalist plant species, while climate envelope model results focus on endemics. Endemics, with their smaller ranges, have been shown to have a greater vulnerability to climate change (Thuiller et al., 2005a), and may furthermore be dependent on keystone species in relationships that are ignored in DGVMs. Therefore, for assessing extinction risks, climate envelope modelling currently appears to offer more realistic results. As indicated in the TAR, climate changes are being imposed on ecosystems experiencing other substantial and largely detrimental pressures. Roughly 60% of evaluated ecosystems are currently utilised unsustainably and show increasing signs of degradatio n (Reid et al., 2005;

Hassan et al., 2005; Worm et al., 2006). This alone will be likely to cause widespread biodiversity loss (Chapin et al.,

2000; Jenkins, 2003; Reid et al., 2005), given that 15,589 species , from every major taxonomic group, are already listed as threatened (Baillie et al., 2006). The likely synergistic impacts of climate change and land-use change on endemic species have been widely confirmed (Hannah et al., 2002a; Hughes, 2003; Leemans and Eickhout, 2004; Thomas et al., 2004a; Lovejoy and Hannah, 2005; Hare, 2006; Malcolm et al., 2006; Warren, 2006), as has over-exploitation of marine systems (Worm et al., 2006; Chapters 5 and 6). Overall, climate change has been estimated to be a major driver of biodiversity loss in cool conifer forests, savannas, mediterranean-climate systems, tropical forests, in the Arctic tundra, and in coral reef s (Thomas et al., 2004a; Carpenter et al., 2005; Malcolm et al., 2006). In other ecosystems, land-use change may be a stronger driver of biodiversity loss at least in the near term. In an analysis of the SRES scenarios to 2100 (Strengers et al., 2004), deforestation is reported to cease in all scenarios except A2, suggesting that beyond 2050 climate change is very likely to be the major driver for biodiversity loss globally. Due to climate change alone it has been estimated that by 2100 between 1% and 43% of endemic species (average 11.6%) will be committed to extinction (DGVM-based study – Malcolm et al., 2006), whereas following another approach (also using climate envelope modelling-based studies – Thomas et al., 2004a) it has been estimated that on average 15% to 37% of species (combination of most optimistic assumptions 9%, most pessimistic 52%) will be committed to extinction by 2050 (i.e., their range sizes will have begun shrinking and fragmenting in a way that guarantees their accelerated extinction). Climate-change-induced extinction rates in tropical biodiversity hotspots are likely to exceed the predicted extinctions from deforestation during this century (Malcolm et al., 2006). In the mediterranean-climate region of South Africa, climate change may have at least as significant an impact on endemic Protea species’ extinction risk as land-use change does by 2020 (Bomhard et al., 2005). Based on all above findings and our compilation (Figure 4.4, Table 4.1) we

estimate that on average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century as global mean temperatures exceed 2°C to 3°C relative to pre-industrial levels (this chapter). The uncertainties remain large, however, since for about 2°C temperature increase the percentage may be as low as 10% or for about 3°C as high as 40% and, depending on biota, the range is between 1% and 80% (Table 4.1; Thomas et al., 2004a; Malcolm et al., 2006). As global average temperature exceeds 4°C above pre-industrial levels, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% species assessed) around the globe (Table 4.1). Losses of biodiversity will probably lead to decreases in the provision of ecosystem goods and services with trade-offs between ecosystem services likely to intensify (National Research Council, 1999; Carpenter et al., 2005; Duraiappah et al., 2005). Gains in provisioning services (e.g., food supply, water use) are projected to occur, in part, at the expense of other regulating and supporting services including genetic resources, habitat provision, climate and runoff regulation. Projected changes may also increase the likelihood of ecological surprises that are detrimental for human well-being (Burkett

et al., 2005; Duraiappah et al., 2005). Ecological surprises include rapid and abrupt changes in temperature and precipitation , leading to an increase in extreme events such as floods, fires and landslides, increases in eutrophication, invasion by alien species, or rapid and sudden increases in disea se (Carpenter et al., 2005). This could also entail sudden shifts of ecosystems to less desired states (Scheffer et al., 2001; Folke et al., 2004; e.g., Chapin

et al., 2004) through, for example, the exeedance of critical temperature thresholds, possibly resulting in the irreversible loss of ecosystem services, which were dependent on the previous stat e (Reid et al., 2005)

Scenario 2: Spills

Arctic drilling is inevitable—corporate willingness bypasses short term hurdles World Finance 3/12 (World Finance is one of the top news sites for finance developments worldwide, “Is Arctic drilling worth the

risk?”, 3/12/14, http://www.worldfinance.com/markets/is-arctic-oil-drilling-worth-the-risk)//WL Infrastructural insufficiencies and extreme weather conditions have so far proven too big an obstacle for energy companies attempting to tap into the Arctic’s vast hydrocarbon reserves. But that may be about to change. Tucked away among the Arctic’s ever-shifting jags of ice, hidden from the naked eye, are billions upon billions of dollars in black gold. The Arctic landscape, spanning the Barents to the Beaufort Sea and beyond, is home to a reported 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13 percent of its oil. Whoever conquers it will lay claim to 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 90 billion barrels of oil – almost three times the annual global consumption. Much of the prospective total, according to the US Geological Survey, sits offshore and is up for the taking, provided that those with suitably high ambitions come equipped with the necessary tools, know-how and – most importantly – resources to do so. Although the region accounts for as little as six percent of the Earth’s surface, it accounts for a disproportionately large amount of its resources, and it is this supposed abundance of hydrocarbons that has seen energy companies clamour for the rights to the region’s many opportunities. “It is only in the last five years that hydrocarbon development has actually been contemplated as a possibility, principally due to technological and navigational advances,” says Trevor Slack, Senior Analyst at risk analysis company Maplecroft. “To varying degrees, Russia, Canada, the US, Norway and Greenland have all increased exploration and development activity on their relevant portions of the Arctic continental shelf.” The majority of the Arctic countries have granted energy companies licenses to explore offshore reserves, however, the exploration phase is only a fraction of the overall effort required to reap the region’s riches. The difficulties companies face while working in the region can perhaps best be seen in the case of Royal Dutch Shell and the crisis that befell the Kulluk drilling rig late last year. “What is failure but a bump on the road to triumph?” asked the company on its website soon after the 266ft barge ran aground off the Alaskan coast: circumstances that later incurred an impairment charge of $200m. The failed expedition constitutes only a slither of the oil giant’s overall Arctic spending, which has so far amassed upwards of $5bn and yielded very little in the way of returns. Despite having introduced an armada of 20 support vessels, chartered well over a thousand dedicated flights, and exhausted $1bn on the project through the last year alone, the Anglo-Dutch powerhouse is yet to complete a single well in the region. While these circumstances could well be considered a failure of sorts, they could just as easily be seen as par for the course, as the extraction of Arctic oil and gas ranks among the most expensive business opportunities in the world . “Oil spill risks, high extraction costs, doubts over the amount of commercially recoverable reserves, and a precedent of cost overruns and delays combine to raise questions about the commercial viability of some proposed Arctic projects,” reads a Greenpeace report into Arctic exploration risks. “The drilling conditions facing oil companies operating in the Arctic are some of the most challenging on Earth.” Risk and reward The challenges of tapping the Arctic’s resources are quite plain to see, these being a harsh climate, underdeveloped infrastructure, long project cycles, spill containment and recovery risks, and conflicting sovereignty claims, to name but a few. All things considered, the complications have caused some to question whether the investment is actually worth the costs, whether they be financial or environmental. Total is the first major oil company to publicly denounce offshore exploration in the Arctic, with the company’s CEO Christophe de Margerie expressing fears about the potential damages of a spill: “Oil on Greenland would be a disaster,” he told the Financial Times. “A leak would do

too much damage to the image of the company.” Total’s stance on the matter is very much the exception, however, with various competitors such as ExxonMobil, Rosneft, Eni, Statoil and, of course, Shell, having committed a great deal of time and money to the Arctic endeavour. Despite previous problems, Shell hopes to resume its work in the Arctic at some point this year, with CFO Simon Henry believing the region to be the “most attractive single

opportunity for the future,” as stated in The Telegraph. However, the company will be subject to far closer scrutiny than before in light of its previous failings. Shell’s return to the Arctic – however delayed – will be watched

by environmentalists, whose concerns for the surrounding environment need not be explained, as well as industry rivals, who will be keen to know whether or not the region’s treasures can be extracted. Exploration obstacles Although Shell appears quite intent on exploiting the Arctic’s natural resources, a US appeals court has recently ruled that the Alaskan government acted illegally in granting Shell exploration rights to Arctic waters controlled by the US, which has, in effect, curbed the company’s oil ambitions further still. The extraction site was sold for $2.66bn in 2008, of which $2.1bn was paid for by Shell, and has since been hotly contested by local and environmental groups, who claim the consequences were ill conceived and its environmental impact sorely underplayed. Another major player whose progress has been hindered by development costs and other such obstacles is Norway’s Statoil, which late last year expressed concerns about the challenges of exploring and extracting Arctic hydrocarbon reserves. “Logistical difficulties, regulatory hurdles, jurisdictional tensions, environmental opposition and above all extremely inhospitable climatic conditions will ensure that oil and gas activity in the region remains problematic, complex and expensive,” says Slack. “Cost is probably the most important factor, with Statoil estimating that the cost of drilling one oil well in the Arctic could be as much as $500m. This is likely to be prohibitive for most companies in the current climate, with some analysts predicting that the price of crude could drop in the medium term.” Statoil’s Exploration Chief Tim Dodson spoke at a climate change conference last year about some of the issues facing oil companies in the Arctic. “We don’t envisage production from several of these areas before 2030 at the earliest; more likely 2040, probably not until 2050,” he said. “I think what we have

to realise is that the challenges our industry faces in the Arctic are at least as significant as we thought they were just a couple of years back, but they’re not insurmountable.” Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy, meanwhile, has announced that, regardless of having spent over $1bn in the region, it is deprioritising its Greenland operations after not having made a single commercial find as of yet. Many believe the inadequate infrastructure and tumultuous weather conditions, combined with the falling price of oil and gas, to be the perfect storm when it comes to Arctic exploration. These circumstances mean that short-term financial benefits can only be marginal at best, until stratospheric sums of capital are poured into developing the region. Charlie Kronick, Senior Climate Advisor at Greenpeace UK, is sceptical. “[It] is impossible to drill safely for oil in the ice covered waters of the Arctic – the potential impacts on local livelihoods and biodiversity are uncostable. It would be literally impossible – for both technical and environmental reasons – to clean up after the inevitable spill, while the level of climate change that would result from successful (in economic terms) drilling there would be catastrophic.” A report conducted by Lloyd’s and Chatham House found that investment in the Arctic could reach $100bn by 2022, as companies scramble to gain a foothold. “Business activity in the Arctic region is undeniably increasing, and the impact of climate change means that this is likely to grow significantly in the future. But as new opportunities open up, decisions on exploiting them need to be made on the basis of as full an understanding of the risks as possible,” said Richard Ward, Chief Executive at Lloyd’s. At present, any areas of the Arctic that are unrepresented are being hotly contested by the bordering countries. Regardless, it is crucial that businesses granted permission to work in the region align their goals with those of local governments, communities and the environment, as the territory proceeds to transform. In addition, those partaking in Arctic exploration should put in place strict measures to avoid any environmental disasters, and have procedures in place should the worst case scenario occur. “The businesses which will succeed will be those which take their responsibilities to the region’s communities and environment seriously, working with other stakeholders to manage the wide range of Arctic risks and ensuring that future development is sustainable,” says Ward.

Hydrate research is key—it’s the most prominent drilling hazard Helgeland et al 12 (Leif Rune, Andreas Andersen Kinn, Ole Flokketveit Kvalheim, Anders Wenaas, researches at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, November 2012, “Gas kick due to hydrates in the drilling for offshore natural gas and oil”, http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/oppgaver/Oppgaver2012/12Helgeland.pdf)//WL***HBS refers to a hydrate bearing sediment4.Drilling through hydrates When HBS are drilled through a change in pressure and temperature may occur and cause the hydrates to become unstable [13]. As explained in chapter 2, if 1m3 of methane hydrate dissociate, it will produce 164m3 methane gas. When a volume change like that happens it will result in a kick, or in worst case scenario a blowout. At the shallow depths where gas hydrates usually are encountered, the blowout preventer (BOP),

riser, choke- and kill lines are normally not installed [4]. Hydrate dissociation in the formation may cause problems with wellbore stability and subsurface equipment, which can lead to reduced efficiency and safety issues of drilling operations. Gas hydrates can also be encountered at greater depths when the BOP and riser are installed. Equipment on surface and subsurface are more exposed to danger in this case because the rapidly increase in volume will involve a huge strain on the equipment [4]. Wellbore instability due to hydrate dissociation is mainly caused by two problems: • When the hydrates dissociate in the

wellbore, the drilling mud will experience a reduction in density and a change in rheology due to dissolved gas. This may lead to an enlargement of the wellbore and even collapse of the hole. • When hydrates dissociate, the surrounding sediments may experience an increase in permeability and a reduction in strength [13]. When drilling through HBS, several problems can be encountered. Some of these are: Subsidence, stuck pipe, gas leaking on the outside of the casing and an inefficient cement job. Another problem is that the drilling window in HBS is not well understood. When drilling through gas hydrates you need to stay above the collapse pressure, below the fracture pressure, and at the same time manage the dissociation temperature and pressure of the hydrates [15]. Failure to do this can lead to a gas kick. When dissolved gas Blows towards the surface, hydrates may again form. Some of the problems that may be encountered on subsurface equipment are described below [4]: • “Choke and Kill-line plugging: This causes difficulty in the use of the lines during well circulation • Plug formation at or below the BOP: Well-pressure monitoring below the BOPs becomes impossible or difficult • Plug formation around the drill string in the riser, BOPs or casing: Makes the drill string movement a problem • Plug formation between the drill string and BOPs: This causes problems in the full closure of the BOPs when necessary • Plug formation in the ram cavity of the BOPs: Causes difficulty in opening the BOPs fully.” Unawareness of HBS when drilling a well is currently the most prominent drilling hazard . [15]. In the future we are most

likely forced to drill in deeper waters, arctic environments and possibly produce hydrates as a source of energy. In order to do this in a safe manner we need to understand and control the problems we currently are facing regarding gas hydrates.

The plan is key to prevent inevitable oil spills—empirics prove they’ll happen Kerr 10 (Richard, Reporter for Science Magazine, “Gulf Spill: Did Pesky Hydrates Trigger the Blowout?”, 5/10/10, http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2010/05/gulf-spill-did-pesky-hydrates-trigger-blowout)//WLMethane-trapping ice of the kind that has frustrated the first attempt to contain oil gushing offshore of Louisiana may have been a root cause of the blowout that started the spill in the first place, according to University of California,

Berkeley, professor Robert Bea, who has extensive access to BP p.l.c. documents on the incident. If methane hydrates are eventually implicated, the U.S. oil and gas industry would have to tread even

more lightly as it pushes farther and farther offshore in search of energy . Drillers have long been

wary of methane hydrates because they can pack a powerful punch. One liter of water ice that has trapped

individual methane molecules in the "cages" of its crystal structure can release 168 liters of methane gas when the ice decomposes. Bea, who has 55 years of experience assessing risks in and around offshore operations, says " there was

concern at this location for gas hydrates . We're out to the [water depth] where it ought to be there." The deeper the water, the greater the pressure, which when high enough can keep hydrates stable well below the sea floor. And there were signs that drillers did encounter hydrates. About a month before the blowout, a "kick" of gas pressure hit the well hard enough that the platform was shut down. "Something under high pressure was being encountered," says Bea—apparently both hydrates and gas on different occasions. Workers from Halliburton who had just pumped cement into the well to temporarily seal it off were well aware of the potential hydrate hazards, says Bea. Halliburton just last year had developed strategies to avoid having the heat of curing cement decompose any nearby hydrates and trigger a kick, he says. A special foamy cement was used to seal the well this time. It was just after the seal was tested that natural gas drove through it, a malfunctioning blowout preventer, and a drill pipe full of seawater to

ignite on the platform, killing 11 and eventually sinking it. " There are so many operations like this around the world ," says Bea. "My hope is we'll use this disaster as an opportunity to take a step forward" in risk reduction.

Arctic oil spills wreak havoc on global biodiversity—it’s the keystone ecosystem of the planet WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, “Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky” 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_Soon_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WLThe Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds

and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is

not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms

that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat . Heat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years. In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone

ecosystem for the entire planet Unfortunately, some of these disruptions are happening already as climate change melts sea ice and thaws the Arctic tundra. The Arctic’s sea ice cover reflects sunlight and therefore heat. As the ice melts, that heat is absorbed by the salt water, whose temperature, salinity and density all begin to change in ways that impact global ocean circulation patterns. On land, beneath the Arctic tundra, are immense pools of frozen methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. As the tundra thaws, the risk of this methane escaping increases.4 Were this to happen, the consequences would be dire and global in scope. As we continue not just to spill but to burn the fossil fuels that cause climate change, we are nudging the Arctic toward a meltdown that will make sea levels and temperatures rise even faster, with potentially catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth—no matter where one lives it. For the sake of the planet, losing the Arctic is not an option. Mitigating the impact of climate change there ultimately depends upon our getting serious about replacing fossil fuels with

non-carbon-based renewable energies. Until we demonstrate the will and good sense to do that, however, the Arctic needs to be protected from other environmental threats that, compounded by the stress of climate change, undermine its resiliency and hasten its demise. Chief among those threats is offshore drilling—especially in the absence of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. Future technological advances may give us those means, but this report argues that we do not have them yet and that we should not drill in the Arctic until we do.

Zero risk of clean up—lack of infrastructure and planning takes out their defense Dlouhy 4/23 (Jennifer A., Energy Reporter at the Houston Chronicle, citing NRC report on Oil drilling in the Arctic - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18625, “U.S. could be caught cold by Arctic oil spill, report says”, 4/23/14, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/U-S-could-be-caught-cold-by-Arctic-oil-spill-5425524.php)//WL)WASHINGTON - The United States is ill prepared to tackle oil spills in the Arctic, whether from drilling or from cargo

and cruise ships traveling through newly passable waterways once clogged with ice, the National Research Council reported Wednesday. Extreme weather conditions and sparse infrastructure in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas - more than

1,000 miles from the nearest deep-water port - would complicate any broad emergency response. Ice in those remote oceans can trap pockets of oil, locking it beyond the reach of conventional cleanup equipment and preventing it from naturally breaking down over time. "The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill," scientists said in a 198-page National Research Council report requested by the American Petroleum Institute, the Coast Guard, the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and five other entities. "It is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access, stronger supply chains and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies and personnel." The report offers more than a dozen recommendations for what regulators, the oil industry and other stakeholders need to do to boost their ability to tackle a crude oil or fuel spill at the top of the globe, as retreating sea ice spurs new energy development and ship traffic there. A chief recommendation: More research across the board, from meteorological studies to investigations of how oil spill cleanup methods would work in the Arctic. The National Research Council - an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering - insisted the United States needs "a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and development program." The council encouraged controlled releases of oil in Arctic waters - a practice generally barred under U.S. environmental laws - to evaluate response strategies. Although the federal government and oil industry are conducting lab studies that attempt to replicate Arctic conditions, the report suggests there is no substitute for the real thing and said the studies could be done without environmental harm. Warmer waters Most information on responding to oil spills has been developed in temperate conditions, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, so it may not translate to the Arctic, where cold water and sea ice may limit the amount of oil that naturally disperses and evaporates. Workers practice deploying an inflatable oil containment boom before Royal Dutch Shell began drilling in Alaskan Arctic seas in 2012. Jennifer A. Dlouhy Workers practice deploying an inflatable oil containment boom before Royal Dutch Shell began drilling in Alaskan Arctic seas in 2012. Because no response methods are completely effective or risk-free, the industry and government need a broad "oil spill response toolbox," the report said. Pre-

tested and pre-positioned equipment - along with plans for using it - would be critical to ensuring a swift response in an oil spill, the group said. When Shell was drilling for oil in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort seas in 2012, it stashed containment booms and other equipment along Alaska's northern coast and had a fleet of spill response vessels floating nearby. Shell since has suspended operations there following a series of marine mishaps before and after the drilling projects. Cold-weather effects Arctic cleanup options include chemical dispersants that can break down oil, either applied at the surface or near a wellhead, but the researchers said more work is needed to understand their effectiveness and long-term effects in the Arctic. While burning thick patches of floating oil is a viable spill countermeasure in the Arctic - potentially aided by ice that helps corral the crude - that approach fails when ice drifts apart and oil spreads too thin to ignite. Using booms, vessels and skimmers to concentrate oil slicks also may be difficult in the region, where there are few disposal sites for the contaminated equipment, sparse port facilities for the vessels and limited airlift capabilities . The National Research Council says this kind of mechanical recovery is probably best for small spills in pack ice, but it would likely be inefficient for a large offshore spill in the U.S. Arctic. Coast Guard presence The group also suggested the U.S. Coast Guard's relatively small presence in the U.S. Arctic is not sufficient, and that it needs icebreaking capability, more vessels for responding to emergency situations, and eventually aircraft support facilities that can work year-round. The report cited other resources now lacking in the Arctic, including equipment to detect, monitor and model the flow of oil on and under ice, and real-time monitoring of vessel traffic in the U.S. Arctic. A politically tricky recommendation is for the Coast Guard to expand an existing bilateral pact with Russia to allow joint Arctic spill exercises. Chris Krenz, a Juneau, Alaska-based senior scientist with the conservation group Oceana, said the report offers "a sobering look at our lack of preparedness" and suggests that the U.S. should reconsider whether to allow offshore drilling in the region. But oil industry representatives said the council rightly calls for more research and resources to combat spills there. The American Petroleum Institute was "encouraged by the report's emphasis on the need for a full toolbox of spill response technologies," spokesman Carlton Carroll said. The report was the product of a 14-member committee of the National Research Council, organized by the National Academy of Sciences, with representatives drawn from academia, the oil industry and Alaska.

Advantage 2: Energy Security

U.S. dependence on oil is escalating, decimating economic and military readiness—alternative fuel options are key Joyce, 13 (Adjunct Junior Fellow at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank devoted to studying questions of America’s long-term national security (William, “Oil Dependency: a Subtle but Serious Threat”, American Security Project, 6/4/13, http://www.americansecurityproject.org/oil-dependency-a-subtle-but-serious-threat/) EKWeapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber crime are in the headlines as significant threats to our national security. However, over the next twenty to thirty years, America’s overwhelming dependence on oil presents subtler, although no

less serious, threats to national security. The U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world, burning through 18.83 million barrels per day. Even if the U.S. produced all petroleum products domestically, Americans would still feel the shocks from market volatility. Oil is a global market, and market prices prevail regardless of origin. Despite policies to improve vehicle efficiency, America remains dependent on oil . This dependency presents several threats to U.S. national security. First, oil price volatility hampers American productivity and consumers. Economic vitality requires stable prices, as spikes in oil prices may reduce output and wages while increasing inflation and interest rates. Most commonly, consumers feel these disruptions at the gas pump. The transportation sector alone consumes 13.223 million barrels of petroleum per day. Petroleum facilitates the functioning of these critical transportation networks, and small disruptions may lead to cascading price dumps. As volatile oil prices destabilize the economy, they jeopardize U.S. interests and national security. Secondly, U.S. oil dependency distorts foreign policy. The U.S. imported 40% of its petroleum products in 2012. In order to ensure foreign oil security, the U.S. supports regimes it might not otherwise. Many oil-rich Islamist regimes in the Middle East receive de facto support from America in return for producing stable oil, despite conflicting ideologies and interests. Similarly, estimates show that extended military operations to guard oil supply lines cost the U.S. military $67.5-$83 billion per year. This dependency is costly and conflicts with the national security agenda. Lastly, oil dependency undermines military preparedness and effectiveness. The Department of Defense

consumed 117 million barrels of oil in 2011 in order to fuel the military’s vehicles, ships, and planes. The military must complete its missions, and without fuel options, it must endure oil price fluctuations. For every 25-cent increase per barrel of

oil, the Department of Defense pays an additional $1 billion in fuel costs per year. Additional fuel costs means the military has to cut costs elsewhere, which have negative impacts on security and military preparedness. Military energy security requires reduced consumption of petroleum products, yet the Department of Defense depends on oil for 80% of its energy needs. The military may reduce consumption by reforming energy-intensive activities, optimizing energy usage, and developing innovative technologies to reduce energy waste, but sequestration budget cuts will slash future investment. Instead of focusing solely on drilling for more oil, the U.S. must pursue a two-pronged approach that focuses on reducing oil demand while at the same time makes investments in developing alternative fuels. Clean energy technologies could cut imports by 44% which is nearly eight times more than potential domestic drilling production. Greater efforts to improve vehicle efficiency through corporate average fuel economy

standards (CAFE), congestion charges, or fuel taxes can contribute to reducing oil consumption. Moreover, America’s oil dependence saps the U.S. economy because consumers lack fuel options. To that end, investments in alternative sources of fuel – biofuels, natural gas , electric vehicles – can act as a hedge against oil price volatility. Throughout 2012, the U.S. spent $4.36 billion on energy research, which fell well below IEA recommendations. Due to budget caps and sequestration, energy research funding will drop substantially over the next few years. Oil dependency is a long-term threat. The rising cost of oil dependence affects all aspects of American society and threatens national security. If the U.S. wishes to reduce these threats in the future,

the U.S. must properly fund energy research and development to commercialize technologies that will break America’s oil dependency. Only then can we say we have actually achieved energy security.

Global methane hydrate extraction is key to energy security—it’s only energy source sufficient to solve NETL, 11 – National Energy Technology Laboratory (“Energy Resource Potential of Methane Hydrate”, February 2011, http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Oil-Gas/methane%20hydrates/MH-Primer2011.pdf) EK

Most financial advisors agree that a diversified portfolio of investments is a good way to ensure a secure financial future. Similarly, the United States must maintain a diversified energy portfolio, if we are to simultaneously meet growing energy demand, reduce dependence on foreign fuel supplies, and move toward cleaner energy options. Natural gas is poised to play a critical role in helping the nation achieve all three of these goals. Natural gas currently accounts for nearly a quarter of the U.S. energy supply, and that share is expected to remain roughly constant over the next several decades. Energy demand during this time period is expected to continue growing, in the U.S. and in the world. The Energy Information Administration projects that the U.S. will need to increase its annual production of natural gas by roughly 10% over the next 25 years, in order to keep pace with rising consumption. Fortunately, domestic natural gas is relatively abundant. The Potential Gas Committee, in their latest assessment, estimated that the U.S. has a total natural gas resource base of about 2,074 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This figure includes 1,836 Tcf of potential natural gas resources (including probable, possible, and speculative resources) and 238 Tcf of proved reserves. However, as demand for natural gas continues to grow, more supplies will be needed. Natural gas has many end-uses. It provides fuel for residential heating, and it is the fuel of choice for a wide range of industries, including paper and chemical production, petroleum refining, and glass manufacturing. It is used as a feedstock to produce fertilizers, chemicals, fabrics, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and electric power generation. Total electricity generation capacity from natural gas is projected to increase from 338 gigawatts in 2008 (33 percent of total capacity) to about 454 gigawatts in 2035 (46 percent of total capacity). While the volume of natural gas used to fuel vehicles is comparatively small, it is also growing. The amount of natural gas used for transportation in the U.S. tripled from 1998 to 2008, and it is projected to triple again by 2025. Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel, and it will continue to be an important part of the country’s energy portfolio and is integral to expanded deployment of renewable energy resources. Over the long term, the development of new natural gas resources such as methane hydrate can play a major role in ensuring adequate future supplies of natural gas and moderating future energy prices for American consumers. Methane

Hydrate Potential as a Fuel Source The worldwide volume of methane held in methane hydrate is immense. A frequently quoted estimate of the global methane hydrate resource is 20,000 trillion cubic meters, or about 700,000 Tcf. However, only a small portion of this enormous resource is likely to be harvested as an energy fuel. If existing and new technologies can be applied economically to the development of methane hydrate as a source of natural gas, the U.S. could significantly decrease its reliance on foreign energy supplies . A number of countries that currently import much of

their energy could become more self-sufficient. In 2008, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement or BOEMRE) released a preliminary assessment of the in-place methane hydrate resource in the Gulf of Mexico. This assessment, which does not consider whether the resource is technically or economically recoverable, estimated that there are about 11,000 – 34,000 Tcf of methane in-place in hydrate form in the northern Gulf of Mexico, with a mean value of 21,444 Tcf. The assessment also concluded that about 6,700 Tcf of this resource occur in relatively high-concentration accumulations in sandy sediments—that is, in the sort of reservoirs that would be likely to be producible. To put these numbers into context, recall that the total U.S. natural gas resource, excluding hydrate, amounts to 2,074 Tcf, based on estimates reported by the Potential Gas Committee. If one-third of the natural gas in-place in methane hydrate in sandy sediments of the Gulf of Mexico becomes technically recoverable, the U.S. could double its total natural gas resource. The volume of methane has also been calculated for the methane hydrate resource located in sediments within and beneath the permafrost on the North Slope of Alaska. In 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there is approximately 85 Tcf of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas resource within methane hydrate deposits on the North Slope. It is important to recognize that these estimates are continually refined and improved, as researchers obtain new and better information about the location and concentration of methane hydrate through direct sampling, laboratory testing, modeling, and remote detection.

The plan solves a stable global transition—oil independence resolves China’s consumption patterns Plumer 13 (Brad, reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly energy and environmental issues, “China is using up oil faster than we can produce it”, 4/29/13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/29/china-is-using-oil-faster-than-we-can-produce-it/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer%3A%2BSEIclimate%2Bon%2Btwitter&buffer_share=d0735)//WLMaybe you've heard that North America is producing a lot more oil these days, courtesy of fracking, tar sands and other new sources. The Atlantic has a nicely reported cover story on the whole phenomenon by Charles C. Mann. Headline: "We will never run out of oil." It's a great article, but here's an key bit of additional context. Stuart Staniford has some great charts looking at the rapid growth in Chinese oil

consumption over the past few decades. He's also done a simple extrapolation to see what China's oil demand would look like if it kept growing at 7 percent annually for another decade — hardly a wild assumption: Things would get very interesting. By 2025, in this hypothetical, China would be consuming 15 million barrels per day more than it does today. "If you compare this to things like the extra 4 [million barrels per day] you

might hope for from tar sands in this time frame, or the 2mbd that global crude supply has increased since 2005, you can see that this is going to stress the global oil system a lot ," Staniford writes. China helps put everything in perspective. There's a lot of hype, for instance, about the "tight oil" boom in North Dakota. At last count, the state now produces about 750,000 barrels of oil per day. But as analysts at Barclay's have pointed out, tiny swings in China’s appetite for crude can easily gobble all of that up. So what happens if oil supplies can't keep up with the rise in Chinese demand in the decades ahead? Prices would start rising. And one of three things would have to happen, as Staniford explains: "Either the global crude supply is going to grow a lot faster than it has been, or OECD oil consumers are going to have to consume a great deal less than they are now, or China (and other rapidly growing consumers) are going to have to slow down a lot." Pay attention to that middle option especially. In a recent interview, energy analyst Chris Nelder explained why growing oil demand from places like China and India would likely force Europe and the United States to curtail their own oil consumption: Right now, all of the new oil consumption in the world is coming from outside the OECD and the developed world. It’s largely coming from in China and India. And that new oil demand is now being met, almost exactly, by declining demand in North American and Europe. ... ... The growing economies of Asia get so much more marginal economic utility out of a gallon of fuel than we do. In a poorer country, you might have a couple guys on a moped, burning one gallon of fuel to get to the market and back. They get so much more economic value out of doing that than a construction worker in the U.S. gets in his pickup truck burning 5 gallons per day. Now, obviously Staniford's scenario might never come to pass. China's economy could slow down further in the years ahead, which would cause its demand for oil to drop sharply. (A Chinese recession could create all sorts of other

problems, but push those aside for now.) Or maybe some new energy source — electric cars? natural gas ? — will put a

major dent in oil consumption , either in China or the United States. In theory, though, China still has plenty of room to

grow and burn more oil. And that basic dynamic is worth watching closely. The world might not "run out of oil" anytime soon. But if supplies can't expand quickly enough to keep up with growing demand, that will put a lot of strain on the system. At that point, we either find new sources of oil or we use less of the stuff — and the latter can happen either voluntarily or involuntarily, through slower economic growth.

Oil dependence makes US-Sino war inevitable Klare 10 [Michael T., professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “Tomgram: Michael Klare, China Shakes the World” http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175297/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_china_shakes_the_world 9/19/10 DG]Already, China’s efforts to bolster its ties with its foreign-oil providers have produced geopolitical friction with the United States. There is a risk of far more serious Sino-American conflict as we enter the “tough oil” era and the world supply of easily accessible petroleum rapidly shrinks. According to the DoE, the global supply of oil and other petroleum liquids in 2035 will be 110.6 million barrels per day – precisely enough to meet anticipated world demand at that time. Many oil geologists believe, however, that global oil output will reach a peak level of output well below 100 million barrels per day by 2015, and begin declining after that. In addition, the oil that remains will increasingly be found in difficult places to reach or in highly unstable regions. If these predictions prove accurate, the United States and China -- the world’s two leading oil importers -- could become trapped in a zero-sum great-power contest for access to diminishing supplies of exportable petroleum. What will happen under these circumstances is, of course, impossible to predict, especially

since the potential for conflict abounds. If both countries continue on their current path -- arming favored suppliers in a desperate bid to secure long-term advantage -- the heavily armed petro-states may also become ever more fearful of, or covetous of, their (equally well-equipped) neighbors. With both the U.S. and China deploying growing numbers of military advisers and instructors to such countries, the stage could be set for mutual involvement in local wars and border conflicts. Neither Beijing nor Washington may seek such involvement, but the logic of arms-for-oil diplomacy makes this an unavoidable risk. It is not hard, then, to picture a future moment when the United States and China are locked in a global struggle over the world’s remaining supplies of oil. Indeed, many in official Washington believe that such a collision is nearly inevitable. “China’s near-term focus on preparing for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait… is an important driver of its [military] modernization,” the Department of Defense noted in the 2008 edition of its annual report, The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China. “However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions and strategic thinking suggests Beijing is also developing capabilities for use in other contingencies, such as a conflict over resources...” Conflict over planetary oil reserves is not, however, the only

path that China’s new energy status could open. It is possible to imagine a future in which China and the United States cooperate in pursuing oil alternatives that would obviate the need to funnel massive sums into naval and military arms races. President Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, seemed to glimpse such a possibility when they agreed last November, during an economic summit in Beijing, to collaborate in the development of alternative fuels and transportation systems. At this point, only one thing is clear: the greater China’s reliance on imported petroleum, the greater the risk of friction and conflict with the United States, which relies on the same increasingly problematic suppliers of energy. The greater its reliance on coal, the less comfortable our planet will become. The greater its emphasis on alternative fuels, the more likely it may make the twenty-first century China’s domain. At this point, how China will apportion its energy needs among the various candidate fuels remains unknown. Whatever its choices, however, China’s energy decisions will shake the world.

That causes nuclear annihilationWittner, 11 (Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany (Lawrence, “Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?”, 11/30/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclearwar-china_b_1116556.html)

But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons 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. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of

billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war , there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations . If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

Independently, dependence guts military readinessSeip, 12 (Retired Lieutenant General, 12th Air Force Commander; member of the Consensus for American Security Initiative (Norman, “Guest Post: Lt. General Norman Seip (Ret.) -The Military’s Dependence on Oil is Putting Our Forces at Risk”, American Security Project, 7/12/12, http://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-militarys-dependence-on-oil-is-putting-our-forces-at-risk/) EKOur military’s single point of failure is its dependence on oil to support nearly all of its transportation needs. As the single largest purchaser of petroleum-based fuel in the world, burning through about 325,000 barrels of fuel per day, our military’s dependence on oil poses large security risks that must be mitigated to support a new generation of

soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. As long as the U.S. military is beholden to volatile global oil supplies, our forces will remain vulnerable. From a financial standpoint, our military’s fixed budget is susceptible to unbudgeted oil costs. Last year unbudgeted fuel costs had the effect of diverting over $2 billion of funds away from military operations. This is money that should be used to protect our forces and our nation, not to buy oil. Global demand and political instability in oil producing regions are the x-factors determining global oil prices that we cannot predict or control. (Examples: tensions with Iran, the Euro crisis, weighing demand in China). Unfortunately, the rise in domestic oil production will not be enough to solve oil volatility. A recent letter by Military Leaders to

Congress noted that “Even if we flood the market with every drop of oil in both our proven and strategic reserves, it will not be enough to offset rising global demand.” Unbudgeted costs will continue as global oil prices rise

and remain volatile. Altering our military’s dependence on oil is not just about saving money though -it is about saving lives. The continuous requirement to protect oil supplies in dangerous regions of the world puts our brave men and women in harm’s way each and every day. With political tensions rising in the Persian Gulf, the risks to our military forces and to our national security continue to rise. To mitigate these

strategic risks, our military has begun the transition to alternative fuels. Alternative fuel options would enhance our energy

security and national security by allowing our military to move away from protecting fuel supplies as well as minimizing the impact that volatile oil prices have on each of the services’ readiness. The Air Force and the Navy both have established goals to source 50 percent of their fuel requirements from alternative fuels by 2020. A large part of this plan is the use of drop-in-fuels that can be mixed with oil to operate aircraft like the F-15E Strike Eagle and F/A-18 Hornet as well as vehicles like the Humvee. Our military is the greatest in the world in part because we equip our service men and women with the most advanced technology. The DoD and other government agencies have historically been market makers for advancing military proven technologies. The oil and gasoline industry developed and matured over time with government purchases, tax breaks and economic incentives. We owe the biofuel industry the same considerations. Biofuels, like petroleum fuels, should have the opportunity to prove their utility and cost effectiveness in a large commercial market. To provide such an opportunity the DoD has set forth ambitious but well thought out goals and matching plans to directly invest in the biofuels industry. However, the DoD’s efforts are in trouble. The House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment in the DoD’s FY2013 budget that would prevent the DoD from using available funds to produce or procure alternative fuels if alternative fuel costs exceed the current costs of fossil fuels. This amendment would effectively put a stranglehold on progress in addressing our military’s single point of failure. Our military should be permitted to mitigate the strategic risks posed by its dependence on oil, which are costing money and lives. To do so, we must invest in alternative fuels. The future of military fuels is in biofuels, an industry we must encourage to grow and to compete in the open market. It is the right thing to do for our sons and daughters who so proudly wear the uniform and it is the right thing to do for our nation.

That makes war inevitableSpencer, 2k – Research Fellow at Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (Jack, “The Facts About Military Readiness”, Heritage Foundation, 9/15/00, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2000/09/BG1394-The-Facts-About-Military-Readiness)

America's national security requirements dictate that the armed forces must be prepared to defeat groups of adversaries in a given war. America, as the sole remaining superpower, has many enemies. Because attacking America or its interests alone would surely end in defeat for a single nation, these enemies are likely to form alliances. Therefore, basing readiness on American military superiority over any single nation has little saliency. The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives,3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames."4According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy.5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War.6 Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests .

Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest , thereby preserving peace.

Advantage 3: Presence Arctic conflict is inevitable—competition for resources—climate change magnifies the threatRT 3-15 [RT, previously known as Russia Today, is an international multilingual Russian-based television network, Climate change may cause conflict in Arctic, threats to security worldwide – former US generals, May 15, 2014, http://rt.com/usa/159036-climate-change-military-generals/]Global climate change represents a serious and growing threat to world security, and may be a catalyst for conflict in the resources-rich Arctic region as the ice shield shrinks , a group of retired top US military officers say in a new report. The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Military Advisory Board says in the report – titled 'National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change' – that melting sea ice in the Arctic will open shipping lanes for energy exploration, setting off public and private competition for untapped reserves that lie beneath the historically forbidden region. “ Things are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at ," said

General Paul Kern, chairman of the CNA military advisory board. “The changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged.” Russia and China will especially vie for access to oil and other natural resources, the

report states. “As the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it represents a lot of opportunities for Russia,” Kern said, adding that budding conflict there is accelerating “faster than we had looked at seven years ago.” As a new era of resource-pilfering begins in the Arctic, a separate study recently released says that public and private entities are not at all prepared for an oil spill in the region. Approximately 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and about 15 percent of its untapped oil lies in the Arctic. But the majority, 84 percent, of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 47.3 trillion cubic meters of gas remain offshore. The CNA report echoes a recent cascade of studies and official reports that declare, more unequivocally than ever before, that global climate change poses vast, complex security risks, especially given the inevitable competition for resources amid rapid population growth. But the retired generals went a step further, calling climate change a “threat multiplier” to a “conflict catalyst .” Last week, US Defense Department Secretary Chuck Hagel acknowledged that the opening of sea lanes in the Arctic could very well lead to friction among competing nations. "The melting of gigantic ice caps presents possibilities for the opening of new sea lanes and the exploration for natural resources, energy and commerce, also with the dangerous potential for conflict in the Arctic," Hagel said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. For its part, Russia, a leader in Arctic advances, recently approved a state-run program aimed at encouraging “socio-economic development” in the region. Outside of the Arctic, the CNA report warned that climate change will cause or exacerbate regional and ethnic conflicts over food and

water in the developing world. “In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, we are already seeing how the impacts of extreme weather, such as prolonged drought and flooding – and resulting food shortages, desertification, population dislocation and

mass migration, and sea level rise – are posing security challenges to these regions’ governments. We see these trends growing and accelerating," the report says. According to the authors, rising sea levels will put people and food supplies at risk in vulnerable coastal regions such as eastern India, Bangladesh, and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. “Populations will likely become disenfranchised and even more vulnerable to extremists and revolutionary influences,” the report states. In addition, climate change impacts around the world will create more need for American troops, the report says, despite likely damage to naval ports and military bases amid flooding and worsening weather. Just in the last week, researchers have said that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet and a three-meter sea-level rise is inevitable, and that increased levels of carbon dioxide emissions related to a warming planet will weaken nutrition levels in some of the world’s staple foods like corn and wheat. Last week, the Obama administration’s National Climate Assessment stated that the various effects of global warming in the United States – among them more flooding and longer droughts – "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.” The Pentagon has long considered climate change a major security menace. In March, the Defense Department again stressed threats to global stability and American hegemony posed by climate change in its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, declaring that an erratic climate will likely cause increased “terrorist activity,” among other impacts .

US influence is lagging now–comparative lack of funding and presence Reichmann 1-1 [Deb Reichmann, Associated Press contributor, U.S. lags behind arctic nations in race to stake claims to untapped resources, January 1, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-lags-behind-arctic-nations-in-race-to-stake-claims-to-untapped-resources/]Countries are scrambling to stake claim to untapped resources, previously frozen in the Arctic. But with a lack of basic infrastructure and funding commitments , critics say the U.S. trails other countries in preparations for the increased activity in the north. Video still by PBS NewsHour WASHINGTON — The U.S. is racing to keep pace with stepped-up activity in the once sleepy Arctic frontier, but it is far from being in the lead. Nations across the world are hurrying to stake claims to the Arctic’s resources, which might be home to 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas. There are emerging fisheries and hidden minerals. Cruise liners filled with tourists are sailing the Arctic’s frigid waters in increasing numbers. Cargo traffic along the Northern Sea Route, one of two shortcuts across the top of the Earth in summer, is on the rise. The U.S., which takes over the two-year rotating chairmanship of the eight-nation Arctic Council in 2015, has not ignored the Arctic, but critics say the U.S. is lagging behind the other seven: Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland,

Canada and Denmark, through the semiautonomous territory of Greenland. “On par with the other Arctic nations, we are behind — behind in our thinking, behind in our vision,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said. “We lack basic infrastructure, basic funding commitments to be prepared for the level of activity expected in the Arctic.” At a meeting before Thanksgiving with Secretary of State John Kerry, Murkowski suggested he name a U.S. ambassador or envoy to the Arctic — someone who could coordinate work on the Arctic being done by more than 20 federal agencies and take the lead on increasing U.S. activities in the region. Murkowski is trying to get Americans to stop thinking that the Arctic is just Alaska’s problem. “People in Iowa and New Hampshire need to view the U.S. as an Arctic nation. Otherwise when you talk about funding, you’re never going to get there,” Murkowski said. She added that even non-Arctic nations are deeply engaged: “India

and China are investing in icebreakers.” The U.S. has three aging icebreakers. The melting Arctic also is creating a new front of U .S. security concerns . Earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said expanding Russia’s military presence in the Arctic was a top priority for his nation’s armed forces. Russia this year began rehabilitating a Soviet-era base at the New Siberian Islands and has pledged to restore a number of Arctic military air bases that fell into neglect after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin said he doesn’t envision a conflict between Russia and the United States, both of which have called for keeping the Arctic a peaceful zone. But he added, “Experts know quite well that it takes U.S. missiles 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from the Barents Sea,” which is a part of the Arctic Ocean near Russia’s shore. While the threat of militarization remains, the battle right now is on the economic level as countries vie for oil, gas and other minerals, including rare earth metals used to make high-tech products like cellphones. There also are disputes bubbling up with environmental groups that oppose energy exploration in the region; Russia arrested 30 crew members of a Greenpeace ship in September after a protest in the Arctic. China signed a free trade agreement with tiny Iceland this year, a signal that the Asian powerhouse is keenly interested in the Arctic’s resources. And Russia is hoping that the Northern Sea Route, where traffic jumped to 71 vessels this year from four in 2010, someday could be a transpolar route that could rival the Suez Canal. In the U.S., the Obama administration is consulting with governmental, business, industry and environmental officials, as well as the state of Alaska, to develop a plan to implement the U.S. strategy for the Arctic that President Barack Obama unveiled seven months ago. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rolled out the Pentagon’s Arctic blueprint last month, joining the Coast Guard and other government agencies that have outlined their plans for the region. There are no cost or budget estimates yet, but the Navy is laying out what the U.S. needs to increase communications, harden ships and negotiate international agreements so nations will be able to track traffic in the Arctic and conduct search and rescue operations. Critics, however, say the U.S. needs to back the strategy papers with more precise plans — plus funding. With the country still paying for two wars, the idea of spending money in an area considered a low security threat makes the Arctic an even tougher sell. “The problem with all of these strategies is that they are absolutely silent on budget issues,” said Heather Conley, an expert on the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How do we meet these new challenges? Well, we’re going to have to put more resources to them. It’s dark. It’s cold. There’s terrible weather. We need to enhance our own satellite communications and awareness in the area as ships and commercial activity increases in the Arctic.” The U.S. needs helicopters, runways, port facilities and roads in the Arctic, she said – not to mention better accommodations in small coastal towns that have a shortage of beds and would be ill-equipped to handle an influx of tourists from a disabled cruise ship. With few assets, the U.S. might be forced to borrow from the private sector. “When Shell drilled two summers ago in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea, they had 33 vessels and the Coast Guard had one national security cutter,” Conley said. “We’re not prepared. It may be another 10 years. The Arctic is not going to wait, and the increased commercial and human activity is already there. Other Arctic states are preparing more robustly, and we are choosing not to.” The Obama administration defends its work on the Arctic, saying it is preparing for the rapid changes coming in the far north. “Each Arctic government, including the United States government, has developed an Arctic strategy, and the administration expects to release an implementation plan for our Arctic strategy in the coming months,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “We recognize that

preparing for increasing human activity in the Arctic will require investment in the region, and we hope to be able to say more on this in the future.” Malte Humpert with the Washington-based Arctic Institute says that when the implementation plan is completed, he’s going to be looking for specifics – timelines, budget numbers, plans for new infrastructure. “There’s a lot of good, shiny policy and good ideas about how to move forward, and now it’s about finding money,” he said. “And that’s where the U.S. is really far behind.” The funding battle often focuses on icebreakers. The Coast Guard has three: the medium-duty Healy, which is used mostly for scientific expeditions, and two heavy icebreakers, the Polar Sea and Polar Star. Both heavy icebreakers were built in the 1970s and are past their 30-year service lives. The Polar Star, however, was recently given a $57 million overhaul, was tested in the Arctic this summer and currently is deployed in Antarctica. About $8 million has been allocated to study the possibility of building a new icebreaker, which would take nearly a decade and cost more than $1 billion. In the meantime, lawmakers from Washington and Alaska want Congress to rehabilitate the Polar Sea too. “A half-century after racing the Russians to the moon, the U.S. is barely suiting up in the international race to secure interests in the Arctic. Russia, Canada and other nations are investing heavily,” Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., wrote in an op-ed published earlier this month. “We are behind and falling farther back.”

Energy research solves—arctic presence sets precedents for resource exploitation and environmental protectionSullivan 2012, Dan Sullivan, July 20, 2012, Alaska department of natural resources - former state attorney general, “It's time to develop our Arctic resources,” http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/sullivan-arctic-drilling/index.html(CNN) -- The United States is on the verge of an energy renaissance. We need to recognize and seize the opportunity. ¶ This renaissance involves domestic production of natural resources ranging from clean renewables to hydrocarbons.¶ In particular, domestic hydrocarbon production -- both oil and gas -- is increasing dramatically, with some experts predicting that the United States could become the largest hydrocarbon producer in the word -- outstripping Saudi Arabia and Russia -- by 2020.¶ Increased domestic production of hydrocarbons is driven by two trends. First, new technology is unlocking unconventional resources such as shale-derived oil and gas. And second, investors and policy makers are recognizing that the U.S. still has an enormous resource base of conventional oil and gas, particularly in Alaska.¶ Federal agencies estimate that Alaska's North Slope and federal waters off Alaska's northern coast contain approximately 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and more than 200 trillion cubic feet of conventional gas.¶ According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this region contains more oil than any comparable region located in the Arctic, including northern Russia.¶ However, the United States is lagging behind its Arctic neighbors in developing these resources. This is unfortunate, because we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world and we should be setting the bar for Arctic development . ¶ Developing our Arctic resources will promote our nation's interests in many ways: securing a politically stable, long-term supply of domestic energy;

boosting U.S. economic growth and jobs; reducing the federal trade deficit; and strengthening our global leadership on energy issues. Leading academic researchers and economists in Alaska have estimated that oil production from Alaska's outer continental shelf will bring federal revenues of approximately $167 billion over 50 years, and create 55,000 jobs throughout the country. Developing U.S. resources in the Arctic has the added benefit of enhancing global environmental protection. One of the arguments used by Arctic drilling opponents is

that "we aren't ready," but it is obvious that no matter what preparations are made, they will argue that it isn't enough. Shell, for example, has spent billions to prepare for drilling in the Arctic this summer, incorporating the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, state-of-the-art equipment and extensive scientific research. Recently, the Obama administration has publically expressed its confidence in the company's drilling plans.¶ The U.S. has created some of the highest standards in the world for environmental protection. When we delay or disallow responsible resource development, the end result is not to protect the environment, but to drive hydrocarbon investment and production to countries with much lower environmental standards and enforcement capacity.¶ Last year, it was reported that between 5 million

and 20 million tons of oil leak in Russia per year. This is equivalent to a Deepwater Horizon blowout about every two months. Russia had an estimated 18,000 oil pipeline ruptures in 2010 -- the figure for the U.S. that year was 341. If we do not pursue responsible development in the Arctic, countries such as Russia -- perhaps even China, which is interested in securing access to Arctic hydrocarbon resources -- will dominate energy production from the Arctic. Such a scenario does not bode well for the global environment.¶ By embracing the opportunities in

the Arctic, the United States will show the world that it can be a strong leader in responsible energy

development .

Hydrates are key—unregulated exploitation bypasses traditional defense mechanisms and escalates to conflict—energy security and arctic methane releases Jones et. al 12 (Bruce Jones, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order initiative at Brookings and New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, Andrew Hart, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado, and David Steven , Senior Fellow at NYU/CIC “Chill Out”, Managing Global Order, May 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/5/30%20arctic%20cooperation%20jones/30%20arctic%20cooperation%20jones.pdf)

A major future energy find in an area where¶ boundary claims are outstanding. We have argued¶ that rational Arctic states do not now have fundamental conflicts of interest, especially as most of the energy reserves are believed to lie in uncontested areas. A major energy find in the Lomonosov Ridge could change this dynamic. However, it is uncertain whether there will be a clear incentive to own all or even most of the new found¶ energy. Energy can be a divisible good and joint¶ development arrangements are very common, as¶ the Russia-Norway Barents Sea agreement has¶ shown.

Russia’s behavior, however, remains hard to predict, as its energy investments are not fully subject to market forces, and it remains intent on using energy to consolidate its status as a major power. If shale gas challenges its role in energy¶ markets, it could be tempted to act aggressively to¶ recoup losses, in a “gamble for resurrection”, lead-¶ ing to a possible crisis scenario.”5¶ Deepening environmental crisis. Many states continue to focus primarily on opportunities in¶ the Arctic. but these only exist due to the global¶ threat from climate change. Environmental risks¶ are likely to intensify, possibly rapidly, with im-¶ pacts on a global, rather than a regional, scale.¶ Complete deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet¶ would lead to a

sea level rise of? meters, although¶ this is unlikely to happen quickly (centuries to¶ millennia). Similarly, hydrate destabilization is a¶ potentially significant source of new emissions (and potentially a new energy source if methane hydrates can be exploited).‘“ Black carbon (or¶ soot) plays an important role in accelerating ice¶ melt, linking the fate of the Arctic to development¶ patterns in Asia’s populous cities.”-° Oil spills and¶ pollution from shipping both have the potential¶ to damage the Arctic's fragile environment. Envi-¶ ronmental threats have high salience for publics,¶ especially in Western countries. An environmen-¶ tal disaster, or

dramatic evidence of intensifying ¶ environmental change, could exacerbate ill-will between states, especially if one, or more, Arctic¶ country becomes typecast as an environmental¶ ‘villain’.

Only US leadership solves—broad support, arctic council governance Ebinger et al., 14 – director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings; John P. Banks: specializes in working with governments, companies and regulators in establishing and strengthening policies, institutions, and regulatory frameworks that promote sustainable energy sectors; Alisa Schackmann: researcher at the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative (Charles, “Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S.”, Brookings Institution, March 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/03/offshore%20oil%20gas%20governance%20arctic/Offshore%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Governance%20web.pdf)**The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum that governs sustainable development in the arctic Nevertheless, the Arctic poses a unique operating environment characterized by remoteness, the lack of

ancillary supporting infrastructure, the presence of sea ice, extended periods of darkness and cold, and hurricane-strength storms. In addition, a diverse natural ecosystem and the presence of indigenous communities call for the highest standard of environmental protection and responsible development. These factors, along with regulatory uncertainties, add considerable risk and thus cost to exploiting offshore oil and gas. Although this

reality recently has tempered the enthusiasm of some oil and gas companies and even cast some development plans in doubt, there is broad agreement that there will be increased offshore hydrocarbon activity in the future. The key question is whether the U.S. will be prepared to meet the challenges posed by this activity. Since 2009, the U.S. government has gradually formulated a policy approach to the Arctic. This approach is outlined in the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, published in 2013, with an emphasis on international cooperation, the importance of the Arctic Council. and responsible

develop- ment of hydrocarbon resources. More recently, in anticipation of the U.S. assuming chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, the W'hite House released its Implementation Plan for the National Stmtegyfor the Arctic Region in Ianuary 2014. To further advance its earlier-outlined themes. The Plan singles out two key objectives: “promoting oil pollution preparedness. prevention, and response“ and developing “a robust agenda for the U.S. chairmanship ofthe Arctic Council)“

At the same time, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gu.lfofMexico i.n April 2010. together with the technical setbacks confronted by Shell in its at- tempt to drill i.n the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off the coast ofAlaska in the su.rnmer of2012. has had a transformative impact on Arctic policy develop- ment These events raised questions about drilling in frontier areas such as the Arctic and

prompted widespread calls from the government, industry and expert bipartisan groups for U.S.

leadership in ofifshore oil and gas governance . Specifically, there is an increasing focus on oil spill prevention.

control and response, and on the development of Arctic-specific standards to accommodate drilling in ice- laden areas. Within the context of all these factors and evolv- ing policy, we identified two critical questions: 1) How can the U.S. elevate the region as a pri- ority national interest? 2] How can the U.S. lead in strengthening oflshore oil and gas governance in the Arctic? The objective of this policy brief is to recommend how the U.S. government can an- swer these questions i.n preparation for assuming chairmanship ofthe Arctic Council i.n 2015.

Arctic conflict goes nuclearWallace & Staples 10 Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia; Steven Staples is President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, March 2010, “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons A Task Long Overdue”, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdfThe fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition . Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the U nited States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and

Norway – could , if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons .”

Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low –

for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[ the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.”

Independently, arctic cooperation solves science diplomacy—controls all impacts—development is keyBerkman 6-23 [Paul Arthur Berkman is a research professor at the Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Stability and Peace in the Arctic Ocean through Science Diplomacy,” 06.23.2014, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stability-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-science-diplomacy]Lessons of the Arctic, such as those from the Antarctic, reveal science as a tool of diplomacy that creates bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. It is well known that science is necessary for Earth system monitoring and assessment, especially as an essential gauge of change over time and space. Science also is a frequent determinant of public policy agendas and institutions, often for early warning about future events. However, even more than an immediate source of insight, invention, and commercial enterprise, science provides continuity in our global society with its evolving foundation of prior knowledge. These and other features of science diplomacy,1 as a field of human endeavor, are relevant to our global future in the Arctic. Building on the East-West breakthrough in the 1986 Reykjavik Summit, with his Murmansk speech

in October 1987, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev envisioned a shared path where “ the community and interrelationship of the

interests of our entire world is felt in the northern part of the globe, in the Arctic, perhaps more than

anywhere else .” Recognizing that “scientific exploration of the Arctic is of immense importance for the whole of mankind,” Gorbachev called for creation of a “joint Arctic Research Council.” Emerging from his Murmansk speech, the International Arctic Science Committee was founded in 1990, followed by the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991, which revealed a “common future” among Arctic countries and peoples. Also involving the eight Arctic states,2 the Barents-Euro Arctic Council and Standing Committee of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region were formed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Eventually established in 1996, the Arctic Council breathed life into a circumpolar community of the eight states and six indigenous peoples’ organizations inhabiting the region north of the Arctic Circle. “As a high level forum,” the Arctic Council has become central in an institutional arena for the high north that includes the above organizations along with many others, starting with the 1920 Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. With its forty-two signatories, this treaty still stands as a beacon of peaceful development in the high north. Together, the six scientific working groups of the Arctic Council are facilitating knowledge discovery and contributing to informed decisions about “common Arctic issues” of sustainable development and environmental protection. As a direct consequence of the Arctic Council, pan-Arctic agreements are being signed by all Arctic states, beginning with the 2011 search and rescue agreement and 2013 marine oil pollution response agreement. Interests of twelve non-Arctic states, including China and India, also are being accommodated as they are brought in as observers to the Arctic Council. Moreover, the so-called Arctic Five3 coastal states are reaching territorial agreements. As noted in their 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Ocean” are being addressed cooperatively under the Law of the Sea, particularly with regard to “outer limits of the continental shelf.” This commitment includes the United States, even though it has not yet ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Highlighting the cooperation, Russia and Norway signed an agreement in 2010 about Barents Sea resources, ending a dispute that had escaped their resolution for the previous four decades. Winds Are Changing The current crisis related to Ukraine has introduced global geopolitics into the Arctic unlike any world event since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within weeks of the Crimea annexation, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was linking the Arctic, Russia, and Ukraine, suggesting in a March 2014 speech in Montreal that “we need a united front,” as reported by the Globe and Mail. The following month, Canada, the current chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted the Arctic Council meeting in Moscow. Lines are being redrawn, which the May/June 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs reflected with its articles related to “The Return of Geopolitics.” Such political posturing risks fueling the long-dormant “burning

security issues” that Gorbachev warned of in the Arctic. Perhaps the world was arriving at this security intersection in any case, but for different reasons. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where the boundary conditions of the system are being altered. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where the boundary conditions of the system are being altered. In fact—with the Arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else on Earth—the Arctic Ocean is undergoing the largest environmental state-change on our planet. The surface of this maritime region surrounding the North Pole is being transformed from a sea-ice cap that has persisted for millennia (perhaps even hundreds of millennia) to a system with sea ice retreating and advancing seasonally. Rather than projecting out to the mid-twenty-first century, it is clear that the Arctic Ocean already has crossed a threshold with open water during the summer and first-year sea ice during the winter covering more than 50 percent of its area. Of greater significance, the volume of Arctic sea ice has decreased more than 70 percent since the late 1970s. With increasing accessibility in the Arctic Ocean, countries, along with multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, are preparing to exploit the region’s enormous energy reserves, estimated to contain 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil. Fisheries are opening to commercial harvesting without regulation, especially in areas of the high seas lacking any regional fisheries management organization. Arctic shipping routes are being established to supplement trade through the Panama and Suez Canals. It is not a matter of waiting decades or even years for the Arctic Ocean to be completely ice-free during the summer. There is now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Like removing the ceiling to a room, the fundamental shift in the surface boundary of the Arctic Ocean has created a new natural system with different dynamics than anything previously experienced by humans in the region. There is now a new Arctic

Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Separate from the Ukraine situation, the environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean is introducing inherent risks of political, economic, and cultural instabilities—which are at the heart of every security dialogue. Exposing security risks in the Arctic may be a good thing, but only if accompanied by inclusive solutions that

both promote cooperation and prevent conflict. Achieving International Stability Leaving loose the elephant in the room, questions about conflict in the Arctic Ocean remain unattended. As a consequence, the associated community of states and peoples lacks a shared understanding of expectations, capabilities, interests, and wills to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. “Matters related to military security” are off the table for the Arctic Council. The council avoids even general considerations of security in the Arctic Ocean, as reflected by elimination of the security chapter from its second Arctic Human Development Report, which is due in 2014. “Matters related to military security” are off the table for the Arctic Council. With all Arctic coastal states except Russia as members, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the only northern Atlantic organization without a remit in the Arctic Ocean. This position seems reasonable as long as NATO is seen by Russia as the “main external threat of war,” as stated in the 2010 Military Doctrine of Russia. These positions made sense immediately after the Cold War, but decades of cooperation have

followed and there now is capacity to project peace into the future for the Arctic Ocean. “Not all military capabilities are designed for force,”4 as affirmed for the Arctic Ocean in 2010 by then NATO supreme allied commander, Admiral James Stavridis. Illustrating this point, in association with the Arctic Council, meetings among the chiefs of defense from all Arctic states began in 2012 with regard to their shared emergency responses in the Arctic Ocean. An opportunity to think about the Arctic more holistically is further revealed by the NATO Advanced Research Workshop “Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean,” which the author chaired with Russian co-directorship in 2010 at the University of Cambridge. That workshop became the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding

security issues in the Arctic Ocean. Global recognition of the need for international stability is a necessary first step toward lasting peace in the maritime region bounded by North America, Europe, and Asia at the top of the Earth, where the interests of the entire international community are increasingly focused. The next step will involve implementing an inclusive venue for ongoing dialogue to prevent conflict as well

as promote cooperation in the Arctic Ocean. Cultivating Common Interests International stability is inextricably linked to sustainable development, which already is acknowledged as a common Arctic issue to balance economic prosperity, environmental protection and social equity, taking into consideration the needs of present and future generations. Even more basic to stability in the Arctic Ocean is balancing national interests and common interests. Although peace is the most basic foundation for international stability, the term was consciously rejected as a common Arctic issue when the Arctic Council was established. The fear then, as now, was that peace implies demilitarization. It was only in 2009 that this term even began to appear in Arctic Council ministerial declarations. Still, “peace” is not used among all Arctic states in their national security policies for the Arctic. In fact, it remains to be seen whether Canada, in contrast to its Arctic foreign policies, will include “peace” in the 2015 Arctic Council ministerial declaration. If the Arctic states are too timid or nationalistic to openly discuss balance, stability, and peace when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate when conflicts arise? The path forward is reflected by the Arctic states’ commitment to the Law of the Sea, which includes zones within as well as beyond sovereign jurisdictions. Even if continental shelf extensions were conferred all the way to the North Pole—unambiguously in the overlying water column—high seas still would exist beyond sovereign jurisdictions, where more than 160 nations have rights and responsibilities under international law. Implications of the high seas surrounding the North Pole are just now entering front stage. At their February 2014 meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, the Arctic Five took the initiative “to prevent unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean.” Whatever the international outcomes from this meeting, lessons will resonate from the high seas of the Arctic Ocean outward across our civilization on a

planetary scale. Statesmanship Is Required At the moment, there is neither a forum nor leadership to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. To prepare for the 2016 Arctic heads of state meeting that is being considered in the United States on the twentieth anniversary of the Arctic Council, President Barack Obama has the option to inspire stability and peace for the Arctic across the twenty-first century and beyond. Turning back the calendar only a few months to winter 2014 (remember the Sochi Olympics), Russia was seen in a different light. Since 2010, the Russian Geographical Society had been convening the “Arctic Forum for Dialogue,” first in Moscow then in Arkhangelsk in 2011 and in Salekhard in 2013. Each of these international gatherings in Russia involved scientists and diplomats as well as government administrators, commercial operators, advocates from nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples. Most prominent in the Arctic forums were the head-of-state presentations, stimulated by participation of Vladimir Putin initially as prime minister and most recently as president of the Russian Federation. President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson of Iceland, as the elder statesman of the Arctic, participated in all three forums. Prince Albert II of Monaco presented in 2010 and 2011. With invitations extended to all Arctic heads of state, President Sauli Niinistö of Finland also participated in 2013. As a common interest, these heads of state all spoke of stability and peace in the Arctic, even if only for their national benefit. In each forum, it also was clear that the level of trust and cooperation in the Arctic had matured since the Cold War, signaling that international relationships in the Arctic are open and strong enough to deal with the more difficult issues of preventing conflict. To build on the earlier head-of-state engagements for the Arctic, Obama has the opportunity to convene a meeting with all other Arctic heads of state and act as a statesman who puts out the brushfires of the moment while planting seeds of hope and inspiration for the future.5 The challenge is to create a process of ongoing and inclusive dialogue about Arctic issues that have so far eluded shared consideration. With the Arctic, Obama must be brave enough to share the ‘coin of peace,’ promoting cooperation on one side and preventing conflict on the

other. Historic perspectives and the roles of science diplomacy will help provide direction. However, to bear fruit in the interests of

humankind, the political will for lasting stability and peace in the Arctic must come from all Arctic

heads of state .

Sci dip soles every existential threatFedoroff 08 - Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID (Nina, Testimony Before the House Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, 4/2, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102996.htm)Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans- national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50% of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47% of full-time doctoral science and

engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in

science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an

international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and

U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States – representing 70% of the world’s current

population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the

ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More

problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at

the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount.

Solvency

The plan is key—hydrate research is the lynchpin of tech and resource developments Enerknol 12 (Enerknol 9/3/12 [Enerknol, provides U.S. energy policy research and data services to support investment decisions across all sectors of the energy industry, “Commentary: DOE Announces Research Funding for Methane Hydrates”, http://enerknol.com/doe-announces-research-funding-for-a-new-natural-gas-source-methane-hydrates/, PS) The DOE on August 31, 2012 announced 14 research projects involving 11 states, in an attempt to further its methane hydrate research efforts. The projects follow the success of a field test completed in April 2012 to extract natural gas from methane hydrate deposits on Alaska’s North Slope. The test provided the DOE with critical information required to advance its efforts to evaluate potential production technologies that are safe and feasible. Previous studies of the DOE show that methane hydrate resources are voluminous and that exploration and extraction may

be possible with existing technologies. However, extensive research is required to study the behavior of hydrates in their natural environment, evaluate the resource sizes in deepwater settings and prove that they can be extracted in an economically viable and environmentally sound manner. The projects – implemented through the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory – will involve field programs to study deepwater hydrates and their reaction to varying climatic conditions. Global Methane Hydrate Formations Methane hydrates are ice-like solids in which methane molecules are locked in water lattices. In other words, they are 3-dimensional ice-lattice structures with trapped natural gas. Though the substance looks much like white ice, its behavior is entirely different. Upon melting or exposure to conditions that disturb its stability, the crystalline lattice changes into liquid water and releases the enclosed methane gas molecules. Methane hydrates form

when methane and water come into contact under low temperature and pressure. Deepwater sediments and arctic permafrost provide the ideal conditions for formation of methane hydrates. Decaying organic matter and anaerobic bacterial activities result in methane production in deep sediments. Studies suggest that the carbon content of methane hydrates is comparable to that of all the fossil fuels combined. They are found worldwide at nearly all continental shelves, including onshore and offshore formations. The small-scale test completed in April 2012 was an unprecedented effort to find a safe extraction method to obtain a steady flow of gas from methane hydrates. It was conduced by DOE in partnership with Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp and ConocoPhillips. The test was based on a laboratory-developed production technology, which involved the injection of a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen into the methane hydrate formation to unlock the natural gas. The methodology involved exchanging the methane molecules in the hydrate formations with carbon dioxide, which can be sequestered in the hydrate structure after methane gas is released. A process of depressurization within the formation facilitated the exchange. Lowering the pressure in the sediments (hydrate formations) results in the dissociation of methane hydrate into water and methane gas. Further analyses will determine the possibility of storing carbon dioxide in the reservoirs while extracting natural gas. As with any extraction method, there are several technological challenges to be overcome before

large-scale production of natural gas from methane hydrates becomes feasible. According to the DOE, research can potentially unfold sizeable resources of new supplies . Though any notable accomplishment will take several years, it can be likened to

the DOE’s early shale gas research in the 1970s that eventually led to the natural gas boom, which is strengthening the nation’s energy security. Methane hydrates are considered as the largest untapped fossil fuel source that has a massive potential to contribute to the economic and energy security of the U.S. The launch of new research projects is an important step towards developing a promising production technology to utilize the potential of methane gas hydrates to supply clean fossil fuel while sequestering carbon dioxide.

New government leadership is the only way to get the private sector on board—the plan jumpstarts sustainable commercialization—any other alternative results in failure Bartis 9 ( Senior Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation (James T., “Research Priorities for Fossil Fuels”, Testimony presented before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 3/5/09, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=d6f89c31-cacf-3bfc-58a9-39dcda407670) EKWhen it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, not all fossil fuels are equal. When burned, coal yields the greatest amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy released, while natural gas yields the least. In particular, for the same amount of energy, natural gas releases about 56 percent of the carbon dioxide that would be released using coal. Moreover, because natural gas is an ash-free fuel, it can be used at much higher energy

efficiencies than coal. The bottom line: Substituting natural gas for coal generally will halve greenhouse gas emissions. But it would be shortsighted to believe that natural gas can displace coal in power generation without serious adverse economic consequences, unless technology development efforts can greatly expand

the amount of natural gas supply resources that can be recovered in North America. Under higher pressures and lower temperatures, natural gas forms a solid complex with water that is known as a methane hydrate. These conditions of pressure and temperature commonly occur offshore and in the arctic

regions of North America, including Alaska. At present, we do not have a good understanding of how much natural gas is available to us in the

form of these methane hydrates. But we ought to, because some of the estimates of the U.S. resource are enormous , enough to supply the United States for thousands of years. The National Methane Research and Development Act of 2000 authorizes a federal research program to determine the potential of this resource to contribute to our energy needs. Equally important, that Act also provides the basis

for research directed at the potential adverse environmental consequences of these resources. Although the intent of that Act was reconfirmed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, this research area has never seen adequate funding. In 2007, the Federal Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee reported its findings to Congress.3 They emphasized the “ critical need for more funding ” and the detrimental effects of the current level of funding (about $10 million per year) on R&D progress. I fully concur with this

finding, as well as with their recommendations for program emphasis, which I quote directly: 5. “Field testing of concepts and technologies for producing hydrates economically.” Production tests are essential for developing data required for further scientific progress. Here we have an opportunity to build on promising work occurring abroad, especially work done under the support

of the government of Japan. 6. “An accurate assessment of the economic viability of marine hydrates, which exceeds the permafrost resource by several orders of magnitude.” Present estimates are extremely speculative. Better estimates are required, especially so we can understand whether this resource can provide the United States and

other Nations with a means of deeply cutting greenhouse gas emissions at much lower costs than would otherwise be the case. 7. “A quantifiable assessment of the environmental impact of possible leakage of methane from uncontrolled hydrate decomposition.” Compared to

carbon dioxide, methane has a twenty-fold greater greenhouse gas effect. Understanding mechanisms that lead to methane leakage, especially from permafrost, must be a high priority research topic, especially in light of recent observations of methane releases in Arctic regions. One of the reasons methane hydrate research has not been adequately funded in the United States is the view that any research in this area should be fully carried out and funded by the oil and gas industry. While the oil and gas industry is participating and making R&D investments in methane hydrate research, their investment levels are small , as they should be, given the high risks of success, the uncertainties of obtaining access to the resource, and the long time span required to realize profits. Methane hydrate research should not be viewed as a subsidy to fossil fuel production, but rather as an

integral part of the federal strategy to reduce dramatically greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Energy also has underway research directed at extracting natural gas from unconventional formations. However, I have not recently had the opportunity to familiarize myself with the details of this program, and therefore suggest that the Committee turn to another expert qualified to make a recommendation about critical R&D opportunities or needs in this area.

Undersea deposits are key—exploitation now is necessary to sustain momentum STFC 1 (Science and Technology Foresight Institute, “The Seventh Technology Foresight － Future Technology in Japan toward the Year 2030” (PDF—Google), 2001, http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Seventh_Technology_Foresight.html?id=3SvbSgAACAAJ)Undersea deposits that are independent of any land-based deposits include deep sea deposits which ¶ consist of: ferromanganese nodules, cobalt-rich crusts, and submarine hydrothermal polymetallic deposits¶ (minerals); and methane hydrate deposits (energy). Of these, ferromanganese nodules and cobalt-rich¶ crusts have been known to exist since the voyage of the Challenger in the late 19th century, but did not¶ attract economic interest until after World War II. Submarine hydrothermal polymetallic deposits, on the¶ other hand, were discovered during a submarine survey conducted from 1978 to 1979, taking the world by¶ storm. Although the first methane hydrate deposit was discovered on land (permafrost), subsequent¶ discoveries came from the sea floors of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea around 1970, with methane¶ hydrates recovered from deep sea floor sediments - as expected - during test drilling in 1979. If these ¶ discoveries, all made in the last 30 years, are any guide, it is impossible to predict what kinds of

resources ¶ may be discovered in the next 30 years . Predictions about the presence of methane hydrate deposits in ¶ deep sea floor sediments preceded its confirmation by about 10 years, and this illustrates the importance of ¶ identifying signs pointing to the existence of deposits with other resources . Unfortunately, however, no¶ such signs exist at present. This means that although there is a possibility that new kinds of resources will¶ be discovered in the next 30 years, we are in no position to forecast it.¶ Let us now move to resource exploration technologies. Exploration is actually easier on the sea floor ¶ and under it than on land. One reason is that exploration targets deposits that depend on large geological ¶ structures, as those depending on small geological structures are not worth developing even if they are ¶ discovered . A more important factor, however, is that the sea floor has far fewer obstacles to exploration ¶ than are found on land . For example, seawater is more uniform than air in both temporal and spatial terms, ¶ so that physical exploration data, etc. are subject to smaller correction terms. In this sense, resource ¶ exploration in marine areas has to center on geophysical techniques. Although technological development¶ in this area has been making rapid progress, it is for this very reason

expected to take an evolutionary¶ rather than revolutionary course in the future - through gradual improvements in exploration accuracy ¶ made possible by improvements in existing technologies . In some cases, geochemical or geological¶ exploration will also be needed. As these techniques require sample taking, their progress will depend on¶ the development of sample collection technology. Namely, the development of a technology capable of¶ collecting samples swiftly and with positional repeatability should lead to a major improvement in¶ geochemical/geological exploration in marine areas.¶ Let us now move onto the future of marine mineral and energy resource development technology.¶ Until now, technological development relating to the recovery of marine resources beset with the same¶ geological conditions as land resources has centered on how to overcome depth, and this trend will¶ continue in the future. At present, it is with oil and natural gas that offshore development has made the¶ greatest advancements. This is attributable to the fact that both resources are fluids and therefore¶ recoverable using a well. Although offshore coal mines have also been developed, development sites have¶ been limited to those that are close enough to land to allow access via a tunnel or those that are shallow¶ enough to allow access via an artificial island. This is attributable to the fact that coal is a solid. The¶ recovery of offshore coal will largely depend on gasification technology. Offshore mineral resources that¶ are beset with the same geological conditions as land-based counterparts have not been developed,¶ because they are not profitable at present. Namely, constraints are economical rather than technical.¶ At one stage, research into the deep sea mineral resources of ferromanganese nodules and cobalt-rich296¶ crusts was actively pursued, but it has since lost steam. There are two main reasons for this. First, the¶ development of a technology cable of reducing costs to profitable levels is difficult. Another obstacle to¶ technological development is the necessity to keep marine pollution to an absolute minimum. This¶ situation is unlikely to change for the next 20 to 30 years. The development of a recovery technology for¶ submarine hydrothermal polymetallic deposits has not even begun due to a lack of a large-scale deposit¶ that is worth exploiting. Whether technological development is ever to be undertaken depends solely on¶ the discovery of a large-scale deposit. Great expectations are pinned on undersea methane hydrate deposits ¶ as an alternative resource to be harnessed in the event of the exhaustion of oil and conventional natural gas.¶ For this reason, recovery technologies are being actively researched. If future exploration establishes that ¶ methane hydrate deposits live up to expectations, the development of recovery technologies will accelerate, ¶ and methane hydrate-derived natural gas will be in use in 30 years’ time. However, if they fall short, ¶ research into recovery technologies will cease altogether. ¶

Only the arctic solves WOR 14 [WOR, World Ocean Review, “Climate Change and Methane Hydrates”, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/2/, PS] In the field of methane emission research today, the Arctic is one of the most important regions worldwide. It is believed that methane occurs there both in the form of gas hydrate in the sea and as free gas trapped in the deep-frozen

permafrost. Methane deposits in permafrost and hydrates are considered to be very sensitive in the expansive shallow-shelf regions, because with the relatively low pressures it would only take a small temperature change to release large amounts of methane. In addition, new methane is continuously being produced

because the Arctic regions are rich in organic material that is decomposed by microbes in the sediment. The activity of these microbes and thus the biological release rates of methane are also stimulated by increases in temperature. Hence methane emissions in the Arctic have multiple sources. International scientific consortia are now being established involving researchers from various disciplines – chemists, biologists, geologists, geophysicists, meteorologists – which are intensively addressing this problem. No one can yet say with certainty how the methane release in the Arctic

will develop with global warming, either in the ocean or on the land. This research is still in its in -

fancy.

2AC Add-Ons

--General—

Japan Add-On

US action on hydrates drives relations with Japan Armitage and Nye 12 (Richard L, president of Armitage International and a trustee of CSIS From 2001 to 2005, he served as U.S. deputy secretary of state. Joseph S, dean emeritus of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a trustee of CSIS. “The U.S.-Japan Alliance Anchoring Stability in Asia”, August 2012, http://csis.org/files/publication/120810_Armitage_USJapanAlliance_Web.pdf)//WLRecent positive developments in natural gas could rekindle bilateral energy trade in ways few thought possible just a few years ago. The discoveries of large new shale gas reserves in the lower 48 states have made the United States the world’s fastest growing natural gas producer. The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that the planned expansion of the Panama Canal in 2014 would enable 80 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) fleet to use the canal, dramatically lowering shipping costs and making LNG exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast dramatically more competitive in Asia. The shale gas revolution in the continental United States and the abundant gas reserves in Alaska present Japan and the United States with a complementary opportunity: the United States should begin to export LNG from the lower 48 states by 2015, and Japan continues to be the world’s largest LNG importer. Since 1969, Japan has imported relatively small amounts of LNG from Alaska, and interest is picking up in expanding that trade link, given Japans need to increase and diversify its sources of LNG imports, especially in light of 3-11. However, companies in the United States seeking to export LNG to a country that does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, and more specifically a gas national treatment clause in its FTA, must first get approval from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy. Sixteen FTA countries, receive DOE export approval (although other regulatory and permitting requirements apply), but most of these are not major LNG importers. For non-FTA countries like Japan, the permit is granted unless DOE concludes it would not be in the "public interest" of the United States. The Kenai LNG terminal routinely received DOE permits to export from Alaska to Japan. But as the potential for LNG exports from the lower 48 states emerges, DOEs permitting process is coming under political scrutiny. In addition to the Sabine Pass LNG project, which already received a DOE non-FTA permit, there are eight other permits for LNG projects in the lower 48 waiting for DOE approval. Activists oppose LNG exports on environmental or economic grounds. There are concerns that exports will raise domestic U.S. natural gas prices and weaken the competitiveness of domes- tic industries that rely heavily on natural gas. A recent policy brief by the Brookings Institution refuted this claim and concluded that the likely volume of future exports will be relatively small compared to total U.S. natural gas supply, and the domestic price impacts would be minimal and not undermine wider use of gas for domestic, industrial, and residential uses.3 Limiting LNG exports needlessly deters investment in U.S. shale gas and LNG export projects. The United States should not resort to resource nationalism and should not inhibit private-sector plans to export LNG. U.S. policymakers should facilitate environmentally responsible exploitation of these new resources while remaining open to exports. Moreover, in a time of crisis for Japan, the United States should guarantee no interruption in LNG supply (barring a domestic national emergency that the president would declare) going to Japan under previously negotiated commercial contracts and at prevailing commercial rates, ensuring a constant and stable supply. As part of the security relationship, the United States and Japan should be natural resource allies as well as military allies. This area of cooperation remains insufficiently developed. Further, the United States should amend current legislation inhibiting LNG exports to Japan. Ideally, Congress would remove the FTA requirement for an automatic permit, creating a rebuttable presumption that LNG exports to any country with which we enjoy peaceful relations are in the national interest. Alternatively, Congress should deem Japan to be an FTA country for purposes of LNG exports, putting Japan on an equal footing with other potential customers. At the very least, the White House should fully support and prioritize export projects associated with Japan as it considers permits under current law. With proper policy support, natural gas can revitalize bilateral trade and also increase Japans foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States. While the gas supply in North America is significant, there are concerns that the United States lacks adequate terminal, port, and associated on- shore transportation systems needed to handle potential tanker traffic. Without large infrastructure investments, U.S. gas production cannot grow. This is yet another valid reason for amending the law to grant Japan equal footing with other FTA customers for U.S. natural gas. Methane Hydrates: A Potentially Transformational Opportunity Deserving Enhanced Energy Cooperation Another promising but more uncertain and longer-term area of bilateral cooperation is methane hydrates .

Methane hydrates are natural gas crystals trapped in deeply buried ice formations. If significant economic and technological hurdles can be overcome, methane hydrate reserves would dwarf those of current conventional and unconventional gas. Methane hydrate deposits off south-central Japan are estimated at 10 years’ worth of domestic consumption of natural gas, and globally the resource has been estimated to be as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet, well over 100 times the current proven reserves of natural gas. Methane hydrates are distributed widely onshore and offshore, especially in polar regions and outer continental shelves. Even if, as experts expect, only a small portion of methane hydrates could be developed, they would likely still greatly exceed estimates of current natural gas reserves. Japan and the United States cooperate closely in research and development of potential large-scale methane hydrate production. In May, a U.S.-Japan field trial on Alaska's north slope successfully extracted methane hydrates by pumping in and sequestering

C02, demonstrating both energy supply and environmental benefits. In light of the transformational potential of eventual large-scale methane hydrate production, we recommend that the United States and Japan accelerate progress on researching and developing cost-effective and environmentally responsible production of methane hydrates. Moreover, the United States and Japan should commit to research and development of alternative energy technologies.

No alternative causes—energy cooperation is the lynchpin of the relation Moniz 13 (Ernest, US energy secretary, “Secretary Moniz on the Future of U.S.-Japan Energy Cooperation”, 10/31/13, http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20131104-01.html)//WLENERGY SECRETARY MONIZ: Thank you, Tanaka-san. We do indeed have a history together. In fact, his kind introduction was simply a repayment for my kind introduction of him at MIT a few years ago. I also want to thank Chairman Hanyu for his remarks, and for the hospitality of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation for hosting this event. I'll also go back with Mr. Tanaka and just note that it was a pleasure, certainly, working with him at the IEA and of course subsequently, and I just want to say that I think he really was a pioneer in bringing the focus of IEA on climate change issues, and I think that's something we appreciate very much and will be a lasting contribution to that. The relationship between our two countries remains one of the cornerstones for peace and security throughout the world. I think our countries have - as you all know - forged a robust and unshakable partnership that embraces trade and commerce, finance, security, science and technology, and energy. And together, I think we are and will tackle some of the major global challenges in a world that is changing quite rapidly. President Obama is very committed to the bilateral relationship with Japan. He has been here twice. He has hosted Prime Minister Abe at the White House in February. President Obama has also emphasized an increased emphasis in our foreign policy to refocus priorities in Asia - even as we maintain commitments in the rest of the world. The President said: "The United States has been and always will be a Pacific nation, and here we see the future." So when we look at where America's priorities lie now and for years to come, it is clear that nowhere in the world are there more critical opportunities to advance our economic interests, our security interests, and our enduring interest in promoting universal human values than in the Asia-Pacific region. Climate and energy lie at the heart of this focus. Both are key components of the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship. Demand for energy has increased dramatically as Asian economies continue to grow, creating many opportunities for economic cooperation, and a clear need for smart growth. In Japan, especially following the

Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station accident, energy security has taken on even greater significance here and elsewhere.

US-Japan relations key to check nuclear escalation.INSS 2k [Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, “The United States and Japan: Advancing Toward a Mature Partnership,” http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strforum/SR_01/SR_JAPAN.HTM]Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation, but the prospects for conflict in Asia are far from remote. The region features some of the world’s largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed major powers, and several nuclear-capable states. Hostilities that could directly involve the United States in a major conflict could occur at a moment’s notice on the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indian subcontinent is a major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition, lingering turmoil in Indonesia, the world’s fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States is tied to the region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the region’s de facto security architecture. In this promising but also potentially dangerous setting, the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship is more important than ever. With the world’s second-largest economy and a well-equipped and competent

military, and as our democratic ally, Japan remains the keystone of the U.S. involvement in Asia. The U.S.-Japan alliance is central to America’s global security strategy.

--Enviro Internals--

Econ Add-On

Arctic methane release tanks the global economyUniversity of Cambridge Research 13 [University of Cambridge Research, “Cost of Arctic methane release could be ‘size of global economy’ warn experts,” July 24, 2013, http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cost-of-arctic-methane-release-could-be-size-of-global-economy-warn-experts#sthash.kn4J7Hzw.dpuf]As the Arctic warms and sea ice melts at an unprecedented rate, hitting a record low last summer, the thawing of offshore ‘permafrost’ -

frozen soil - in the region is releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Scientists have previously warned that there are vast reservoirs of methane in the Arctic, hundreds of billions of tonnes of a gas many times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming - of which only a fraction needs releasing into the atmosphere to trigger possibly catastrophic climate change. Now, researchers from Cambridge and Rotterdam have for the first time calculated the potential economic impact of a scenario some scientists consider increasingly likely: that the methane below the East Siberian Sea will be emitted, either

steadily over the next 30 years or in one giant “burp”. Writing in the journal Nature, the academics say that just this area’s methane alone - some 50 billion tonnes , or 50 gigatonnes - would have a mean global impact of 60

trillion dollars , an amount very similar to the size of the entire global economy last year . Current US

national debt stands at a mere 16 trillion dollars in comparison. The economic impact modelled was only for the methane existing on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and “the total price of Arctic change will be much

higher ,” they warn . “Arctic science is a strategic asset for human economies because the region drives critical effects in our biophysical, political and economic systems,” write the academics, who say that world leaders will “miss the bigger picture” without factoring in Arctic methane projections - as neither the World Economic Forum or the International Monetary Fund currently recognise the economic danger of Arctic change. The new results were achieved using PAGE09, the latest version of the PAGE integrated assessment model developed by Dr Chris Hope from Cambridge Judge Business School. PAGE09 is currently used by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and an earlier version was used for the UK Government’s Stern Review in 2006 - the major report on climate change economics on which Hope was a specialist advisor. For the latest research, Hope worked with Gail Whiteman, Professor of Sustainability at Erasmus University, and Cambridge’s Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, who has been studying the disappearance of Arctic ice for 40 years. The three academics, who co-authored today’s Nature Comment article, built the projections on previous fieldwork in the region by Dr Natalia Shakhova and colleagues from the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, described by Wadhams as “the only people with the geological knowledge to make estimates about methane emission in this area”. The PAGE09 model was then employed to translate the extra methane emissions from the East Siberian Sea into global impacts by considering the huge range of environmental changes they might cause - from increasing global temperature and sea levels to consequent flooding, public health and extreme weather. The model was run 10,000 times to assess the range of risks and provide robust results. The team insist that both the scientific predictions and economic modelling are far from worst-case scenarios, and that the figures represent the mean result from “the whole range of available science and economics”. “That’s how the model works, how it was used for Stern and by the EPA, it’s the only way I’ll allow it to be used,” said Hope. “The model has to be run with broad ranges for the inputs, it’s not justifiable otherwise.” “This is the first calculation of its kind that we know of,” he adds, “and we welcome anyone who wants to take this forward and build on it so we can have a discussion - but we don’t have long to discuss it! This is so big and if it happens it could happen fast; people need to wake up to the possible reality we face”. "This is a warning to the world borne out of many decades of research on all our parts, including forty years of ice thinning measurements from UK submarines,” said Wadhams, “it is a considered statement with enormous implications". The research also

explored the impact of a number of later, longer-lasting or smaller pulses of methane, and the authors write that, in all these cases, the economic cost for physical changes to the Arctic is “ steep ”, with developing nations bearing 80% of the cost through extreme weather, poorer health and damaged agriculture. The authors write that global economic institutions and world leaders should “kick-start investment in rigorous economic modelling” and consider the changing Arctic landscape as an “ economic time-bomb ” far outweighing any “short-term gains from shipping and extraction”.

Economic decline causes global war—prefer robust data Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of

interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several

notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,

exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively

certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to

those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between

internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and

external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict,

which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an

increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to

external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

--Presence Internals--

Ukraine War

Arctic Coop solves Ukraine warRia Novosti 5-22 [RIA Novosti, sometimes shortly RIA is one of the largest news agencies in Russia. “Arctic Cooperation May Ease Russia-US Tensions – Analyst,” May 22, 2014, http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-Ease-Russia-US-Tensions--Analyst.html]WASHINGTON, May 22 (RIA Novosti), Leandra Bernstein – Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for

European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies. “I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis,” Marlene Laruelle said. “US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation on

security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis,” she specified, “but there are several other elements that are still open for discussion.” Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to

former State Department official Heather Conley. However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers. “The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly not an issue of military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue,” Laruelle said. Concerning Russia’s delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said “Russia is playing by the rules.” The demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council, but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage. There are hopes that increased trade will take place through Arctic routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.

A war would cause extinctionWeber 14 (a senior editor at TheWeek.com, graduate of Northwestern University, Peter has worked at Facts on File and The New York Times Magazine. (Peter, March 5th, What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?, http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like, chm)chart removedAgain, the U.S. and Russia almost certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did? If you asked

that question during the Cold War it would be like those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman match-ups: Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and military technology didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR defense spending since

the end of the Cold War, from Mother Jones. The U.S. is much wealthier than Russia and spends a lot more on its military .

That doesn't mean a war would be easy for the U.S. to win , though, or even guarantee a victory: As Napoleon and

Hitler learned the hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win its wars, especially on its home turf. So, what would a war between the U.S. and Russia look like? Here are a few scenarios, from awful to merely bad: Nuclear Armageddon Even with the slow mutual nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of nuclear warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow noted earlier this year, the entire stockpile of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) — 448 active — is essentially aimed squarely at Russia. Russia's hundreds of ICBMs are probably returning the favor. In all, the U.S. has about 7,700 nuclear warheads, including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via

ICBM, submarine, and airplane, plus thousands more in mothballs or waiting to be dismantled, according to the latest tally by the Federation of American Scientists. Russia has slightly more warheads overall — about 8,500 — but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them operational. China, in comparison, has about 250 nuclear warheads, a bit less

that France (300) and a bit more than Britain (225). Nuclear war with Russia is still mutually assured destruction. Hopefully, that's still deterrent enough.

Wrangel Island

Arctic coop spills over—solves Wrangel Island bioD—prevents extinctionCS-Monitor 5-21 [By Joel Berger, Christian Science Monitor, “Polar bear diplomacy: Where the US and Russia can agree,” MAY 21, 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2014/0521/Polar-bear-diplomacy-Where-the-US-and-Russia-can-agree]Our shared interest is in how Earth’s warming temperatures will affect cold-adapted species such as musk oxen and polar bears. But our cooperation isn’t simply about saving arctic animals. It proves that the common issues – and threats – that confront us as inhabitants of Earth can, and do, bring us together, in spite of geopolitical differences. Recommended: 5 environmental wins to celebrate Why walruses matter to Earth’s future Wrangel Island is a World Heritage site known for its tremendous biological resources. Its landscape provides a unique and

vital research ground for wildlife scientists. It is home to Asia’s largest denning population of polar bears and as many as 100,000 walruses. It’s also home to musk oxen, the resplendent longhaired shaggy beasts that once roamed with – and out-survived – the long-extinct woolly mammoths. 5 environmental wins to celebrate Play GALLERY Monitor Political Cartoons Play PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of July 4th weekend It is also a part of Russia, where 20 years ago the Wildlife Conservation Society began science and conservation programs thousands of miles to

the south that continue to shed light on a complex landscape. The Russian geography is the only place on Earth where species from subtropical Asia mix with those from the cold north. Where else could we learn that tigers kill brown bears or eat moose? Nowhere. At a time when many in the West question Russia’s geopolitical actions, especially regarding Ukraine, one might ask why it is a priority for American

scientists to work on the ground with Russians to research and save arctic animals. The answer is simple: Conservation is the provenance of all. Irrespective of geography, animals have no voice. Climate change in the Arctic is more rapid than in other areas. It thus provides a crucial laboratory and proving ground for how to respond to damaging shifts in the complex ecological relationships that are vital to the long-term survival of biodiverse life on Earth. On Arctic

islands, we’ve seen that musk oxen and caribou suffer when increasingly severe rain-on-snow events occur because they cannot access their food. Migratory birds now arrive at spring feeding grounds before insects emerge, and they, too, suffer. By understanding these relationships, scientists can consider the best options for protecting species and critical habitats. Choosing polar animals over politics Although global politics – especially the volatility associated with Russia’s guardianship of Crimea – dominate current world attention, it is important to step back and to peer in at the Russian bear. Russia could have closed its doors to outsiders. It could have said, “Leave conservation to us.” It could have canceled our US scientific permits merely because we work in what are designated sensitive border zones. It has not. Not long ago, I set off from Montana to Moscow, then crossed eight time zones eastward to access remote Wrangel Island. Despite the sudden political upheaval in Crimea, the Russian authorities agreed to allow our collaborative project to continue – a joint science venture sponsored by a grant from the US National Park Service and the New York-based Trust for Mutual Understanding. In fact, officials on both the Atlantic and Pacific oceanic divides enabled and continue to permit exchanges between Russian and American scientists for these kinds of projects.

Conservation requires cooperation Conservation is not just about animals. Because people are the root of most problems in the natural world, conservation is also about the human dimension. That dimension typically requires cooperation of multiple parties, which means conservation is also about people working together with patience – and persistence. Conservation requires people – sometimes with opposing views – to talk together, to listen to each other, and to learn. Indeed, Russian and American scientists have been doing these things for a long time – with success. Musk oxen were returned to Siberia’s Chukotka Autonomous Region back in the 1970s when they came to Wrangel Island from Alaska with the assistance of cooperating American and Russian authorities. Nature doesn’t follow political boundaries This remains a very fruitful collaboration. More recently, there has been talk of giving “sister park” status to protected adjacent reserves of global significance separated only by the Chukchi and Bering seas. Such a designation would enhance the sharing of cultural and biological knowledge and promote conservation more broadly. It is important to remember that even when nations go through periods of conflict of one kind or another, there can be lights that shine

brightly between them. Wildlife and nature do not organize themselves according to political boundaries, nor must conservation. All earthly denizens share land and water and air with each other; it is therefore essential we work together to manage and protect them. RELATED: 5 environmental wins to celebrate That the US and Russian governments allow conservation and science to move forward cooperatively on Wrangel offers cause for optimism that these efforts may continue to transcend our inevitable political differences.

--Energy Security--

Heg Add-On

The aff solves the impact to the disad—only military readiness solves hegemony Talbot, 2 – founder and former editor-in-chief of Salon (David, “The making of a hawk”, Salon, 1/3/02, http://www.salon.com/2002/01/03/hawk/)Despite their eventual success, each U.S. military response in the past decade — even to the brazen sky

terrorism that leveled the World Trade Center and devastated the Pentagon — has sparked passionate opposition in political, media and cultural circles. Conservative commentators like Andrew Sullivan, Charles Krauthammer and the

Wall Street Journal editorial board have blamed current antiwar resistance on the left and its tradition of pacifism and criticism of American hegemony. And it’s true, any liberal who came of age during the Vietnam War, as I did, feels some kinship with these implacable critics of American policy, even a lingering sense of alienation from our own country’s world-straddling power. But most of us, at some point during the last two decades, made a fundamental break from this pacifistic legacy. For me, it came during the savage bombing of Sarajevo, whose blissfully multi-ethnic cosmopolitanism was, like New York would later become, an insult to the forces of zealous purity. Most liberals of my generation, however, feel deeply uneasy about labeling themselves hawks — to do so conjures images for them of Gen. Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, it suggests a break from civilization itself, a heavy-footed step backwards, toward the bogs of our ancestors. What I have come to believe, however, is that America’s unmatched power to reduce tyranny and terror to dust is actually what often makes civilization in today’s world possible. I want to retrace my journey here, for those who might be wrestling with similar thoughts these days. In truth, the opposition to assertive American foreign policy over the past decade has come from liberals and conservatives alike (as has support for interventionism), and while the Susan Sontags and Noam Chomskys have become convenient targets for pro-war pundits in recent months, the most effective critiques of American power since Vietnam have come not from Upper East Side salons and Berkeley’s ivory towers but from within the government itself, including even the Pentagon. Ever since the Vietnam War, the foreign policy establishment has been suffering from what the astute analyst Robert Kagan calls a “loss of nerve.” This failure of will within the foreign policy elite — and Washington’s struggle to escape the

shadow of Vietnam — is the theme of David Halberstam’s recent bestseller, “War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals.” As in his Vietnam classic, “The Best and the Brightest,” Halberstam builds his new book around portraits of key policymakers. But unlike his Vietnam book — which laid the blame for the debacle on arrogant interventionists like Robert MacNamara and the Bundy brothers — Halberstam’s new book is clearly sympathetic toward foreign policy boldness. The irony here has not escaped observers like Kagan, who in a withering essay in last month’s New Republic pinned much of the establishment’s loss of confidence on popular critics like Halberstam himself. According to Kagan, prominent writers like Halberstam “fixed it in the popular mind, and in the elite mind, that ‘the best and the brightest’ were dangerous. To be among the best and the brightest was to stand accused of criminal incompetence. And what did that mean about America? If our best and brightest could not be trusted not to destroy us, then we were doomed. Could American power be wielded with a measure of confidence? No, it was impossible to wield power at all. Was national greatness a possibility if the best among us were fools?” Though he doesn’t concede his thinking has undergone any revision, Halberstam’s views have clearly changed with time. The heroes in “War in a Time of Peace” are the hawks in the Clinton administration — Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Balkans negotiator and later U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Kosovo air war commander General Wes Clark. Both Holbrooke, who served as a young diplomat in Saigon, and Clark, who commanded an Army company and was wounded four times in one battle, were shaped by Vietnam. But unlike other future political and military leaders who came of age in the crucible of that jungle war, neither of these men was incapacitated by it. Despite America’s failure in Vietnam, both men recognized how important it was for the country to play a strong global role — and their hawkish views of the Milosevic killing machine in the Balkans finally helped convince Clinton to strike back at the dictator, who despite all the dire predictions from GOP doves like Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich (and perennial Vietnam-era peace crusaders like Tom Hayden) promptly wilted. But, as Halberstam makes clear, the hawks were an embattled minority during the Clinton years — as they were during most of the senior Bush’s administration. Whether it was the cynical James Baker, who famously concluded that America did not “have a dog in that fight” and thereby allowed the Balkans war to take its savage course, or the ineffectual Warren Christopher (“Dean Rusk without the charisma,” as Democratic Party insiders mordantly summed up Clinton’s choice for secretary of state), America’s foreign policy was led during these years by men who believed it must operate within very narrow constraints

2AC Case

*Warming*

AT: Japan Solves

Japan’s commercialization hurts the climate – safe development is key McDermott 13 [Mat McDermott, “Why Japan's Methane Hydrate Exploitation Would Be Game Over for the Climate”, 3/14/13, http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-japans-methane-hydrate-exploitation-is-game-over-for-climate] You know how NASA scientist James Hansen has characterized continuing to tap Alberta's tar sands as being game over for the climate, thanks to the massive amount of carbon that'd be released in burning them? Well, if that's the case, then the recent news from Japan that a team has successfully extracted gas from methane hydrates from the seafloor isn't good. In fact, if Japan is able to commercially exploit the reserves in six years, as is planned, then it's game over for the climate. According to the Washington Post,

which cites US Geological Survey stats, all the gas hydrates around the world contain "between 10,000 trillion cubic feet to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." In other words, if even the low estimate is actually technically and economically recoverable, that's over twelve times more natural gas than in all the US shale gas reserves. And, here's the really game over part: The Post, again citing USGS estimates, says there's "more carbon trapped inside [them] than is contained in all known reserves of fossil fuels." (Another widely-cited estimate puts the total amount of carbon trapped in methane hydrates at between 500-2500 gigatons, which is less than all fossil fuels, but still significantly more than natural gas reserves.) Regardless–and this point should be in all italics, bold, and with several exclamation points–if methane hydrates begin to get tapped en masse, our shrinking hopes of curbing climate change are gone. The discovery is being hailed in Japan as a potential huge boost for domestic energy supplies. There's an estimated 39 trillion cubic meters of gas from methane hydrates in Japanese waters—enough for 10 years of gas consumption. Remember that Japan imports about 84 percent of its energy, a figure that's higher after Fukushima and the nuclear power soul searching that has resulted. All told it is clearly a climate disaster in the making, on top of, well, you know, the catastrophic climate disaster already proceeding full steam ahead. Let's compare all these estimates to the "terrifying new math" that 350.org's Bill McKibben sketched out last summer in Rolling Stone. To keep global temperature rise below 2°C—which, it's worth remembering, is both the internationally agreed upon aspirational target for limiting temperature rise, as well as 0.5°C too high according to scientists to totally avoid dangerous climate change—McKibben says we can emit another 565 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. And we've got 2,795 gigatons of carbon in proven fossil fuels reserves. In other words, McKibben writes, "We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate"—as in, to not cook the planet. Even adding another 500 gigatons of carbon to the pile, let along nearly doubling it, is simply suicide (and ecocide). It's delusional madness.

Japanese process too hazardous Monbiot 13 [George Monbiot, Writer for The Guardian and the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A¶ Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land, 3/14/13, “Frozen Assets”, http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/14/frozen-assets/] The world has felt the impact of a methane sorbet melt before. During the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago, temperatures rose by around six degrees. This happened much more slowly than manmade climate change is happening today – it took some 20,000 years – but it was fast enough radically to alter the world’s ecosystems, catalysing both mass extinctions and new speciation. There is evidence to suggest that much of this warming was driven by the release of

gas from methane hydrates. This may have been the result of positive feedback: as the seas warmed, the clathrates began to destabilise and melt, causing further warming. Could this happen again, as a result of manmade climate change? Not in our lifetimes. While the much smaller volume of methane hydrate locked up in the permafrost beneath shallow Arctic seas could be vulnerable – and could add significantly to global warming – it will take a very long time for extra heating to affect sediments beneath the deep ocean floor, and longer still for the greenhouse gases this releases to reach the atmosphere. (In the deep oceans methane gas is oxidised to carbon dioxide, which takes several hundred years to reach the surface). But this is not to say that there will be no catastrophic release of gas from methane hydrates buried beneath the deep sea. If it happens within this century, it will be the result not of global warming but of the process the Japanese government has now pioneered : extracting gas in order to

burn it. Like all the nations which continue to extend the fossil fuel frontier (such as Britain, where companies intend to start producing gas through fracking) Japan is adding to the mountain of fossil fuels we cannot responsibly burn. The brave new technology it has developed, now lauded in the media, would be worthless in a world that took climate change seriously.

Japanese extraction risks release Williamson 13 [Lynda Williamson, Online Editor and Social Media for NewsNet, “Environmentalists urge caution over Japanese Ice Gas breakthrough”, http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6944-environmentalists-urge-caution-over-japanese-ice-gas-breakthrough] The US Geological Survey estimates that methane hydrates deposits could contain twice as much carbon as all other fossil fuels on earth but warns that the ecological impact is "very poorly understood." Methane hydrate is a naturally occurring form of methane gas combined with water which produces a crystalline substance containing very high concentrations of methane. It is found extensively throughout the world, among other places in major river deltas such as the Amahttp://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6944-environmentalists-urge-caution-over-japanese-ice-gas-breakthrough, zon Delta as well as in ocean sediments and in the sediments in and beneath areas of permafrost. Methane gas is approximately 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 so any leakage of methane into the atmosphere would raise global temperatures by considerably more than an equivalent amount of CO2. Methane is faster acting and shorter lived than CO2, remaining in the earth's atmosphere for only 10 years as opposed to CO2 which remains for approximately 100 years. Some climate scientists believe that methane played a major role in the Paleocene – Eocene thermal maximum which represents one of the most rapid and extreme warming events in geological history. Core samples taken from old ocean sediment layers point to short periods of rapid warming of up 8 degrees centigrade on top of longer term rises of between 5 and 7 degrees centigrade. The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over a short period is the release of methane into the atmosphere. Temperature and pressure conditions determine methane hydrate stability so global warming can have the effect of releasing more naturally occurring methane into the air. Some scientists have pointed to plumes of methane rising from the floor of the Arctic Ocean as evidence that increased global temperatures could trigger the release of large quantities of methane. The worry is

that positive feedback could lead to a tipping point, a kind of vicious circle where the release of methane raises temperatures and the raised temperatures stimulate methane release. Professor Euan Nisbet from Royal Holloway, London, explains that: "The Arctic is the fastest warming region on the planet, and has many methane sources that

will increase as the temperature rises. This is yet another serious concern: the warming will feed the warming ." Other scientists

point to storms and fluctuations in weather systems, which could produce changes in ice coverage, as an explanation for Arctic gas plumes. Speaking to Newsnet Scotland, Dr Richard Dixon, Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland said: "The last thing we need is more fossil fuels. It is deeply ironic that methane hydrates are becoming more accessible because of climate change, since burning them would set us on a course to truly disastrous climate change. The planet cannot afford Japan or anyone else to extract gas

from methane hydrate deposits ."

AT: No I/L

R&D key to check back for release of emissions U.S. Chamber of Commerce No Date [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, A business federation representing companies, business associations, state and local chambers in the U.S., and American Chambers of Commerce abroad, “Immediately Expand Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration”, http://www.energyxxi.org/immediately-expand-domestic-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-production, PS] Another potential source of significant amounts of domestic natural gas is methane hydrates, an icelike substance containing natural gas, found beneath the ocean floor and in the Arctic permafrost. The United States Geological Survey estimates there are some 317 quadrillion cubic feet of methane gas stored in hydrates in the United States. This represents more than 1,600 times the amount of conventional natural gas reserves estimated in the United States. More R&D is necessary to more accurately locate this resource and economically produce it with minimal geologic impact or release of GHG emissions. However, the moratorium preventing exploration and production of traditional natural gas on the OCS also acts to thwart work to develop methane hydrates.

Research will aid scientists in understanding impact Fountain 9/16/13 [Henry Fountain, a science writer at The Times and an editor for the weekly technology section Circuits, the Week in Review and the special sections department, which covers environmental, business, philanthropy and other subjects, “Unlocking the Potential of ‘Flammable Ice’”, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/earth/unlocking-the-potential-of-flammable-ice.html?pagewanted=all, PS] But scientists say there is still much that is unknown about the unusual compounds, sometimes referred to as

“flammable ice,” and that the commercial production of gas from them is still far-off. “We need to know more about the physical properties of hydrates themselves, and of the sediments as well,” said Hideo Narita, the director of the research laboratory, part of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, which is financed largely by the government. Further research, here and at labs around the world, will help scientists better understand the environmental impact of hydrate production, including the possible release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the sea or atmosphere. There is also the potential for subsea landforms to become unstable when hydrates are removed.

AT: Methane Bursts ≠ Warming

Abrupt warming from methane gas release leads to extinction Coviello 14 [John Coviello, “Would Rapid Global Warming Due To Methane Gas Releases Lead To Human Extinction?,

http://rocknj.hubpages.com/hub/How-Methane-Gas-Releases-Due-To-Global-Warming-Could-Cause-Human-Extinction, PS] It is obviously a big step go from rapid global warming to the extinction of all human beings on Earth. Humans have proven to be incredibly adaptable creatures, especially since humans possess the intellectual skills to build shelters and machinery that can help them adapt to changing climates and temperature extremes. However, the climate variations that humans have experienced over the past couple of thousands of years, from the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250) to the Little Ice Age (1550 to 1850) pale in comparison to the dramatic global warming that humans would endure if massive methane gas releases cause rapid global warming. Perhaps humans would somehow survive at high inland latitudes and elevations, where

crop production may be possible in a dramatically warmer world during and after-massive methane releases from the oceans. However, since mankind has lived during a relatively stable interglacial climate period that has lasted for thousands of years and has not experienced global warming on the magnitude of 10 degrees Fahrenheit or more over a period of a century or two, it is difficult to predict with any confidence that the species homo sapiens could survive the abrupt warming that will occur during and after massive methane releases from the Earth's oceans. If the primary effects of massive methane releases, such as exploding methane fireballs at sea and firestorms on land do not cause mankind to go extinct, then the secondary environmental effects from severe droughts to severe storms that disrupt the food supply, or possible tertiary effects, such as disease migration and weakened immune systems, could cause mankind to eventually cease to exist as a life-form on planet Earth.

1% release would quadruple concentration of atmospheric methane Song 11 [Lisa Song, writer for Inside Climate News where she reports on oil sands, pipeline safety and natural gas drilling. She helped write "The Dilbit Disaster" series, which won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, was a finalist in the 2012 Scripps Howard Awards for Environmental Reporting and won an honorable mention in the 2012 John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism. She has previously contributed to High Country News, Scientific American and New Scientist, “Up to 40% of Gulf Oil Spill Was Potent Methane Gas, 3/3/11, Research Shows”, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110303/bp-oil-spill-methane-hydrates-gas-climate-change-deepwater-horizon]Another risk lies in the hydrates' contribution to climate change. Hydrates keep methane out of the atmosphere by

sequestering them underground. But as the planet warms, more of that methane could be released into the air. Deep-sea hydrates like the ones in the Gulf don't pose much of a threat, said Leifer. The deep ocean warms so slowly that those hydrates will remain stable for at least thousands of years. Arctic hydrates, however, are "extremely worrisome" because they're buried under shallow waters. Under the Arctic Sea lies an expanse of permafrost that's half the size of the United States, and below

the permafrost are layers of sediment containing methane hydrates. The hydrates release methane, which get trapped beneath the permafrost. Cracks in the permafrost then discharge the methane into the atmosphere. Such releases are already happening. Last summer, Leifer's research group measured small methane plumes coming out of Arctic waters. Over a distance of about 930 miles, "everywhere we went with the boat, there were little bubbles coming out," said Leifer. "This may be the normal state of affairs," he continued, but climate change is heating up the Arctic more quickly than other parts of the globe, and "[the situation] could be getting a lot worse." The Arctic has enough buried methane that a one percent release would quadruple global concentrations of atmospheric methane. That's the equivalent of increasing CO2 by a factor of ten, said Leifer. "It would be pretty close to the end of civilization as we know it, and this could happen. It doesn't mean it's going to happen … but we want people to be aware [of the possibility]." Leifer will return to the Arctic later in March to continue hydrate research.

Once release has passed it’s tipping point – extinction is inevitable WND 13 [WND, World News Desk, “The Arctic Methane Monster Stirs: NASA’s CARVE Finds Plumes as Large as 150 Kilometers Across Amidst Year of Troubling Spikes”, 7/16/13, https://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/11314-the-arctic-methane-monster-stirs-nasa%E2%80%99s-carve-finds-plumes-as-large-as-150-kilometers-across-amidst-year-of-troubling-spikes] Now, human global warming is beginning to unlock a monstrous store of methane in the Arctic. A source that, in the worst case, could be many times the volume of the initial human emission. To this point, areas around the Arctic are now showing local methane levels above 1950 parts per billion with an ever-increasing frequency. The issue is of great concern to scientists, a number of which from NASA are now involved in an investigative study to unearth how large and damaging this methane beast is likely to become. (You can keep account of these methane spike regions in real time using the Methane Tracker Google app linked here. )” - If this doesn’t scare the hell out of you, you haven’t been paying attention. Artic methane releases are completely uncontrollable, uncontainable and unstoppable after the atmosphere has passed the runaway global warming tipping point (which it already likely has after passing 400 PPM of carbon dioxide). So the “Ice-free Northern Passage” is supposed to be some sort of consolation prize to certain business and shipping interests, right? Try sailing a ship over a methane release and see what happens…(hint – they sink). Short of nuclear war, it is hard to conceive of any other events having such a huge and lasting global impact on the human species. Artic methane releases due to global warming may seal our planet’s fate regardless of what humans do going forward. And to our collective shame, damn few people even notice that anything is wrong. - Wes

Failure to act causes methane release causes extinction – more powerful than a nuclear war Ryskin 3 (Gregory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Northwestern University, Illinois, “Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions” Geology 31(9): 741-744, ASingh)Upon release of a significant portion of the dissolved methane, the ocean settles down, and the entire sequence of events (i.e., development of anoxia, accumulation of dissolved methane, the metastable state, eruption) begins anew. No external cause is required to bring about a methane-driven eruption—its mechanism is self-contained, and implies that eruptions are likely to occur repeatedly at the same locati on . Because methane is isotopically light, its fast release must result in a negative carbon isotope excursion in the geological record. Knowing the magnitude of the excursion, one can estimate the amount of methane that could have produced it. Such calculations (prompted by the methane-hydrate-dissociation model, but equally applicable here) have been performed for several global events in the geological record; the results range from ;1018 to 1019 g of released methane (e.g., Katz et al., 1999; Kennedy et al., 2001; de Wit et al., 2002). These are very large amounts: the total carbon content of today’s terrestrial biomass is ;2 3 1018 g. Nevertheless, relatively small regions of the deep ocean could contain such amounts of dissolved methane; e.g., the Black Sea alone (volume ;0.4 3 1023 of the ocean total; maximum depth only 2.2 km) could hold, at saturation, ;0.5 3 1018 g. A similar region of the deep ocean could contain much more (the amount grows quadratically with depth3). Released in a geological instant (weeks, perhaps), 1018 to 1019 g of methane could destroy the terrestrial life almost entirely. Combustion and explosion of 0.75 3 1019 g of methane would liberate energy equivalent to 108 Mt of TNT, ; 10,000 times greater than the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, implicated in the nuclear winter scenario ( Turco et al., 1991).

AT: Methane Extraction Bad

Their ev is in the context of Japan – another reason why the status quo is failing and research is key to solve

Research solves safety challenges that exist in the squo Guardian 10 (The Guardian, a British national daily newspaper, “Did Deepwater methane hydrates cause the BP Gulf explosion?”,

5/20/10, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/20/deepwater-methane-hydrates-bp-gulf, PS] Professor Sum explained gas and oil flow up the pipe together in normal drilling operations. These hydrocarbons occur naturally together in conventional drilling operations. The deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, and other places where methane hydrates exist, present drillers with special safety challenges . For one thing, methane hydrates are believed to exist in vast deposits underneath the ocean floor, trapped by nature in ocean sediments. Deepwater drillers could find themselves drilling through these natural hydrate deposits. Professor Sum

said geologists know much less about these hydrate-bearing sediments than conventional ocean sediments, and that there is "little knowledge of the risks" of drilling into them . The Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling in Block 252 of an area known as the Mississippi Canyon of the Gulf, thought to contain methane hydrate-bearing sediments, according to government maps. The platform was operating less than 20 miles from a methane hydrate research site located in the same canyon at Block 118. From the sea floor a mile down, the Deepwater Horizon rig had penetrated another 18,000 feet — almost another five miles down — into the earth's crust with pipe. According to the National Academy of Sciences, which published a bullish report on the energy potential of methane hydrates, "Industry practice is to avoid methane-bearing areas during drilling for conventional oil and gas resources for safety reasons." Professor Sum explained that because "with oil there is usually gas present," it is possible for methane hydrates to form in the pipe even when not drilling through hydrate-bearing sediments. The pressure and cold of the deepwater create conditions that encourage gas flowing into the pipe to form hydrates, and if the rate of crystallization is rapid enough, the hydrates can clog the pipe.

Extraction is key Anderson 14 [Richard Anderson, Business Reporter for BBC News, “Methane hydrate: Dirty fuel or energy saviour?”, 4/16/14, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27021610] Methane hydrates are found mainly under ocean seabeds and Arctic permafrost However, this may be a far better option than the alternative. In fact, we may have no choice. As global temperatures rise, warming oceans and melting permafrost, the enormous reserves of methane trapped in ice may be released naturally. The consequences could be a catastrophic circular reaction, as warming temperatures release more methane, which in turn raises temperatures further. "If all the methane gets out, we're looking at a Mad Max movie," says

Mr Varro. "Even using conservative estimates of methane [deposits], this could make all the CO2 from fossil fuels look like a joke. "How long can the gradual warming go on before the methane gets out? Nobody knows, but the longer it goes on, the closer we get to playing Russian roulette." Capturing the methane and burning it suddenly looks like rather a good idea. Maybe this particular hydrocarbon addiction could prove beneficial for us all.

And, only extraction prevents large-scale methane releaseCohen ‘10 (Dave Cohen, Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas – USA (ASPO-USA), M.A. Theoretical Linguistics, “Methane Hydrates,” Energy Bulletin, 2-11-2010, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51517)Well, of course, this makes sense. We wouldn't want to inadvertently disturb a big patch of methane hydrates ,

which might lead to the release of a shitload of gas into the water column , which would eventually lead to its bubbling out of the sea and into the atmosphere . You see, if the methane in ocean floor hydrates get s loose , that's much , much worse than if we successfully capture it, pipe it somewhere and

burn it . In this latter case, we only get the carbon emissions from burning the "pure" natural gas (CH4), not the full-blown greenhouse effects of unadulterated methane in the atmosphere , which converts to CO2 over time there— it's 25 times more potent per molecule [as a greenhouse gas] than carbon dioxide on a 100-year basis. Methane hydrates are stable under low temperatures and high pressures. So, I guess you could say that by capturing & burning the natural gas in ocean floor hydrates, we would be actually saving the planet from the future ruin we might incur if the deep oceans were to warm sufficientl y — due to the burning of fossil fuels like natural gas— to cause natural degassing .

AT: Not Melting Now

Methane reserves starting to melt – research and extraction key Mead 13 [Derek Mead, Editor in Chief of Mother Board, “Oil Companies Are Preparing to Tackle Methane Hydrate, Assuming It Doesn't Melt First”, 7/30/13, http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/oil-companies-are-preparing-to-tackle-methane-hydrate-assuming-it-doesnt-melt-first, PS]

According to a commentary in Nature that's made the rounds, those huge methane reserves are a " ticking timebomb. " Methane hydrates form as gases crystallize under the intense pressure and low temperatures at the bottom of oceans. Because methane is a very strong greenhouse gas, if those deposits melt, our climate would likely warm quickly. That back-of-the-napkin conclusion has been discussed before, but the Dutch and British researchers

writing in Nature attempt to put some numbers to the potential phenomenon. They calculate that, if methane hydrate reserves melt—caused

by warmer oceans, which will warm further with more methane in the atmosphere, and on and on—the resulting climate effects would cost the global economy $60 trillion. With global GDP somewhere around $71 trillion, that massive number was enough to make headlines all over the place. (Reuters' story is a good example.) A fair number of science writers took issue with that claim, with the leading counterargument being that the Nature authors seemed to calculate what would happen if all the methane hydrate in the world melted really quickly, and then extrapolated the cost of that massive climate change potential based on studies of the comparatively-gradual change we're experiencing now. Charlie Petit has a good breakdown of the kerfluffle at the KSJ Tracker, and Jason Samenow's piece at the Washington Post appears to be the top rebuttal. If you must know, I'm in

the skeptic camp simply because it's not clear how quickly methane hydrates could melt. There's no denying that their melting would have costly climate effects, but as Samenow and others argue, the $60 trillion figure is very much a worst case scenario, and may not be realistic.

Methane hydrates melting now – research can prevent runaway warming Marshall 12 [Michael Marshall, “Methane hydrates melting due to climate change, releasing potent greenhouse gases”, 4/22/12,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21733-arctic-methane-leaks-threaten-climate.html#.U7s3rvldV0Y, PS] As Arctic sea ice breaks apart, massive amounts of methane could be released into the atmosphere

from the cold waters beneath. High concentrations of the greenhouse gas have been recorded in the air above cracks in the ice. This could be evidence of yet another positive feedback on the warming climate – leading to even faster Arctic warming. The Arctic is home to vast stores of methane – there are billions of tonnes of methane in permafrost alone. It is a potent greenhouse gas, so a major methane release would greatly accelerate climate change. The gas is found in icy crystals called hydrates beneath the shallow seas that flood some areas of the continental crust, as well as in permafrost. It is also being released from Arctic wetlands. But this doesn’t explain why Eric Kort of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and his colleagues found patches of methane in remote regions of the Arctic Ocean, far from any of these known methane sources. The team found the patches during five flights over the Arctic Ocean between 2009 and 2010, as part of a project to systematically map greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Kort estimates that, in the methane-rich regions, about 2 milligrams of the gas were being released per square metre of ocean every day. Some of the patches were close to the oil and gas plants in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, but prevailing wind directions make these plants an unlikely source of the release. Gassy ocean So where does the gas come from? Since the 1970s, scientists have known that ocean surface waters are rich in methane. It seems to be made by marine bacteria trying to survive in waters that don’t have many nutrients in the form of nitrates. “This source appears to be a likely candidate to explain what we observed,” Kort says. preserve Water in the Arctic Ocean doesn’t mix well, so the water near the surface tends to remain there. Consequently, the methane ends up trapped near the surface. In other oceans, it would get broken down through reaction with oxygen or consumed by methanotrophic bacteria, but the cold weather helps to it. Kort saw methane releases close to cracks in the sea ice, or in places where the ice had broken up. This could be because methane only escapes from agitated water, says Ellen Damm of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. This agitation is most likely to occur when autumn sets in and ice crystals start forming in the water, creating turbulence. Hotter and hotter The findings will need to be replicated, says Euan Nisbet, an earth scientist at Royal Holloway, University of London. But if the leak is widespread across the Arctic, this mechanism could prove to be a significant source of greenhouse gas. “We know the Arctic is warming very fast indeed,” Nisbet says. And as the warming climate leads to more breaks in the sea ice, more ice-surrounded patches of open water will be able to release their methane, further accelerating global warming. The question now is: how significant will this new effect on warming be? “It might be small,” Nisbet says, “or it could be another serious problem.”

AT: Spills—Bacteria Solve

No arctic micro-organisms can break down the oil – any spill that would normally last 3 years will last 100Sandford 13 (Daniel, BBC news reporter, “On Russia's controversial Arctic oil rig Prirazlomnaya”, 10/7/13, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24427153)//WLSpill risk The Prirazlomnaya rig, when it comes into sight, is a sturdy structure set about 20m (66ft)-deep on the seabed. The visible part of the platform - the "topside" - sits on a massive concrete and steel structure. The weight of this box is what keeps it in position. Gazprom, the Russian state-owned company which operates the rig, says that this base is so heavy that it cannot be moved, even by thick ice. The company insists that drilling here is no different just because it is in the Arctic. It says there are many rigs - off Sakhalin Island in the far east for example - which have to cope with frozen seas. But environmental campaigners - and not only Greenpeace - insist that the Arctic is different. They say the nature here is unique. The polar bears, walruses, narwhals that live there have nowhere else to go. They warn that the Arctic Ocean only has two narrow entrances - one by Iceland and the other by Alaska. That means there is little mixing with other seas, so any oil spill would not disperse . Then there is

the cold. Igor Chestin, chief executive of the environmental group WWF Russia, warns that because of the low temperatures an oil spill in the Arctic could be catastrophic . "If you look at oil spills which happen in tropical waters, normally within a few years you don't find the oil anymore," he said, "because there are bacteria which actually absorb the oil and the oil disappears. "But if you look at the northern environment, and for example the famous Exxon Valdez accident near Alaska, you still find the oil there. It's still poisoning the environment 24 years after the accident happened. It's still there. It didn't disappear - there are no micro-organisms which can absorb the oil ." He says that an oil spill that might disperse in

three years in warmer waters might take 100 years to disperse in the Arctic . "Not a single oil company currently has the technology to deal with an oil spill under the ice. Some of them know how to collect oil from the surface of the water, or from the surface of the ice, which is like land. But under the ice? There are no technologies which can deal with that, and that means that the oil can spread over the

place."

*Presence*

AT: N/U

Naval Presence isn’t sufficient to solve the advantage. 1AC Ebinger is in the context of US leadership in the arctic from resource leadership which the Navy can’t solve.

AT: No I/L

Naval presence isn’t necessary for conflict over resources, as long as they are there and countries want them there will be conflict. That’s 1AC Staples. The icebreakers key evidence isn’t in the context of methane research – the US already has an icebreaker and we can research near the coasts when it’s too icy.

AT: Arctic Turn

Their author is a blogger – unqualified to be writing on arctic conflict—not peer reviewed. Prefer our evidence—US is leading the arctic council and has numerous connections in the region—only our presence resolves tensions over disputed area

US presence in the Arctic enhances cooperation not conflictLe Mière 12 [Christian Le Mière, Research Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security, Cooperation not conflict in the Arctic, 11/04/2012, http://iissvoicesblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/cooperation-not-conflict-in-the-arctic/]Contrary to the narrative of recent press reports suggesting that the melting Arctic could mean the end of the geopolitical order as we know it, the clear message to emerge during the various events thus far held under the rubric of the IISS’ Forum for Arctic Climate Change and Security is that cooperation rather than conflict may come to define the developing situation in the High North. As sea ice retreats in the Arctic, analysis of the region’s military balance has become more frequent. While an important issue, as demonstrated by the Military Balance 2012 (click on map for a larger view), this is not necessarily owing to the probability that the littoral countries are going to descend into some kind of regional conflict. Rather, a growing military and paramilitary presence in the Arctic may be beneficial

for regional stability rather than detrimental . This is because the various littoral countries already share strategic goals in the High North: to expand trade, protect the environment, extract resources and police new sea areas. Given the vast tracts of ocean and the difficult operating conditions, military and paramilitary cooperation may be key to ensuring safe and secure commercial activity in the Arctic. It is no coincidence that the first international accord signed under the auspices of the Arctic Council was a search-and-rescue agreement. With this in mind, the IISS hopes to foster broader dialogue among the Arctic and near-Arctic states to discuss ways in which military and paramilitary organisations can coordinate and collaborate. Although the region involves traditional rivals such as Russia and a number of NATO states, while rising powers such as China are increasingly interested in the Arctic shipping routes, there is scope for closer relationships in the Arctic.

AT: Russia SOI Turn

Expansion of the Russian sphere causes nuclear warBlank 9 (Dr. Stephen Blank is a Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, March 2009, “Russia And Arms Control: Are There Opportunities For The Obama Administration?” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub908.pdf)Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of retaliation.168 Given a multipolar world structure with little ideological

rivalry among major powers , it is unlikely that they will go to war with each other . Rather, like

Russia , they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their own “sphere of influence” and use nuclear

instruments towards that end . However, wars may well break out between major powers and weaker “peripheral” states or between peripheral and semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence of the means of crisis prevention, the visible absence of crisis management mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that asymmetric wars might give them the victory or respite they need.169 Simultaneously,¶ The states of periphery and semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political maneuvering. Since war remains a political option, these states may find it convenient to exercise their military power as a means for achieving political objectives. Thus international crises

may increase in number . This has two important implications for the use of WMD . First, they may be

used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in Russia’s case , to achieve “intra-war escalation control ” —author170) to the striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances in military capabilities are significant; and second, crises increase the possibilities of inadvertent or accidental wars

involving WMD .171¶ Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that are expanding their nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing consensus and use their weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought, but as offensive weapons to threaten other states and deter nuclear powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative security and strengthened international military-political norms of action, or for individual national “egotism” will critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes,¶ But if they drift away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security], the consequences could be profound . At

the very least, the effective functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order , such as the special responsibility of the “great powers” in the management of the interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under the aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired . Armed with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial costs in blood or money on an intervening force or the populaces of the nations marshaling that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to collective security operations , undermine the credibility of alliance commitments by

the great powers , [undermine guarantees of extended deterrence by them to threatened nations and

states] extend alliances of their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on their neighbors or their

own people .172

AT: No Arctic Conflict

Multiple flashpoints for arctic conflict – current multilateral efforts won’t contain the conflict. Steven & Jones 12 [David, Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic, Managing

Global Order, May 2012, http://www.cic.nyu.edu/mgo/docs/jones_arctic.pdf, sh] As growing multilateral momentum demonstrates, the Arctic is a zone neither of pure competition or cooperation, but is instead a mix of both. On balance, however, nationalistic pressures are being contained more effectively than has been assumed in many popular accounts. As climate change has multiplied stakes in the region, Arctic nations have tended to show increased willingness to work together, actively seeking to quell fears about territory annexation, unilateral resources grabs, and domination of key maritime chokepoints. It is perhaps unsurprising that a series of informal and formal multilateral processes have emerged to help states address boundary issues in an orderly way and to keep the commercial environment stable and accessible. States have a strong interest in a stable Arctic. Energy extraction and Arctic navigation are already subject to substantial environmental, technological and economic uncertainties. In contrast, geopolitical grandstanding is a preventable source of distraction. There is little reason for complacency , however. While some of the new cooperative arrangements are imaginative in conception, they remain limited in scope and contentious issues are yet to be tackled. In th e future, the key risks are as follows: General political miscalculation . Despite a willingness to cooperate, states still remain uncertain about the future intentions of others, particularly Russia. 122 Governments have little incentive to signal their willingness to forgo an attempt to dominate the region. 123 Indeed, they have incentive to overstate their resolve in the hopes that bluffing will cause others to back down. 124 In the future, small naval skirmishes could become commonplace, as appears to be happening in the South China Seas. A deterioration in U.S.-Russia

relations would make this more likely , especially given Russian proclivity to use its energy reserves to shape a more favorable political environment in its near abroad. Domestic politics are also a potential complicating factor. In countries where the Arctic is important to national identity, political pressure at home is more likely to lead to governments miscalculating abroad. U.S. suspicion of multilateral governance, and of UNCLOS in particular, could also lead to others placing less truth in institutional responses. The lack of a crisis management mechanism. The Arctic Five grouping is willing to tackle resource and boundary issues, but is untested in a crisis. T here is no mechanism to bring together ministers at short notice, for instance. Indeed, it is unclear when, and whether, ministers will next meet. The Arctic Council is formally constituted and will soon have a secretariat, but it does not have a mandate in areas most likely to trigger a crisis. Bilateral diplomacy could provide a solution, perhaps with the mediating intervention of a third power. Alternatively, an independent task force could be convened, as happened after the Cheonan incident off the coast of the Korean peninsula. These mechanisms are untested, however, a nd it remains unclear how states would limit cycles of mutual recrimination in the case of a major environmental disaster (an Arctic Deepwater), an aggressive attempt to protect commercial interests, or a serious naval incident. An unfavorable CLCS ruling. Russia will soon file with CLCS new evidence on its continental shelf claim, and many other Arctic states are preparing to submit new applications (the U.S., as a non-ratifying state, remains excluded). Should Russia receive an unfavorable ruling, some fear that it will assert unilateral control of the Lomonosov Ridge. Alternatively, it could keep making revised submissions to the CLCS in an attempt to ensure that the issue drags on indefinitely. In the short term, this would reduce the likelihood of conflict, but over

time it could discredit multilateralism. Russia, of course, is not the only state that might refuse to accept a CLCS finding. Unclear guidelines, weak enforcement, and a lack of transparency all make it possible that the CLCS/UNCLOS process will face breakdown at some stage. A major future energy find in an area where boundary claims are outstanding. We have argued that rational Arctic states do not now have fundamental conflicts of interest, especially as most of the energy reserves are believed to lie in uncontested areas. A major energy find in the Lomonosov Ridge could change this dynamic. However, it is uncertain whether there will be a clear incentive to own all or even most of the new found energy. Energy can be a divisible good and joint development arrangements are very common, as the Russia-Norway Barents Sea agreement has shown. Russia’s behavior, however, remains hard to predict, as its energy investments are not fully subject to market forces, and it remains intent on using energy to consolidate its status as a major power. If shale gas challenges its role in energy markets, it could be tempted to act aggressively to recoup losses, in a “gamble for resurrection”, leading to a possible crisis scenario. 125 Deepening environmental crisis. Many states continue to focus primarily on opportunities in the Arctic, but these only exist due to the global threat from climate change. Environmental risks are likely to intensify, possibly rapidly, with impacts on a global, rather than a regional, scale. Complete deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet would lead to a sea level rise of 7 meters, although this is unlikely to happen quickly (centuries to millennia). Similarly, hydrate destabilization is a potentially significant source of new emissions (and potentially a new energy source if methane hydrates can be exploited). 126 Black carbon (or soot) plays an important role in accelerating ice melt, linking the fate of the Arctic to development patterns in Asia’s populous cities. 127 Oil spills and pollution from shipping both have the potential to damage the Arctic’s fragile environment. Environmental threats have high salience for publics, especially in Western countries. An environmental disaster, or dramatic evidence of intensifying environmental change, could exacerbate ill-will between states, especially if one, or more, Arctic country becomes typecast as an environmental ‘villain’.

AT: No Science Dip Impact

Science diplomacy solves global conflictPickering et al 10 [Thomas R. Pickering is the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, undersecretary of state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council of the Civilian Research and Development Foundation. Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate, is a physician and director of the Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Science diplomacy aids conflict reduction,” 1/27/10, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/]Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang, too. Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent months also have visited Syria, Cuba and Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific and technological accomplishments are admired worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that a deeply

unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly favorable view of U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific community, journals routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all essential. The North Korea visit, organized by

the U.S.-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium, exemplifies the vast potential of science for diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America overseas. Science is a wide-ranging effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to-scientist collaboration can promote goodwill at the grass roots. San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years, biology teacher Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals. Working with game wardens and tribal leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down poachers. Such efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health

of the planet. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions

both to global problems and to global conflict.

*Energy Security*

AT: Energy Indep Fails

Energy independence solves for the economy and national security Carey 13 [Ellen Carey, Analyst for Secure Energy, “High Oil Prices Added $1.2 Trillion to U.S. National Debt”, http://www.secureenergy.org/oildebtpresser, 5/24/13,PS] High oil prices are responsible for $1.2 trillion of the increase in U.S. federal debt between 2002 and 2012, and it is estimated that continued U.S. dependence on oil could add another $5 trillion to the debt by 2040, according to a new analysis conducted by a team of economists lead by Dr. Robert Wescott of Keybridge Research and Dr. Phillip Swagel of the University of Maryland and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Their report, which was released today before an audience at AEI, measures the direct and indirect impacts of high oil prices and oil dependence on U.S. budget deficits and debt. The report’s findings offer insight to policymakers about an overlooked source of budget savings for reducing the national debt: reduced oil dependence. Based upon economic modeling performed with the University of Maryland’s INFORUM LIFT U.S. Model, the report found that if oil prices had increased at the same rate as other goods and services from 2002 to 2012, instead of quadrupling as they actually did: The U.S. federal budget deficit in 2012 would have been $235 billion dollars lower; The increase of U.S. debt between 2003-2012 would have been $1.2 trillion lower; and The debt-to-GDP ratio in 2012 would have been 6.6 percentage points lower. The report also found that reduced oil dependence achieved through such measures as expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles and improved fuel economy would: Make the U.S. federal budget deficit $492 billion lower in 2040; Result in $5 trillion less accumulated debt between 2014-2040; and Result in a debt-to-GDP ratio that is 10.3 percentage points lower in 2040. “Oil dependence is a trillion dollar budget problem,” said report co-author Phillip Swagel.

Report co-author Robert Wescott added, “Reducing U.S. oil dependence would have beneficial economic effects

and give policymakers more flexibility in dealing with fiscal, economic, and national security issues in

the future.” Robbie Diamond, founder and CEO of Securing America’s Future Energy, added that “America is currently held hostage by its dependence on oil. The economic implications of this dependence are too substantial for us to not act, and this report adds another dimension to that equation: our debt and deficits. As discussions about the debt ceiling and government spending occur over the coming months, our political leadership should recognize that reduced oil dependence would make a meaningful contribution to the nation’s fiscal health.”

AT: Dependence Low

U.S. oil dependence is high in the squo Fri 11/27/13 [Robert W. FRI, a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., “U.S. Oil Dependence Remains a Problem”, http://issues.org/19-4/fri/, PS] War and terrorism have changed a lot about how we think about oil markets. But one thing they haven’t changed during the past 14 years is the fact that excessive dependence on oil in our domestic energy mix exposes us to potentially serious economic and security risks. And they have not changed the importance of taking action to cut oil consumption in the U.S. economy. In 1989, I argued that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would be able to control energy prices by the mid-1990s unless policy actions were taken to prevent it. Price control would enable OPEC to extract rents–charge a lot more for its oil than it cost to produce–that would be a drag on the economies of oil consumers. Moreover, since the bulk of OPEC production is in the Middle East, the famous political instability of that region would expose consumers to price shocks. Those risks did not depend on how much OPEC oil a consumer imported; world oil markets would ensure that all consumer nations experienced the same high and potentially volatile prices. The main lesson of the intervening years is that cutting demand is the essential policy. That is pretty much what happened. As oil markets tightened during the 1990s economic boom, a reasonably well-disciplined OPEC became the world’s swing producer, or market regulator. As such, OPEC, and especially Saudi Arabia, could adjust production to exert a strong influence on world prices. Not surprisingly, two wars in the Persian Gulf and terrorism at home produced the expected price excursions, which happily did not last too long. OPEC’s position is unlikely to change anytime soon. Growth in oil consumption will resume as the world economy recovers. Developing nations will stake an increasing claim on oil; China, for example, has swung from a small oil exporter in 1989 to an importer of almost 2 million barrels per day. On the supply side, some growth in oil production outside OPEC is likely, but the Middle East retains the dominant share of oil reserves on which future production will be based. For years to come, OPEC seems likely to remain the global swing producer. The key question is how OPEC will go about setting prices. For the past few years, OPEC pricing policy has been fairly benign, successfully holding the per-barrel price in the $22 to $28 range. That price is intended to keep OPEC’s revenue high without creating so much competition from new sources as to erode its market control. The oil revenues enrich governing powers and families, while making life tolerable for the general population. Luxury for the few and calm for the many has been more than enough reason to keep the oil flowing during the procession of political crises that have beset the region. It’s why turmoil in oil markets has been relatively short-lived. Currently, however, OPEC’s comfortable position has become precarious. Control of the world’s second-largest oil reserve–Iraq’s–is up for grabs. Terrorists seem eager to destabilize governments in the Middle East as well as undermine U.S. influence there. It’s too soon to predict how the

political situation will play out, but the range of possibilities is broad. One current view is that the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein is but the first step toward more democratic, market-driven societies throughout the region. Another is that the more radical elements will seize control and use oil as a weapon to redress grievances. How will the political resolution affect oil markets? Clearly, the latter outcome would only increase the risks posed by excessive dependence on oil. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that the happier outcome would do much to reduce those risks. A more stable and globally integrated Middle East has much to recommend it, of course. Democracies presumably don’t start oil wars any faster than they start other kinds, and more open markets would encourage the investments needed to keep OPEC oil production growing. Yet even the most democratic of swing producer governments is unlikely to volunteer to sell its oil for less than the markets will bear; at least, none does so today. So it’s not unreasonable to expect that even the best political outcome would leave oil consumers paying a high price for increasing use of OPEC oil. Nor is it unreasonable to expect a less-than-optimal outcome in the troubled Middle East.

AT: SCS Turn

No South China Sea conflict – countries will work together Gupta 11 [Rukmani Gupta is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, “South China Sea Conflict? No Way”,

October 23rd, 2011, http://the-diplomat.com/2011/10/23/south-china-sea-conflict-no-way/1/, Chetan] These suggestions to recalibrate Indian policy towards the South China Sea and its relationship with Vietnam are premature at best. Despite the rhetoric, conflict in the South China Sea may well not be inevitable . If the history of dialogue between the parties is any indication, then current tensions are likely to result in forward movement . In the aftermath

of statements by the United States, and skirmishes over fishing vessels, ASEAN and China agreed upon the Guidelines on the

Implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea at the Bali Summit in July 2010.

And recent tensions may well prod the parties towards a more binding code of conduct . This isn’t to suggest that

territorial claims and sovereignty issues will be resolved, but certainly they can become more manageable to prevent military conflict. There’s a common interest in making the disputes more manageabl e , essentially because,

nationalistic rhetoric notwithstanding, the parties to the dispute recognize that there are real material benefits at stake. A disruption of maritime trade through the South China Sea would entail economic losses – and not only for the littoral states. No party to the dispute, including China, has thus far challenged the principle of freedom of navigation for global trade through the South China Sea. The states of the region are signatories to the UNCLOS, which provides that ‘Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection’ but that ‘All other States have freedom of navigation and over flight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines.’ The prospect of threats to SLOCS thus seems somewhat exaggerated .

No SCS escalation---China can’t project power, US intervention solves Dobbins 12 (James Dobbins, directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, previously served as American Ambassador to the European Community and Assistant Secretary of State, August/September 2012, “War with China,” Survival, Vol. 54, No. 4, p. 7-24)Depending on the nature and severity of a conflict, US objectives could range from enforcing freedom of navigation against a Chinese effort to control maritime activities in the South China Sea, to helping the Philippines defend itself against an air and maritime attack, to supporting Vietnam and shielding Thailand (another treaty ally) in the event of a land war in Southeast Asia. Any likely contingency in the South China Sea or Southeast Asia would make demands on US air and naval power to assure friendly dominance of the battlespace. A war on land could create a demand for US land forces, especially special-forces and forced-entry capabilities. China’s current ability to project substantial power into the South China Sea region is limited; in particular, China’s land-based combat aircraft lack adequate range to operate efficiently so far from home. This assessment will change if China builds aircraft-carrier and air-refuelling capabilities in the coming years. Direct defence in the S outh China Sea and Southeast Asia should remain a viable strategy for the next 20 years .

2AC Disad

Renewable T/O DA

Natural gas can act as a bridge to renewablesLuke and Trembath, 13 (Max, policy associate in the Energy and Climate Program at Breakthrough, where his research focused on a range of energy issues and topics including nuclear power, natural gas, renewables, energy efficiency rebound and backfire, national energy subsidies, and electricity systems, and Alex, policy analyst in the Energy and Climate Program at Breakthrough Institute, where he researches and writes about renewable energy technologies, American federal energy policy and the history of public investments in technological innovation, “The Bridge to Zero Carbon: Can natural gas catalyze the transition to a clean energy future?”, http://ensia.com/voices/the-bridge-to-zero-carbon/)

Environmental experts and advocates have long viewed natural gas as a critical driver of the shift from

coal to lower-carbon energy . Because it produces roughly half the CO2 emissions of coal, natural gas has been considered as a bridge fuel to zero-carbon energy supplies by Al Gore, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Resources for the Future, former Environmental Protection Agency head and former Obama climate chief Carol Browner, and energy experts across the political spectrum. Studies that model natural gas as a bridge, such as one conducted by Michael Levi of the Council

on Foreign Relations, find it could help stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations . Levi’s scenario shows natural gas could play a significant role in limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 550 parts per million, provided it is gradually phased out and replaced with zero-carbon-emitting energy. While Levi’s paper also finds that natural gas could play less of a role in limiting the concentration to 450 ppm — a concentration frequently associated with the threshold for “dangerous climate change” — this finding should not come as a surprise. Limiting global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to or below 450 ppm would require that we stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure in the next several years and significantly reduce energy demand over the next few decades. This is highly unlikely due to rapid energy demand growth in China, India and other developing countries, and carbon emission “lock-in” from existing fossil

fuel infrastructure. Levi’s finding, therefore, is evidence that gas can play an important bridging function to a low-

carbon future . Many have voiced concerns that fugitive methane leakage from natural gas production diminishes the climate benefit of

switching from coal to natural gas. And it is true that over the short term, fugitive methane emissions have the potential to erode most or all of the CO2 emissions benefit resulting from switching from coal to gas.

However, there is strong evidence that leakage can and will be lowered substantially in the future .

One study found that 70 percent of total leakage from 250 wells in Fort Worth, Texas, was occurring at only 10 percent of the wells, suggesting significant potential for low-cost, high-impact intervention. And a recent report from the World Resources Institute identifies several promising options for further limiting fugitive methane emissions. Moreover, long-term climate models suggest that warming trends have less

to do with the rate of methane leakage and more to do with other variables, such as the thermal efficiency of future coal plants and whether the switch to gas is permanent or a bridge to zero-carbon energy. So, although

methane leakage reduces the short-term emissions benefit of switching from coal to gas — and should be addressed for that reason — it

does not limit natural gas’s potential as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon future.

Politics

Methane hydrates are politically divisive Harder 3-28 [AMY HARDER, energy policy report for WSJ, White House Calls for New Rules to Cut Methane Emissions Initiative Is Part of Strategy to Address Climate Change, March 28, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579467361249626076]WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Friday directed several federal agencies to clamp down on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas emitted from natural gas and other industries, fleshing out an initiative that attempts to address environmental concerns without harming the nation's booming natural-gas industry. The White House move is part of President Barack Obama's broader plan announced last June to tackle climate change. The administration's methane strategy reflects a reluctance to commit right now to new federal regulations targeting the natural-gas industry, which could be politically unpopular . New rules could also contradict the administration's rhetoric and actions supporting natural gas in the past few years, including the Energy Department's conditional approval earlier this week of the seventh U.S. project to export gas. Reaction from oil and natural-gas companies was muted, while environmentalists cheered the news. Statements from senior officials at the two trade associations representing producers—America's Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute—didn't criticize the administration and instead pointed to how the industry was already and will continue cutting its methane emissions without new regulations. As U.S. natural-gas sources have ballooned, environmental groups have worried more about the effects of natural-gas use on climate change. The primary component of natural gas is methane , which the administration said has a warming effect on the planet more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide. Despite mounting skepticism from environmentalists, the administration has supported natural gas as an energy source in part because it puts out far fewer carbon emissions than coal or oil.

Plan is unpopular – oil lobbies Weiss 10 [Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit, Center for American Progress, January 13, 2010, http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oil-dependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/, 6/24/14]Many major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, are some of the most vocal opponents of increasing American energy independence and reducing global warming pollution.

This is likely because they profit by buying oil from “dangerous or unstable” states. This includes importing oil from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mauritania, Iraq, Congo, Colombia, Chad, and Algeria. In 2008 Chevron made a profit of $23.9 billion while nearly half of its imports—138 million barrels of oil—came from these countries. ExxonMobil made $45.2 billion while getting 43 percent of its oil—205.6 million barrels—from these countries. About one-third of BP’s imports—110.6 million barrels—were from these countries in 2008, when the company’s profits were $25.6 billion. Approximately 25 percent of ConocoPhillips’ imports were from “dangerous or unstable” countries—116.7 million barrels—in 2008, contributing to its $52.7 billion profit. And Shell raked in $31.4 billion that year, also importing one-quarter of its oil—61.8 million barrels—from these countries. (Note: Shell includes Shell Chemical LP, Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc, Shell US Trading Co, Shell Oil Co, and Shell Oil Co Deer Park). With that kind of money it’s no wonder Big Oil is doing everything in its power to maintain the status quo. The companies are spending record amounts on lobbying to stop clean-energy and climate legislation. The American Petroleum Institute spent $75.2 million for public relations and advertising in 2008, and in the third quarter of 2009 the oil and gas industry outspent all other sectors lobbying on climate change, with Exxon Mobil leading the pack spending $7.2 million.

Methane hydrates is politically unpopularPollution Solutions 2013 [Burning ice could make fracking wastewater drinkable, Published in 2013, http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/water-wastewater/17/breaking_news/burning_ice_could_make_fracking_wastewater_drinkable/26651/]Despite these recent advances, commercial production is still unlikely for at least 10 to 15 years. Japan believes that commercial production will be possible by 2018, while the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that countries with the "political will" to pursue methane hydrates could see production by around 2025. Though expensive compared to conventional methods of recovering natural gas, the estimated cost of methane hydrate extraction is similar to other unconventional sources, such as shale gas. The International Energy Agency estimates that once developed, it will cost between $4.70-$8.60 to extract 1 million British thermal units of methane hydrates. The same studies estimate conventional costs as low as $0.50 per 1 million British thermal units. Developmental and capital costs are likely to be high, since the deposits are in difficult, harsh locations (e.g., Artic or deepwater environments) and depending on their location, new fields could also mean additional capital costs from infrastructure development.

Methane hydrate exploration is massively unpopular—even if the effects of the plan are positive, it causes widespread panic on warming—only our ev contextualizes the nature of the public Bardi 12 (Ugo Bardi, Chemistry and Physics Professor at the University of Florence,“Methane hydrates: the next communication bomb in the climate change debate”, Feb 7 2012, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-02-07/methane-hydrates-next-communication-bomb-climate-change-debate)Methane hydrates are a true climate bomb that could go off by itself as the result of a relatively small trigger in the form of a global warming. Sufficient warming would cause the decomposition of some hydrates to release methane to the atmosphere. This methane would create more warming and that would generate more decomposition of the hydrates. The process would go on by itself at increasing rates until the reservoirs run out of methane. That

means pumping in the atmosphere truly a lot of methane. There are different estimates of the amount stored in hydrates, but it is surely large - most likely larger than the total amount of carbon present today in the atmosphere as CO2. The effects of the rapid release of so much methane would be devastating: an abrupt climate change that could bring a true

planetary catastrophe. It is a scenario aptly called the "clathrate gun" and the target is us.¶ Now, there are plenty of uncertainties about this scenario, and we cannot say much about its timescale or even whether it would happen at all. But uncertainty is something that may make the scenario even more worrisome. People are scared of things they don't completely understand and that they know they can't control. That's surely the case of methane hydrates. We don't know how likely the worst scenarios are, we only know that methane is being released from hydrates right now and that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is going up. We can't say if that's the start of the clathrate gun going off, but it is enough to be scared. I don't know about you, but I can tell you that I am scared.¶ The timescale of the clathrate gun may be long enough that we don't have to be worried in the short term. But another explosion seems to be going off much faster, this one in the media. ¶ The trend has started with scientific papers. Before 1999, there was not a single paper on the subject in the "sciencedirect" database. In 2011, 49 papers were published and the trend may be exponential. On the Web, Google Trends still doesn't generate a significant increase in the number of searches for terms such

as "hydrate" or "clathrate". But we find about 40,000 pages dealing with the combination "climate change", "methane release" and hydrates. Even the mainstream press is starting to report about the subject. So far, the problem of methane hydrates has been largely absent from

the debate on climate change. But that may be rapidly changing.¶ The methane release scenario has all the characteristics needed to catch the public's attention. It is spectacular, gigantic, biblical, and also rapid. It even has an evil sounding name: the "clathrate gun." It is nothing like the tame scenarios of the IPCC that plod on, slowly, up to the end of the 21st century. The IPCC scenario are not meant to be scary: nobody cares about slowly boiling frogs. But do you remember the 2004 movie "The day after tomorrow"? What scares us, mostly, are sudden catastrophic events. Now, think of a blockbuster movie from Hollywood about the clathrate gun. We would see giant hurricanes, biblical droughts, deadly heat waves, devastating floods..... No matter how the story is told, it is a true communication bomb.¶ Before continuing, let me hasten with a disclaimer. Let me state that I am NOT saying that we (scientists, activists, journalists or whoever) should exaggerate the dangers ahead in order to scare people with the methane story. Absolutely NOT - on the contrary, my point is that a scared public is NOT a good thing for reasons that I will explain in a moment. Let me also state that this post is NOT meant to claim that the clathrate gun is going off, it is meant to discuss how the public would react to the perception that it may be going off. This said,

let me go on.¶ So, let's assume that the clathrate story becomes widely known, how's the public going to react?

According to James Schlesinger, "People have only two modes of operation: complacency and panic". The clathrate

communication bomb may well lead to a paradigm shift about climate and push the public opinion all of a sudden to the other side of the Goldilock dilemma: from complacency to panic .¶ Some people could see that as a

welcome event: we would finally see an effort to do something to avoid climate change. But it is not

obvious at all that this outcome would be positive. Things done in haste are not necessarily done well. Likely, we would see a frantic

effort to "do something," no matter what, no matter how. If the past experience with the energy crisis is a guide, the chances to pick up the best solutions are small

(see, for instance, the hype on biofuels). It is probable that we would seek for miracle solutions in large scale geoengineering. Carbon sequestration, sulphate particles in the upper atmosphere, mirrors in space, painting roofs white, what you have.

The plan’s location is a link turn-- arctic exploration unpopular Lopez 13 [Laura Barron-Lopez, Energy and environment reporter for The Hill, “House Dems seek pause in Arctic oil exploration”, 12/3/13,

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/191968-house-dems-pressure-interior-to-halt-arctic-exploration, PS] "Over the past decade, the Department has provided industry ample opportunity to pursue oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean," House Democrats wrote. "But the industry proposals and government approvals have generated controversy, litigation, and opposition from local communities, Congress, scientists, the conservation community, and many other segments of the American people."

2AC CP

EU CP 2AC

The CP doesn’t solve – 3 solvency deficits

(1) The presence advantage – US presence is key to promote cooperation and prevent conflict with other countries in the Arctic

(2) The energy security advantage – EU research opens sites for European companies, only the plan solves US public-private cooperation for extraction

(3) The warming advantage – the US is a leader for international modeling in climate change – EU action wouldn’t be able to solve back for other countries

EU hydrate research fails—no experience Honchar 13[Mykhailo Honchar, an analyst with the Ukraine's NOMOS centre for geopolitical studies, “The Third Gas Revolution”,

http://ukrainianweek.com/Economics/75918, PS] The EU is not a leader in methane hydrate research despite its heavy reliance on imported natural gas. The German

Marine Research Consortium accurately described the EU’s prospects in methane hydrate extraction in an analytical report for the European Parliament: “Gas hydrate deposits are in the waters around Europe – the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea, the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, and huge reserves lie in the Black Sea. No European country today has researched or developed programmes focused on gas hydrates as an energy source.” A number of R&D centres in European countries, including the UK, Norway, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria, have done some research on the matter, some of them financially supported by the European Commission. Yet, these are merely scientific research with no actual results in practice.

Perm do both – collaboration solves and shields the link to politics—public perceives it as the EU’s project

Governance and framework block solvency Maurer et al. 12 [Andreas Maurer, Stefan Steinicke, Arno Engel, Stefanie Mnich, Lisa Oberlander, 5/22/12, http://www.swp-

berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/projekt_papiere/Mrr_GeoNor_Conference_Report_1212.pdf, PS] An analysis of the EU's present environmental protection schemes reveals a rather un- systematic approach. Major obstacles identified are the position of the Arctic as a mar- ginal region from the EU's point of view and a rather complicated governmental system in general. A more systematic approach could potentially be achieved by prioritizing actions that substantially reduce the EU's environmental footprint in the Arctic. From an institutional point of view the main challenge to a systematic environmental policy derives from the fragmented channels of influencing Arctic environmental protection within the framework of the EU.

EU can’t solve for safe development Baltic Maritime 12 [Baltic Maritime, a dynamic meeting place aiming to stimulate development, innovations and enterprises in the field of maritime safety, 10/10/12, “EU approves lukewarm directive on offshore drilling rules”, http://www.bmsp.se/baltic-maritime-science-park/thematic-focus-areas/oil-spill-forum/latest-news/eu-approves-lukewarm-directive-on-offshore-drilling-rules.aspx, PS] However, the EU is backing away from more stringent rules for offshore oil and gas safety since although the European Commission's initial proposal referred to a "regulation," which would be directly binding upon all member states, Energy Committee

MEPs proposed on 9 October a "directive", which lays down ends, but leaves means to member states, instead. "While a Regulation has the advantage of its direct applicability, questions have been raised about the significant revocation and amendments of existing equivalent national legislation and guidance this might entail. Such redrafting would divert scarce resources from the safety assessments and inspections on the field", said rapporteur Ivo Belet from Belgium.

EU doesn’t have influence in the Arctic Galkina 11 [Anna Galkina, works as a Researcher for the Centre of International Market Studies of the Energy Research Institute of

Russian Academy of Sciences, “Arctic anxiety”, http://platformlondon.org/aa.pdf, PS] The main practical measures to come out of EU’s Arctic policy to date have been science initiatives such as the new Arctic Information Centre, and the EU’s currently pending bid for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council. This bid was snubbed by the Council in 2009, ostensibly in connection with the EU’s ban on seal products.104 MEP Diana Wallis (Vice President of the European Parliament with responsibility for the “Northern Dimension” policy) explains that the history of the environmentally-motivated seal hunting ban has made it difficult for the EU to have an influence on other, perhaps more consequential, Arctic issues. Given this history, it is a challenge for the EU to assert environmental concerns as genuine and relevant.

International CPs bad – our interp is they get US based agent counterplans which solves their offense. Reject the team

1 – not an opportunity cost, no one can decide between the US and Europe. Tanks decisionmaking skills.

2 – not reciprocal, we only get the USFG

3 – they can’t have data exchange, US action undermines any logical benefit to the counterplan.

Privatization CP 2AC

The aff is key—

(1) Solvency-- status quo uncertainty over hydrates guarantees private research is shallow and unproductive – only government signals provide enough institutional support to solve every internal

(2) Environment advantage—the private sector has zero incentive to regulate itself—only government hydrate research is followed up by productive policies on drilling in the arctic

(3) Presence advantage—only federal involvement solves leadership necessary for cooperation—every coordinating mechanism is federally based—arctic council membership, foreign precense

Private sector research is the death of hydrates exploration—no incentive for sustained, quality approaches Pacific Forum CSIS 13 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Innovate or Enervate:The future of US-Japan alliance collaboration”, March 2013, http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsights_vol13no8.pdf)Fifth, research into methane hydrate is currently limited due to short-sighted ¶ visions of the energy future. Because there is no immediate gain from gas hydrate ¶ research and development, most petroleum companies invest their R&D money on ¶ technology that better exploits currently producing resources. Crude oil production will ¶ probably not peak until 2020 and conventional oil production will cease in 2090.

Considering both the remaining oil reserves and the amount of natural gas from coal-bed ¶ methane, the industry does not have much incentive to exploit methane hydrates. ¶ Furthermore, in light of today’s oil prices, it is not economical for the industry to develop ¶ the new technology necessary to extract methane hydrates. In the United States, this is ¶ also hampered by the fact that North American markets are filled with relatively ¶ inexpensive shale gas, which lowers the enthusiasm for American producers to tackle a ¶ hypothetical future source of energy. Even in Japan, Prime Minister Abe’s visit to ¶ Washington D.C. in February 2013 has indicated that Japan has recently recognized the ¶ potential of shale gas in the United States, as he has asked President Barack Obama to ¶ allow exports of shale gas to Japan.39¶ The ways in which Japan’s interest in importing ¶ American shale gas could impact its current enthusiasm for further methane hydrate ¶ extraction research and development remains uncertain.

Perm do both – Fed and private sector action solves

Fed government action is key to presence in the Arctic Hayes 13 [David Hayes, Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska,

“Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Arctic”, http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/misc_pdf/IAMreport.pdf, PS] Oil and gas development—A key goal must be to ensure that offshore operations are accomplished safely. Suficient personnel and logistical resources should be made available by the commer cial entities extracting these

resources to ensure that oil and gas resources are developed safely and in an environmentally respon

sible manner.The United States should be a leader in developing Arctic offshore regulations and standards. Maritime awareness and presence— The Federal Government must maintain an appropriate presence in the U.S.Arctic to monitor, safeguard, and regulate maritime operations. Persistent awareness

of all maritime activity in the Arctic will require greater collection and sharing of maritime data and analyses of real-time

information.Acquiring an effective awareness will re quire all Arctic stakeholders to work together, which is critical for ensuring preparedness to respond to contingencies.This approach is also consistent with strategic priorities delineated in the National Strategy for Maritime Security and the National Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness.107, 108

Fed research incentivizes private sector Desa 01[Ehrlich Desa, National Institute of Oceanography, “Submarine Methane Hydrates - Potential Fuel Resource of the http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/454/1/Proc_AP_Akad_Sci_5_101.pdf, PS] Scientists believe many other hydrate deposits, which cannot be detected with available exploration techniques, are bound to exist. Improved techniques for detection of hydrates and an assessment of

its abundance could influence the hydrocarbon industry to take an interest in exploration and

exploitation of this resource. Methane hydrates will most likely constitute an important environmental and geological hazard. It is required to determine their geographical distribution, quantify their abundance in subsurface environments and fully understand their response to environmental perturbations. It may be the right time to consider some global regulatory mechanism

for exploration and exploitation of this complex energy resource, by various nations and organizations. Incorporated

in the proposed regulations, among other things, should be descriptions of possible hazards and their impact on the marine environment, measures for the prevention, reduction and control of such eventualities, program of oceanographic and environmental data collection and monitoring and mandate for dissemination of relevant information and sharing of experience with -the world scientific community.

Insight about many aspects of methane hydrate system perhaps can be obtained through laboratory experiments or computer simulation modelling. Such studies should also be carried out in parallel with data collected

through field investigations. Neural network based modelling of the geological environment and processes may have to be developed as a viable exploration aid.

Federal government leadership is key ITK 08 [ITK, FIND QUALS“An Integrated Arctic Strategy”, https://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/Integrated-Arctic-Stratgey.pdf, PS] The most effective integrated Arctic strategy would be one that not only worked horizontally across federal government Departments and agencies, but also brought in two other sets of actors: provincial and territorial governments; and aboriginal representative organizations --- this trilateral approach would be the preferred approach for the implementation as well as the development aspects of a strategy given the number of actors in a trilateral approach, it is not essential or realistic that all actors sign up for all parts of a strategy, or indeed that all actors participate; in this regard, federal government leadership, in concert with as many other actors as might seek to engage, would be appropriate

Fed k2 effective science research and tech development NRC 11[National Research Council, Committee on America’s Climate Choices, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, “America’s Climate Choices”, http://f3.tiera.ru/1/genesis/680-684/684000/b090b56fae951f87a37eee1fae2772ea, PS]

Invest in science, technology, and information systems. Scientific research and technology development can expand the range, and improve the effectiveness of, options to respond to climate change. Systems for collecting and sharing information, including formal and informal education systems, can help ensure that climate-related decisions are informed by the best available knowledge and analysis, and can help us evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken. Many actors are involved in such efforts. For instance, technological innovation will depend in large part on private sector efforts, while information, education, and stakeholder engagement systems can be advanced by nongovernmental organizations and state and local governments. But the federal government has important roles to play in all of these efforts as well.

Japan CP 2AC

The plan is key—

(1) Effective research—Japan hydrate research operates on an exploitation basis--their exploration will result in no productive environment risk analysis--the status quo proves they find it irrelevant

(2) Presence advantage—Japan cannot solve US arctic leadership—our arctic council role and relations with all arctic players prove we’re key

(3) Energy security—Japan needs energy--they open the door to total japan exploitation leaving no inroads to US access

Permutation do both- bilateral cooperation solves cost effectiveness and environmentArmitage and Nye 12 [Richard L. ,is president of Armitage International and a trustee of CSIS, Joseph S. is dean emeritus of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, “The U.S.-Japan Alliance”, http://csis.org/files/publication/120810_Armitage_USJapanAlliance_Web.pdf August 2012 DG]Another promising but more uncertain and longer-term area of bilateral cooperation is methane hydrates. Methane hydrates are natural gas crystals trapped in deeply buried ice formations. If significant economic and technological hurdles can be overcome, methane hydrate reserves would dwarf those of current conventional and unconventional gas. Methane hydrate deposits off south-central Japan are estimated at 10 years' worth of domestic consumption of natural gas, and globally the resource has been estimated to be as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet,' well over 100 times the current proven reserves of natural gas. Methane hydrates are distributed widely onshore and offshore, especially in polar regions and outer continental shelves.' Even if, as experts expect, only a small portion of methane hydrates could be developed, they would likely still greatly exceed estimates of current natural gas reserves. Japan and the United States cooperate closely in research and development of potential large- scale methane hydrate production. In May, a U.S.-Japan field trial on Alaska's north slope successfully extracted methane hydrates by pumping in and sequestering C02, demonstrating both energy supply and environmental benefits. In light of the transformational potential of eventual large-scale methane hydrate production, we recommend that the United States and Japan accelerate progress on researching and developing cost-effective and environmentally responsible production of methane hydrates. Moreover, the United States and Japan should commit to research and development of alternative energy technologies.

Japan doesn’t solve- no resourcesNelder 13 (energy analyst, consultant and media guest who has written about energy and investing for more than a decade (Chris, “Are Methane Hydrates Really Going to Change Geopolitics?”, The Atlantic, 5/2/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/are-methane-hydrates-really-going-to-change-geopolitics/275275/) If Mann's data on methane hydrates is correct, then Japan's experiment so far has taken 10 years and $700 million to produce four million cubic feet of gas, which is worth about $16,000 at today's U.S. gas prices, or about $50,000 at today's prices

for imported LNG in Japan. At this point, it is an enormously expensive experimental pilot project, and nothing more. We do not yet know when it might be able to recover commercial volumes of gas, or at

what rate, or at what price. We have no reason to believe that if commercial quantities are recoverable by 2018 as Japan hopes--which seems incredibly optimistic--that the price of that gas will be competitive with imported LNG. At the same time, we have numerous forecasts projecting that renewablAs like wind and solar will be competitive with fossil-fueled grid power in most of the developed world by 2020 , including

much of Asia. For example, a recent report by Citigroup, and another by researchers at Stanford University, among many others. A 2011 report by WWF and Ecofys projects that by 2018, solar PV will be the cheapest way to generate power in much of Asia. If these forecasts--based

on more than a decade of real-world cost data for large-scale solar and wind are correct, then there is no reason to believe that gas from Japan's methane hydrate experiment will be able to compete with renewable grid power, which would constitute the largest market for that gas (unless Japan rapidly deploys natural gas vehicles in the interim, which it currently has no economic reason to do).

4 year delay- Japanese tech is still being developedJapan Times 13 [Japan Times, Feb 28th, 2013, Japan plans viable methane hydrate technology by 2018, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/28/national/japan-plans-viable-methane-hydrate-technology-by-2018/#.U7tI8U_ViSo]Japan hopes to develop commercially viable technology for exploiting seabed methane hydrate, viewed as a next-generation energy source, by fiscal 2018 , according to a draft new basic ocean policy plan made available Wednesday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government wants to formalize the plan next month, believing tapping marine resources should be a pillar of the country’s growth strategy, a government source said. Methane hydrate, an icelike substance consisting of methane gas trapped in ice below the seabed, is believed to exist around Japan, with deposits estimated to be sufficient to cover domestic consumption of natural gas for about 100 years. The draft plan would have the private sector start commercializing methane hydrate development between 2023 and 2029, and the government would also study the extent of rare earth reserves within around three years.

---1AR Perm Ext.--

Permutation – do both –historically US-Japan co-operate in energy security Shimizu 13 (2013-2014 Japan resident SPF Fellow and a JD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania Law School (Aiko, “The future of US-Japan alliance collaboration, Energy Security and Methane Hydrate Exploration in US-Japan Relations”, The Sasakawa Peace Foundation, March 2013, http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsights_vol13no8.pdf) EKCooperation in the area of energy security is not new in US-Japan relations. For example, the two governments established the US-Japan Clean Energy Technology Cooperation in November 2009. Some of the initiatives that are outlined in this include bilateral cooperation for research with national laboratories and strengthening interaction in the areas of basic science and energy efficiency. This framework was created because American and Japanese policies in the development of clean energy technologies were aligned. Similarly, with the United States and Japan sharing goals and interests in the potential of methane hydrate gas as part of their energy security, a more formal joint cooperation scheme in this

area may be created and integrated into the existing bilateral cooperation framework in energy security. As in many areas, the United States and Japan cooperate on the development of methane hydrate technology. Most notably, in 2012 JOGMEC, US Department of Energy (DOE) and ConocoPhillips joined forces to conduct a methane hydrate production test that injected a mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide into methane hydrate to release natural gas in Alaska’s North Slope. The group released its results in May of that year and the test was deemed to be a success. Building on this test, the DOE is launching a new research initiative to conduct a long-term production test in the Arctic, as well as research to test additional technologies that could be used to locate, characterize, and safely extract methane hydrates on a larger scale in the coast off the Gulf of Mexico. Japan, for its part, will accelerate its efforts to develop methane hydrate technology that would be necessary for commercial production so that they can launch commercial production of methane hydrates as early as fiscal year 2018. Prime Minister Abe announced that

this commercialization target would be included in the government’s new Basic Plan on Ocean Policy, which is currently being created. The two countries should formalize a process to cooperate in the area of methane hydrate extraction while enthusiasm is relatively high – at least in one of the partners (Japan). The United States may initially see this joint effort

as simply a means to support Japan in its enthusiasm for methane hydrate exploration, but it will benefit in the long-run once the two countries have made progress on the development of this technology and Japan is able to gain experience in

utilizing it. With this experience, Japan may be able to help the United States in methane hydrate extraction once the shale gas revolution ends. In addition to joint public-private partnerships in methane hydrate research, the two countries should engage in research and discussions on the impact of extraction on the environment and climate change.

---1AR Tech Delay Ext.---

5 year delay-Tech isn’t commercially viableTabuchi 13 [HIROKO TABUCHI, writes for The New York Times about Japanese economics, business and technology from Tokyo. Ms. Tabuchi was part of the team awarded the Pulitzer Prize, March 12th, 2013, An Energy Coup for Japan: ‘Flammable Ice, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/global/japan-says-it-is-first-to-tap-methane-hydrate-deposit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]Japan could finally have an energy source to call its own,” said Takami Kawamoto, a spokesman for the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, or Jogmec, the state-run company leading the trial extraction. The team will continue the trial extraction for about two weeks before analyzing how much gas has been produced, Jogmec said. J apan hopes to make the extraction technology

commercially viable in about five years . “This is the world’s first trial production of gas from oceanic methane hydrates, and I hope we will be able to confirm stable gas production,” Toshimitsu Motegi, the Japanese trade minister, said at a news conference in Tokyo. He acknowledged that the extraction

process would still face technical hurdles and other problems . Still, “shale gas was considered technologically difficult to extract but is now produced on a large scale,” he said. “By tackling these challenges one by one, we could soon start tapping the resources that surround Japan.”

2AC TopicalityWe meet—the plan text uses rez phrasing—the mandate is exploration

We meet – research of methane hydrates is specifically topical and proves its central to the lit base Kumagai 13 [Takeo Kumagai, energy news reporter, Japan urges US to move forward methane hydrate cooperation agreement, Platts, 31Oct2013, http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/tokyo/japan-urges-us-to-move-forward-methane-hydrate-27583047]"Methane hydrates represent research challenges but a very important resource potential," said Moniz, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before President Obama appointed him. "In my former life at MIT, when we wrote on natural gas, we noted that methane hydrates could be the next big revolution following shale gas, although it will take some time, certainly, to make this a commercially viable activity." Under the 2008 agreement, the two countries said the proposed cooperation would enhance understanding of gas hydrates and speed up research into their exploration and development . In March, Japan produced a total of 120,000 cubic meters, or 20,000 cu m/day, of gas from methane hydrate at a six-day offshore output test in central Japan, according to preliminary figures released by state-owned Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation at the time. Production from the test compares with 13,000 cu m or 2,400 cu m/day of gas produced during a 5.5-day onshore output test carried out by Japan in Canada in 2008. Methane hydrates are solid, ice-like deposits of water and natural gas, located deep underwater where cold temperatures and extreme pressure causes the gas to condense and solidify.