Arctic Counterplan

1NC

CP text: The United States Federal Government should expand its programs for Arctic Ocean exploration and scientific research.

Russia can’t be relied on for scientific data – the US should map the sea unilaterallyCohen, et. Al, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 2008(Ariel, Ph.D. and Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security, Lajos Szaszdi, Ph.D. and researcher at the Hertiage Foundation, and Jim Dolbow, defense analyst as the U.S. Naval Institute, “The New Cold War: Reviving the U.S. Presence in the Arctic”, online pdf available for download: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/executive-summary-the-new-cold-war-reviving-the-us-presence-in-the-arctic)

While paying lip service to international law, Russia’s ambitious actions hearken back to 19th- century statecraft rather than the 21st-century law- based policy and appear to indicate that the Kremlin believes that credible displays of power will settle conflicting territorial claims. By comparison, the West’s posture toward the Arctic has been irresolute and inadequate. This needs to change.Reestablishing the U.S. Arctic Presence. The United States should not rely on

the findings of other nations that are mapping the Arctic floor. Timely mapping results are necessary to defending and asserting U.S. rights in bilateral and multilateral fora. The U.S. needs to increase its efforts to map the floor of the Arctic Ocean to determine the extent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and ascertain the extent of legitimate U.S. claims to territory beyond its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. To accomplish this, the U.S. needs to upgrade its icebreaker fleet. The U.S. should also continue to cooperate and advance its interests with other Arctic nations through venues such as the recent Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland.

"Cooperation" with Russia won't produce quality clean-up efforts - they pocket concessions and won't meaningfully engage the USKramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/)

Nearing the end of his second term, George W. Bush sought to salvage Russian-American relations with a visit to Sochi in April 2008, but then a few months later, Russia’s invasion of Georgia brought the bilateral relationship to its lowest point in twenty years. President Obama came to office intent on repairing the relationship and working together with Moscow on a range of global issues. At the start of his second term, however, despite four years of the reset policy, Obama, too, faces a very strained relationship with Russia.¶ True, the United States has made its mistakes. But the current state of Russian-American relations stems mostly from the Kremlin’s creation of imitation democracy and its attempts to exploit

the West and anti-Americanism for political survival . The Kremlin’s imitation game has complicated American and Western policies toward Russia and forced the West to pretend, just as the Russian elite does. The “Let’s Pretend” game allowed both sides to ignore core

differences and to find tactical compromises on a host of issues ranging from the war on terror to nuclear safety. This concerted imitation has also had strategic consequences, however. It has facilitated the survival of Russia’s personalized-power system and discredited liberal ideals in the eyes of Russian society. It has also created a powerful pro-Russia Western lobby that is facilitating the export of Russia’s corruption to developed countries.¶ Despite numerous U.S. attempts to avoid irritating the Kremlin, relations between Moscow and

Washington always seem to end up either in mutual suspicion or in full-blown crisis . That is what happened under the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, and that is what happened after Barack Obama’s first term in office. Each period of disappointment and rupture in relations, which has always been preceded by a period of optimism, has been followed by another campaign by both Moscow and Washington to revive relations. Who is behind these campaigns? For a quarter of a century, it has been the same consolidated cohort of experts in both capitals, most of whom have serious and established reputations and vast stores of experience. (There are a few new additions to the cohort, but they walk in lockstep with the old hands.) After every new crisis, these experts implore politicians on both sides to “think big.” Each time, “big thinking” on the Western side includes encouragement to avoid issues that would antagonize the Kremlin. Thus U.S. administrations looked the other way as the Kremlin created a corrupt, authoritarian regime.

2NC Science Co-op Bad Ext

Reliance on other nations hamstrings US policy and compromises scientific effortsConley, et. Al, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012(Heather, Senior Fellow and Director of the Europe Program, Terry Toland, Jamie Kraut, and Andreas Osthagen, A New Security Architecture for the Arctic: An American Perspective, online: http://csis.org/files/publication/120117_Conley_ArcticSecurity_Web.pdf)

Unfortunately, strong capabilities as an Arctic science power do not make up for the deficiency in the rest of U.S. coastal and security capabilities. As stated in the Coast Guard’s own report to Congress in 2008, “Although the NSF is a global leader in scientific research, the Coast Guard believes that the NSF would lack the staff and expertise to direct the multi-mission

deployment of icebreakers employed for other USCG missions.”55 In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is unable to collect and provide all the information on weather forecasting, oceanography, and navigational charting requested by the Coast Guard,

the industries, and the local communities.56 In fact, the NSF has repeatedly made use of Canadian, Russian, and Swedish icebreakers to transport U.S. scientists in the U.S. Arctic, where U.S. capabilities were nonexistent.57 This kind of arrangement has proven both risky

and inefficient. In July 2011, Sweden decided to recall its icebreaker Oden , leased to the NSF every winter since 2006–07, due to worsening ice conditions in the Baltic Sea. This recall left the United States without the technical ability to reach and resupply McMurdo station in

Antarctica.58 Further examples illustrate U.S. dependence on other nations as a result of its own lack of capabilities. In December 2011, officials from Nome, Alaska, requested a Russian fuel tanker to de- liver an emergency shipment when the city was blocked by sea ice. Originally, the Healy was unavailable to assist with this operation as it was returning from a

previously scheduled scientific mission.59 However, the Healy is now scheduled to break an ice channel for the tanker once the Russian vesselis cleared to enter the Alaskan port and will

facilitate the tanker’s return to open water.60 As U.S. capabilities are stretched between critical missions and its ongoing yet equally critical scientific work, the need to address these shortfalls in capabilities is urgent, as Alaskan Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell stated in his December 2011 congressional testimony: “Without action, America is putting its national security on the line, and we are going to miss the opportunities of the Arctic while watching

other nations advance.”61

2NC Russia Co-op Bad Ext

Strategic cooperation is a trap - advocates only promote co-op because Russia seems threatingKramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/)

Like the movie Groundhog Day, this is happening all over again. We are falling for the same Kremlin trap. The demise of the reset policy has begotten another campaign to forge yet another new era in Russian-American relations, this time under the banner of “strategic

cooperation .” Those advocating this approach present nothing new but simply repeat the same old warnings against ignoring Russia and downgrading relations. Proponents of this approach address only Washington and Western policymakers; for some reason, they never seem to prod Putin and his circle, even though Putin’s actions and behavior have made the development of relations and cooperation increasingly difficult. None of these “strategists” maintains that Russia deserves to be treated differently because it could become an engine of social and economic progress; rather, they believe Russia cannot be ignored because it could act as a spoiler, causing massive problems for the West.

Russia’s political structure makes cooperation impossibleKramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/)

As for the popular ideas of joint pivot to the Asia-Pacific and Arctic cooperation, these are more of a passing fad. Russia has already “turned” to the Pacific by hosting the APEC summit in Vladivostok, which ended up costing $22 billion. The summit demonstrated Russia’s ability to construct Potemkin villages (a performance it will repeat for next February’s Winter Olympics in Sochi, whose cost has already reached $50 billion). This turn to the Pacific benefited those who pocketed the money that was appropriated for running the summit, while the consequences of the turn to Asia remain unclear. What can Russia offer to the region aside from raw materials

and weapons exports? Is Russia ready to become a raw materials appendage to Asia? This is what the turn to Asia might bring them. Does that make the turn strategic? And is it strategic for the state, or for society?¶ Provided Russia’s corrupt state is preserved, the Arctic is

another opportunity for the Kremlin elite to funnel money out of the country—or, plainly

speaking, steal it . How can the West help Russia develop its Siberia and Pacific provinces

when the country’s elite cares only about providing for corrupt interests? Russia has to

transform itself first , and this is Russian society’s main goal. Only then can we talk to the

U nited S tates and Europe about assistance in developing Siberia and the Far East.

Russia should not be involved in U.S. shipping route development – not a good economic partnerKramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/)

In terms of trade, the U.S. is not a serious partner for Russia , given the paltry level of trade between the two countries. The issue of trade matters only to a select group of Russian and American companies that either have decided to penetrate the American market (like Severstal and Lukoil) or are ready to work under the Kremlin’s patronage (like Exxon). In this case, calls for expanding trade between the two countries serve the interests of select companies and

the Kremlin . Until rule of law takes root—and that won’t happen under Putin—investment in Russia will always be more difficult than it should be.

2NC Oil Spills- Unilateral Solvency

US already researching the Arctic unilaterally- key to create response systemsNunez, National Geographic, 4/23/14 (Christina, “As sea ice melts and the oil industry prepares to exploit the Arctic's vast resources, the United States faces big gaps in its preparedness for an oil spill in the region, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Research Council (NRC).”)

We need to spill some oil (on purpose).¶ Much of the existing research on oil properties and spill response has been done for temperate regions, the report notes. More research is needed to understand how oil behaves in an Arctic environment—and unfortunately, the best way to find out is to spill some in a controlled way.¶ Research facilities such as the Ohmsett

test center in New Jersey have simulated spills in icy conditions . But permits to deliberately release oil into U.S. waters for research have become harder to obtain in the United States in the past 15 years. The NRC advocates a streamlined permit process. (Related: "As Arctic Melts, a Race to Test Oil Spill Cleanup Technology.")¶ 2. We need to know more about the Arctic .¶ The technology available for monitoring and mapping the Arctic has improved markedly over the last decade, but there are significant holes. "A decade ago, I think there was hope we might have filled some of these data gaps," says Mark Myers of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who contributed to the report. "Fundamental, high-resolution data that we need sometimes just isn't there."¶ Existing nautical charts for the Arctic shoreline are "mostly obsolete," the NRC says, with many of them last updated in the 1950s. Less than 10 percent of the coastline, some 2,200 miles (3,540 kilometers), has adequate data on seafloor topography, Myers says. That increases the chance a vessel could run aground and spill oil, according to the report, and it could hamper a cleanup too.¶ So could ice and stormy seas, of course. The report points to a need for better real-time data and forecasts of sea ice coverage and thickness. Though energy companies target late summer and early fall for exploration activity, "ice-free regions can transition to ice-covered conditions in a matter of days at the start of a fall freeze-up," the report says.¶ Sea ice does offer one advantage, though, according to the report: It could help contain spilled oil in a way that would make it easier to set fire to and burn off.

An international agreement is already in place to clean up spills if they were to happen – plan’s not necessaryBoyd, Barents Observer, Master of Journalism from Carleton University, 5/15/13(Alex, graduate of the Master of Journalism program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, Bachelor of Anthropology degree from the University of Alberta, co-recipient of the Norwegian High North Journalism Award sponsored by the Norwegian Embassy in Canada, “Binding oil spill agreement signed”, online: http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2013/05/binding-oil-spill-agreement-signed-15-05)

The Arctic Council is an international forum for discussion and debate on important Arctic issues. Where it’s sometimes less successful is in reaching agreement.¶ But it now has one more binding agreement to its name. The Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil

Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic—the Council’s second ever binding

agreement—was signed by all eight Arctic ministers this morning.¶ In the event of an oil spill anywhere in the ecologically sensitive Arctic region, this new agreement is the tool the circumpolar countries are hoping will help them work together to clean it up. It sets out guidelines for things like communicating between countries, coordinating personnel and figuring out who needs to do what.¶ Although the product of a Arctic Council task force, the agreement was negotiated by and agreed to by all eight countries.¶ It also means that the Arctic countries are required to notify each other should there be an oil spill—from any source—anywhere in the Arctic.¶ In a presentation after the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, Ambassador David Balton, an American marine conservation expert and the co-chair of the task force, said “the prospect of a potential oil spill event in the Arctic is very much on people’s minds.”¶ There’s no question that a changing Arctic means melting polar ice and a lot more open ocean. Which means, “we are anticipating—despite what some protesters may say—that there will be increased oil and gas development,” Balton said.¶ More oil and gas development means more tankers in Arctic waters, which means the possibility of an oil spill in the Arctic has moved beyond the hypothetical.¶ Although this is not the first agreement to attempt to sort out what happens when oil spills in international waters, Balton said it’s the first “pan-Arctic agreement” that combines duties and obligations for all the Arctic countries.¶

Empirics prove the US can do it alone - US has enabled exemplary spill response plansEPA, Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, Last Updated 1/2/14Online: http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/learning/response.htm

Despite the nation's best efforts to prevent spills, almost 14,000 oil spills are reported each year, mobilizing thousands of specially trained emergency response personnel and challenging the best-laid contingency plans. Although many spills are contained and cleaned up by the party responsible for the spill, some spills require assistance from local and state agencies, and occasionally, the federal government. Under the National Contingency Plan , EPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring in inland waters, and the U.S. Coast Guard is the lead response agency for spills in coastal waters and deepwater ports .¶ Whether or not it manages the response, EPA tracks all reports of oil spills. EPA usually learns about a spill from the responsible party, who is required by law to report the spill to the federal government, or from state and local responders. Once the federal government receives the report, either through the National Response Center , EPA, or another agency, it is recorded in the Emergency Response Notification System , or ERNS. ERNS contains historical spill information for the entire country dating from 1986, and is currently available for downloading.

Arctic spill response development should be unilateral – regional and state collaboration in the US solves for Arctic responseNational Academies, 4/23/14(Oil Spill Clean Up in U.S. Arctic Waters Requires Increased Infrastructure to Use Full Range of Response Methods, Online: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18625)

The Arctic poses several challenges to oil spill response, including extreme weather and environmental settings, limited operations and communications infrastructure, a vast geographic area, and vulnerable species, ecosystems, and cultures. The report finds that there is a need to validate current and emerging oil spill response technologies under these real-world conditions, and recommends that carefully controlled field experiments that release oil in the U.S. Arctic be conducted as part of a long-term, collaborative Arctic oil spill research and development program that spans local, state, and federal levels. A decision process such as the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, which weighs and compares the advantages and disadvantages of different response options, should be used to select the response tools that offer the greatest overall reduction of adverse environmental harm, the report says. Key response options include biodegradation, chemical dispersants and herders, in situ burning, and mechanical containment and recovery. While in situ burning is pre-approved for use in the Arctic under defined conditions, Alaska has not granted pre-approval for use of chemical dispersants.¶ ¶ Research areas that would improve science-based decisions about the use of response technologies include determining the biodegradation rates of hydrocarbons in offshore environments and which strategies can accelerate oil degradation; evaluating the toxicity and long-term effects of dispersants and dispersed oil on key Arctic marine species; and communicating the limitations of mechanical recovery in both open water and ice.¶ ¶ Due to the range of conditions typically encountered within the Arctic, no single technique will apply in all situations, and in some cases a viable response option might be no response. A combination of countermeasures, rather than a single response option, may provide optimal protection, and so the response toolbox requires flexibility to evaluate and apply multiple options if necessary, the report says.¶ ¶ Building U.S. capability for Arctic oil spill response will also require additional infrastructure. The report finds that current personnel, equipment, transportation, communication, navigation, and safety resources for overseeing a spill response in the Arctic are not adequate, and calls this absence of infrastructure a “significant liability” in the event of a large oil spill. It suggests that positioning response equipment such as aerial in situ burn and dispersant capabilities in the region in advance of a spill would provide immediate access to rapid response options. Furthermore, the U.S. Coast Guard’s presence and

performance capacity in the Arctic should be enhanced.

U.S. Coast Guard is key – need to fix their infrastructureNunez, National Geographic, 4/23/14

(Christina, “As sea ice melts and the oil industry prepares to exploit the Arctic's vast resources, the United States faces big gaps in its preparedness for an oil spill in the region, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Research Council (NRC).”)

We need more U.S. Coast Guard presence .¶ "The U.S. Coast Guard has a low level of presence

in the Arctic, especially during the winter," the NRC warns. Its closest station to the Arctic , in Kodiak, is more than 900 air miles (1,448 kilometers) south of Alaska's North Slope, limiting its ability to respond to a spill quickly.¶ "A 'presence' is bodies, but it is also vessels or platforms, and aerial capability for airlift in the event of an oil spill response," says Martha Grabowski, who chaired the NRC report committee. "The transportation infrastructure that the rest of us would presuppose to be existing as it is in the lower 48 simply doesn't exist up north."¶ But "the Coast Guard can't do this alone," Grabowski says; it doesn't have the budget. The NRC report stresses the need for public-private partnerships and community engagement to address the challenges of dealing with an Arctic spill.

2NC Shipping- Unilateral Solvency

Russia should not be involved in U.S. shipping route development – not a good economic partnerKramer and Shevtsova, Kramer: Director of Freedom House, Shevtsova: Kremlinology expert and currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), 2/21/2013(David and Lilia, Kramer: United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2008 to 2009, Shevtsova: currently serves as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Here We Go Again: Falling for the Russian Trap”, online: http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/02/21/here-we-go-again-falling-for-the-russian-trap/)

In terms of trade, the U.S. is not a serious partner for Russia , given the paltry level of trade between the two countries. The issue of trade matters only to a select group of Russian and American companies that either have decided to penetrate the American market (like Severstal and Lukoil) or are ready to work under the Kremlin’s patronage (like Exxon). In this case, calls for expanding trade between the two countries serve the interests of select companies and

the Kremlin . Until rule of law takes root—and that won’t happen under Putin—investment in Russia will always be more difficult than it should be.

US Navy already developing Arctic shipping strategies Morello, senior writer for Climate Central, 2/25/14Lauren, “US Navy’s Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes”, online: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/us-navys-arctic-strategy-forecasts-ice-free-shipping-routes.html

By 2030, the Arctic’s Northern Sea Route could be ice free and navigable for at least nine weeks each year, with a 10-week ‘shoulder season’, according to projections released today in the US Navy’s Arctic strategy. The Northwest Passage could be open for five weeks, with a six-week shoulder season; and the Bering Strait could be ice free for a whopping 27 weeks a year, with up to 10 weeks of shoulder season.¶ New shipping lanes are just one potential consequence of the ongoing loss of the Arctic’s blanket of snow and ice, which has accelerated in recent years. The Navy also projects that the region’s waterways will see rising activity from fishing, tourism and oil and gas exploration. But in its updated Arctic strategy, the service dismisses any suggestion that newfound access to Arctic resources will create a new Wild West.

United States should pursue shipping lanes unilaterally – key to prevent conflictHolmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12

(James, “The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century.” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas)

If climate scientists' prophesies of an ice-free Arctic Ocean pan out, the world will witness the most sweeping transformation of geopolitics since the Panama Canal opened . Seafaring

nations and industries will react assertively -- as they did when merchantmen and ships of war sailing from Atlantic seaports no longer had to circumnavigate South America to reach the Pacific Ocean. There are commercial, constabulary, and military components to this enterprise. The United States must position itself at the forefront of polar sea power along

all three axes.¶ Understandably enough, most commentary on a navigable Arctic accentuates economic opportunities, such as extracting natural resources and shortening sea voyages. Countries fronting on polar waters -- the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden comprise the intergovernmental Arctic Council -- will enjoy exclusive rights to fish and tap undersea resources in hundreds of thousands of square miles of water off their shores. Nations holding waterfront property in the Arctic will bolster their coast guards to police their territorial seas and exclusive economic zones during ice-free intervals.

Shipping- Internal Link Defense

Networking hub requirements restrict the Arctic shipping route from ever being economically beneficial Carmel, U.S. Naval Institute, 13(Stephen, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)

Containerships operate in networks with “strings” (routes) of many ports serviced by multiple ships on a steady schedule. For example, a U.S. East Coast to Southwest Asia route of 42 days round trip serviced by six ships means regular weekly service out of the ports on that route. Routes frequently intersect at key transshipment ports such as Singapore or Algeciras, Spain .

Network economics are a considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture in a

container service . Transit across the Arctic, while shorter for certain port pairs, may not be

shorter for a network that services a number of ports on both sides or call at a major

transshipment hub. A requirement to call at Singapore for example, means the Northern Sea Route would not be shorter. Were the service to be restricted to just those ports where the distance is shorter, then all the economic advantages of network economics are lost. At the very most, the Arctic is serviceable just three to four months a year, and no one is predicting an ice-diminished Arctic in the winter. Developing routes that would increase the attractiveness of Arctic paths from a network perspective is not economically feasible as long as they are useful only a third of the year or less.¶

Arctic Shipping cannot support large economies like the US or RussiaCarmel, U.S. Naval Institute, 13(Stephen, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)

Perhaps the biggest issue making Arctic shipping unacceptable from a container-shipping perspective is economies of scale. While conventional wisdom would focus on total voyage cost, it is actually the cost per container that matters. Because both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are draft-constrained (41-foot and 33-foot controlling drafts, respectively) the largest ship likely to be able to use the Northern Sea route would be one with a cargo capacity of just 2,500 TEU—and even smaller for the Northwest passage. TEU, or twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity based on a standard 20-foot container length. A 40-foot container would be 2 TEU, for example. The Northern Sea Route also has a beam restriction of 30 meters, as transiting ships cannot be wider than the icebreakers employed to support them. For the Asia-to-Europe trade on the other hand, containerships can be as large as 15,000 TEU with a beam exceeding 164 feet; 6,000 to 8,000 TEU ships are common

Even if the route is shorter, Arctic shipping is still much more expensive and time consuming than the Suez or Panama routesCarmel, U.S. Naval Institute, 13(Stephen, Proceedings Magazine, “The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, online: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07)

In predicting increased traffic through the Arctic it is often noted that routes across the top are up to 40 percent shorter than the more traditional routes between Asia and Europe ( via the

Suez Canal ) or the East Coast of the United States (via the Panama Canal). 4 The assumption

is that shorter equals faster and cheaper. But in the Arctic, the shortest distance is normally

neither faster nor cheaper for the type of transit shipping usually associated with global commerce, particularly that involving containerships.¶ Container shipping is considerably different from bulk shipping, making the economics of the Arctic as a transit route unappealing. There are many things, such as construction standards, outfitting, and crew training for example, that make Arctic-capable ships more expensive to build and operate. In addition, those more expensive construction features are useful only during the short ice season but represent a cost the ship carries throughout the year. Other issues also make the Arctic a much more expensive place to operate, such as the need for icebreakers, lack of support infrastructure, and pending IMO requirements on fuel. 5 But to keep the discussion at a manageable level it is important to focus on a few key issues.

Arctic shipping will never replace the Suez, not a question of actorMorello, senior writer for Climate Central, 2/25/14Lauren, “US Navy’s Arctic strategy forecasts ice-free shipping routes”, online: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/us-navys-arctic-strategy-forecasts-ice-free-shipping-routes.html

Arctic sea lanes such as the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage “are not going to replace the Suez or Panama canals any time soon as primary shipping routes,” says Rear Admiral Bill McQuilkin, director of the US Navy’s strategy and policy division. Even in ice-free waters, ships may be hampered by drifting ice or incomplete nautical charts, creating an unacceptable level of risk for many industries.

Arctic Circle won’t be accessible for commercial or military useHolmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12(James, “The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century.” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas)

Admittedly , an accessible Arctic Ocean probably won't rearrange the physical and mental

map of the world to the same degree as the Suez or Panama canals . Even Admiral Titley's forecast indicates that northern waters will remain off-limits to shipping around eleven months of the year, as the icecap expands and contracts. Consequently, there will be a rhythm to polar seafaring not found in temperate seas. And that seasonal rhythm could be erratic. The icepack's advance and retreat will presumably vary from year to year with temperature fluctuations. Navigable routes will prove unpredictable -- limiting the scope of

commercial and military endeavors.

Military Solvency

1NC

Unilateral development of Arctic Shipping is key to military development and sea powerHolmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12(James, “The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century.” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas)

Or there's the Caribbean and Gulf. Before 1914, when the Panama Canal opened its locks, America looked eastward to Europe. After 1914, transoceanic passage abridged steaming distances between the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts by 5,000 miles or more . And, in effect, the waterway teleported Atlantic seaports closer to Asia. Writing in 1944, Yale University scholar Nicholas Spykman observed that New York suddenly found itself closer to Shanghai than the British seaport of Liverpool was.¶ Less circuitous, less time-consuming voyages to the Far East bestowed commercial and military advantages on the United States vis-à-vis its

European competitors -- allowing the United States to reinforce its standing as a Pacific

power. Constructing a transoceanic canal, wrote Spykman, "had the effect of turning the whole of the United States around on its axis." The republic now faced south toward the Caribbean and west toward Pacific waters -- dividing its gaze between Europe and the Far East. Talk about a pivot to Asia!¶ U.S. leaders who felt the tug of the sea -- notably Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Alfred Thayer Mahan -- glimpsed this strategic revolution before it took place. Before the Spanish-American War, for instance, Mahan was already warning that European imperial powers would seek naval bases in the Caribbean Sea -- bases from which they could control the sea lanes leading to the Isthmus . Official Washington should

undertake that kind of strategic forethought today -- lest the United States find itself

playing material, intellectual, and doctrinal catch-up when Arctic sea routes open.

2NC Ext – Unilateral Good

Unilateral control of the Arctic Circle is a pre req to any military solvencyHolmes, Professor of Strategy at U.S. Naval War College, 10/29/12(James, “The Arctic is the Mediterranean of the 21st century.” Online: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/29/open_seas)

Sea power is about strategic mobility. A maritime nation with unfettered access to littoral waters enjoys the liberty to maneuver around the periphery -- radiating power into Eurasia without heavy ground forces. Yet Mackinder fretted that land power would win out over British sea power, tapping the strategic mobility offered by railways and steam propulsion. He famously designated the Eurasian "Heartland" -- a vast central plain ringed by mountains, and bounded by the Arctic to the north -- the key to world dominance. Indeed, his main analytical tool was a map centered on the "pivot area" encompassing and adjoining Siberia.¶ Mackinder postulated that whoever controlled the Heartland occupied the "interior lines"

vis-à-vis a global sea power like Great Britain whose forces had to maneuver along "exterior lines" in the marginal and inland seas. Operating along interior lines is like operating along the radii within a circle; operating along exterior lines is like operating around the circle's circumference. Shorter distances mean swifter response times when trouble looms. Advantage: land power.

Soft Power Offense

1NC/2NC

Oil cooperation designed to appease Russia creates a global power vacuum - hurts US leadership Diaz, Houston Chronicle, 5/28/14FuelFix, “Ted Cruz calls for close look at Exxon Mobil deal in Russian Arctic”, online: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/28/ted-cruz-calls-for-close-look-at-exxon-mobil-deal-in-russian-arctic/

Cruz said Obama’s decision was made to “appease Putin,” a reference to the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also advocated future antiballistic missile battery sites in Ukraine. “We ought to be using all of the tools, economic tools, diplomatic tools, all of the tools of soft power, to impose significant costs on Russia, to impose significant deterrence,” Cruz said.¶ “Because as long as Putin perceives weakness in the American president, he will continue to advance and

impose his will on others, and that undermines the security of the world, and it undermines

U.S. national security as well.” ¶ Cruz’s call for further sanctions to punish Russian aggression in Ukraine came at the end of a day touring Kiev’s Maidan Square, the scene of the protests that led to the overthrow of the nation’s pro-Russian government.¶ He also met with Ukrainian president-elect Petro Poroshenko, following a two-day visit to Israel, where he toured the Knesset and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Cruz, on his third trip to Israel since his election in 2012, also was critical of the Obama administration’s Middle East policies. He faulted the administration for having “hectored” and criticized Israel while failing to hold Palestinian leaders responsible for not recognizing the right of the Jewish state to exist.¶ “If you look to the last five years, the most consistent pattern we’ve seen on foreign policy with the Obama administration has been American receding from leadership in the world,” he said. “In the vacuum that has been created, we have seen nations like Russia, Iran and China stepping in and filling that vacuum, and it’s made the world a much, much more dangerous place.”

Collapse of heg causes global nuclear war – US leadership prevents conflicts from escalating Kagan, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11(Robert, “The Price of Power”, The Weekly Standard, 1-24, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html?nopager=1)

Today the international situation is also one of high risk. • The terrorists who would like to kill Americans on U.S. soil constantly search for safe havens from which to plan and carry out their attacks. American military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere make it harder for them to strike and are a large part of the reason why for almost a decade there has been no repetition of September 11. To the degree that we limit our ability to deny them safe haven, we increase the chances they will succeed. • American forces deployed in East Asia

and the Western Pacific have for decades prevented the outbreak of major war, provided stability, and kept open international trading routes, making possible an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity for Asians and Americans alike. Now the United States faces a new challenge and potential threat from a rising China which seeks eventually to push the U.S. military’s area of operations back to Hawaii and exercise hegemony over the world’s most rapidly growing economies. Meanwhile, a nuclear-armed North Korea threatens war with South Korea and fires ballistic missiles over Japan that will someday be capable of reaching the west coast of the United States. Democratic nations in the region, worried that the United States may be losing influence, turn to Washington for reassurance that the U.S. security guarantee remains firm. If the United States cannot provide that assurance because it is cutting back its military capabilities, they will have to choose between accepting Chinese dominance and striking out on their own, possibly by building nuclear weapons. • In the Middle East, Iran seeks to build its own nuclear arsenal, supports armed radical Islamic groups in Lebanon and Palestine, and has linked up with anti-American dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere. The prospects of new instability in the region grow every day as a decrepit regime in Egypt clings to power, crushes all moderate opposition, and drives the Muslim Brotherhood into the streets. A nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be ever on the brink of collapse into anarchy and radicalism. Turkey, once an ally, now seems bent on an increasingly anti-American Islamist course. The prospect of war between Hezbollah and Israel grows, and with it the possibility of war between Israel and Syria and possibly Iran. There, too, nations in the region increasingly look to Washington for reassurance, and if they decide the United States cannot be relied upon they will have to decide whether to succumb to Iranian influence or build their own nuclear weapons to resist it. In the 1990s, after the Soviet Union had collapsed and the biggest problem in the world seemed to be ethnic conflict in the Balkans, it was at least plausible to talk about cutting back on American military capabilities. In the present, increasingly dangerous international environment, in which terrorism and great power rivalry vie as the greatest threat to American security and interests, cutting military capacities is simply reckless. Would we increase the risk of strategic failure in an already risky world, despite the near irrelevance of the defense budget to American fiscal health, just so we could tell American voters that their military had suffered its “fair share” of the pain? The nature of the risk becomes plain when one considers the nature of the cuts that would have to be made to have even a marginal effect on the U.S. fiscal crisis. Many are under the illusion, for instance, that if the United States simply withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and didn’t intervene anywhere else for a while, this would have a significant impact on future deficits. But, in fact, projections of future massive deficits already assume the winding down of these interventions. Withdrawal from the two wars would scarcely make a dent in the fiscal crisis. Nor can meaningful reductions be achieved by cutting back on waste at the Pentagon—which Secretary of Defense Gates has already begun to do and which has also been factored into deficit projections. If the United States withdrew from Iran and Afghanistan tomorrow, cut all the waste Gates can find, and even eliminated a few weapons programs—all this together would still not produce a 10 percent decrease in overall defense spending. In fact, the only way to get significant savings from the defense budget—and by “significant,” we are still talking about a tiny fraction of the cuts needed to bring down future deficits—is to cut force structure: fewer troops on the ground; fewer airplanes in the skies; fewer ships in the water; fewer

soldiers, pilots, and sailors to feed and clothe and provide benefits for. To cut the size of the force, however, requires reducing or eliminating the missions those forces have been performing. Of course, there are any number of think tank experts who insist U.S. forces can be cut by a quarter or third or even by half and still perform those missions. But this is snake oil. Over the past two decades, the force has already been cut by a third. Yet no administration has reduced the missions that the larger force structures of the past were designed to meet. To fulfill existing security commitments, to remain the “world’s power balancer of choice,” as Leslie Gelb puts it, to act as “the only regional balancer against China in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe, and Iran in the Middle East” requires at least the current force structure, and almost certainly more than current force levels. Those who recommend doing the same with less are only proposing a policy of insufficiency, where the United States makes commitments it cannot meet except at high risk of failure. The only way to find substantial savings in the defense budget, therefore, is to change American strategy fundamentally. The Simpson-Bowles commission suggests as much, by calling for a reexamination of America’s “21st century role,” although it doesn’t begin to define what that new role might be. Others have. For decades “realist” analysts have called for a strategy of “offshore balancing.” Instead of the United States providing security in East Asia and the Persian Gulf, it would withdraw its forces from Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East and let the nations in those regions balance one another. If the balance broke down and war erupted, the United States would then intervene militarily until balance was restored. In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, for instance, Christopher Layne has long proposed “passing the mantle of regional stabilizer” to a consortium of “Russia, China, Iran, and India.” In East Asia offshore balancing would mean letting China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others manage their own problems, without U.S. involvement—again, until the balance broke down and war erupted, at which point the United States would provide assistance to restore the balance and then, if necessary, intervene with its own forces to restore peace and stability. Before examining whether this would be a wise strategy, it is important to understand that this really is the only genuine alternative to the one the United States has pursued for the past 65 years. To their credit, Layne and others who support the concept of offshore balancing have eschewed halfway measures and airy assurances that we can do more with less, which are likely recipes for disaster. They recognize that either the United States is actively involved in providing security and stability in regions beyond the Western Hemisphere, which means maintaining a robust presence in those regions, or it is not. Layne and others are frank in calling for an end to the global security strategy developed in the aftermath of World War II, perpetuated through the Cold War, and continued by four successive post-Cold War administrations. At the same time, it is not surprising that none of those administrations embraced offshore balancing as a strategy. The idea of relying on Russia, China, and Iran to jointly “stabilize” the Middle East and Persian Gulf will not strike many as an attractive proposition. Nor is U.S. withdrawal from East Asia and the Pacific likely to have a stabilizing effect on that region. The prospects of a war on the Korean Peninsula would increase. Japan and other nations in the region would face the choice of succumbing to Chinese hegemony or taking unilateral steps for self-defense, which in Japan’s case would mean the rapid creation of a formidable nuclear arsenal. Layne and other offshore balancing enthusiasts, like John Mearsheimer, point to two notable occasions when the United States allegedly practiced this strategy. One was the Iran-Iraq war, where the United States supported

Iraq for years against Iran in the hope that the two would balance and weaken each other. The other was American policy in the 1920s and 1930s, when the United States allowed the great European powers to balance one another, occasionally providing economic aid, or military aid, as in the Lend-Lease program of assistance to Great Britain once war broke out. Whether this was really American strategy in that era is open for debate—most would argue the United States in this era was trying to stay out of war not as part of a considered strategic judgment but as an end in itself. Even if the United States had been pursuing offshore balancing in the first decades of the 20th century, however, would we really call that strategy a success? The United States wound up intervening with millions of troops, first in Europe, and then in Asia and Europe simultaneously, in the two most dreadful wars in human history. It was with the memory of those two wars in mind, and in the belief that American strategy in those interwar years had been mistaken, that American statesmen during and after World War II determined on the new global strategy that the United States has pursued ever since. Under Franklin Roosevelt, and then under the leadership of Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, American leaders determined that the safest course was to build “situations of strength” (Acheson’s phrase) in strategic locations around the world, to build a “preponderance of power,” and to create an international system with American power at its center. They left substantial numbers of troops in East Asia and in Europe and built a globe-girdling system of naval and air bases to enable the rapid projection of force to strategically important parts of the world. They did not do this on a lark or out of a yearning for global dominion. They simply rejected the offshore balancing strategy, and they did so because they believed it had led to great, destructive wars in the past and would likely do so again. They believed their new global strategy was more likely to deter major war and therefore be less destructive and less expensive in the long run. Subsequent administrations, from both parties and with often differing perspectives on the proper course in many areas of foreign policy, have all agreed on this core strategic approach. From the beginning this strategy was assailed as too ambitious and too expensive. At the dawn of the Cold War, Walter Lippmann railed against Truman’s containment strategy as suffering from an unsustainable gap between ends and means that would bankrupt the United States and exhaust its power. Decades later, in the waning years of the Cold War, Paul Kennedy warned of “imperial overstretch,” arguing that American decline was inevitable “if the trends in national indebtedness, low productivity increases, [etc.]” were allowed to continue at the same time as “massive American commitments of men, money and materials are made in different parts of the globe.” Today, we are once again being told that this global strategy needs to give way to a more restrained and modest approach, even though the indebtedness crisis that we face in coming years is not caused by the present, largely successful global strategy. Of course it is precisely the success of that strategy that is taken for granted. The enormous benefits that this strategy has provided, including the financial benefits, somehow never appear on the ledger. They should. We might begin by asking about the global security order that the United States has sustained since World War II—the prevention of major war, the support of an open trading system, and promotion of the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How much is that order worth? What would be the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of order? Whatever the nature of the current economic difficulties, the past six decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity than any time in human history. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward nations have become

economic dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups and downs throughout this period, has on the whole benefited immensely from this international order. One price of this success has been maintaining a sufficient military capacity to provide the essential security underpinnings of this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th century, the United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the second half, this global American strategy helped produce a peaceful end to the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20 more years of great-power peace. Looked at coldly, simply in terms of dollars and cents, the benefits of that strategy far outweigh the costs. The danger, as always, is that we don’t even realize the benefits our strategic choices have provided. Many assume that the world has simply become more peaceful, that great-power conflict has become impossible, that nations have learned that military force has little utility, that economic power is what counts. This belief in progress and the perfectibility of humankind and the institutions of international order is always alluring to Americans and Europeans and other children of the Enlightenment. It was the prevalent belief in the decade before World War I, in the first years after World War II, and in those heady days after the Cold War when people spoke of the “end of history.” It is always tempting to believe that the international order the United States built and sustained with its power can exist in the absence of that power, or at least with much less of it. This is the hidden assumption of those who call for a change in American strategy: that the United States can stop playing its role and yet all the benefits that came from that role will keep pouring in. This is a great if recurring illusion, the idea that you can pull a leg out from under a table and the table will not fall over.

2NC: Soft Power Link Extension

Russia says one thing and does another – use cooperation as a guise to accelerate military buildupHuebert, Fellow of the Canadian Defense & Foreign Affairs Institute, 2010(Rob, Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, “The Newly Emerging Arctic Security Environment, online: http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf)

It should be clear that the Russians have been according a growing importance to the Arctic ¶ region. They continually issue statements affirming their commitment to peaceful ¶ cooperation in the Arctic, which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders ¶ and in their primary documents. These same leaders are also very quick to condemn the ¶ actions of the other Arctic states as being aggressive and a threat to international peace and ¶ security in the region whenever they engage in any form of military related activity. It is clear,

¶ however, that the Russians have embarked on a much more assertive use of military force

in ¶ the region by taking various action – the missile test launches near the pole, the sudden and ¶ substantial resumption of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages of their surface ¶ units into the disputed zones – which exceeds that of any of the other Arctic states. ¶ Furthermore, the Russians’ proposed rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any ¶ other Arctic state. Thus, the Russians have excelled at portraying themselves as cooperative

¶ while taking increasingly assertive action. The question remains as to why? Are they merely ¶ reasserting themselves as a global power, or, does this new action point to an increasingly ¶ assertive Russia? This is not known.

Oil Co-op destroys any leverage we have in RussiaDiaz, Houston Chronicle, 5/28/14FuelFix, “Ted Cruz calls for close look at Exxon Mobil deal in Russian Arctic”, online: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/28/ted-cruz-calls-for-close-look-at-exxon-mobil-deal-in-russian-arctic/

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, traveling in Israel and Eastern Europe to meet foreign leaders, said Wednesday that the U.S. should review a planned Exxon Mobil Corp. oil exploration project with the Russian state-controlled company Rosneft as the West looks for ways to apply more pressure over the Ukraine crisis.¶ “That’s a question that was raised a number of times today in the Ukraine,” Cruz told U.S. reporters in a conference call from Poland. “It’s a question we need to look very closely at. I am of the view that we need to increase the sanctions on Russia . . . for Russia’s act of war against Ukraine.”¶ The Texas Republican’s remarks underscored the political difficulties surrounding calls in the U.S. and Europe for sanctions against Russia that could have economic consequences back home. The

Texas-based oil conglomerate plans to start drilling in Russia’s arctic Kara Sea region this summer as part of a global partnership with Rosneft, even though the Russian company’s chief executive officer, Igor Sechin, has been a target of U.S. sanctions.¶ Cruz, widely considered to be laying the groundwork for a 2016 White House run, talked about an array of additional actions he believes the U.S. should take, including providing basic military equipment to the Ukrainian army.¶ He stopped short of specifically endorsing a pullout from

the $600 million Kara Sea project, saying only that it had come up in his conversations with Ukrainian leaders. He twice repeated that “it’s a question we should look very closely at.”

***Aff Answers

Oil Spills: Russia Co-op Key

Russia and the US need to cooperate to effectively clean up Arctic oil spillsFonseca, maritime analyst and author, 6/16(Joseph, “U.S. Must Answer Russia's Challenge In the Arctic”, http://www.marinelink.com/news/challenge-russias-answer371176.aspx)

Speaking just after Russia's Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, kicked off the program on foreign policy issues between the two nations, Treadwell talked about the need for cooperation with Russia despite disputes over Crimea and Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, which have brought U.S.-Russia relations to their lowest point in decades . “My challenge to Russians is this: where we are neighbors, help bring our relations back to normal. Help us eliminate salmon by-catch in the North Pacific Ocean . Help us work together to prevent oil spills from all these

ships coming through, and help us protect food security in the Arctic. Alaskans depend on this ocean for food and for jobs. "My challenge to Americans is this: don’t let Russia go it alone in the Arctic. A quarter of the world’s oil and gas and one of the world's most important fisheries are located in the Arctic. Let’s exercise leadership now, by developing our own energy and building ports and icebreakers, and not let just one country control shipping.” “In today’s tough international climate, we can’t forget we’re neighbors , ” Treadwell said. " The

Arctic situation demands cooperation and friendly competition. If we don't exercise stronger

Arctic leadership, we will be sorry later."

Arctic resource development would take the U.S. 20 years - Russia is already commercially producing – CP can’t solve fast enoughWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

These finds have shown that hydrocarbon development can successfully take place in the delicate Arctic ecosystem. New technologies can help ensure more extensive and safer resource development in one of the world’s most extreme climates. Sakhalin and Hibernia in offshore Russian and Canadian Arctic waters respectively are two of the largest resource development projects in the Arctic region2; each took roughly 20 years to achieve commercial production. Given the lengthy timeline to move from exploration to production, large-scale Arctic resource development has to begin now to guarantee that these resources will be able to provide the global energy supply needed to meet demand by mid-century.

Coordination key to research and develop arctic spill response plansSnow, OGJ Washington Editor, ‘14(Nick, Full set of tools needed for US Arctic spill response, NRC finds,

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/full-set-of-tools-needed-for-us-arctic-spill-response-nrc-finds.html)

The report also recommended that the USCG and Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation develop a spill training program for local entities so villages would have trained response teams. “Local officials and trained village response teams should be included in the coordinated decision-making and command process during a response event,” it said. “Input from community experts should be actively solicited for inclusion in response planning and considered in conjunction with data derived from other sources.” Relevant federal, state, and municipal organizations, local experts, industry, and academia should hold regularly scheduled oil spill exercises to test and evaluate the flexible and scalable organizational structures which will be necessary for highly reliable Arctic oil spill response, the report added. Internationally, it said the USCG should expand its bilateral agreement with Russia to

include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct regularly scheduled exercises to establish joint

responses under Arctic conditions. The USCG also should build on existing bilateral agreements with Russia and Canada to develop and exercise a joint contingency plan, it recommended. In the response and strategies realm, the report said that spill response effectiveness could be improved by adopting decision processes such as Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, by developing inclusive organizational response practices in advance of an event, and by enhancing resource availability for training, infrastructure, and monitoring.

Co-op key to international coordination efforts and clean upCroh, Co-Editor of ClimateProgress, ‘12(Kiley, Energy Policy team at American Progress as the Associate Director for Ocean Communications, “Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/02/03/11104/putting-a-freeze-on-arctic-ocean-drilling/)

Due to the need for specially designed equipment, long supply lines, and limited transportation, a recent analysis from the nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration found that “studies on the economics of onshore oil and natural gas projects in Arctic Alaska estimate costs to develop reserves in the region can be 50 to 100 percent more than similar projects undertaken in Texas.” Despite these hurdles, some in the United States are eager to keep pace with other Arctic nations by tapping into the “great opportunity” for economic gain they believe lies beneath the pristine Arctic waters. Drilling for oil in this fragile region, however, should not be pursued without adequate safeguards in place. If we’ve learned anything from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, it’s that the importance of preparedness

cannot be overstated . That is why we strongly recommend specific actions be taken by the federal government, by Congress, and by Shell and other companies before beginning exploratory drilling in the Arctic. For Shell: Develop a credible worst-case scenario—have a well-designed and vetted emergency plan in place that includes proof of the ability to respond to a

worst-case blowout/oil spill Demonstrate that a blowout can be contained, including the required installation of redundant emergency shut-off systems Ensure adequate response capabilities are in place before drilling operations commence For the federal government: Require and oversee oil spill response drills in the Arctic that prove the assertions made in company drilling plans prior to plan approval Improve weather and ocean prediction and monitoring capabilities to ensure a safe and effective oil spill response Engage other Arctic

nations in developing an international oil spill response agreement that includes an Arctic

Ocean drilling management plan

Collaborative in the region is necessary Snow, OGJ Washington Editor, ‘14(Nick, Full set of tools needed for US Arctic spill response, NRC finds, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/full-set-of-tools-needed-for-us-arctic-spill-response-nrc-finds.html)

The report said a real-time Arctic ocean-ice-meteorological forecasting system is needed to account for variations in sea ice coverage and thickness. “The system should include patterns of ice movement, ice type, sea state, ocean stratification and circulation, storm surge, and improved resolution in areas of potential risk,” it said. “Such a system requires robust, sustainable, and effective acquisition of relevant observational data.” High-resolution satellite and airborne imagery needs to be coupled with up-to-date, high-resolution digital elevation models and updated regularly to capture the dynamic, rapidly changing US Arctic coastline, it added. “To be effective, Arctic mapping priorities should continue to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and industry and should be implemented systematically rather than through surveys of opportunity,” the report recommended. It also called for

establishment of a comprehensive, collaborative, and long-term Arctic research program to understand spill behavior in a marine environment, including the relationship between oil and sea ice formation, transportation , and fate. “It should include assessment of oil spill response technologies and logistics, improvements to forecasting models and associated data needs, and controlled field releases under realistic conditions for research purposes,” the report said. “Industry, academic, government, non-governmental, grassroots, and international efforts should be integrated into the program, with a focus on peer review and transparency.” An interagency permit approval process to enable researchers to plan and execute deliberate releases in US waters also is needed, it added. Response counter-measures and removal tools including biodegradation and dispersants; in-situ burning; mechanical containment and recovery; and detection, monitoring, and modeling also need to be studied.

Shipping – Russia Co-op Key

We need to work with Russia – their monitoring assistance is key to shipping National Geographic 4/23/14(“We need to work with the Russians.” Published April 23, 2014, online: URL http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140423-national-research-council-on-oil-spills-in-arctic/)

Last year, the Northern Sea Route between Asia and Europe saw many firsts: the first transit for a container ship, the first voyages for Chinese and South Korean vessels—and the first tanker accident. Russia has promoted use of the route, where its state-operated icebreaker fleet offers mandatory escort in exchange for a fee. Among the ships traveling the Northern Sea Route last year, the NRC says, were oil tankers carrying more than 800,000 barrels of oil. The expansion of the Northern Sea Route has in turn led to increased traffic through U.S. waters in the Bering Strait. This points to the need for better traffic management—the U.S. doesn't have a system for monitoring ships in the Arctic. But "the international demarcation line [between Russian and U.S. waters] runs right down the middle of the Bering Strait, so we can't make a unilateral determination with respect to what to do for vessel traffic

monitoring," Grabowski says. The United States should also conduct joint oil spill response

exercises with Russia, the report says.

US Tech Insufficient

U.S. doesn’t have the infrastructure or arctic oil research necessary to drillRT News 5/3/14(“Oil industry, US government woefully unprepared for spill in Arctic – study”, May 03, 2014 03:28,Online: http://rt.com/news/156528-arctic-oil-spill-cleanup/)

Yet the National Research Council’s new study – funded by US federal agencies and the leading trade group for the oil industry, the American Petroleum Institute – found that energy companies currently lack Arctic oil spill response plans, as it is their responsibility to address such an event. That said, public entities often take the lead in spill response actions, yet the US government does not have infrastructure capabilities in place despite its rush to establish dominance in the region. “The lack of infrastructure and oil spill response equipment in the U.S. Arctic is a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill,” the report states. “Building U.S. capabilities to support oil spill response will require significant investment in physical infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and personnel to transportation systems and traffic monitoring.” The “significant investment” on infrastructure could come from public-private partnerships, the report suggests, though the politics of offering industry further subsidies may be problematic. Adequate research into what awaits industry in the extreme cold of Arctic waters is also lacking, the report said. There is little understanding of how the low temperatures would affect both spilled oil and commonly-used techniques to reverse the effects of a spill, such as the spread of chemical dispersants. The report goes as far as suggesting that the only way to know is to conduct a controlled oil spill.

Russia already uses ice-resistant tankers, and the U.S. isn’t competitive in the icebreakers industry – CP can’t unilaterally create shipping routesWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

As TAPS continues to run at a very low rate, the transportation of oil by tanker is likely to become an increasingly attractive alternative to piping, especially for more remote offshore fields. Transport along the 800 mile-long TAPS pipeline has an average tariff of $4.50 per barrel, whereas a barrel tankered from Valdez to the U.S. West Coast would incur tariffs of only about half this rate, despite the shipping distance being more than double the length of the TAPS pipeline. The Jones Act10 has reduced U.S. competitiveness in the development and deployment of icebreakers, as well as in Arctic grade support vessels and tankers, since compliant vessels and their crews are more costly. Reduced ice in the Arctic and the lower costs of transport by tanker may make ice-resistant tankers the preferred means for transporting Arctic oil instead of constructing new pipe- lines . Tankers are already used

frequently in the Barents Sea in Norway and Russia , and Russia has begun testing shipment

options along the Northern Sea Route to Southeast Asia using tankers assisted by icebreakers. In North America, this option is also employed to ship oil from fields in offshore Newfoundland.

US doesn’t have the tech to respond unilaterallyLineback, GITN author and analyst, 10/12/13(Neal, “Geography in News: Oil Spills”, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/12/geography-in-the-news-oil-spills/)

The United States has sustained 47 documented oil spills, the largest number of any country in the world. The high incidence of spills is linked to the country’s high oil consumption. The U.S. uses nearly one-quarter of the world’s oil. This high rate of consumption requires the handling and transfer of huge amounts of oil daily, making the chances of spills more probable. Louisiana has sustained 14 significant oil spills, the largest of any state, followed by California (8), Pennsylvania (4), Texas (3) and Alaska (3). These are states with large transfers of petroleum between pipelines and ships. Drilling and

transporting technologies have made major advances in the past 40 years, but

improvements in spillage and cleanup technologies apparently have not. The Deepwater disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was a wake-up call for both the petroleum industry and government agencies that oversee the industry. Lessons learned from this oil spill are yielding more safeguards and new technologies for the future. The environmental, human and monetary costs of the spill remain high and long lasting to the Gulf Coast.

U.S. Coast guard stations are not equipped for cleanups Croh, Co-Editor of ClimateProgress, ‘12(Kiley, Energy Policy team at American Progress as the Associate Director for Ocean Communications, “Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/02/03/11104/putting-a-freeze-on-arctic-ocean-drilling/)

Though the refrain “never again” was echoed time and again in the wake of the BP oil catastrophe , we are now facing a new oil spill threat . After spending over five years and $4 billion on the process, the Royal Dutch Shell Group is on the cusp of receiving the green light to begin exploratory drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas next summer. Though Shell emphasizes it would drill exploratory wells in shallow water rather than establishing deep-water production wells like Macondo, the fundamental characteristics of the vastly unexplored and uninhabited Arctic coastline may increase the likelihood of a spill and will certainly hamper emergency response capability. The decision to move forward with drilling

in some of the most extreme conditions on Earth has deeply divided Alaska Native communities, drawn stark criticism from environmental groups, and caused other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to raise concerns about the glaring absence of sound science in the

region . This is highlighted in a recent letter to the Obama administration, signed by nearly 600 scientists from around the world, calling on the president and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to follow through on their commitment to science and enact recommendations made by the U.S. Geological Survey before approving any drilling activity in the Arctic. In addition to the lack of a scientific foundation, the Arctic has inadequate infrastructure to deal with an oil spill, and response technologies in such extreme environmental conditions remain untested. As we detail in this report, the resources and existing infrastructure that facilitated a grand-scale response to the BP disaster differ immensely from what could be brought to bear in a similar situation off Alaska’s North Slope. Even the well-developed infrastructure and abundance of trained personnel in the Gulf of Mexico didn’t prevent the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Our Arctic response capabilities pale by comparison . There are no U.S. Coast Guard

stations north of the Arctic Circle, and we currently operate just one functional icebreaking

vessel . Alaska’s tiny ports and airports are incapable of supporting an extensive and sustained airlift effort. The region even lacks such basics as paved roads and railroads. This dearth of infrastructure would severely hamper the ability to transport the supplies and personnel required for any large-scale emergency response effort. Furthermore, the extreme and unpredictable weather conditions complicate transportation, preparedness, and cleanup of spilled oil to an even greater degree.

US cannot work alone in the region- lack of technology and infrastructureWang, Coastal Response Research Center Author and Environmental Analyst, 09(“Oil Spills”, 2009. Online: URL http://www.oceansnorth.org/oil-spills)

Documents supporting the U.S. government’s 2007-2012 offshore oil and gas leasing program assume that one large oil spill would likely occur in Bristol Bay in the southeast Bering Sea and two large oil spills would occur in U.S. Arctic waters as a result of exploration and drilling

activities. The threat is amplified because no adequate technology or infrastructure to clean

up oil in broken sea ice has been proven to work in the Arctic . Spill response could be delayed for weeks at a time due to the often hazardous conditions, especially during the winter . Oil persists in Arctic environments longer than anywhere else . It can become trapped under sea ice. It also evaporates at a slower rate in cold temperatures. The environmental conditions that characterize the Arctic – sea ice, subzero temperatures, high winds and seas and poor visibility – influence the effectiveness of clean up strategies and how much oil is recovered . The longer the oil remains in the environment, the higher the probability that marine mammals will come in contact with it

US lacks tools and technologySnow, OGJ Washington Editor, ‘14(Nick, Full set of tools needed for US Arctic spill response, NRC finds, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/04/full-set-of-tools-needed-for-us-arctic-spill-response-nrc-finds.html)

A full slate of response tools will be needed to address crude oil spills in the US Arctic, but

not all of those tools are readily available , the National Research Council said in a new report . While much is known already about both the behavior of oil and response technologies in Arctic environments, there are areas where additional research would enable more informed decisions about the most effective responses for different Arctic spill situations, the Apr. 23 report added. “The Arctic system serves as an integrator for the Earth’s physical, biological, oceanic, and atmospheric processes, with impacts beyond the Arctic itself,” it stated. “ The risk

of an oil spill in the Arctic presents hazards for Arctic nations and their neighbors . ” The council, one of the federal government’s independent national academies, was asked to prepare the report by the American Petroleum Institute, US Arctic Research Commission, US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, US Coast Guard, Marine Mammal Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute. “Arctic oil spill response is challenging because of extreme weather and environmental conditions; the lack of existing or sustained communications, logistical, and information infrastructure; significant geographic distances; and vulnerability of Arctic species, ecosystems, and cultures,” it noted.

Arctic Co-op Key

Russia - Norway experience is key to U.S. developmentWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

Russia’s and Norway’s experience with far north and Arctic resource development provides useful context and a basis of comparison to better understand North American scenarios. However, it is important to note that overall climatic and ice conditions vary significantly between the Western and Eastern Hemispheres. As in North America, exploration activity began in the 1970s in Norway and the 1980s in Russia; neither country is a stranger to offshore development in extreme northern climates. Seismic surveying of the Norwegian Barents Sea began in the 1970s, and exploratory drilling in the 1980s. In 1984, Statoil discovered the Snøhvit development, the world’s northernmost offshore gas field. Norway has since drilled 94 exploration wells in its section of the Barents Sea and constructed the world’s northernmost liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility near Hammerfest; it has a good reputation for compliance with strict environmental standards. In Russia, the first offshore Arctic gas field was discovered in the Barents Sea in 1983, and in 1986 the first offshore oil was discovered at the Severo-Gulyaevskoe field. Since then, Russia has continued to pursue exploration activities in its western Arctic waters in the Kara, Barents, and Pechora Seas. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on an Arctic border in the Barents Sea has unlocked significant opportunities for resource development by both countries.

Russia’s joint venture model is successful, U.S. needs similar tech and investmentWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

As in the Western Hemisphere, little infrastructure is in place due to the extreme conditions and the remoteness of the Russian Arctic and Norway’s far north regions. Developing resources in these regions will require both specialized technologies and large capital commitments. In addition to its joint development agreement for the Barents Sea signed with Norway, Russia has also pursued a joint venture model with IOCs to gain access to additional

capital and technical expertise as it expands exploration activity on its continental shelf . In May 2012, Rosneft and Statoil signed an agreement to jointly develop the shelf of the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. The agreement establishes a joint venture to develop the Perseyevsky license area in the Barents Sea and three fields in the Sea of Okhotsk; Statoil will finance geological prospecting work. Rosneft will then have the opportunity to buy a stake in Statoil’s North Sea and Barents Sea projects. The agreement permits Russia to leverage Statoil’s vast offshore experience and its good safety record. The agreement also creates an opportunity to

stimulate Russia’s shipbuilding industry since the two parties plan to order ice-class vessels and drilling platforms that will be constructed in Russian shipyards.

Bilateral agreements are the best solvency mechanism for Arctic development Wilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

Cooperation among Arctic littoral states can ensure greater responsibility and adherence to best practices at the local level. Collaboration among Arctic countries on best practices, environmental standards, and technology transfer can introduce an additional layer of accountability to ensure safe and responsible Arctic development. Norway and Russia have recently been very active, reflecting the benefits of formal cooperation. The July 2011 maritime border agreement in the Barents Sea has enabled Russia and Norway to explore the resource potential in the region. Statoil and Rosneft have agreed to jointly explore offshore deposits in the region. Norway and Russia are also exploring the possibility of joint naval exercises in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. As climate change makes larger portions of the Arctic accessible, cooperation on bilateral energy exploration and maritime capabilities could benefit other nations as well (for example, among Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, and the United States in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas). When possible, bilateral dispute settlements and cooperation between countries in contiguous Arctic regions can ensure that best practices are employed as operators expand oil and gas exploration and production activities. Bilateral agreements can be more comprehensive and quicker to achieve than multilateral

efforts . Canada and Russia have had a long- standing debate over rights to the Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Rise; Russia submitted a claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2001 providing its recommendations on how the shared border should be delineated. However, with 51 sea claims currently before the UN Commission and only three examined each year, a timely resolution is unlikely. Bilateral agreements can resolve border disputes more quickly and avoid inefficiencies and delays.

Russia Oil Adv Link- Arctic Key

Arctic is key to Russian oil production - but they can’t do it aloneWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

Russia is experiencing production decline at its currently producing—but ageing—oil fields. It is depending on tight oil production, as well as production in more remote East Siberian and Arctic offshore fields, to meet its fiscal tar- gets and balance its budget. Furthermore, the government has been experimenting with various adjustments to the tax regime to encourage production at fields that are remote or more difficult to access. Russia needs these new fields to offset declines in production at its conventional, legacy fields and to maintain production at a level of at least 10 million bpd beyond 2020.14 ¶ Russia’s For Russia, and particularly the state-run oil giant Rosneft, Arctic shelf development is a longer-term strategic priority that

could be a significant source of production growth beyond 2020 . The government is looking to introduce tax incentives to make shelf exploration and production more economically viable. The finance ministry announced plans to finalize a tax package for the Arctic offshore by 1 January 2014 that will apply to new shelf projects that begin production from 1 January 2016. Rosneft and the state-run gas company Gazprom enjoy exclusive rights to the Arctic shelf and already hold a combined 80 percent of the shelf currently open to exploration and production. Proponents of shelf liberalization argue that the two companies are unable to conduct

timely exploration and production activities on their own in such challenging waters and that their monopoly will further delay progress in the Arctic. The tax package currently under consideration would include a number of incentives to make shelf projects more economically appealing, including cancelled export duties and a reduced mineral extraction tax. The energy and finance ministries have been engaged in ongoing debates over a range of topics including property tax, royalty, VAT, and import duty calculations; customs procedures; and additional royalty discounts should oil prices fall below $60 per barrel. With ExxonMobil’s plans to begin Arctic drilling in 2014, Russian tax reform legislation should be passed by the 2014 deadline to avoid further delays.

Net Benefit: Politics

Neg

1NC

Artic co-op linked with Ukraine crisis – plan viewed as appeasement Quaile and Welle, Environmental Journalists, 5/21/14(Irene and Deutsche, “Ukraine’s Shadow on Arctic Cooperation”, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140521/ukraine-s-shadow-arctic-cooperation)

When a meeting of the Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic Council scheduled to take place in Canada in June was canceled, one couldn’t help assuming the political standoff between Russia, on the one side, and the United States and other European partners on the other over Ukraine must have played a role. The Arctic Council Secretariat, based in Tromso in Norway, was keen to play down any political implications. In response to my inquiry, I was told the meeting had been rescheduled in form of teleconferences and written exchanges, and various meetings of Council working groups and task forces were going ahead in the coming weeks in Canada and in other Arctic Council member states. Business as usual? When Canada, which currently holds the chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted a working meeting of the organization planned for April in Moscow, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq called it a “principled stand” against Russian actions in Ukraine. On other levels, the political repercussions of the Ukraine crisis for the Arctic are undisputed. A statement from the U.S. State Department reads: “Given Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the US government has taken a number of actions, to include curtailing official government-to-government contacts and meetings with the Russian Federation on a case-by-case basis.” That includes Arctic-related events. The withdrawal of State Department funding for a hazard-reduction workshop planned for June between Russian scientists and their U.S. counterparts. The head of Russia’s emergency services also failed to show up at an international meeting in Alaska last month. With the West looking to broaden sanctions against Russia because of the Ukraine dispute, relations between the two factions are bound to be strained in a region where climate change has set off a highly competitive race for oil, gas and other resources.

Co-op with Russia hurts dems in elections O'Neal and Huey-Burns, realclear politics authors and analysts, 3/26(Adam and Caitlin, U.S.-Russia Tensions: A Key Issue in the Midterms?http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/26/us-russia_tensions_a_key_issue_in_the_midterms_122055.html)

But that doesn’t mean U.S.-Russia tensions will fade into obscurity between now and Nov. 4. If confrontations continue and Ukraine’s future remains uncertain , foreign policy may very

well loom large in voters’ minds . Of course, Russia’s annexation of Crimea has not angered or upset Americans as much as the crumbling situation in Iraq --where tens of thousands of U.S. troops were at risk -- did in 2006. But Obama’s perceived weakness abroad could continue to

hurt his approval ratings , along with vulnerable Democratic incumbents whose fates are in part tied to the president’s popularity . Asked if the party would try to tie those Democrats to the president’s Russia policy, RNC spokesman Raffi Williams told RealClearPolitics that “Obama and Democrat senators’ policies just haven't worked out like they promised Americans. From ObamaCare to the economy to foreign policy, we've seen ineffective leadership and disappointing results.”

Uniqueness

Dems will win senate thanks to female votersMemoli, LA Times author, 7/4 (Michael, “Democrats Senate Majority Hinges on Rallying Key Vote Blocs”, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-battle-20140705-story.html)

Democrats headed into the Fourth of July recess facing stiff head winds in their quest to maintain a Senate majority this fall, contending with voters' unease over the economy and a slew of Washington controversies. But analysts say that a narrow path still exists for the party because of atypically strong enthusiasm levels among Democratic voters, while Republicans confront newly inflamed tensions with their base after a roller coaster series of primaries. New data released last week by leading pollsters in both parties show how November's midterm

election could hinge on Democrats' success in rallying key voting sectors, such as women.

Party organization and enthusiasm will give dems senate but its closeMemoli, LA Times author, 7/4 (Michael, “Democrats Senate Majority Hinges on Rallying Key Vote Blocs”, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-battle-20140705-story.html)

Matt Canter, deputy executive director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged that Democrats are facing a difficult landscape but said the candidates are

well positioned . "Constituents in their states understand that their senator is putting their state's interests ahead of Washington and even ahead of their own national party when they think that that's right," he said. "These races have truly become choices." But Ayres found one ray of hope for Democrats: the party's voters reported equal levels of enthusiasm about the November vote as Republicans in these states. Typically in the midterm election of a president's second term, the opposing party has a significant edge, as national polls now show. "This is an unusual result," Ayres said. "But I do think that's a function of the attention that's been lavished on these dozen states so far. There's been a tremendous number of ads already, even where the Republican nominee has not been settled yet. So I think that's what's generating this parity in enthusiasm.

GOP won’t win senate- independent voters keyMemoli, LA Times author, 7/4 (Michael, “Democrats Senate Majority Hinges on Rallying Key Vote Blocs”, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-battle-20140705-story.html)

Ayres' survey, conducted for the GOP think tank Resurgent Republic, also found that

Republican voters were more likely to be dissatisfied with their party's leadership in

Congress than were Democratic voters , a product of the tea party-versus-GOP establishment battles that have hurt previous efforts to win back the Senate. This year, GOP incumbents have thus far withstood challenges from their right, including six-term Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, who beat tea-party-backed Chris McDaniel last week in a bitter and costly runoff. But Democrats hope that the discord seen in the Mississippi race and elsewhere might dampen the zeal of conservatives to help Republicans win total control of Congress for Obama's final two years. “This infighting has taken its toll ," said Amy Walter, a national political analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Republicans "are not as enthusiastic as they were in 2010. Even they are a little bit disillusioned by what's been happening over the last couple years. “That also means Republican candidates are not getting the benefit of the doubt

among independent voters as they did in 2010 , Walter added.

Environmental Link Scenario

Russia doesn’t have oil spills response plans- co-op won’t solveWilson Center, Eurasia Group report for The Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., 1/29/14(“OPPORTUNITIES and CHALLENGES FOR ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT”, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf)

Russia has not been immune to social and environmental opposition to its Arctic resource development ambitions. As in the North American Arctic , the most vocal groups have been local indigenous groups and global ENGOs such as Greenpeace. In August 2012, Greenpeace environmental activists scaled the side of Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya oil platform in the Pechora Sea, claiming that Gazprom had failed to produce a comprehensive spill response plan for its

Arctic operations . The Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East (RAIPON) has expressed its grievances with energy exploitation in Russia’s resource rich northern territories, particularly the Yamal Peninsula, arguing that such activities could have a negative impact on members’ semi-nomadic lifestyle and disrupt the sensitive ecosystem. Russia ordered the association to suspend activity in November 2012 and temporarily banned it from participating in Arctic Council meetings. RAIPON was reinstated in March 2013.

Russia Link Scenario

Ukraine crisis makes Russia co-op unpopular domestically Malone, Voice of America News Analyst, 5/27/14(Jim, “Obama’s Weak Poll Numbers Worry Democrats”, http://www.voanews.com/content/obamas-weak-poll-numbers-worry-democrats/1909728.html)

But recent polls also show a decline in public approval of the president’s handling of foreign

policy . In the recent Wall Street Journal /NBC News poll , only 37 percent of those surveyed approved of the way President Obama is handling Russia’s intervention in Ukraine . Republicans have been quick to criticize the administration on Ukraine including Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. “And so I’m disappointed in the administration’s tepid response that we’ve seen and I think it’s time to issue the tougher economic sanctions on sectors of the Russian economy,” Ayotte said. Democratic pollster and strategist Celinda Lake acknowledges that the events in Ukraine are having an impact in the polls. “There are a lot of Americans

who like a more muscular foreign policy, particularly when you are facing the Soviet Union or former Soviet Union, particularly when you are facing a bully like Putin,” she said. The recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that Americans appear to be more reluctant than ever to engage overseas, especially if there is a risk of military involvement.

Appeasement mobilizes the GOP base Holland, Reuters Journalist, 3/4 (Steve, “Obama’s Caution on Ukraine may loom over Midterm Election” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-ukraine-crisis-obama-analysis-idUSBREA2306O20140304)

Facing his toughest test yet in Ukraine , Obama is once again finding himself portrayed as a

weak leader, outmaneuvered by a wily, opportunistic Russian President Vladimir Putin intent on reviving the United States' nemesis. His popularity has already been suffering because of the disastrous roll out of his signature healthcare plan last October and the U.S. economy's slow recovery from recession. Now , Republicans are using Ukraine as further

ammunition against him ahead of the November elections. The Ukraine crisis, said Republican Senator John McCain in a speech on Monday, is "the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America's strengths anymore." It's not only Republicans who are giving less than rave reviews to Obama's strategy. The Washington Post's lead editorial on Monday was about Obama and Ukraine and was entitled "The risks of wishful thinking." "For five years President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality," it said. Obama seemed to have been

caught off-guard by Putin's seizure of the Crimea region of southern Ukraine. He is now scrambling to put together a package of economic sanctions aimed at isolating Russia. Targeted asset freezes against key Russian officials are a possibility . A G8 summit that Obama and allies are to attend in Sochi, Russia, in June is on hold. "Obviously, the facts on the ground in Crimea are deeply troubling and Russia has a large army that borders Ukraine. But what is also true is that over time this will be a costly proposition for Russia," Obama said on Monday. This will not be enough to satisfy critics who fear Putin is taking a step toward restoring the old Soviet Union that he served as a KGB colonel. Putin's adventure in Ukraine, they say, is the final proof that Obama's policy of resetting U.S. relations with Russia in a search for common ground is dead. For Obama, the Ukraine crisis is a dramatic diversion from attempts to stay focused largely on domestic affairs in a congressional election year that may represent his last best chance for legacy-building achievements before Americans look past him and focus on the 2016 presidential campaign.

U.S. voters won’t tolerate weak Russian foreign policyBattenfield and Harold, analysts and reporters for GOPUSA, 6/18 (Joe and Boston, “Obama, Kerry Foreign Policy a Disaster for Democrats” http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/06/18/obama-kerry-foreign-policy-a-disaster-for-democrats/)

And allowing the Russians to walk into the Crimean peninsula unchallenged. There are more, but you get the picture. It's not pretty for Democrats, especially in a year when Republicans are already poised to make gains in Congress. The unfolding horror in Iraq probably will have the most serious political repercussions. Obama was elected on a promise to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq, and that's one promise Democratic lawmakers probably wish he hadn't fulfilled. The graphic images of the slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians isn't something that can be wiped away by another college tour where Obama talks about student loans. Obama was caught sleeping, or at least golfing, and if jihadists march into Baghdad, the results could be catastrophic for U.S. interests in the Middle East. The latest news is that the Obama administration is dispatching several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq, and is considering deploying a Special Forces contingent as well, all while insisting the U.S. won't be drawn into another ground war. Kerry and Obama will likely be forced to rely on our new allies in Iran to help stop extremists from taking over a country that thousands of U.S. troops died to liberate. That's a humiliating prospect -- and one that many U.S. voters will find tough

to swallow. It's likely that Democratic lawmakers will be quickly pivoting in the coming

months to distance themselves from the Obama-Kerry foreign policy team.

Anti-Russian domestic sentiment now- any co-op kills dems senate chances Holland, Reuters Journalist, 3/4 (Steve, “Obama’s Caution on Ukraine may loom over Midterm Election” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-ukraine-crisis-obama-analysis-idUSBREA2306O20140304)

The president and fellow Democrats are struggling to hang on to control of the Senate and build up their numbers in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in November elections. In addition to using the Ukraine crisis as another cudgel against Democrats in this year's congressional elections, Republicans also see it a possible line of attack in the 2016 presidential race. Some potential Republican White House hopefuls, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, have been pushing a more assertive foreign-policy approach. " The president must now accept that the only way to deal with tyrants like Vladimir Putin is with a clear understanding that they can't be trusted and that only decisive action will deter their provocative moves," Rubio said. White House officials frequently point out that Obama's more cautious approach is in sync Americans' weariness of foreign wars. "He has a leadership style for foreign policy consistent with what the American people want to see done in the world today," said Mike McCurry, a former State Department and White House spokesman for President Bill Clinton. "That kind of severely limits the posture you can have for robust foreign policy when the American people really want us to pull back."

Russian policy motivates GOP-key statesDelmore, MSNBC reporter, 7/11(Erin, “No Smooth Sailing for Democrats in Midterms”, http://www.msnbc.com/all/no-smooth-sailing-dems-midterms)

President Obama’s approval rating dropped to a record low of 41% in the March NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll, including 20% of his own party . Another 41% of respondents said they approved of his handling of foreign policy and the economy, two issues that are sure to dominate debate ahead of the midterm elections. The unemployment rate ticked up to 6.7% in February (from its record low of 6.6% in January) and the invasion of Crimea brought U.S.-

Russian tensions back to the headlines , so soon after the Sochi Olympics. But the poll isn’t all bad news for Democrats: Asked which party they would prefer to control Congress, respondents came up nearly even, with 44% pulling for the G.O.P and 43% in favor of Democrats. The poll also showed that the sting of the government shutdown could affect all candidates: a majority of respondents said they wanted to oust their own representative, and would vote to replace every sitting member of Congress if they could. Republicans, needing to hang on to their seats and win six more to take over the Senate, are aiming to topple Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina – all states

Obama lost in 2012.

AT: Thumpers

Foreign Policy is the predicted key issue in the minds of US votersO'Neal and Huey-Burns, realclear politics analysts, 3/26(Adam and Caitlin, U.S.-Russia Tensions: A Key Issue in the Midterms? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/26/us-russia_tensions_a_key_issue_in_the_midterms_122055.html)

Some at-risk Democrats up for re-election this year are trying to use Putin’s behavior to their advantage and are receiving positive press back home for it. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, chair of the Energy Committee, was one of nine U.S. officials targeted by Kremlin counter-sanctions and barred from entering Russia. She described the action taken against her as “a badge of honor,” and used the issue to push for increasing U.S. natural gas exports to Europe and thus ease those countries’ reliance on Russia as an energy source. Most Democratic operatives, saying that voters are more concerned with the economy, are pushing issues like “paycheck fairness” and increasing the minimum wage. The strategy also assumes that foreign policy discussions will be played out in Republican primaries but not in general election matchups. However, Republicans have long focused on tying red state Democratic senators to Obamacare, and recent world events may be adding to the burdensome baggage of those lawmakers . If Americans continue to see Putin and Obama sparring during the

evening news, they’ll likely also see more on the issue during the commercial breaks .

AT Immigration thumper- Ukraine-Russia situation will be in the back of voters’ minds at the pollsBalz and Craighill, White House correspondent and Chief Correspondent at Washington Post, 4/28(Dan and Peyton, “Post-ABC News poll shows Democrats at risk in November as Obama’s approval rating falls”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-shows-democrats-at-risk-in-november-as-obamas-approval-rating-falls/2014/04/28/2a448b04-cf07-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html)

Democrats face serious obstacles as they look to the November elections, with President Obama’s approval rating at a new low and a majority of voters saying they prefer a Congress in Republican hands to check the president’s agenda, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Obama’s approval rating fell to 41 percent, down from 46 percent through the first three months of the year and the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC News polls. Just 42 percent approve of his handling of the economy, 37 percent approve of how he is handling the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and 34 percent approve of his handling of the

situation involving Ukraine and Russia . Obama’s low rating could be a significant drag on

Democratic candidates this fall — past elections suggest that when approval ratings are as

low as Obama’s, the president’s party is almost certain to suffer at the ballot box in November.

****Aff

Uniqueness

Dems will lose the senate- minority voters lack confidence Memoli, LA Times author, 7/4 (Michael, “Democrats Senate Majority Hinges on Rallying Key Vote Blocs”, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-battle-20140705-story.html)

"There are big forces that could shift the race: Lack of enthusiasm for the president is a risk for Democrats ; increasing hostility toward Republicans in Congress is a risk for Republicans. Unmarried women are the opportunity for Democrats to take their fate in their hands," Greenberg wrote. Walter said the Democrats' campaign on a theme of economic fairness may have limited success if target voters don't see hope in their own economic situation. “Minority voters are much more pessimistic now about the economy even than they were in November 2012 , " she said. "Those are the kind of voters that you need. The most important thing that can happen between now and November is that people do start to feel like things are getting better, or at the very least that things will get better a year from now."

Thumper

Obamacare thumps- swing districtsDelmore, MSNBC reporter, 7/11(Erin, “No Smooth Sailing for Democrats in Midterms”, http://www.msnbc.com/all/no-smooth-sailing-dems-midterms)

Political analysts are looking at Florida’s 13th district, a stretch of coastline encompassing parts of St. Petersburg that has been trending blue, as a swing district not unlike those in the battleground states. Republican lobbyist and former congressional aide David Jolly edged out well-known Democratic statewide official Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday, revealing the power of anti-

Obamacare attacks and their potential in November . Even though 49% of respondents said they view the health care law negatively, compared with 35% who said it is a positive development, NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling shows that voters are neck-in-neck over whether to fix or repeal the law. Forty-eight percent said they would vote for a Democrat who wants to fix the Affordable Care Act, while 47% said they would vote for a Republican who wants to repeal it.