Mexico Energy Affirmative

Possible Plans

PlanThe United States federal government should substantially increase technical cooperation and investment in Mexico’s nuclear energy.

SolvencyThe U.S has conduits to provide technical nuclear cooperation and expertise to MexicoParker 07’ (Mary Ann Parker, member of Scientists Without Borders, worldwide community of changemakers collaborating to accelerate and share solutions to the world's most urgent development, international scientific research and cooperation group, November 2007, https://www.llnl.gov/str/Nov07/pdfs/11_07.4.pdf, DPatterson)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversees the primary multilateral methods for helping the nonnuclear countries use these technologies through its Technical Cooperation Programme. One way the U.S. provides technical cooperation is through INSEP. “Nuclear energy is bound to play an increasing role in the future as oil reserves are depleted—even in countries that export oil,” says Bissani. “Countries must have the information and technical expertise they need to make this a safe, secure, and successful endeavor.” INSEP addresses the growing interest in nuclear energy in several ways. Assistance in nuclear safeguards helps participating countries meet international standards for nuclear material accounting and control. Nuclear infrastructure preparedness assistance provides them with the technical capabilities to develop nuclear power safely and securely while meeting international norms and requirements. Specific topics for cooperation include radiation protection, reactor operations, and radioactive waste disposition. Through INSEP, scientists from Lawrence Livermore and other national laboratories work with their international counterparts, exchanging information on subjects ranging from radiation protection and health physics to radioactive waste management, research reactor optimization, radioisotope production, neutron activation, and emergency response protocols. “At Livermore, we have decades of experience that we can share with our counterparts across the world,” says Bissani, “and we are happy to pass this expertise on to others.” Mexico was the first beneficiary of the nuclear engagement program. In 1982, its National Institute of Nuclear Research was paired with Los Alamos National Laboratory. Today, the list of participating countries includes Algeria, Argentina, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Peru, Romania, Thailand, and Vietnam. Five national laboratories participate: Lawrence Livermore, LosAlamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, and Argonne. Universities such as the University of Texas at Austin, University of California at Davis, Texas A&M University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Missouri also contribute. Livermore leads collaborations with the North African region, which includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco. “The program started with exclusive laboratory-to-laboratory links,” says Bissani. “Since then, NNSA has restructured it so that people can be pulled from any participating laboratory or university. That way, the best experts are assigned to each collaboration.”INSEP offers unclassified technical assistance at different levels. Once a bilateral arrangement is signed, U.S. researchers meet with a facility’s scientists and engineers to develop action sheets that outline the scope of a specific project, its schedule and tasks, and the roles and responsibilities for all participants. “When the action sheets are signed, we send experts from Livermore and other organizations on a brief expert mission,” says Bissani. “These people stay in the host country for a week or so, where they provide hands-on training, attend seminars, and give presentations on the subject.” In 2002, for example, Livermore researchers traveled to Morocco for an expert mission with researchers at the Moroccan National Center for Nuclear Energy Sciences and Techniques. The Moroccan equivalent to a U.S. national laboratory, the center operates the newly constructed research reactor at the Nuclear Research Center in Maamora. Built to international nuclear safety standards, the research reactor will be used for such civilian purposes as basic science and research, industrial applications, and medical isotope production. It will also lay the groundwork for nuclear-generated electrical power, should Morocco choose to develop this energy source

Nuclear Leadership

Top Level

1ac – Nuclear LeadershipU.S. Nuclear leadership is declining, as is its influence on nuclear policies.By Michael Wallace, et al 6/14 (George David Banks, The CSIS Commission on Nuclear Energy Policy in the United States Contributor: John Kotek, Paul Nadeau, and Thomas Hundertmark The CSIS Commission on Nuclear Energy in the United States is made up of senior public and private sector officials from across the political spectrum who agree that nuclear energy is an important part of this country’s energy mix and that the United States is losing ground as other countries proceed with planned expansions of their nuclear sectors. JUN 14, 2013Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy A National Security Imperative http://csis.org/publication/restoring-us-leadership-nuclear-energy)

The United States' nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles, failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S. reactors become uneconomic. The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. China, India, Russia, and others plan on adding nuclear technology to their mix, furthering the spread of nuclear materials around the globe. U.S. companies must meet a significant share of this demand for nuclear technology, but U.S. firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export policies. Without a strong commercial presence in new markets, the United States' ability to influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound to diminish. The United States cannot afford to become irrelevant in a new nuclear age.

Mexico has abandoned plans for nuclear power -- gas-fired electricity plants are discoveriesRodriguez 11-03-11 (Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Mexico Bureau Chief at Bloomberg News, “Mexico Scraps Plans to Build 10 Nuclear Power Plants in Favor of Using Gas”, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/mexico-scraps-plans-to-build-as-many-as-10-nuclear-plants-focus-on-gas.html)

Mexico, one of three Latin American nations that uses nuclear power, is abandoning plans to build as many as 10 new reactors and will focus on natural gas-fired electricity plants after boosting discoveries of the fuel. The country, which found evidence of trillions of cubic feet of gas in the past year , is “changing all its decisions, amid the very abundant existence of natural-gas

deposits,” Energy Minister Jordy Herrera said in a Nov. 1 interview. Mexico will seek private investment of about $10 billion during five years to expand its natural gas pipeline network, he said.¶ Mexico, Latin America’s second-largest economy, is boosting estimated gas reserves after Petroleos Mexicanos discovered new deposits in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and shale gas in the border state of Coahuila. The country was considering nuclear power as part of plans to boost capacity

by almost three-quarters to 86 gigawatts within 15 years, from about 50 gigawatts, and now prefers gas for cost reasons, he said.¶ “This is a very good decision by the Mexican government,” said James Williams, an economist at WTRG Economics, an energy

research firm in London, Arkansas. With a power generation project based on gas “you can build multiple plants at a much lower cost and much faster pace than a nuclear facility.”

The plan locks in U.S. market leadership by exporting – That’s key to influencing developing countries with respect to nuclear safety. Art Wharton Posted on September 27, 2012 Art Wharton's Overview Current Principal Project Engineer - Project Development at Westinghouse Electric Company Secretary, Board of Trustees at Urban Pathways Charter School Past Principal Project Engineer - Risk Lead at Westinghouse Electric Company Senior Project Risk Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company Core Design Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company Education University of Pittsburgh - Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business The University of Texas at Austin U.S. Global Nuclear Leadership Through Export-Driven Engagement http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/27/u-s-global-nuclear-leadership-through-export-driven-engagement/

In a global society where the United States out-spends everyone else on nationa l defense ( and shall we say, international defense ), there yet comes a time when even the immense capability of the U.S. Armed Forces cannot effectively control the global community—but the positive example of the U.S. nuclear energy

industry, its exemplary safety record, and its operational excellence can serve as a beacon of influence as it exports its technology . This is why the United States must be the market leader in the exportation of peaceful nuclear technology . But I’m not done. One of the (some might say, naïve) dreams that I had roughly a decade ago as I was working on my

undergraduate degree was the dream that I could forge a career selling and building nuclear power plants in developing nations—as part of a larger global effort to bring people out of poverty . “U.S. Global Nuclear Leadership Through Export-Driven Engagement” could help that dream come alive. World Bank research indicates that besides the opening of new markets and increasing global wealth creation, security is the other imperative to reduce world poverty, and vice-versa. A “rich” person has a lot more to lose if they go to war or otherwise commit acts of violence. What has a poor person to lose by taking such large risks? In a world where only about 1/6th of the population lives on more than $5 of purchasing power per day, the opportunities are endless for improving global security hand-in-hand with global economic

activity. Peaceful nuclear science and technology applications can be a significant piece of the puzzle—with the United States leading the way through a high level of engagement in exports.

The Laguna Verde plant is unsafe – an accident is likely and would kill millions. Rowley 10/17/88 (Storer H, Veteran journalist and current media relations director at Northwestern University, “Mexico`s First Nuclear Plant Fires Up Critics”, Chicago Tribune, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-10-17/news/8802070849_1_laguna-verde-reactor-president-miguel)

Mexico joined the atomic age this weekend by authorizing the loading of enriched uranium into this nation`s first nuclear reactor, igniting a chain reaction of protests by citizens and environmental groups. The government`s decision to start loading fuel now and begin ``hot testing`` the reactor in coming weeks has sparked fear, outrage and sharp criticism in the coastal state of Veracruz, where the plant is located, and across Mexico. Constructed on a hillside overlooking the blue-green waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Laguna Verde nuclear plant is north of the port of Veracruz and 165 miles east of the densely populated capital, Mexico City, the world`s largest metropolis with 20 million people. The lame-duck government of President Miguel de la Madrid, besieged by political and economic crises, insists the plant is secure and will cause no problems for the ``health and well-being`` of more than 80 million Mexicans. But antinuclear activists-who held rallies throughout Veracruz state over the weekend-say the project is unnecessary, unwanted, unsafe and unnerving. In a worst-case scenario, critics warned in recent interviews in Mexico City and Veracruz, an accident on a windy day could expose 30 million people in Mexico`s heavily populated central region to radiation. ``If the wind is moving in another direction, like south-to-north, as it does periodically each year, it could reach Texas and Louisiana,`` said Jose Arias Chavez, president of the Pact of Ecologist Groups. ``Carried by the Gulf Stream, radioactivity could reach all the American coast moving around Florida and northward,`` said Arias in an interview. ``It could send a gift to Europe. Or, a countercurrent, moving close to shore, could carry it to Cancun and Isla Mujeres, even Central America.`` Arias and other opponents charge the plant is a direct threat to the lives of the 1.5 million people who live nearby because it is about five miles from a volcano in a seismically active area, it was built with outdated 1970s technology and it has no long-term solution for waste disposal.

Meltdowns cause disease which cause extinctionWasserman 2 (Harvey, Senior Editor – Free Press, Earth Island Journal, Spring, www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=457&journalID=63)

The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet. Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the work force. A terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square miles would be saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma and blindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. At Indian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The immediate damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an apocalyptic wasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be permanently and

irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack.  Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?  If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down .

Without US nuclear fuel leadership prolif becomes inevitable.Gen. James L. Jones 12 (January, Georgetown University Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Bachelor of Science, Obama’s National Security Advisor, “US must remain leader in nuclear enrichment,” http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/204711-us-must-remain-leader-in-nuclear-enrichment-)

Nuclear nonproliferation, long one of America’s chief international security strategies, has been a major priority for this administration, as it has for every administration since World War II. Nuclear power is unique among energy sources because the commercial use of civilian technology is inseparable from nuclear security and proliferation concerns. The commercial trade of nuclear technology can heighten proliferation risks. Such vulnerabilities in a complex and dangerous world must continue to be managed responsibly — a primary objective of the nonproliferation laws and safeguards that accompany the export of U.S. nuclear technology. Our commercial leadership in the nuclear industry has been an enduring source of America’s influence in the global marketplace and a potent lever for promoting international cooperation in developing and enforcing nonproliferation regimes. Unfortunately, the U.S. is ceding its leadership in key areas of nuclear technology development. Of greatest concern is potential loss of leadership in the enrichment industry. The U.S. once produced a majority of the world’s supply of enriched uranium necessary to generate nuclear power, but today it produces only 25 percent. The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which operates the United States’s largest commercial uranium enrichment facility, is the only U.S.

majority-owned supplier. However, its plant located in Paducah, Ky., uses antiquated and inefficient technology. The enterprise is not well-

positioned to compete cost-effectively and its ability to sustain operations remains in serious doubt. The loss of our only domestically-owned source of enriched uranium will severely undermine America’s influence in the industry and our leadership in vital international nonproliferation efforts. Without the United States as a reliable source of nuclear fuel,

particularly in a world with increasing demand for low- and no-carbon electric generation, other nations will have greater incentive to pursue their own enrichment capabilities, increasing the risks of proliferation and the chances that civilian nuclear technology will be diverted for malign purposes. We know well the adverse effects on U.S. national security and international stability of North Korea’s and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons under the guise of commercial enrichment. The disappearance of a domestically owned capability would not only undermine U.S. leadership in a highly consequential arena of global commerce and security, it would render us dependent on foreign-controlled sources of uranium enrichment. This could increase the vulnerability not only of America’s commercial nuclear industry but of our national nuclear arsenal. Tritium, produced using enriched uranium, is necessary to maintain and modernize our nuclear weapons. Relying on foreign suppliers for material essential for maintaining the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear capability is unacceptable. It is critical that the federal government continue to invest in the research and development of technologies necessary to sustain modern and commercially viable domestic enrichment capability. Toward this end, the Department of Energy has requested congressional authorization to repurpose $300 million dollars to support continued R&D over the next two years. Unfortunately, the initial $150 million needed to demonstrate new technologies was not included in the recent spending bill.

Proliferation risks nuclear war. It only takes one miscalc.Krieger 9 (David, Pres. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Councilor – World Future Council, “Still Loving the Bomb After All These Years”, 9-4, https://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/09/04_krieger_newsweek_response.php?krieger)Jonathan Tepperman’s article in the September 7, 2009 issue of Newsweek, “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” provides a novel but frivolous argument that nuclear weapons “may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous….”

Rather, in Tepperman’s world, “The bomb may actually make us safer.” Tepperman shares this world with Kenneth Waltz, a University of California professor emeritus of political science, who Tepperman describes as “the leading ‘nuclear optimist.’” Waltz expresses his optimism in this way: “We’ve now had 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s striking and against all historical precedent that

for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states.” Actually, there were a number of proxy wars between nuclear weapons states, such as those in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, and some near disasters, the most notable being

the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Waltz’s logic is akin to observing a man falling from a high rise building, and noting that he had already fallen for 64 floors without anything bad happening to him, and concluding that so far it looked so good that others should try it. Dangerous logic!

Tepperman builds upon Waltz’s logic, and concludes “that all states are rational,” even though their leaders may have a lot of bad

qualities, including being “stupid, petty, venal, even evil….” He asks us to trust that rationality will always prevail when there is a risk of nuclear retaliation , because these weapons make “the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable.” Actually, he is asking

us to do more than trust in the rationality of leaders; he is asking us to gamble the future on this proposition. “The iron logic of

deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling,” Tepperman argues, “it’s led to what’s known as the nuclear peace….” But if this is a peace worthy of the name, which it isn’t, it certainly is not one on which to risk the future of civilization. One irrational leader with control over a nuclear arsenal could start a nuclear conflagration, resulting in a global Hiroshima.Tepperman celebrates “the iron logic of deterrence,” but deterrence is a theory that is far from rooted in “iron logic.” It is a theory based upon threats that must be effectively communicated and believed. Leaders of Country A with nuclear weapons must communicate to other countries (B, C, etc.) the conditions under which A will retaliate with nuclear weapons. The leaders of the other countries must understand and believe the threat from Country A will, in fact, be carried out. The longer that nuclear weapons are not used, the more other countries may come to believe that they can challenge Country A with impunity from nuclear retaliation. The more that Country A bullies other countries, the greater the incentive for these countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Deterrence is unstable and therefore precarious.Most of the countries in the world reject the argument, made most prominently by Kenneth Waltz, that the spread of nuclear weapons makes the world safer. These countries joined together in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but they never agreed to maintain indefinitely a system of nuclear apartheid in which some states possess nuclear weapons and others are prohibited from doing so. The principal bargain of the NPT requires the five NPT nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and the International Court of Justice interpreted this to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Tepperman seems to be arguing that seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad policy, and that nuclear weapons, because of their threat, make efforts at non-proliferation unnecessary and even unwise. If some additional states, including Iran, developed nuclear arsenals, he concludes that wouldn’t be so bad “given the way that bombs tend to mellow behavior.” Those who oppose Tepperman’s favorable disposition toward the bomb, he refers to as “nuclear pessimists.” These would be the people, and I would certainly be one of them, who see nuclear weapons as presenting an urgent danger to our security, our species and our future. Tepperman finds that when viewed from his “nuclear optimist” perspective, “nuclear weapons start to seem a lot less frightening.” “Nuclear peace,” he tells us, “rests on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance that something extremely bad will happen in exchange for a much bigger chance that something very bad – conventional war – won’t happen.” But the “extremely bad” thing he asks us to accept is the end of the human species. Yes, that would be serious. He also doesn’t make the case that in a world without nuclear weapons, the prospects of conventional war would increase dramatically. After all, it is only an unproven supposition that nuclear weapons have prevented wars, or would do so in the future. We have certainly come far too close to the precipice of catastrophic nuclear war

As an ultimate celebration of the faulty logic of deterrence, Tepperman calls for providing any nuclear weapons state with a “survivable second strike option.” Thus, he not only favors nuclear weapons, but finds the security of these weapons to trump human security. Presumably he would have President Obama providing new and secure nuclear weapons to North Korea, Pakistan and any other nuclear weapons states that come along so that they will feel secure enough not to use their

weapons in a first-strike attack. Do we really want to bet the human future that Kim Jong-Il and his successors are more rational than Mr. Tepperman?

Mexican government will say yes – multiple warrants.World Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

High-level government support exists for an expansion of nuclear energy, primarily to reduce dependence on natural gas, but also to cut carbon emissions - until 2011 the country's energy policy called for increasing carbon-free power

generation from 27% to 35% of total by 2024. The CFE in May 2010 had four scenarios for new power generation capacity from 2019-28, ranging from a heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants to meet growing demand, to a low-carbon scenario that calls for big investments in nuclear and wind power. Under the CFE's most aggressive scenario, up to ten nuclear power plants would be built so that nuclear energy supplied nearly a quarter of Mexico's power needs by 2028, which would allow the country's carbon emissions from power generation to remain virtually unchanged from 2008 despite projections of substantially higher demand. An earlier proposal was for one new nuclear unit to come on line by 2015 with seven more to follow it by 2025 to bring nuclear share of electricity up to 12% then. Cost studies showed nuclear being competitive with gas at about US$ 4 cents/kWh in all scenarios considered. However, with low gas prices in 2010 a

decision on building new nuclear capacity was delayed until 2012. CFE in November 2010 was talking about building six to eight 1400 MWe units, the first two at Laguna Verde. With the release of the 2012 energy policy, the government urged looking beyond low gas prices to consider building two more reactors at Laguna Verde, as a first step in expanding nuclear capacity to 2026. In the longer term, Mexico may look to employ small reactors such as IRIS to provide power and desalinate seawater for agricultural use. ININ have previously presented ideas for a plant consisting of three IRIS reactors sharing a stream of seawater for cooling and desalination. With seven reverse-osmosis desalination units served by the reactors, 140,000m3 of potable water could be produced each day, as well 840 MWe.

Inhereny/Uniqueness

Mexico Won’t Build Nuclear PowerInvestment in new nuclear reactors in mexico is low now- shift to natural gasRodrigiez 11- Carlos, reporter for Bloomberg, “Mexico Scraps Plans to Build 10 Nuclear Power Plants in Favor of Using Gas,” Bloomberg News Service, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/mexico-scraps-plans-to-build-as-many-as-10-nuclear-plants-focus-on-gas.htmlMexico, one of three Latin American nations that uses nuclear power, is abandoning plans to build as many as 10 new reactors and will focus on natural gas-fired electricity plants after boosting discoveries of the fuel.The country, which found evidence of trillions of cubic feet of gas in the past year, is “changing all its decisions, amid the very abundant existence of natural-gas deposits,” Energy Minister Jordy Herrera said in a Nov. 1 interview. Mexico will seek private investment of about $10 billion during five years to expand its natural gas pipeline network, he said.Mexico, Latin America’s second-largest economy, is boosting estimated gas reserves after Petroleos Mexicanos discovered new deposits in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and shale gas in the border state of Coahuila. The country was considering nuclear power as part of plans to boost capacity by almost three-quarters to 86 gigawatts within 15 years, from about 50 gigawatts, and now prefers gas for cost reasons, he said.“This is a very good decision by the Mexican government,” said James Williams, an economist at WTRG Economics, an energy research firm in London, Arkansas. With a power generation project based on gas “you can build multiple plants at a much lower cost and much faster pace than a nuclear facility.”Nations around the world are also reconsidering plans for increasing their reliance on nuclear power after the March 11 earthquake in Japan that wrecked the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, causing a loss of cooling, the meltdown of three reactors and the worst atomic disaster since the leak at Chernobyl in 1986.Strategic PlansMexico’s energy ministry plans to update the nation’s long- term strategic plan to reflect the increased importance of gas, Herrera said, with the report due in the first quarter of 2012.“Until we find a model to make renewable energy more profitable, gas is more convenient,” Herrera, who was appointed energy minister on Sept. 9, said from Mexico City.Pemex, as the state-owned oil producer is known, estimates there may be as much as 300 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Coahuila region, the head of exploration and production, Carlos Morales, said in an Oct. 27 presentation.State-owned Comision Federal de Electricidad, Latin America’s largest utility by revenue, plans to invest 66.3 billion pesos ($4.9 billion) in 2011 and 90.4 billion pesos in 2012, mainly in plant generation, as it seeks to keep pace with electricity demand, according to the company’s website.Nuclear PlantsMexico considered a plan to build as many as 10 nuclear power plants by 2028, according to a CFE presentation. The state company was weighing four investment plans to increase long-term capacity, the most ambitious nuclear plan included building 10 nuclear plants, according to the May 12, 2010 presentation.The power company, also known as CFE, is investing in the construction of six new plants using fossil fuels to improve capacity and efficiency and is reconfiguring other facilities to replace the use of other fuels with natural gas.Herrera’s comments are a departure from former Energy Minister Georgina Kessel, who said nuclear energy would help achieve President Felipe Calderon’s pledge to generate at least 35 percent of the country’s energy from so-called clean sources.“I’m convinced that in the medium- and long-term, increasing nuclear capacity is the path that should be followed,” Kessel said in an interview last year.“The country has very high potential to develop renewable energy,” Herrera said. “But the renewable energy world is hurt by the cheap gas prices. And the government has to consider how much it can spend to promote alternative energy sources.”

Leadership DecliningNow is key – nations want US assistance but declining leadership absent changeDomenici and Miller, ‘12 – BPC Senior Fellow and former Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren “Pete” Miller, former Department of Energy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, hosted a series of public events on Challenges and Opportunities for Nuclear Power in the United States. (Senator Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller, Co-Chairs, “Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative”, Publication name, 9/18/2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Report.PDF // M. Olesberg)COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR OPERATIONS As the world’s largest commercial nuclear operator and dominant weapons state, the United States has traditionally been the clear leader on international nuclear issues. Today, the United States still accounts for approximately one quarter of commercial nuclear reactors in operation around the world and one-third of global

nuclear generation.33 This position is likely to shift in coming decades, as new nuclear investments go forward in other parts of the world while slowing or halting in the United States. In past decades, the United States was also a significant exporter of nuclear materials and technologies, but this dominance too has slowly declined. At present, however, the U.S. safety and security infrastructure and regulatory framework remain without peer and U.S. expertise and guidance on operational and regulatory issues continues to be sought around the world. The domestic nuclear industry established the INPO in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 in a collective effort to hold all industry players

accountable to the highest standards for safe and reliable commercial operations. Similarly, the NRC is seen as the gold standard for commercial nuclear regulation. As long as other countries seek to learn from the experience and expertise of U.S. firms and regulators, the United States will enjoy greater access to international nuclear programs. A substantial reduction in domestic nuclear energy activities could erode U.S. international standing.

No LA Nuclear PowerLatin American countries have little nuclear power, but some are expanding. Zanelli 10 Jorge Zanelli November 2010 Latin America’s Nuclear Future Jorge Zanelli was born in Santiago and studied physics at the University of Chile and at the State University of New York, where he received his Ph.D in 1982. His dissertation dealt with supersymmetry and cosmology and was conducted under the supervision of Prof. Max Dresden. In 1982 he went to Italy as a postdoctoral fellow to the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, where he investigated the quantum mechanics of cosmological models. In 1984 he returned to a position at the University of Santiago and at the recently established Centro de Estudios Científicos de Santiago (CECs), of which he has been a research member until the present day, working mostly on black holes and quantum theory of gravity. His current interests include black hole physics and Chern-Simons (super) gravity theories. http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2010/07483.pdf TJNNuclear power accounts for 2 percent of Latin American electricity generation and is present only in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, each of which owns two reactors. Argentina and Brazil are completing construction of a third reactor (Atucha II and Angra III, respectively) while Mexico is expanding the capacity of its Laguna Verde facility by 20 percent. Mexico also announced in May that it would evaluate construction of eight new reactors as part of plans to reduce the carbon footprint.

Nuclear energy makes up a tiny fraction of Latin American energy.Zanelli 10 Jorge Zanelli November 2010 Latin America’s Nuclear Future Jorge Zanelli was born in Santiago and studied physics at the University of Chile and at the State University of New York, where he received his Ph.D in 1982. His dissertation dealt with supersymmetry and cosmology and was conducted under the supervision of Prof. Max Dresden. In 1982 he went to Italy as a postdoctoral fellow to the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, where he investigated the quantum mechanics of cosmological models. In 1984 he returned to a position at the University of Santiago and at the recently established Centro de Estudios Científicos de Santiago (CECs), of which he has been a research member until the present day, working mostly on black holes and quantum theory of gravity. His current interests include black hole physics and Chern-Simons (super) gravity theories. http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2010/07483.pdf TJNNUCLEAR ENERGY REPRESENTS A VERY SMALL FRACTION OF ELECTRICITY generation in Latin America (2 percent vs. 16 percent worldwide). The disparity can be traced back to the origins of nuclear programs in Argentina and Brazil in the 1950s, when the main purpose was military. More recently, the abundance of oil and gas in Mexico and Brazil has held down pressures to expand the nuclear industry. Will nuclear energy continue to play a marginal role in Latin America? What are the challenges and opportunities for nuclear power in the region? Are the drivers to revive nuclear energy elsewhere in the world also present in Latin America?

Little nuclear energy now, but countries are willing to expand nuclear power. Arguello 9 Research From the Field Irma Arguello August 2009 As a part of her academic activities, she is currently Director of the Regional Postgraduate Course on Disarmament and Nonproliferation. For several years she has been teaching a four-week Seminar on the matter, open to the public. Her former teaching experience also includes topics like Modern Physics and Management, at several universities and institutes. She is usually appointed to lecture different audiences and wrote many articles, papers and OpEds related to her fields of expertise and, specifically to disarmament and nonproliferation. http://npsglobal.org/eng/component/content/article/147-articles/712-nuclear-latam.html - TNLatin America relies on hydropower and fossil fuels as its main sources of electrical energy. Nuclear power in terms of total electrical generation is exiguous at about 2% and is concentrated in only three countries: Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Nontheless, plans to expand nuclear capabilities in these countries have been announced, and other regional governments are considering the alternative of nuclear energy to meet their growing electricity needs. The present global scenario also opens an opportunity for the region to carry out a progressive and ordered diversification of its current electrical power sources. Realistic goals must be set to control the inherent nuclear risks- safety, security and proliferation- which rushed expansion could exacerbate.

Even with a long history of nuclear activity, nuclear power only makes up a small portion of total power, but countries are willing to expand. Berry 9 Ken Berry ICNND Research Coordinator April 2009 The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament is a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments. It aims to reinvigorate international efforts on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, in the context of both the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and beyond. BACKGROUND PAPER LATIN AMERICA: NUCLEAR FACTS AND FIGURES http://icnnd.org/Documents/Berry_Latin_America_Background_Paper.pdf - TNThe countries of Latin America have a long history of involvement in nuclear issues, and the region was the first to create a nuclear weapons free zone through the Treaty of Tlalelolco in 1967. Some are also very active in international forums dealing with nuclear issues. Brazil is credited with being one of the few countries to have voluntarily abandoned a nuclear weapons program—though Argentina had a similar program which did not advance as far as its neighbour.There are extensive uranium deposits in Latin America, with the larger ones, however, concentrated in Brazil and Argentina. Brazil also has one of the largest thorium deposits in the world, though no country has yet established a thorium-based fuel cycle, and currently only India has an R&D program in this area. Venezuela also has large thorium deposits.Only three Latin American countries—Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico—have nuclear power reactors (two each). Moreover, those reactors only supply a very small proportion—3% to 7%—of national energy needs. Though these countries have ambitious expansion plans, the proportion of energy supplied by the nuclear sector will still be small, and there will be continued heavy reliance on more traditional energy sources such as hydroelectricity and hydrocarbons. The current international financial crisis may also limit these expansion plans for some time, and limit the plans of neighbouring countries to develop their own nuclear power sectors.Of these, the country with most resources to succeed is Chile, though its location along a major tectonic fault line will bring safety problems of its own. Uruguay and Venezuela are also thinking of developing a nuclear sector, but these are still very much only on the drawing board. Venezuela, because of its interest in developing ties with Iran, is being watched closely in this regard. Finances will be a limiting factor in the case of Uruguay.

Prolif Impact Defense

Prolif LikelyAbsent US, other countries will inevitably seek other options and prolifThe Hill 12The Hill, a subsidiary of News Communications Inc., is a newspaper published in Washington, D.C. since 1994. Its first editor was Martin Tolchin, a veteran correspondent in the Washington bureau of The New York Times.http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/204711-us-must-remain-leader-in-nuclear-enrichment-

Achieving energy security is among our nation’s most pressing requirements in this still-young century. I believe that America must employ a more strategic national energy policy if it is to overcome the many complex energy challenges that will so heavily influence its economic and national security. While our continued dependence on foreign sources of oil might remain the most visible threat to American energy security, consequential energy-related threats such as climate change and the proliferation of nuclear material will continue to bear heavily on our security for many decades to come. Nuclear nonproliferation, long one of America’s chief international security strategies, has been a major priority for this administration, as it has for every administration since World War II. Nuclear power is unique among energy sources because the commercial use of civilian technology is inseparable from nuclear security and proliferation concerns. The commercial trade of nuclear technology can heighten proliferation risks. Such vulnerabilities in a complex and dangerous world must continue to be managed responsibly — a primary objective of the nonproliferation laws and safeguards that accompany the export of U.S. nuclear technology. Our commercial leadership in the nuclear industry has been an enduring source of America’s influence in the global marketplace and a potent lever for promoting international cooperation in developing and enforcing nonproliferation regimes. Unfortunately, the U.S. is ceding its leadership in key areas of nuclear technology development. Of greatest concern is potential loss of leadership in the enrichment industry. The U.S. once produced a majority of the world’s supply of enriched uranium necessary to generate nuclear power, but today it produces only 25 percent. The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which operates the United States’s largest commercial uranium enrichment facility, is the only U.S. majority-owned supplier. However, its plant located in Paducah, Ky., uses antiquated and inefficient technology. The enterprise is not well-positioned to compete cost-effectively and its ability to sustain operations remains in serious doubt. The loss of our only domestically-owned source of enriched uranium will severely undermine America’s influence in the industry and our leadership in vital international nonproliferation efforts. Without the United States as a reliable source of nuclear fuel, particularly in a world with increasing demand for low- and no-carbon electric generation, other nations will have greater incentive to pursue their own enrichment capabilities, increasing the risks of proliferation and the chances that civilian nuclear technology will be diverted for malign purposes. We know well the adverse effects on U.S. national security and international stability of North Korea’s and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons under the guise of commercial enrichment. The disappearance of a domestically owned capability would not only undermine U.S. leadership in a highly consequential arena of global commerce and security, it would render us dependent on foreign-controlled sources of uranium enrichment. This could increase the vulnerability not only of America’s commercial nuclear industry but of our national nuclear arsenal. Tritium, produced using enriched uranium, is necessary to maintain and modernize our nuclear weapons. Relying on foreign suppliers for material essential for maintaining the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear capability is unacceptable.

Prolif Increases The Likelyhood of UseEach new nuclear state increases the likelihood of a nuclear strikeICNND 2009 (International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, chaired by Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi. The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament is a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese Governments. It aims to reinvigorate international efforts on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, in the context of both the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and beyond., Eliminating Nuclear Threats, http://icnnd.org/Reference/reports/ent/part-ii-3.html

Ensuring that no new states join the ranks of those already nuclear armed must continue to be one of the world’s top international security priorities. Every new nuclear-armed state will add significantly to the inherent risks – of accident or miscalculation as well as deliberate use – involved in any possession of these weapons, and potentially encourage more states to acquire nuclear weapons to avoid being left behind . Any

scramble for nuclear capabilities is bound to generate severe instability in bilateral, regional and international relations. The carefully worked checks and balances of interstate relations will come under severe stress. There will be enhanced fears of nuclear blackmail, and of irresponsible and unpredictable leadership

behaviour. 3.2 In conditions of inadequate command and control systems, absence of confidence building measures and multiple agencies in the nuclear weapons chain of authority, the possibility of an accidental or maverick usage of nuclear weapons will remain high. Unpredictable elements of risk and reward will impact on decision making processes. The dangers are compounded if the new and aspiring nuclear weapons states have, as is likely to be the case, ongoing inter-state disputes with ideological, territorial, historical – and for all those reasons, strongly emotive – dimensions. 3.3 The transitional period is likely to be most dangerous of all, with the arrival of nuclear weapons tending to be accompanied by sabre rattling and competitive nuclear chauvinism . For example, as between Pakistan and India a degree of stability might have now evolved, but 1998–2002 was a period of disturbingly fragile interstate relations. Command and control and risk management of nuclear weapons takes time to evolve. Military and political leadership in new nuclear-armed states need time to learn

and implement credible safety and security systems. The risks of nuclear accidents and the possibility of nuclear action through inadequate crisis control mechanisms are very high in such circumstances. If this is coupled with political instability in such states, the risks escalate again. Where such countries are beset with internal stresses and fundamentalist groups with trans-national agendas, the risk of nuclear weapons or fissile material coming into possession of non -state actors cannot be ignored. 3.4 The action–reaction cycle of nations on high alerts, of military deployments, threats and counter threats of military action, have all been witnessed in the Korean peninsula with unpredictable behavioural patterns driving interstate relations. The impact of a proliferation breakout in the Middle East would be much wider in scope and make stability management extraordinarily difficult. Whatever the chances of “stable deterrence” prevailing in a Cold War or India–Pakistan setting, the prospects are significantly less in a regional setting with multiple nuclear power centres divided by multiple and cross-cutting sources of conflict.

Prolif Bad Yo

Proliferation

Rapid prolif risks arms racing, terrorism, and nuclear warSokolski 9 (Henry, Executive Director – Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd”, Policy Review, June/July, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)

Finally, several new nuclear weapons contenders are also likely to emerge in the next two to three decades. Among these might be Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Algeria, Brazil (which is developing a nuclear submarine and the uranium to fuel it), Argentina, and possibly Saudi Arabia (courtesy of weapons leased to it by Pakistan or China), Egypt, Syria, and Turkey. All of these states have either voiced a desire to acquire nuclear weapons or tried to do so previously and have one or more of the following: A nuclear power program, a large research reactor, or plans to build a large power reactor by 2030. With a large reactor program inevitably comes a large number of foreign nuclear experts (who are exceedingly difficult to track and identify) and extensive training, which is certain to include nuclear fuel making.19 Thus, it will be much more difficult to know when and if a state is acquiring nuclear weapons (covertly or overtly) and far more dangerous nuclear technology and materials will be available to terrorists than would otherwise. Bottom line: As more states bring large reactors on line more will become nuclear-weapons-ready — i.e., they could come within months of acquiring nuclear weapons if they chose to do so.20 As for nuclear safeguards keeping apace, neither the iaea’s nuclear inspection system (even under the most optimal conditions) nor technical trends in nuclear fuel making (e.g., silex laser enrichment, centrifuges, new South African aps enrichment techniques, filtering technology, and crude radiochemistry plants, which are making successful, small, affordable, covert fuel manufacturing even more likely)21  afford much cause for optimism. This brave new nuclear world will stir existing security alliance relations more than it will settle them: In the case of states such as Japan, South Korea, and Turkey, it could prompt key allies to go ballistic or nuclear on their own. Nuclear 1914 At a minimum, such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or another of the two superpowers’ strong alliance systems — the U.S.-led free world and the Russian-Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small, nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone, associated with a relatively weak alliance system (nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk). nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of an increasing number of nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them “strategic partners” (e.g., India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), “non-nato allies” (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every nuclear power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties with one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities (see Figure 3). There are limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak alliance system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming analogous to the international system that failed to contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere on the globe. But in a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready states, this may not matter as much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or two states or groups that might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could check U.S. influence or ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing. No amount of military science or tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such threatening or unstable nuclear states.22  Nor could diplomats or our intelligence services be relied upon to keep up to date on what each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and one could easily create the perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between nuclear competitors that would put all actors on edge; an overhang of nuclear materials that could be called upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new nuclear actors developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear rivalries between states could easily be much more intense than before. Certainly each nuclear state’s military would place an even higher premium than before on being able to weaponize its military and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have forces that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced military states will also be even more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions, and to develop a variety of preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations between states could become far less stable. Relatively small developments — e.g., Russian support for sympathetic near-abroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian flanking activities in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in the Middle East or South West Asia, etc. — could easily prompt nuclear weapons deployments with “strategic” consequences (arms races, strategic miscues, and even nuclear

war ). As Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world “every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind

quite different from what is possible today.”23  In short, we may soon see a future that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics, would ever want.   None of this, however, is inevitable.

Global nuclear warUtgoff 2 (Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival Vol 44 No 2 Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions, p. 87-90)

In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations .

Prolif makes nuclear war inevitable – the terminal impact is extinctionTaylor 2 (Stuart Jr., Senior Writer – The National Journal, Contributing Editor – Newsweek, 9-16, Legal Times, Lexis)

Unless we get serious about stopping proliferation, we are headed for “a world filled with nuclear-weapons states, where every crisis threatens to go nuclear ,” where “the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day,” and where “it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists , religious cults, and criminal organizations.” So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Leadership SolvesU.S. Nuclear leadership key to check prolif BPC 12, Bipartisan Policy Center, “Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets”, July, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Leadership%20in%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Markets.pdf

Strategic Goal: Continued strong U.S. leadership in global nuclear security matters is central to protecting our national security interests. In particular, U.S. leadership in nuclear tech nology and operations can strengthen U.S. influence with respect to other countries’ nuclear programs and the evolution of the international nonproliferation regime, while also supporting U.S. competitiveness in a major export market. Nuclear power technologies are distinct from other potential exports in energy or in other sectors where America’s competitive advantage may also be declining. Because of the potential link between commercial tech nology and weapons development, nuclear power is directly linked to national security concerns, including the threat of prolif eration . Although reactors themselves do not pose significant proliferation risks, both uranium-enrichment and spent fuel–processing technologies can be misused for military purposes. If U.S. nuclear energy leadership continues to diminish, our nation will be facing a situation in which decisions about the tech nological capabilities and location of fuel-cycle facilities throughout the world will be made without significant U.S. participation . Leadership is important in both commercial and diplomatic arenas, and it requires a vibrant domestic industry ; an effective, independent regulator; access to competitive and innovative technologies and services; and the ability to offer practical solutions to safety, security, and nonprolif eration challenges (an international fuel bank, for example, could help address concerns about the proliferation of uranium-enrichment capabilities). COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR OPERATIONS As the world’s largest commercial nuclear operator and dominant weapons state, the United States has traditionally been the clear leader on international nuclear issues. Today, the U nited S tates still accounts for approximately one-quarter of commercial nuclear reactors in operation around the world and one-third of global nuclear generation .33 This position is likely to shift in coming decades, as new nuclear investments go forward in other parts of the world while slowing or halting in the U nited States. In past decades, the United States was also a significant exporter of nuclear materials and technologies, but this dominance too has slowly declined. At present, however, the U.S. safety and security infrastructure and regulatory framework remain without peer and U.S. expertise and guidance on operational and regulatory issues continues to be sought around the world. The domestic nuclear industry established the INPO in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 in a collective effort to hold all industry players accountable to the highest standards for safe and reliable commercial operations. Similarly, the NRC is seen as the gold standard for commercial nuclear regulation. As long as other countries seek to learn from the experience and expertise of U.S. firms and regulators, the United States will enjoy greater access to international nuclear programs. A substantial reduction in domestic nuclear energy activities could erode U.S. international standing. COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR EXPORTS As an active participant in commercial markets, the United States has considerable leverage internationally through the 123 Agreements (in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act) and Consent Rights on nuclear technologies exported by the U.S. nuclear industry. These mechanisms provide a direct and effective source of leverage over other countries’ fuel-cycle decisions. U.S. diplomatic influence is also important, but absent an active role in commercial markets, it may not be sufficient to project U.S. influence and interests with respect to nuclear nonproliferation around the world. At an October 2011 Nuclear Initiative workshop on “Effective Approaches for U.S. Participation in a More Secure Global Nuclear Market,” Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel B. Poneman framed commerce and security not as competing objectives but as “inextricably intertwined.”34 He also highlighted several ways in which a robust domestic nuclear energy industry can further our country’s nonproliferation goals. Deputy Secretary Poneman emphasized the importance of U.S. leadership not only in the commercial marketplace but in international nonproliferation organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well. In addition, BPC’s Nuclear Initiative recognizes that a nuclear accident is a low-probability event that would have high consequences regionally or globally. Many countries that have expressed interest in, or the intention to, develop domestic nuclear power lack important infrastructure, education, and regulatory institutions. We believe that, if these programs move forward, the United States has a critical commercial and advisory role to play

US nuclear leadership controls proliferation Loudermilk, Senior Energy Associate @ NDU, 2011 [Micah J. Loudermilk, Senior Associate for the Energy & Environmental Security Policy program with The Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, “Small Nuclear Reactors and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs,” Journal of Energy Security, May 2011, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=314:small-nuclear-reactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs&catid=116:content0411&Itemid=375]

Combating proliferation with US leadership: Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and know-how disseminates around the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality, regardless of the US

commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under construction around the world—though Fukushima may cause a temporary lull. Since Three Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more committed

to nuclear power. On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US leadership , new nations seek to

acquire nuclear tech nology turn to countries other than the US who may not share a deep commitment to

reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a

vibrant American nuclear industry. This will enable the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel reprocessing, and developing reactor technologies. As to the small reactors themselves, the designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance unmatched by large reactors. Small enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the concrete surrounding the reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional domes that protect conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of

superior physical protection is the traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are factory-sealed with a supply of fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are returned to the factory , intact, for removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel cycle, proliferation risks associated with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and concerns over the widespread distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.

Rapid global nuclear power expansion is inevitable, the US must regain nuclear leadership to prevent proliferationDomenici and Miller ’12 (Co-chaired by Senator Pete Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller | July 2012 Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative

With the world’s largest commercial nuclear fleet, the U nited S tates was once the world’s leader in nuclear tech nology development and operations. In recent years, other countries , notably France and South Korea, have risen in international prominence ; these countries will continue to develop technologies for domestic markets as well as to export. It will be increasingly difficult for the United States to maintain its technological leadership without some near-term domestic demand for new constructio n . Diminished U.S. leadership will make U.S. firms less competitive in nuclear export markets while also reduc ing U.S. influence over nuclear developments abroad . As more countries seek to develop nuclear capacity, the United States must work with the international community to minimize the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Our event series explored several of these challenges and sought to identify areas where federal policy can most effectively address barriers to maintaining a viable domestic nuclear industry. We also believe that federal policy can help support U.S. leadership in international nuclear issues. The next section reviews near-term prospects for nuclear power domestically and internationally by highlighting the importance of continued U.S. leadership The passage of EPACT05, which contained several provisions to support the construction of new reactors, revived interest in nuclear power and hopes for a nuclear renaissance in the United States. EPACT05 included a loan guarantee program, licensing assistance for first movers, and production tax incentives for new nuclear generators. Subsequently, manufacturers submitted four new reactor designs for certification under a revamped NRC licensing process and 18 utilities submitted COL applications for a total of 28 new reactors. 7 In December 2011, the NRC approved the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design, an innovative design that employs advanced technology and passive systems to further improve reactor safety and security. 8,9 In February 2012, Southern Company and its partners received the first COL to build two new AP1000 reactors at Southern Company’s Vogtle plant in Georgia. The reactors are expected to come online in 2016 and 2017. The Vogtle reactors are the first to be approved under a new NRC licensing process (spelled out under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52) that aims to improve the efficiency of the regulatory process by combining the construction permit with a COL. 10 In March 2012, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and its partners also received a COL to build two new reactors at the V.C. Summer Station in Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 11 The current federal loan guarantee program for new nuclear plants was included in EPACT05 (under Section 1703, Title XVII) with overwhelming bipartisan support. Congress intended for this program to spur clean-energy investments by leveraging public and private resources to overcome the cost hurdles associated with first-time deployment of advanced technologies, including Generation III+ reactors. In February 2010, DOE issued the first conditional loan guarantee for a nuclear energy project to the Vogtle plant. 12 Southern Company and DOE are currently negotiating the terms of the $8.3 billion loan guarantee. 13 The owners of the proposed Summer plant have also applied for, but not yet received, a loan guarantee under the Section 1703 program. Beyond the Vogtle and Summer plants, there are likely to be—at most—a few more Generation III+ plants ordered in the United States for the foreseeable future, given current market conditions and the array of challenges (described later in this report) that confront new nuclear plant construction. Internationally, the outlook is quite different: a number of countries intend to grow their nuclear fleet or enter the

market for nuclear technology for the first time. Though enthusiasm for nuclear investments has been somewhat dimmed by the Fukushima accident , there still seems to be substantial international interest in the further deployment of nuclear power. In 2008, when the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) last conducted its Nuclear Energy Outlook, it analyzed global growth scenarios ranging from 450 to 600 gigawatts of electricity through nuclear capacity by 2050, taking into account existing capacity and new additions. 14 Several years later, the lower-end projection seems more likely given the impacts of the worldwide economic crisis and the impacts of the Fukushima accident. 15 In fact, Fukushima has caused, appropriately, an international pause as each country with existing or planned nuclear capacity takes time to reassess the safety of its currently operating plants and to review its commitment to future nuclear energy development. Some countries—Germany is a prominent example—have reversed course on their nuclear energy programs. In March 2011, Germany’s 17 reactors generated approximately 25 percent of that country’s electricity supply. After Fukushima, the German government immediately shut down eight reactors and reinstated its policy of phasing out nuclear energy altogether by 2022. 16 Italy and Switzerland have made similar decisions to phase out or delay the growth of their nuclear programs. 17 After Fukushima, the Japanese government reversed its policy goal of expanding nuclear power to 30 to 40 percent of electric generation. 18 As of May 2012, all 54 of Japan’s nuclear power reactors had been shut down for scheduled maintenance; due to public opposition, to date, only one of these plants has been able to restart. 19,20 Several other countries, by contrast, have reaffirmed their intentions to continue expanding or developing a nuclear energy program after Fukushima. These countries include China, India, South Korea, and Russia . Together, they are expected to account for 80 percent of new nuclear plant construction globally over the next decade or longer . China alone accounts for 40 percent of planned new construction globally, with 26 new reactors under development. 21 Thus, global growth in nuclear energy is still expected to be positive overall . This section, building on key findings from our public event series, outlines five strategic goals that emerged from the Nuclear Initiative’s activities as well as available policy levers for maintaining U.S. leadership in nuclear energy domestically and internationally. Strategic Goal: Ensuring a strong U.S. nuclear energy sector should be a high priority for federal energy and national security policy. Nuclear energy is critical to maintaining a reliable, affordable, and clean electric power sector, and a strong domestic nuclear industry strengthens America’s position in international nonproliferation matters.

Advanced nuclear research’s key to U.S. global leadership --- ensures effective non-proliferation Fertel 10 (Marvin S., President and Chief Executive Officer – Nuclear Energy Institute, “Testimony for the Record – U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology”, 6-3, http://www.nei.org/publicpolicy/congressionaltestimony/june-3-2010-fertel/)

NEI appreciates this committee’s recognition of the strategic importance of increased federal funding for nuclear energy research and development. Increases in nuclear energy R&D investment will be necessary in the years ahead to help create a sustainable, reliable and low-carbon electric supply infrastructure. Unfortunately, recent trends are in the opposite direction. In a 2007 analysis, the Government Accountability Office found that DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil and nuclear energy R&D declined by more than 85 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) between 1978 and 2005. Over that period, the need for new technologies to address critical energy needs has not diminished; rather, it has increased with the advent of climate change concerns.A robust research and development program is necessary if nuclear energy is to realize its full potential in the nation’s low-carbon energy portfolio. In 2008, directors of the 10 DOE national laboratories, including now-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, published a report recognizing that “nuclear energy must play a significant and growing role in our nation’s … energy portfolio … in the context of broader global energy, environmental, and security issues. The national laboratories, working in collaboration with industry, academia and the international community, are committed to leading and providing the research and technologies required to support the global expansion of nuclear energy.”

The national laboratory directors pointed out that the U.S. leadership position in the global nuclear enterprise is at stake . Participation in the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies will allow the U nited S tates to influence energy technology choices around the world. This participation also could help assure that objective and viable nonproliferation controls are in place as other countries develop commercial nuclear capabilities. Therefore, technical leadership and increased R&D funding should be a strategic and economic imperative of the administration, Congress and the industry.

Proliferation’s inevitable --- U.S. leadership makes it safe and stableBuckner 1 (Buckner and Sanders (Mel and Thomas, Chair of the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Senior Consultant, Strategic Materials Technology Department/Savannah River Technology Center, at Westinghouse Savannah River Company, in Aiken, S. C. Thomas L. Sanders is Vice-Chair of SCNN and Manager, Nuclear Initiatives, at Sandia National Laboratories, Nuclear News, February, http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2001080/ms2001080.html)

With the end of the Cold War, a new global nuclear infrastructure is evolving that presents a very different challenge and our vision for and approaches to assuring safe, secure, and legitimate nuclear operations must change to meet this challenge. There is now an over abundance of military nuclear resources —people, technology, facilities, and materials—in some threshold and nuclear weapon states that could and should be converted to safeguarded and transparent civilian nuclear

energy applications. The U.S. nuclear infrastructure (both government and civilian) has been severely weakened to the extent that our ability to influence and promote the safety, security, and prolif eration prevention cultures and standards internationally has waned . A ‘new’ domestic policy and infrastructure must evolve to re-establish an effective U.S. influence during this transition to the next nuclear era .

Historical PerspectivePresident Eisenhower recognized that peaceful nuclear energy could provide global benefits as well as national security risks. The goals of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Proposal (1) were to:Control the dissemination of nuclear information through active participation with other countries;Establish a U.S. advantage in commercial nuclear competition;Induce the USSR to divert materials from weapons to energy use;Support the evolution of an International Atomic Energy Agency;Nurture safety and proliferation prevention cultures worldwide; andOffset the negative impact of the hydrogen bomb.The Atoms for Peace initiative resulted in active R&D collaboration in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and in the implementation of the IAEA concept of nuclear material safeguards. The U.S. established an industry with strong educational underpinnings and a growing market for nuclear energy. It also applied military resources to peaceful nuclear applications and laid the foundation for the NPT.The "Turbulent 70’s" started on a very positive note with the beginning of NPT safeguards and ended on a mixed note with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 (NNPA) and the Three Mile Island accident. In the early 70’s, the energy crisis erupted and the use of nuclear energy was projected to expand rapidly. In 1974, the U.S., which controlled virtually all the nuclear materials throughout the free world, decided not to expand its enrichment capabilities to meet the growing demand. European firms quickly developed enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to meet the perceived demand. Also, India exploded a "peaceful" nuclear device constructed of indigenously developed materials, and the U. S. Congress responded to this potential new threat with the NNPA.The perception that critical weapon technologies were being transferred around the world provoked Congress and the Ford and Carter administrations to place severe restrictions on nuclear trade and cooperation. In particular, sharing enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water technology was forbidden. Also, a Suppliers Group formed by Canada, France, West Germany, Japan, the UK, the U.S., and the USSR developed a "code of conduct" for international nuclear exports. These actions were perceived by other nations as an attempt to develop a "nuclear cartel", as several of these countries would pursue these technologies on their own over the next 20 years.Proliferation is a function of the availability of material, people with the right skills, enabling technology, and the political will to proceed. With the advent of the NPT, the world became divided into nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). The goal of the NWS has always been to prevent horizontal proliferation - the spread of nuclear weapons. The prevention tactic has varied between denial of access to people, materials, and/or technology and assurance of peaceful use through transparent (safeguarded) collaboration. The goals of the NNWS have been focused on slowing vertical proliferation through arms control and acquiring access to the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy. Today there are five NWS as defined by the NPT, U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China. There are two additional states with nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan and possibly a third, Israel. One other state, South Africa had nuclear weapons but chose to completely disarm. Over the last fifty years, according to open literature, approximately 15 other countries have had nuclear weapons programs at various stages of maturity. Many of these, along with China and France, have only recently signed the NPT.The U.S. Position in the Global Nuclear Picture

The worldwide nuclear power infrastructure will change over the next three decades. Former defense infrastructures in several countries will be transitioned to civilian use; excess defense materials will be irreversibly consumed by civilian reactors and many more developing nations will invest in the nuclear option for energy independence and to do their part in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. As an example, the Russian military production complex is approximately three times the size of its U.S. counterpart and is still functional and could (given the financial resources) support a large expansion of the nuclear generating capacity in Russia and elsewhere through export of nuclear services. China may increase its generating capacity by several hundred percent. Nuclear production of electricity in Great Britain now exceeds that based on coal and will likely double in the next few decades. France is heavily invested in the nuclear option while Japan and South Korea are clearly moving in the same direction. Each of these countries has (or intends to have) significant fuel cycle efforts in place. The large emerging infrastructures will likely privatize to support both domestic and international needs.It is interesting to contrast this other world scenario with the expected trend in the U.S. over the next fifty years. While U.S. nuclear plant operators have substantially improved performance of over 100 nuclear power plants, no new units are currently on order in the U.S. The U.S. nuclear materials production complex is shut down and

environmental clean-up activities are in progress at most of these facilities. As a result of this, and the fact that we ceased civilian reprocessing during the 1970’s,

the core competencies and educational infrastructure necessary to support nuclear chemical processing will likely disappear within ten years in the U.S. Our remaining enrichment facilities are destined for shutdown by the year 2015. Operations may even cease sooner because of the excess highly enriched uranium entering the U.S. and Russian inventories from weapon dismantlement programs.There is only one non-defense "research" reactor still operating in the U.S. Government Complex. No new civilian nuclear reactors are planned; although, as Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has noted, these nuclear plants were responsible for 89% of all the carbon dioxide emissions avoided by U.S. electric utilities over the past twenty or so years.It is becoming increasingly apparent to even those that are looking forward to the demise of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure that in the foreseeable future we may not have a sufficient legacy of expertise to participate in the evolution of the world nuclear infrastructure . Without participating, we cannot promote cradle-to-grave fuel cycle safety and ensure civilian nuclear materials are always safe, secure, and legitimately used. It is also apparent that the nuclear option must at least be preserved; otherwise, we may not be able to manage the growing risks associated with atmospheric pollution.It is no surprise that our nuclear industry is already moving toward foreign partnerships or ownership in order to survive. It is also not surprising that this scenario is resulting in a chain of events that could severely affect the government’s ability to maintain nuclear physics and engineering skills that are critical to all our national nuclear missions . How can our high school graduates of the year 2001 be enticed to enter a profession that has no perceived future beyond decommissioning, dismantlement, and cleanup? Our educational infrastructure in nuclear engineering is also disappearing—it isn’t clear where the next generation of nuclear stewards in the U.S. will come from; we are at risk of losing our

massive investments in the proliferation prevention cultures we have strived for over the last 50 years.A Constituency is BuildingMany of our leaders recognize that the U.S. must lead the creation of an international future that will have fewer nuclear weapons, more

nuclear waste, more countries with nuclear energy technology, and greater use of nuclear energy. They also recognize that having a strong domestic nuclear energy program helps manage the risks of offshore proliferation . In June of 1997, in a letter to DOE Secretary Pena, Senator

Pete Domenici noted that "continued erosion in our global leadership of nuclear issues increases the probability that we will be buying our future nuclear power from foreign sources and that we will be non-players at a future date when proliferation issues involving nuclear materials will raise even more serious national security issues than they do today (2)." Senator Domenici noted similar concerns during a colloquy and a follow-up letter to then Secretary of Energy Pena from him and his colleagues: Senators Kempthorne, Craig, Murkowski, Kyl, Faircloth, and Durbin (3,4). Specifically, the record states the following:

"The projected demise of "everything nuclear " in the U.S. over the next four decades will slowly deteriorate our ability to project U.S. policy abroad regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the checks and balances necessary to prevent diversion of civilian technology and materials to illegitimate purposes . Already in the U.S., much of the nuclear service industry has "moved offshore" either directly or indirectly through foreign takeover. Our educational foundation, as evidenced by the number of academic departments and institutions, has decreased by 50%. The ratio of foreign students to domestic students pursuing graduate degrees in nuclear science and engineering in the U.S. has increased from 20% to over 70% over the past two decades. The U.S. curriculum no longer covers the breadth of the civilian fuel-cycle principles necessary to influence and promote worldwide safety, security, and accountability of nuclear infrastructures and materials. In fact, with the downsizing of the U.S. weapons complex and the civilian nuclear industry, most university R&D is concentrating on providing the base technologies for health effects and radiation protection, irradiated material management, and nuclear medicine."

"The greatest minds that we have nationally to weigh in on this question have done so, and they believe that the failure to have a strong nuclear energy r esearch and d evelopment program will diminish our national security, our economic competitiveness, and the public

well-being. The bottom line is that as our primacy in nuclear R&D declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations."

Other Impacts For Nuclear Leadership

Laguna Verde UnsafeFailures in regulations and plant management could have meant thousands of deaths at the Laguna Verde Plant.Michael Flynn 2k (August, York University - Schulich School of Business, MBA, Strategy, Technology Strategy, University of Waterloo, Bachelor of Mathematics, Honours Computer Science, Economics Minor, Co-op, ‘Bernardo Salas "Bad Element,"’ The Bulletin, Energy 2050, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0114/ML011440420.pdf)

On March 9, monitors in the plant’s main steam pipe detected trace amounts of radia-tion seeping from the reactor, indicating a possible core meltdown. Plant officials im-mediately shut down the reactor and placed the plant on a state of alert. Remarkably of-ficials failed to tell employees the reason for the shutdown and made no effort to prepare for an evacuation. Although the leak was later determined to be a false alarm, for Salas, management’s fail-ure to institute the plant's internal emergency plan was inexcusable. "At the very least,” he says, "authorities should have followed plant regulations and directed everyone to their meeting places to await further instructions. If the situation deteriorated, everyone would then be in a position to be evacuated. Instead, they left us all in a defenseless position." Salas compares this 1993 incident to the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. At least at Three Mile Island, he says, authori-ties followed internal emergency procedures and evacuated workers when a meltdown was detected. "If there had been a meltdown at Laguna Verde that day, Three Mile Island would no longer be considered the worst nu clear accident in the Western hemisphere. Plant workers and thousands of people living Laguna Verde could have been contam-inated without even having known about it." According to Salas, the person responsible for failing to institute the emergency plan was plant superintendent Jose Francisco But instead of being reprimanded for his negligence, says Salas, Torres was given a promotion several months after the incident.

Laundry List And, Independently Nuclear leadership solves every major impactStanley 7 (Elizabeth Stanley, Ph.D. in Government – Harvard University, Assistant Professor – Georgetown University, Member – National Security Advisement Board of Sandia National Laboratories, “International Perceptions of U.S. Nuclear Policy” http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2007/070903.pdf)

Perceptual relationships, however, are another matter. The third implication of this research is that nuclear policy matters immensely for the U nited S tates’ international reputation. Such reputation effects can have significant impact in terms of

gaining international cooperation in addressing global issues that require multilateral solutions – and given the interdependent nature of the world today, most issues fall into this category . As the remaining global superpower, the United States is often held to a higher standard in most issue areas, including its responsibilities under Article VI and commitments made at the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT.4 Thus, given the remarkable agreement among the views of the four countries examined here, it is likely that any small changes in US nuclear policy that are perceived as moving away from disarmament will be judged harshly in the international community as hypocritical and increasing global nuclear danger. Sadly, even small US actions towards disarmament may only earn international respect if they are matched by cooperative policies in other issue areas. In sum, the United States is unlikely to win the perceptual game as long as some of its policies and/or actions are perceived as unilateral and aggressive.Viewed another way, the “wicked problem” (a problem having complex, adaptive, unpredictable components) that US nuclear policy and posture is trying to address is global proliferation of WMD. 5 Yet, WMD proliferation is not a problem that the United States can address effectively alone. To address global proliferation concerns, the United States needs the rest of the world to participate in the process. Given how complex the WMD proliferation problem is, this requires not only other international actors to commit to solving the “problem” with us but that they have a similar understanding of what the “problem” is. This common problem definition is not possible when the rest of the world has negative perceptions of the United States, when US policies and actions (in the nuclear and non-nuclear arenas) are perceived as unilateral and hypocritical. Indeed, this paper suggests that many international actors appear to view US policy and actions as one of the contributors to the WMD proliferation problem. In other words, US actions actually affect how other states define the problem, and how they define the problem affects what they believe the “right” solution is. Given their different understanding, it is not surprising that the “wicked” problem becomes even thornier to address. How the United States and other actors define the problem affects which solution strategies will be considered. Thus, perceptions can have important strategic consequences.In short, how other international actors perceive US policies and actions matters a great deal in their decisions about how much they will cooperate on the US policy goal of nonproliferation. This finding also accords with the SAIC study, which reported that US allies argue that “a greater US readiness to engage on nuclear disarmament issues would pay off in increased support from other third parties in pursing US non-proliferation objectives.”6 The tragic irony is this: US nuclear policy and actions, which have the objective of trying to “solve” the global proliferation problem, may actually be making other international actors feel less secure. Their increased sense of insecurity lessens international security overall and reverberates back to the US as a heightened insecurity as well. Thus, if the US is trying to reduce proliferation in the world, it will not succeed by using its nuclear policies as its only lever. Cooperative nuclear policies will have to be matched by cooperative policies in other areas, if the US wants “credit” for leading the world towards a reduced nuclear danger.Finally, the implications of this analysis could be good or bad news for the US nuclear complex. The bottom line is that US nuclear policy by itself is relatively unimportant, when viewed through the perspective of other international actors. Thus, small changes in the US nuclear posture, such as transforming the complex or improving US weapon surety, are unlikely to create a huge international outcry, especially if they are counter-balanced by cooperative US policies in other issue areas. The good news is that the US nuclear complex could “fly under the radar screen” with new nuclear initiatives, as long as the United States were acting cooperatively in other issue areas. Alternatively, because US nuclear policy by itself (short of unilateral disarmament or escalated deployments) is relatively unimportant in US relations with other states, US policymakers may decide that spending political capital in this area is not worth the price. In this case, the bad news is that US policymakers may view changes in nuclear policy as having steep domestic political costs (judging by Congressional resistance to existing initiatives) and providing very little benefit in relations with other states, and thus decide to leave the Complex to languish.This paper consists of six sections and a conclusion. The first section grounds the analysis about international responses to US nuclear policy within a wider theoretical discussion about international cooperation and “wicked” problems. The second section provides an overview of the methodology of analysis. The next four sections examine responses to US nuclear policy in the four countries of interest – China, Iran, Pakistan and Germany. The conclusion suggests some common themes from the four countries and offers implications for the US nuclear complex.CONSIDERATIONSThere has been much debate in policy circles about the effect of US nuclear policy on global nuclear proliferation. Some observers, such as Ashton Carter and Keith Payne, argue that US nuclear policy has no effect on other states’ decisions to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, they argue, states decide to proliferate for domestic political or regional security reasons. The problem with this argument is that US actions could have prompted or exacerbated the “regional security reason,” which suggests that there are very few “pure” regional reasons. For example, the United States’ decision to include Taiwan under its extended deterrence nuclear umbrella affects China’s nuclear and conventional security posture in the Taiwan Straits. Similarly, as will be discussed in the section on Pakistan below, the United States’ civilian nuclear deal with India significantly changes Pakistan’s calculus in the South Asia.Others argue that US decisions lead other states to be more inclined to acquire their own nuclear weapons. These observers argue that US nuclear policy creates the perception of hypocrisy in light of the United States’ responsibilities towards eventual disarmament under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This view has most recently been espoused by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, chaired by Hans Blix, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector. In his introduction to the June 2006 commission report, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms, Blix argued that American unwillingness to cooperate in international arms agreements, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and its missile defense program are undermining efforts to curb nuclear weapons. Treaty-based disarmament is being set back by “an increased US skepticism regarding the effectiveness of international institutions and instruments, coupled with a drive for freedom of action to maintain an absolute global superiority in weaponry and means of their delivery.” The report drew a direct link between the rise of individual action and the decline of cooperation, and thus “nuclear weapons states no longer seem to take their commitment to nuclear disarmament seriously.” Blix clearly placed the blame at the feet of the United States: “If it takes the lead, the world is likely to follow. If it does not take the lead, there could be more nuclear tests and new nuclear arms races.”7This debate about the effects of US nuclear policy on other nations’ willingness to cooperate with international non-proliferation regimes is a subset of a wider debate about cooperation in international relations. On the one hand, realists argue that cooperation between states is always ephemeral, because the international system lacks an overarching world government to enforce agreements and states have to take care of themselves, by accumulating economic and military power. In this zero-sum world, any attempts at international cooperation will always fail, because states can never trust other states to uphold their end of the bargain. Thus, even though all states would be better off if they could cooperate with each other, each individual state has an incentive to defect from the agreement first to gain a relative advantage over its competitors. 8 Thus, realists would advise carrying a big stick and going it alone, since any attempts at multilateral cooperative policies are doomed to fail over the long run.In contrast, liberal institutionalists argue that cooperation among states is possible, despite the lack of a world government to enforce agreements. These scholars argue that states are less concerned with relative power gains over potential adversaries and more concerned with absolute gains in power. To capture the potential gains from cooperation, states have created a number of institutions and regimes that increase transparency in the international system, lower transaction costs, make defection less likely through increased “audience costs”9, make reciprocity easier, and allow states to share the burden of providing security for themselves, thus freeing resources to be used in other ways.10 This cooperation is possible, theses scholars argue, because states take a longer view of the future than realists acknowledge. States realize that with repeated interactions, cooperation is possible, because over time, states are most likely to respond with a “tit for tat” strategy – to treat other states as they are themselves are treated.11 Therefore, if one side cooperates, the most rational and most likely response by the other side is to cooperate back.Liberal institutionalists also differ from realists in their understanding of power. While realists view power more narrowly in terms of “hard power” (military and economic might), liberal institutionalists also look at a state’s “soft power” (a state’s culture, values and institutions). Hard power can be used to incite others to change their positions through inducements or threats; in other words, hard power is coercive. Soft power provides a more indirect way for a state to achieve the outcomes it desires by attracting other states to it and getting those states to want what it wants. With soft power, others want to follow it, because they admire its values, emulate its example and aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. In other words, soft power is co-optive.12The foundation of US soft power is the values that the United States expresses in its culture and projects at home and abroad. US soft power flows from the classical liberal values and institutional structures expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – freedom, tolerance, a respect for an open society, and individual rights and equality before the law. US soft power is embodied in the checks and balances and participatory nature of its democratic government and the openness of its market economy. US soft power is embodied in its history as the only nation to win a world war and use its wealth and predominance to rebuild the defeated powers as open societies and to create and nurture a network of inclusive international institutions, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the precursor to the World Trade Organization. Most of all, it is embodied in the mythic sense of the United States as “The City on the Hill,” a moral beacon and refuge that has drawn people for centuries in search of The American Dream. It is US soft power that is captured in Emma Lazarus’ poem mounted on the Statue of Liberty:Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!Seen in light of this wider debate about cooperation and power in international relations, US nuclear policy can be framed in terms of its effects on US soft power rather than just traditional hard power framing. Obviously, US nuclear policy aims to strengthen US hard power, but it also has effects on soft power. This analysis suggests that US nuclear policy undermines US soft power abroad. Given its status as a nuclear weapons state in the NPT, and its commitment in that treaty to eventual disarmament, the United States is faulted by other countries when its nuclear policies are perceived to be at odds with this disarmament goal. For example, many states view the United States’ decisions not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty to develop a national missile defense program – while simultaneously trying to block other states from developing nuclear programs – as very hypocritical. The US hypocrisy is perceived to extend to other policy areas as well, including (for example): agriculture, pharmaceuticals, relations with authoritarian leaders, and treatment of detainees.Perceptions about all of these US actions have corroded US soft power. These perceptions have made other states – including allies – less inclined to cooperate with the United States. These actions also appear to provide a basis for adversaries and others to call the American commitment to freedom and peace into doubt. In other words, these actions as they are perceived abroad appear to demonstrate that the United States believes it is powerful enough – and thus exceptional enough – to behave independently of international norms. As a Pakistani security scholar, Ghazala Yasmin, argued in an article about the US NPR, “The US seems to be sending a message across the world – do as we say, not as we do.”13

How important is soft power, anyway? Given its vast conventional military power, does the U nited S tates even need soft power? Some analysts argue that US military predominance is both possible and desirable over the long term, and thus soft power is not important. But a growing consensus disagrees. These analysts argue that soft power is critical for four reasons. First, soft power is invaluable for keeping potential adversaries from gaining international support , for “winning the peace” in Afghanistan and Iraq , and for convincing moderates to refrain from supporting extremist terrorist groups . Second, soft power helps influence neutral and developing states to support US global leadership . Third, soft power is also important for convincing allies and partners to share the international security burden .14 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, given the increasing interdependence and globalization of the world system, soft power is critical for addressing most security threats the U nited S tates

faces today. Most global security threats are impossible to be countered by a single state alone. Terrorism , weapons of mass destruction ( WMD) prolif eration , failed and failing states , conflicts over access to resources , are

not confined to any one state. In addition, disease , demographic shifts , environmental degradation and global warming will have negative security implications as well .15 All of these potential threats share four traits: (1) they

are best addressed proactively, rather than after they develop into full-blown crises; (2) they require multi-lateral approaches, often under the umbrella of an international institution; (3) they are not candidates for a quick fix, but rather require multi-year, or multi-decade solutions; and, (4) they are “wicked” problems. Given these four traits, soft power is critical for helping to secure the international , multi-lateral cooperation that will be necessary to address such threats effectively .If soft power is important in today’s security landscape, how important for regaining the “moral high ground” and repairing its soft power is a perceived US commitment to the nonproliferation regime? How do international actors perceive US nuclear policy and changes to that policy?Because of the nature of the weapons themselves, United States’ nuclear policy cannot be directed at just one actor or group of actors. Any

changes in US nuclear policy will send signals to multiple actors in the international system . The actors most often considered are potential adversaries, including emerging peers, rogue states and non-state violent extremists. However, the US posture also sends strong signals to allies, neutrals and other states in the system that may be considering acquiring nuclear weapons. Depending upon its congruence with the NPT (especially Article VI), US nuclear policy also sends signals about US credibility in upholding other international agreements and acting as a global leader in international institutions. Each of these reactions occurs simultaneously and interacts with each other, in turn affecting how the US responds to those reactions. The strategic interaction is complex and incredibly difficult to model.

PovertyU.S. leadership is vital to tech innovation necessary to adapt nuclear power so it can solve global povertyRobinson and Orient 4 – *Professor of Chemistry and Founder of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine AND ** executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Arthur and Jane, The New American, “Science, Politics and Death”, 6/14, http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/358)

Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Without it, stagnation , regression and untold human

deaths will result . The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding, there is no shortage of energy. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy," including all physical objects. These forms of energy differ, however, in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is , by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology . Its use improves

the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The U nited S tates was once the world

leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different . Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Moreover, very large

portions of the world's poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift themselves from poverty - provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so - and to escape the horrible conditions in which they lead lives of desperation, constantly at the edge of death. Many people strongly desire to help humanity. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. Most other people, even though they do not work actively toward these goals, share the same values. They passively support things that improve human life. Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power . They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power

derived from coal, oil and natural gas, and of hydroelectric power. Their interest in solar power, biofuel power, wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy .

TerrorPerception of US leadership against nuclear terrorism is key to the nuclear taboo- prevents nuclear warBin ‘9 (5-22-09 About the Authors Prof. Li Bin is a leading Chinese expert on arms control and is currently the director of Arms Control Program at the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua University. He received his Bachelor and Master Degrees in Physics from Peking University before joining China Academy of Engineering Physics (CAEP) to pursue a doctorate in the technical aspects of arms control. He served as a part-time assistant on arms control for the Committee of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND).Upon graduation Dr. Li entered the Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics (IAPCM) as a research fellow and joined the COSTIND technical group supporting Chinese negotiation team on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). He attended the final round of CTBT negotiations as a technical advisor to the Chinese negotiating team. Nie Hongyi is an officer in the People’s Liberation Army with an MA from China’s National Defense University and a Ph.D. in International Studies from Tsinghua University, which he completed in 2009 under Prof. Li Bin. )

The nuclear taboo is a kind of international norm and this type of norm is supported by the promotion of the norm through international social exchange. But at present the increased threat of nuclear terrorism has lowered people’s confidence that nuclear weapons will not be used . China and the United States have a broad common interest in combating nuclear terrorism. Using technical and institutional measures to break the foundation of nuclear terrorism and lessen the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack can not only weaken the danger of nuclear terrorism itself but also strengthen people’s confidence in the nuclear taboo , and in this way preserve an international environment beneficial to both China and the United States. In this way even if there is crisis in China-U.S. relations caused by conflict, the nuclear taboo can also help both countries reduce suspicions about the nuclear weapons problem, avoid miscalculation and thereby reduce the danger of a nuclear war .

Global nuclear power transition’s inevitable and causes terrorism and prolif --- U.S. fusion leadership solvesLudes 11 (Dr. Jim, Executive Director – American Security Project, “Fusion Energy: An Opportunity for American Leadership and Security”, American Security Project White Paper, 1-24, http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/White-Paper-on-Fusion-Final-21.pdf)

What are the potential strategic gains?

At the strategic level, creation of a national priority effort for rapid development and deployment of fusion energy will constitute a reaffirmation of American technological pre-eminence in the world. Success will establish absolute energy independence for this country. It will demonstrate that American exceptionalism is not just a slogan, but is expressed in action. It will be more difficult than going to the moon, but the result will have a more direct impact on the lives of people everywhere. As exportable technology, fusion will allow rapid access to low cost, carbon-free and nuclear proliferation-free energy to all nations. The sense of shared purpose and shared achievement will not only draw Americans together, but will show us as friend to the Earth and all its inhabitants.What are the potential technical/commercial gains?The development of fusion energy requires major scientific and engineering achievements. These include advances in superconductors including high temperature and high magnetic field types with appropriate connectors; compact super-power lasers and new high-efficiency semiconductor light sources; large and small scale robotics, new neutron-tolerant structural materials appropriate to conventional nuclear as well as fusion environments; and major advances in supercomputing and modeling as applied to fluid flows and heat transfer in any system. In system dynamics and project management, the fusion program will demand exceptional skills, and require the training of a cadre of leaders. Young people just entering high school will see a great future in science and engineering as applied to local and national needs and choose careers accordingly. Indeed, in a dozen years, these young workers could take their places as team members with advanced degrees, or as skilled technicians with skills appropriate to this new era.Are there reasons for immediate action?There are two critical issues calling for action; competition and nuclear proliferation.China has a major program in fusion based on the HAST superconducting tokamak and plans tor breakeven machines. Over the last ten years, China has increased its program ten-fold, and now enrolls more than twice as many graduate students in this area than the United States. They have announced a fast-track goal of net-power demonstration facilities in the 2021-2040 time frame. The U.S. has already lost its position in solar and wind to the Chinese. South Korea has the superconducting KSTAR tokamak and has announced plans to supply power to their grid in the 2040s. Japan, with its JT60-SA, likewise intends to "lead the world." The Europeans have ITER and an active public support organization. By inaction, the U nited S tates will accept a position in the second tier , a customer , not a seller of energy technology.The second, and very strong, reason for rapid action is based on a recent analysis from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory of the consequences of increasing dependence on traditional nuclear power on worldwide stocks of plutonium. Increasing

energy demand , and the relative cheapness of nuclear power , even compared to coal, will drive nations toward uranium and fission . Experience shows that countries with such reactors will tend toward reprocessing fuel and purifying plutonium. According to the report, a ten-year delay in commercialization of fusion power , from first implementation in the 2030s to the 2040s, would result in the additional world-wide availability of from 800,000 to 4,000,000 kilograms of plutonium by the year 2100. Just 8 Kg is enough to make a bomb. "Leakage " of just one one-hundredth of one percent of this

plutonium will create an unacceptable added risk of nuclear terrorism . The major implications for national security need no emphasis .

Warming Addon

2acNuclear Energy is key to the future of Latin American clean energy, they are the bellwether for developing nations.Wallace, 3/4/2013 (Tai, Research Technician @ Center for Nanotechnology in Society, “The Current State of Energy Access—Latin America and the Caribbean Focus” University-Community Partnerships for Social Action Research http://ucpsarnet.iglooprojects.org/blogs/mgd7sustainableenvironment/thecurrentstateofenergyaccesslatinamericaandthecaribbeanfocus)

Unlike the expensive technological solutions that have created energy and economic stability in the richest nations of the Middle East and Asia, Latin America has taken a more pragmatic approach to development that suits their sparsely populated swaths of deep jungle. For example, only three countries in Latin America and the Caribbean use nuclear power for energy, and each nation, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, only rely on two reactors apiece for a marginal share of their electricity production. The nations of this region are bucking the trend of relying centralized energy development from conventional sources for growth and development, and are thriving quite well in the global marketplace. This region may well be the bellwether of energy development in the Southern Hemisphere. In the nations of this region, using renewable resources is engrained in history. The Amazon River and its tributaries are the

heartbeat…the lifeblood of the region. People in this region have learned to reap the bounties of nature, and the collapse of past civilizations may have taught current civilizations to respect and use those resources wisely. The island nations of the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific are setting aggressive renewable energy targets. Nations in Central and South America are setting targets for increasing rural energy access through small and micro scale renewable development. These nations could become a model for other island nations in the underdeveloped world. Even while driving renewable development in clean rural development, the nations of Central and South America are aggressively targeting renewable energy development at the national level. Uruguay set a goal for 100% renewable energy generation by 2015…at the end of 2010, only 50% of their energy came from renewable sources. Mexico is driving its push to nearly double its renewable capacity by 2025 by pushing for the electrification of some 700 low-income communities with conventional methods combined with 30kV distributed solar voltaic systems. Peru had set a goal to provide energy access to 95% of the nations half million isolated households with mostly solar and a small amount of wind and micro-hydro power from 2010 to 2012. Argentina has plans to install some 12,000 electrification systems in its poorest rural communities in the coming years. These nations are increasing energy access and creating significant growth opportunities in renewable development. Nations across the region are creating micro-grids and renewable energy islands to provide cost effective energy solutions to the regions' poor. In many cases, increasing costs of conventional energy sources are making renewable energy projects cost competitive even without subsidies. For Example in Chile, the Calama PV plant in the northern Atacama Desert is able to produce 2.7 GWh of electricity annually at grid parity and without a single dollar in subsidies. This is the first time in history this has happened. As the world argues about who should develop clean energy, how we should control greenhouse gases and who is responsible for the environmental damage wrought by our forefathers, Latin America and the Caribbean have forged onward in their quest for sustainable development.

Nuclear Power in developing countries solves warming IAEA, November 2012, (International Atomic Energy Agency,  is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons. “Climate Change and Nuclear Power—2012”, http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf) JG

Energy demand is expected to increase dramatically in the 21st century, especially in developing countries,

where population growth is fastest and where, even today, some 1.4 billion people have no access to modern energy services. Without significant efforts to limit future GHG emissions, especially from the energy supply sector, the expected global increase in energy production and use could well trigger “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”, according to Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [2]. Nuclear power has the potential to continue to play a significant role in the effort to limit future GHG emissions while meeting global energy needs. Nuclear power plants produce virtually no GHG emissions during their operation and only very small amounts on a life cycle basis. This report summarizes

nuclear power’s potential role in mitigating global climate change. It also highlights nuclear power’s contribution to addressing development and environment challenges, as well as its current status, including the issues of cost, safety, waste management and nonproliferation. Nuclear power’s current — and potential future — contribution to meeting the twin challenges of climate change and energy poverty make it especially important to deal effectively with any concerns about nuclear power Nuclear energy can contribute to resolving other energy supply concerns and has non-climatic environmental benefits. Nuclear power can help alleviate concerns about energy security and increased volatility in fossil fuel prices. Ample

uranium resources are available from diverse sources, and the cost of uranium is a small fraction of the total cost of nuclear electricity. Nuclear power can also help reduce local and regional air pollution. The economics of nuclear power are competitive and will be further enhanced by the increasing CO2 costs of fossil based electricity generation. The estimated ranges of levelized electricity costs from natural gas, coal and nuclear sources largely overlap between 5 and 10 US cents/kW•h. Including the costs of CO2 capture and geological disposal and increasing charges for CO2 emissions would further

ExtinctionBattisti 6 (David, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences – University of Washington, Et al., Brief of Amici Curiae, 5-15, http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/ Mass-v-EPAAmicusScientists.pdf)

4. It is virtually certain that what has been observed so far is only the beginning, and that continued greenhouse gas emissions along current trajectories will cause additional warming of the earth system as a whole , and very likely that such perturbation would cause the rate of surface warming and sea level rise in the 21st century to be substantially larger and faster than that experienced in the 20th century and without precedent in the past 10,000 years. 5. Although the general link between increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increased warming of the earth system is virtually certain, the complexity of the climate system means that predictions of specific details that follow from this general link are subject to varying degrees of certainty. Among the more certain future predictions are the following: a. It is likely, based on both models and on data from the ice ages over the last 400,000 years, that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled from pre-industrial times, and then rose no further, the long-term warming response of global average surface temperature (the "climate sensitivity") would be in the range of 1.5° to 4.5° C (2.7° - 8.1° F). b. In the absence of emissions reductions, however, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are very likely to much more than double, and the consequent rise in global average temperature during the 21st century, projected to be 2.5° to 10° C (4.5° to 18° F), will likely continue rising well beyond 2100. c. This amount of warming is very likely to drive steady melting of arctic ice sheets and further increases in global average sea level, which is projected to reach an additional 0.1 - 0.9 meters (1/3 - 1 foot) by 2100, and to continue rising to much higher levels in the decades to millennia following 2100. d. This amount of sea level rise, especially when combined with likely increases in hurricane intensities, would exacerbate storm surges and have negative impacts on health and welfare in the United States, and globally. These negative impacts would be concentrated in low-lying coastal regions, such as Boston or Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the Louisiana/Mississippi Gulf coast, and southern Florida. e. Rising temperatures are also likely to lead to increases in extreme weather events (e.g. heat waves) and altered patterns of rainfall (e.g. droughts) that will disrupt natural and agricultural ecosystems, and increase the risk of extinction of animal and plant species. f. Ocean acidity is likely to increase by several tenths of a pH unit due to continued uptake of carbon dioxide, and this acidification is likely to cause substantial stress to key marine organisms, and hence to whole marine ecosystems, particularly in cold water regions. 6. The possibilities of the above-mentioned climate changes have been carefully and extensively assessed, and there is a broad scientific consensus that these changes are likely or very likely. The exact timing of the climate change and the exact magnitude of the impact are harder to determine, because the climate system has a great deal of inertia (especially in the ice sheets and oceans), and greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to contribute to future warming. This inertia heightens the threat to human welfare because continuing unregulated greenhouse gas emissions commit us to large-scale, long-term (centuries) climate change consequences before the exact nature of those consequences can be known with greater certainty. 7. Apart from the likely, very likely, and virtually certain gradual climate changes outlined in points 4 and 5, there is also an as yet unquantifiable probability that continued greenhouse gas emissions will trigger abrupt climate change surprises that could very rapidly impose large impacts on ecosystems and human societies . 15 We know that such abrupt climate changes (e.g. large local cooling or warming, widespread droughts, shifts in hurricane intensity or flood regimes that occur in only a decade or so) are possible because they have happened in the past, before recorded human history began. Such abrupt shifts were triggered when gradual changes pushed the earth system across a threshold, abruptly switching the climate system into a new state. We do not understand these switches very well, but it is very likely that they exist within the climate system, and there is a significant but unknown risk that continued emission of greenhouse gases will trigger some kind of climate change surprise.

Ext. Developing Countries KeyDeveloping countries are a key starting point to solve warming Economist 09 “A bad climate for development, Poor countries’ economic development will contribute to climate change. But they are already its greatest victims” http://www.economist.com/node/14447171

IN LATE April Mostafa Rokonuzzaman, a farmer in south-western Bangladesh, gave an impassioned speech at a public meeting in his village, complaining that climate change, freakish hot spells and failed rains were ruining his vegetables. He didn't know the half of it. A month later Mr Rokonuzzaman was chest-deep in a flood that had swept away his house, farm and even the village where the meeting took place. Cyclone Aila (its effects pictured above) which caused the storm surge that breached the village's flood barriers, was itself a plausible example of how climate change is wreaking devastation in poor countries. Most people in the West know that the poor world contributes to climate change, though the scale of its contribution still comes as a surprise. Poor and middle- income countries already account for just over half of total carbon emissions (see chart 1); Brazil produces more CO2 per head than Germany. The lifetime emissions from these countries' planned power stations would match the world's entire industrial pollution since 1850. Less often realised, though, is that global warming does far more damage to poor countries than they do to the climate. In a report in 2006 Nicholas (now Lord) Stern calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP. But the World Bank, in its new World Development Report*, now says the cost to Africa will be more like 4% of GDP and to India, 5%. Even if environmental costs were distributed equally to every person on earth, developing countries would still bear 80% of the burden (because they account for 80% of world population). As it is, they bear an even greater share, though their citizens' carbon footprints are much smaller (see chart 2). As December's Copenhagen summit on climate change draws near, poor countries are expressing alarm at the slow pace of negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol. Agreed (partially) in 1997, this bound rich countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012. Counting the cost of global warming is hard because no one really knows how much to attribute to climate change and how much to other factors. But one indication of its rising costs is the number of people around the world affected by natural disasters. In 1981-85, fewer than 500m people required international disaster-assistance; in 2001-05, the number reached 1.5 billion. This includes 4% of the population of the poorest countries and over 7% in lower-middle-income countries (see chart 3). In all, reckons the World Health Organisation, climate change caused a loss of 5.5m disability-adjusted life years (a measure of harm to human health) in 2000, most of it in Africa and Asia. Estimates by the Global Humanitarian Forum, a Swiss think-tank, and in a study in Comparative Quantification of Health Risks, a scientific journal, put the number of additional deaths attributable to climate change every year at 150,000. The indirect harm, through its impact on water supplies, crop yields and disease is hugely greater. The poor are more vulnerable than the rich for several reasons. Flimsy housing, poor health and inadequate health care mean that natural disasters of all kinds hurt them more. When Hurricane Mitch swept through Honduras in 1998, for example, poor households lost 15-20% of their assets but the rich lost only 3%. Global warming aggravates that. It also increases the chances of catching the life-threatening diseases that are more prevalent in poorer countries. In many places cities have been built just above a so-called “malaria line”, above which malaria-bearing mosquitoes cannot survive (Nairobi is one example). Warmer weather allows the bugs to move into previously unaffected altitudes, spreading a disease that is already the biggest killer in Africa. By 2030 climate change may expose 90m more people to malaria in Africa alone. Similarly, meningitis outbreaks in Africa are strongly correlated with drought. Both are likely to increase. Diarrhoea is forecast to rise 5% by 2020 in poor countries because of climate change. Dengue fever has been expanding its range: its incidence doubled in parts of the Americas between 1995-97 and 2005-07. On one estimate, 60% of the world's population will be exposed to the disease by 2070. Next, as Mr Rokonuzzaman's story showed, poor countries are particularly prone to flooding. Ten of the developing world's 15 largest cities are in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels or coastal surges. They include Shanghai, Mumbai and Cairo. In South and East Asia the floodplains of great rivers have always been home to vast numbers of people and much economic activity. Climate change is overwhelming the social and other arrangements that in the past allowed countries and people to cope with floods. National budgets can ill afford the cost of improving defences. The Netherlands is also affected and is spending $100 per person a year on flood defences. In Bangladesh that sum is a quarter of the average person's annual income. The

biggest vulnerability is that the weather gravely affects developing countries' main economic activities—such as farming and tourism. Global warming dries out farmland. Since two-thirds of Africa is desert or arid, the continent is heavily exposed. One study predicts that by 2080 as much as a fifth of Africa's farmland will be severely stressed. And that is only one part of the problem. Global warming also seems to be speeding up the earth's hydrologic cycle, causing both floods and droughts (more rains fall in shorter periods, with longer gaps between). In addition, by melting glaciers, global warming reduces nature's storage capacity. Two-thirds of the world's fresh water is stored in glaciers. Their melting leaves poor countries with less of a buffer to protect farmers against changing weather and rainfall patterns. This kind of increasing unpredictability would be dire news at the best of times: hit by drought and flood, the land becomes less productive. It is compounded by another problem. The higher-yielding, pest-resistant seed varieties invented in the 1960s were designed to thrive in stable climes. Old-fashioned seeds are actually better at dealing with variable weather—but are now less widely used. Reinstituting their use will mean less food. In India the gains from the Green Revolution are already shrinking because of local pollution, global warming and waning resistance to pests and disease. A study for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology forecast that yields of the main Indian crops would decline by a further 4.5-9% over the next 30 years because of climate change. A recent assessment based on a large number of studies of what might happen in the long run if carbon continues to be pumped into the atmosphere found that world farm production could fall by 16% by the 2080s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries. Although the timescale makes such figures no more than educated guesses, there is not much doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing countries—at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing (water-hungry) diets of a richer population. Even without climate change, farm productivity would have to rise by 1% a year, which is a lot. With climate change, the rise will have to be 1.8%, says the bank. If these myriad problems have a silver lining, it is that they give developing countries as big an interest in mitigating the impact of climate change as rich ones. As the World Bank says, climate-change policy is no longer a simple choice between growth and ecological well-being.

Solvency

Exports KeyUS exports key to growth of nuclear power in developing counties and the US’s influenceANS 12 (American Nuclear Society; The American Nuclear Society, founded in 1954, is a not-for-profit scientific and educational society of over 11,500 scientists, engineers, and educators from universities, government and private laboratories, and industry. Position Statements are the considered opinions and judgments of the Society in matters related to nuclear science and technology. They are intended to provide an objective basis for weighing the facts in reaching decisions on important national issues; U.S. Global Nuclear Leadership Through Export-Driven Engagement Position Statement; June 2012; http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps83.pdf; DivyaB)

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) believes that the United States should remain committed to facilitating an expansion of the peaceful use of nuclear energy through the export of U.S. nuclear goods and services. Exports of nuclear technology provide the United States with important nonproliferation advantages, including consent rights on U.S.-manufactured nuclear fuel, the ability to control the transfer of nuclear technology, and greater influence in the nuclear policies of U.S. partner nations. The United States possesses a strong nuclear technology portfolio and supply chain. The federal government should be an active partner in helping U.S.industry maintain and increase

its market share of nuclear goods and services, as U.S. nuclear exports have the attendant benefits of improving global standards of nuclear safety and security and minimizing the risk of proliferation. ANS believes that the United States should work with organizations such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology and that a competitive global market for fuel cycle services strongly discourages the spread of ENR technology. Reasonable assurance of access to fuel and other services needed to operate their nuclear plants can dissuade nations from domestic development and deployment of ENR technology. The United States is one of several nations that are

capable of supporting the development of nuclear technology in emerging markets. Those nations are aggressively promoting their nuclear technology with bilateral nuclear trade agreements that generally do not contain ENR prohibitions. Many U.S. partner nations are unlikely to forswear their right to pursue ENR technologies, even if they have no intention to develop them.

Any U.S. insistence that its bilateral nuclear trade agreements ban development of indigenous ENR technologies would be counterproductive to its nonproliferation goals and put U.S. technologies at a competitive disadvantage. In short, a U.S. nuclear export regime that restricts rather than promotes U.S. nuclear trade will ultimately reduce U.S. influence in shaping the safety and security norms of the global nuclear landscape. In order to enhance U.S. nonproliferation goals through its export policies, ANS recommends that

the U.S. government should 1. maintain a flexible approach for negotiating bilateral nuclear trade agreements (also

known as 123 Agreements); 2. continue developing a coordinated approach to promoting U.S. technology to other nations;3. ensure that U.S. nuclear export policies and procedures are transparent and responsive to the needs of the U.S. nuclear industry.

K2 Leadership

US nuclear leadership is attained by exports of nuclear goods – increases nuclear safety, security, and minimizing prolifAmerican Nuclear Society 06-n.d.-12 (American Nuclear Society, The American Nuclear Society is a not-for-profit, international, scientific and educational organization, ANS developed a multifarious membership composed of approximately 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing 1,600 plus corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies, “U.S. Global Nuclear Leadership Through ¶ Export-Driven Engagement”, ANS, http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps83.pdf)

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) believes that the U nited S tates should remain committed to facilitating an expansion of the peaceful use of nuclear energy through the export of U.S. nuclear goods and services. Exports of nuclear

technology provide the U nited S tates with important nonprolif eration advantages , including consent rights on U.S.-manufactured nuclear fuel, the ability to control the transfer of nuclear technology, and greater influence in the nuclear policies of U.S. partner nations. The United States possesses a strong nuclear technology portfolio and supply chain. The federal government should be an active partner in helping U.S. industry maintain and increase its market share of nuclear goods and services, as U.S. nuclear exports have the attendant benefits of improving global standards of nuclear safety and security and minimizing the risk of proliferation.

US nuclear exports provide leadershipDomenici and Miller, ‘12 – BPC Senior Fellow and former Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren “Pete” Miller, former Department of Energy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, hosted a series of public events on Challenges and Opportunities for Nuclear Power in the United States. (Senator Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller, Co-Chairs, “Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative”, Publication name, 9/18/2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Report.PDF // M. Olesberg)COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR EXPORTS As an active participant in commercial markets, the United States has considerable leverage internationally through the 123 Agreements (in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic energy Act) and Consent Rights on nuclear technologies exported by the U.S. nuclear industry. These mechanisms provide a direct and effective source of leverage over other countries’ fuel-cycle decisions. U.S. diplomatic influence is also important, but absent an active role in commercial markets, it may not be sufficient to project U.S. influence and interests with respect to nuclear nonproliferation around the world. At an October 2011 Nuclear Initiative workshop on “effective Approaches for U.S. Participation in a More Secure Global Nuclear Market,” Deputy Secretary of energy Daniel B. Poneman framed commerce and security not as competing objectives but as “inextricably intertwined.”34 He also highlighted several ways in which a robust domestic nuclear energy industry can further our

country’s nonproliferation goals. Deputy Secretary Poneman emphasized the importance of U.S. leadership not only in the commercial marketplace but in international nonproliferation organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well. In addition, BPC’s Nuclear Initiative recognizes that a nuclear accident is a low-probability event that would have high consequences

regionally or globally. Many countries that have expressed interest in, or the intention to, develop domestic nuclear power lack important infrastructure, education, and regulatory institutions. We believe that, if these programs move forward, the United States has a critical commercial and advisory role to play.

U.S. nuclear exports give the U.S. influence over other countries in regards to nonprolif.Senator Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller, Co-Chairs September 2012 Pietro Vichi "Pete" Domenici (born May 7, 1932) is an American Republican politician, who served six terms as a United States Senator from New Mexico, from 1973 to 2009, the longest tenure in the state's history. Career History: Research professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering and associate director of the Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute, Texas A&M University (1997 to 2009); Los Alamos National Laboratory, Science & Technology Base Programs, director, (1992 to 2001); Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research and Education, associate director, (1992 to 1993); University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, Pardee professor, (1990-92). Maintaining U.S. Leadership Art Wharton Posted on September 27, 2012 Art Wharton's Overview Current Principal Project Engineer - Project Development at Westinghouse Electric Company Secretary, Board of Trustees at Urban Pathways Charter School Past Principal Project Engineer - Risk Lead at Westinghouse Electric Company Senior Project Risk Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company Core Design Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company Education University of Pittsburgh - Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business The University of Texas at Austin U.S. Global Nuclear Leadership Through Export-Driven Engagement http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/27/u-s-global-nuclear-leadership-through-export-driven-engagement/ in Global Nuclear Energy Markets Energy & Infrastructure Program Energy Project A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative As an active participant in commercial markets, the United States has considerable leverage internationally through the 123 Agreements (in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic energy Act) and Consent Rights on nuclear

technologies exported by the U.S. nuclear industry . These mechanisms provide a direct and effective source of leverage over other countries’ fuel-cycle decisions . U.S. diplomatic influence is also important , but absent an active role in commercial markets, it may not be sufficient to project U.S. influence and interests with respect to nuclear nonproliferation around the world. At an October 2011 Nuclear Initiative workshop on “effective Approaches for U.S.

Participation in a More Secure Global Nuclear Market,” Deputy Secretary of energy Daniel B. Poneman framed commerce and security not as competing objectives but as “inextricably intertwined. ” 34 He also highlighted several ways in which a robust

domestic nuclear energy industry can further our country’s nonproliferation goals. Deputy Secretary Poneman emphasized the importance of U.S. leadership not only in the commercial marketplace but in international nonproliferation organizations like the International Atomic energy Agency (IAeA) as well.

US nuclear leadership declining now – strengthened influence key to prevent prolifDomenici and Miller, ‘12 – BPC Senior Fellow and former Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren “Pete” Miller, former Department of Energy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, hosted a series of public events on Challenges and Opportunities for Nuclear Power in the United States. (Senator Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller, Co-Chairs, “Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative”, Publication name, 9/18/2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Report.PDF // M. Olesberg)Strategic Goal: Continued strong U.S. leadership in global nuclear security matters is central to protecting our national security interests. In particular, U.S. leadership in nuclear technology and operations can strengthen U.S. influence with respect to other countries’ nuclear programs and the evolution of the international nonproliferation regime, while also supporting U.S. competitiveness in a major export market. Nuclear power technologies are distinct from other potential exports in energy or in other sectors where America’s competitive advantage may also be declining. Because of the potential link between commercial technology and weapons development, nuclear power is directly linked to national security concerns, including the threat of proliferation. Although reactors themselves do not pose significant proliferation risks, both uranium enrichment and spent fuel–processing technologies can be misused for military purposes. If U.S. nuclear energy leadership continues to diminish, our nation will be facing a situation in which decisions about the technological capabilities and location of fuel-cycle facilities throughout the world will be made without significant U.S. participation. Leadership is important in both commercial and diplomatic arenas, and it requires a vibrant domestic industry; an effective, independent regulator; access to competitive and innovative technologies and services; and the ability to offer practical solutions to safety, security, and nonproliferation challenges (an international fuel bank, for example, could help address concerns about the proliferation of uranium-enrichment capabilities).

Says Yes

Mexico wants safe nuke energy now.Selene Aparicio 3/20/12 (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C. Master's degree, Public Administration and Policy, New York University Bachelor of Arts, Journalism and Environmental Studies, Fordham University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Communications (Journalism Concentration), “After Fukushima, should Mexico sway away from nuclear?,” http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=126)Currently, there is only one nuclear power station in Mexico, Laguna Verde, which produces 4,782 gigawatts per year. There are several concerns regarding potential accidents at this nuclear power plant since the plant’s two active reactors are located in a seismically active zone along the coast. Nevertheless, the government is still showing clear signs in favor of nuclear.This week, President Felipe Calderón reaffirmed the government’s intention to increase the country’s electricity production from nuclear power from the current 2.4% to 10% in 2020. During the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, the United States, Mexico and Canada entered into a trilateral nuclear security agreement under which fuel in a Mexican research reactor will be converted from highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU).To reach this agreement, the three governments worked closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the project and a report issued by the White House explained that the project seeks to minimize the use of HEU for civilian purposes and will help Mexico contribute to non-proliferation. In the words of President Calderón, “Mexico reaffirms its commitment to building a world free of the nuclear threat.”In addition, the National Energy Strategy 2012-2026 published by the Ministry of Energy during the first quarter of this year, reasserts the government’s plans to invest in further developing the country’s nuclear sector. The strategy proposes the construction of two new nuclear power plants, each with a capacity of 1,400 MW, to complement the country’s energy production.

Mexico says yesRodriguez 12 (Carlos, reporter for Bloomberg, “Mexico Should Turn to More Nuclear Power, Herrera Says,” Bloomberg News Service, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/mexico-should-turn-to-more-nuclear-power-herrera-says.html - CK)Mexico should turn to nuclear power to reach renewable energy goals and could “easily” build two more reactors at its Laguna Verde plant, Energy Minister Jordy Herrera said.“It’s time to put nuclear power on the table,” Herrera said during an event in Mexico City today. The ministry is recommending expanding nuclear capacity as part of its strategic energy plan through 2026.Mexico, one of three Latin American nations that use nuclear power, has delayed for over three years a decision on building nuclear plants as lower natural-gas prices make the energy source less attractive.The country operates a 1,360-megawatt nuclear plant in Laguna Verde, Veracruz state. In an interview Nov. 1, Herrera said Mexico’s rising gas reserves made the fossil fuel a cost- effective option over nuclear power.To implement the ministry’s recommendations to increase Laguna Verde’s capacity, the government would need to find funding for Comision Federal de Electricidad to build new reactors, the state power company.Mexico’s long-term energy strategy does not currently contemplate adding nuclear capacity, Herrera said. The nation could opt to build one or two more reactors, he said.The country’s wind power capacity is poised to surpass 700 megawatts and will reach 1,500 megawatts by the end of the year, he said.

Ministry of Energy controls nuclear fuelWorld Nuclear Association 12 (Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

Since incorporating Uramex, the Ministry of Energy has had responsibility for uranium prospecting, which it delegates to the Mineral Resources Board. Mexico has identified reserves of about 2000 tonnes of uranium but this has not been mined to date.A uranium milling plant operated on an experimental basis at Villa Aldana, in the Chihuahua region at the end of the 1960s but has now been decommissioned. Tailings were disposed of at Pena Blanca.Under Mexican legislation, nuclear fuel is the property of the state and is under the control of the CNSNS.

Used nuclear fuel from the Laguna Verde reactors is stored underwater at the site. The storage pools have been re-racked to provide enough space for the reactors' entire lives. About 1000 tonnes of used fuel was there as of 2003. The same strategy is employed with used fuel from research reactors.

Solves WarmingCO2 saved in Life-cycle outweighs initial construction

Nuclear Energy Institute '13 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process - Nuclear Energy and the Environment - March 2013 - http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/Documentlibrary/Protecting-the-Environment/factsheet/nuclearenergyandtheenvironment MQ

Nuclear energy is by far the largest clean-air energy source and the only one that can produce large amounts of electricity around the clock. Nuclear energy facilities provide nearly two-thirds of America’s clean-air electricity. Even if carbon dioxide emissions are evaluated on a total life-cycle basis, nuclear energy is comparable to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydropower.

Mexico Key ModelMexican Nuclear power is key to collaboration within Latin America, this is the only way to overcome budget deficiencies to allow nuclear power. Alcañiz, 2010 (Isabella, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Houston, “Bureaucratic Networks and Government Spending: A Network Analysis of Nuclear Collaboration in Latin America” Latin American Research Review 45.1)

What do skilled bureaucrats do when facing sharp reduction in their operating budgets? The central finding presented in this article is that when government spending declines, skilled bureaucrats compensate by broadening their participation in knowledge networks in order to maintain the viability of their research programs. For bureaucrats in developing countries, such as the ones in the twenty Latin American countries analyzed here, networking outside their bureaucracy means activating international ties with like professionals. This article builds upon previous research on how

bureaucrats use networking to increase bureaucratic autonomy (Carpenter 2001; Hawkins and Jacoby 2006; Crowe 2007). Different from past studies, however, I show that networking can be used as a mechanism to pool scarce resources and compensate for budget reductions. After extensive interviews, archival research, and using the toolbox of social network analysis, the present study demonstrated how nuclear scientists in Latin America respond to decreased government spending by increasing their participation in knowledge networks. Bureaucratic “agents matter” for the implementation of public policy not only because they have distinct preferences but also because the strategies they adopt to deal with contextual political events result in actual policy innovation

(Mete 2002; Hawkins and Jacoby 2006). As shown in this article, the strategic response of seeking alternative sources of financing resulted in the implementation of collaborative research projects that disseminate knowledge and products across the region . The end result is that networking not only increases the autonomy of bureaucrats vis-à-vis politicians

(Carpenter 2001; Hawkins and Jacoby 2006; Crowe 2007) and allows the pooling of limited resources, but also affects the terms of policy delegation and policy implementation. While the main premise of this article is not framed as a delegation problem, its findings should be of great interest to principal-agent theorists. Moreover, the theoretical and empirical results presented here should provide valuable insight into the behavior of skilled bureaucrats in other policy settings, in as much as the collaborative efforts of the ARCAL cover a wide-range of science policy areas, such as biotechnology in agricultural and food sciences, nuclear medicine, and radiation safety. Further, this research sheds some light on the effect of international organizations on transgovernmental networks since the International Atomic Energy Agency is similar to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which also facilitate collaboration networks among bureaucrats in developing countries (Finnemore 1993; Slaughter 2004). Finally, a guiding intuition behind this study is that bureaucrats care about their technical expertise and act strategically to maintain and increase their expert knowledge. Bureaucrats in technology-driven sectors vitally depend on technical expertise both to perform their tasks and to negotiate with politicians for larger budgets and increased autonomy. Skilled bureaucrats have strong incentives to prevent the depreciation of their most important asset, their technical expertise, by increasing their participation in knowledge networks. An intriguing and potentially meaningful future line of research would be to determine if technical expertise is a third goal of bureaucrats, distinct from budget and autonomy.

Spill OverArgentina and Brazil model Mexico- nuclear tech spills overAlcañiz ’10 (Isabella, Assistant Professor at the Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, published in World Politics, the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS), the Latin American Research Review (LARR), and Latin American Perspectives (LAP), Licenciatura degree in International Relations from the Universidad de Belgrano PhD in Political Science from Northwestern University, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston from 2005 to 2010, Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School and the Department of Political Science), “Bureaucratic Networks and Government Spending: A Network Analysis of Nuclear Cooperation in Latin America” volume 45 number 1 pgs. 148-172, http://www.uh.edu/class/political-science/news/45.1.alcaniz.pdf)

Nuclear development in Latin America began in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico in the 1950s as part of a developmental strategy to industrialize and secure independent sources of energy. In the 1950s, all three countries created centralized government agencies to advance nuclear science and became members of IAEA. By the late 1970s, the Argentine and Brazilian programs mastered virtually all stages of the nuclear energy cycle (i.e., uranium mining, conversion and enrichment, fuel fabrication, and spent fuel reprocessing) (Adler 1988). Mexico, the third country in the region that generates nuclear energy, began experimenting in nuclear physics and purchased the first particle accelerator in Latin America (Ramos Lara 2006). In the late 1970s, Mexico started the construction of an atomic power plant that became operational more than a decade later.

Mexico’s leadership in ARCAL proves spill over to Latin American statesAlcañiz ’10 (Isabella, Assistant Professor at the Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, published in World Politics, the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS), the Latin American Research Review (LARR), and Latin American Perspectives (LAP), Licenciatura degree in International Relations from the Universidad de Belgrano PhD in Political Science from Northwestern University, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston from 2005 to 2010, Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School and the Department of Political Science), “Bureaucratic Networks and Government Spending: A Network Analysis of Nuclear Cooperation in Latin America” volume 45 number 1 pgs. 148-172, http://www.uh.edu/class/political-science/news/45.1.alcaniz.pdf)

The ARCAL group was first organized in 1984, just two years after the 1982 foreign debt crisis and at the beginning of the wave of democratization that was to sweep Latin America throughout the decade. After 1984, the remaining Latin American countries, including the Central American states; Mexico; and the Caribbean states of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica joined the agreement. The central mission of ARCAL was to promote horizontal cooperation, to pool regional resources, and to transfer know-how and technology from the more advanced to the least advanced countries. As briefly explained earlier, under this program, nuclear bureaucrats from some or all of the twenty member states propose, approve, and carry out joint projects in nuclear science and technology. These joint projects may be classified as four types: (1) cross-national training of nuclear personnel as well as the establishment of new and the maintenance of existing laboratories; (2) standardizing nuclear techniques in the region; (3) creating regional systems, such as the 1995 Regional Network of Nuclear Agricultural Techniques; and (4) organizing and managing nuclear knowledge through translations, reports, manuals, bibliographies, and so on.20 The IAEA’s financial contribution to these projects is modest; over the period of time studied in this article, the agency contributed approximately $26 million to ARCAL (an average of $1.3 million per year for all twenty members).21 Members of ARCAL match these disbursed funds but mostly through in-kind contributions; that is, little money is disbursed directly.22 The leading states in nuclear development in the region (Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico) are the ones that contribute the most funds, goods, and services.23 From 1984 to 2005, ARCAL was an agreement through which only domestic nuclear institutions were linked.24 During this period of time, ARCAL grew to include most Latin

American states and significantly increased the number of projects being developed in the region. From 1984 through 1988, Latin American nuclear scientists carried out eleven projects; from 1989 through 1994, an additional nine projects. During a third period (1995–1999) there were twenty-eight projects executed, and finally, from 2000 to the present, ARCAL has twenty-eight active projects.25 In part because of the rise in the number of projects, ARCAL was formally instituted in 2005 as an intergovernmental agreement.26 However, as a Brazilian bureaucrat states: “Nothing changed when ARCAL became an intergovernmental agreement. Even in ARCAL’s Representation Organ [ORA], where technically an ambassador should lead the Brazilian delegation, I never saw an ambassador. The president of the National Commission of Nuclear Energy [CNEN] always presides, together with the ARCAL liaison.” 27

US-Mexico action on nuclear security spills over – empirics White House Press Secretary, ‘10 (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Trilateral Announcement Between Mexico, the United States, and Canada on Nuclear Security”, whitehouse.gov, April 13, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/trilateral-announcement-between-mexico-united-states-and-canada-nuclear-security // M. Olesberg)At the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., Mexico, the United States, and Canada reached agreement to work together, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to convert the fuel in Mexico’s research reactor. President Calderon expressed "the strong commitment of Mexico to prevent and suppress nuclear terrorism; with this kind of cooperation with the IAEA and our North American partners, we definitely contribute to reducing the risks associated with illicit trafficking of nuclear materials." The three countries acknowledged that this project also provides an important step towards the replacement of the research reactor with a new low-enriched uranium fuelled reactor in support of Mexico’s nuclear energy development. The conversion of the reactor’s use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel will enable the elimination of all the remaining highly enriched uranium from Mexico. This effort, a specific outcome of Nuclear Security Summit, will be completed under the auspices of the IAEA. It will further strengthen nuclear security on the North American continent. President Obama indicated, "I welcome this critical step forward, which is a signal of our strong trilateral partnership, and our shared commitment to nuclear security in North America." Prime Minister Harper added that "this nuclear security project demonstrates that collective action can deliver concrete results". This decision to eliminate the remaining highly enriched uranium reaffirms Mexico’s leadership in nuclear security and nonproliferation and serves as an example for other nations to follow.

USfg KeyUSFG key to nuclear power – upfront costs stop investor action currentlyTaylor ‘8 – senior fellow at the Cato Institute (Jerry, “Nuclear Energy: Risky Business”, Reason Magazine, 10/22/2008, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nuclear-energy-risky-business// M. Olesberg)Many free market advocates support nuclear because it costs less to generate nuclear power than it does to generate electricity from any other source (save, perhaps, hydroelectric power), thanks to nuclear’s low operation and maintenance costs. However, someone has to first pay for-and build-these plants and the rub is that nuclear has very high, upfront construction costs ranging from $6-9 billion. By contrast, gas plants cost only a few hundred million dollars to build and coal a couple of billion depending upon the capacity and type of plant.This raises the opportunity and risk costs of nuclear, making it unattractive to investors. Capital-intensive power facilities take longer to build, which means that investors have to defer returns for longer than if they had invested elsewhere. What’s more, electricity markets have a very peculiar pricing mechanism that makes it harder for nuclear to maximize returns compared to gas-powered or other plants. In essence, there are two electricity markets: a market for base-load power (electricity sold 24-hours a day) and a market for peak power (electricity sold as needed during peak demand periods like hot summer days). Much of the demand for new power-and thus much of the profit available to investors today-is found in the peak market. But nuclear power plant construction costs are so high that it would take a very, very long time for nuclear facilities to pay for themselves if they only operated during high demand periods. Hence, nuclear power plants are only profitable in base-load markets. Gas-fired power plants, on the other hand, can be profitable in either market because not only are their upfront costs low but it is much easier to turn them off or on unlike nuclear.Nuclear’s high up-front costs don’t just mean delayed profits, it also makes nuclear a more risky investment, especially since 20 states have scrapped policies that used to allow investors to charge rates that would guarantee their money back. This means that investors in new nuclear power plants are making a multi-billion dollar bet on disciplined construction schedules, accurate cost estimates, and the future economic health of the region. Bet wrong on any of the above and the company may well go bankrupt. Bet wrong on a gas-fired power plant, on the other hand, and corporate life will go on because there is less to lose given that the construction costs associated with gas-fired power plants are a small fraction of those associated with nuclear plants.

US nuclear leadership capability has eroded. Exporting nuclear tech to developing nuclear powers is key to revive it.CCIS June 2012CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look to the future and anticipate change.Since 1962, CSIS has been dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. After 50 years, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international policy institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global development and economic integration.http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf

The national security concern is that much of this new interest in nuclear power is coming from countries and regions that may not share America’s interests and priorities in the areas of nonproliferation and global security. And our leverage to influence their nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies cannot offer the technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to operate a successful nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle facilities). Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the United States will drive a commensurate increase in the demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed to supply this demand— because they can be used to produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons-usable material—are of particular national security concern. …................... Today, due largely to the fact that no new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States for more than three decades, our nuclear industrial capabilities have eroded. As prospects for a new surge of nuclear investment in the United States have dimmed, a number of U.S. firms have been selling off their nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, as discussed in the previous chapter, several other countries are pursuing ambitious nuclear power programs and are poised to become major international suppliers.53 In particular, France, Japan, South Korea, and Russia, with China close behind, have developed significant bases of operational experience and are able to compete effectively with their U.S.-based counterparts. While administration officials correctly argue that “nuclear trade carries with it a critical nonproliferation advantage in the form of consent rights, along with other opportunities to influence the nuclear policies of our partners,” such trade is not possible unless U.S. firms can offer something other nations want to buy.54 Current trends are especially concerning from a national security standpoint because much of the recent global upsurge of interest in nuclear power is occurring in

parts of the world that are less responsive to U.S. policies and prerogatives. To exert a positive influence on the nuclear development and nonproliferation policies, especially of these countries, the United States needs to be in a position to act as an active supplier and partner in the evolution of these countries’ programs........................ As discussed in Chapter 3, U.S. national security interests can be served effectively only if U.S. suppliers of nuclear technology, fuel, and services play an active role in the global marketplace. At present, the ability of U.S. firms to compete in this marketplace is severely hindered by U.S. export policies. Over the longer term, the United States may find itself at a further disadvantage if its nuclear technology offerings fall behind those of other nuclear exporters. Improving the ability of U.S. firms to compete in the global nuclear marketplace is our highestpriority recommendation. Our reasoning is straightforward. A large-scale, government-supported nuclear construction program in the United States would be cost-prohibitive. On the other hand, there are several other nations that have placed a higher priority on the nonmonetary advantages of nuclear energy and are therefore aggressively investing in new reactors. Rather than rest our hopes primarily on an expensive program of domestic industry supports, we believe that recommendations focused on making it easier for U.S. firms to compete in the international marketplace have a greater likelihood of being implemented and a greater chance of achieving our goals. The United States can regain some of its lost influence by working with its allies to offer other countries—especially countries with relatively new or small nuclear programs—upstream and downstream fuel cycle services (i.e., beyond just reactor design, construction, and operation).Such services could be extremely valuable for limiting proliferation risks and ensuring that global nuclear energy development proceeds in a way that protects all countries’ safety and security interests.

US nuclear leadership is needed to support emerging nuclear markets, control prolif. Exporting nuclear goods is key to sustain leadership ANS 12The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is an international, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization with a membership of approximately 15,000 scientists, engineers, educators, students, and other associate members. Approximately 900 members live outside the United States in 45 countries.http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps83.pdfThe American Nuclear Society (ANS) believes that the United States should remain committed to facilitating an expansion of the peaceful use of nuclear energy through the export of U.S.nuclear goods and services. Exports of nuclear technology provide the United States with important nonproliferation advantages, including consent rights on U.S.-manufactured nuclear fuel, the ability to control the transfer of nuclear technology, and greater influence in the nuclear policies of U.S. partner nations. The United States possesses a strong nuclear technology portfolio and supply chain. The federal government should be an active partner in helping U.S.industry maintain and increase its market share of nuclear goods and services, as U.S. nuclear exports have the attendant benefits of improving global standards of nuclear safety and security and minimizing the risk of proliferation. ANS believes that the United States should work with organizations such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology and that a competitive global market for fuel cycle services strongly discourages the spread of ENR technology. Reasonable assurance of access to fuel and other services needed to operate their nuclear plants can dissuade nations from domestic development and deployment of ENR technology. The United States is one of several nations that are capable of supporting the development of nuclear technology in emerging markets. Those nations are aggressively promoting their nuclear technology with bilateral nuclear trade agreements that generally do not contain ENR prohibitions. Many U.S. partner nations are unlikely to forswear their right to pursue ENR technologies, even if they have no intention to develop them. Any U.S. insistence that its bilateral nuclear trade agreements ban development of indigenous ENR technologies would be counterproductive to its nonproliferation goals and put U.S. technologies at a competitive disadvantage. In short, a U.S. nuclear export regime that restricts rather than promotes U.S. nuclear trade will ultimately reduce U.S. influence in shaping the safety and security norms of the global nuclear landscape.

US currently leading innovator – exporting energy tech is key to both popular and continues leadership roleGeneral Electric 12-07-10 (General Electric, a world-leading provider of advanced reactors and nuclear services, a global nuclear alliance to serve the global nuclear industry, the nuclear alliance expands its capabilities for new reactor and service opportunities, and provides the world with the technological leadership required to effectively enhance reactor performance, power output, and safety, “Expanded use of nuclear energy will advance energy security, tech leadership and exports”, Reliable Plant, http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/27803/Nuclear-security-tech-leadership)

“In the global race for energy technology leadership, America is still a leading innovator of nuclear energy technology, but with other nations modernizing their power infrastructure at a more rapid pace, we need to quicken ours to continue a leadership role. Let’s take stock as we have many inherent advantages. U.S. prowess in nuclear engineering, technology development and plant management is still the best in the world. The newly elected 112th Congress has a golden opportunity to set America on a new course. With the right policies in place, America can capitalize on her advantages, build new power plants here in the United States – the surest route to greater U.S. energy security – and start exporting high value-added energy technology to the rest of the world. This week’s summit will begin charting a roadmap for renewal in

the U.S. power sector. That’s something policy makers in both parties can agree on .”

Nuclear power gives US cheap energy to reduce dependence – new plants require sizable investment that only the USFG can doWorld Nuclear Association, ‘13 – An organization that represents the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession (“Nuclear Power in the USA”, World Nuclear Association, June 2013, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.Uc8y6fnVDuI // M. Olesberg)

Today the importance of nuclear power in USA is geopolitical as much as economic, reducing dependency on imported oil and gas. The operational cost of nuclear power - 1.87 ¢/kWh in 2008 - is 68% of electricity cost from coal and a quarter of that from gas.From 1992 to 2005, some 270,000 MWe of new gas-fired plant was built, and only 14,000 MWe of new nuclear and coal-fired capacity came on line. But coal and nuclear supply almost 70% of US electricity and provide price stability. When investment in these two technologies almost disappeared, unsustainable demands were placed on gas supplies and prices quadrupled, forcing large industrial users of it offshore and pushing gas-fired electricity costs towards 10 ¢/kWh.The reason for investment being predominantly in gas-fired plant was that it offered the lowest investment risk. Several uncertainties inhibited investment in capital-intensive new coal and nuclear technologies. About half of US generating capacity is over 30 years old, and major investment is also required in transmission infrastructure. This creates an energy investment crisis which was recognised in Washington, along with an increasing bipartisan consensus on the strategic importance and clean air benefits of nuclear power in the energy mix.The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction got under way from about 2012, with first concrete on two units in March 2013.There are three regulatory initiatives which enhanced the prospects of building new plants. First is the design certification process, second is provision for early site permits (ESPs) and third is the combined construction and operating licence (COL) process. All have some costs shared by the DOE.

US nuclear power is state-of-the art – 100 nuclear plants and exceeding 90% capacity levelsWorld Nuclear Association 6-n.d.-13 (World Nuclear Association, Represents people and organizations involved in the global nuclear profession, involves members from the entire world involving countries like US, China, UK, etc., participates in discussions to help UN form policies, “Nuclear Power in the USA”, World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/#.Uc8pi_nVCSo)

Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs. In 2011, the US electricity generation was 4344 billion kWh gross, 1874 TWh (43%) of it from coal-fired plant, 1047 TWh (24%) from gas, 821 TWh (19%) nuclear, 351 TWh (8%) from hydro and 121 TWh (2.8%) from wind. Annual electricity demand is projected to increase to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030, though in the short term it is depressed and is not expected to recover to the 2007 level until about 2015. Annual per capita electricity consumption is currently around 12,300 kWh. Total capacity is 1041 GWe, less than one tenth of which is nuclear. The USA has 100 nuclear power reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different power companies. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year and accounting for 20% of total electricity

generated. Capacity factor has risen from 50% in the early 1970s, to 70% in 1991, and it passed 90% in 2002, remaining at around this level since. The industry invests about $7.5 billion per year in maintenance and upgrades of these.

A2: Export Controls Alt Cause to LeadershipUS Export controls are loosening Glasgow et al, ‘12 (James – The Union Institute and University Ph.D, Malone University, West Kentucky Community & Technical College, Association of Information Technology Professionals, Elina Teplinsky – Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Court of International Trade, Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Office of International Affairs, Fordham University School of Law J.D., Stephen L. Markus – Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Sloan School of Management, “A Comparative Analysis of National Regimes for the Control of Nuclear Materials”, Components and Technology, Nuclear Export Controls, October, http://www.nei.org/filefolder/ExportControlsComparativeAnalysis.pdf, BAM)

The Obama Administration has recognized that the complexity of the archaic U.S. export control system often defeats its own purposes to facilitate legitimate trade with partners and prevent the diversion of sensitive technologies from intended users. In remarks on the U.S. export control system made on April 20,

2010, to the Business Executives for National Security, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated: The problem we face is that the current system, which has not been significantly altered since the end of the Cold War, originated and evolved in a very different era with a very different array of concerns in mind.

… The current arrangement fails at the critical task of preventing harmful exports while facilitating useful ones. Following

Secretary Gates’ remarks, the Administration launched the Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative, with a stated objective of fundamentally reforming the U.S. export control system. The cornerstone of the ECR Initiative is to rebuild the two U.S. export control lists: the CCL, which forms part of the Export Administration Regulations, and the ITAR’s U.S. Munitions List. The ECR Initiative’s goal is to create a single control list, single licensing agency, unified information technology system, and enforcement coordination center.26 The Administration’s export control reform, however, is focused solely on controls administered by the BIS and the DOS, which are applicable only to a small percentage of exports of nuclear power-related commodities and technologies. The NRC and DOE export control regimes, which control most U.S. exports of nuclear material, components and related technical data for nuclear power

reactor and fuel cycle facilities, fall outside the ECR Initiative. The DOE is in the process of revising its Part 810 regulations. A proposed revision of the

rule published September 7, 2011, would not improve the features that harm the competitiveness of U.S. commercial nuclear exporters. Rather than focus DOE’s efforts on controlling the technologies of greatest proliferation concern, the proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of technologies covered by the regulation. Although the proposed rule provides an expanded list of definitions, many of which are now consistent with the NSG Guidelines, the proposed rule would introduce several terms that are not defined or not consistent with the definitions in other U.S. export regulations. The proposed rule would harmonize definitions with the NSG guidelines, but DOE also proposes an explicit deemed export provision, which would cause the United States to differ from almost every other NSG member. Finally, 26 See President’s Export Control Reform Initiative, discussed in detail at http://www.export.gov/ecr/index.asp. —45— the proposed rule would not address the relative inefficiency of the Part 810 process and would, in fact, exacerbate delays by requiring specific authorizations for technologies not now covered, and for many more countries. The DOE has indicated that it will

issue a revised proposal to amend the Part 810 regulation. Whether the revised proposal will effectively address the burdens on U.S. exporters remains to be seen. Apart from needed changes to U.S. export law and regulations, a promising area for reform in the U.S. nuclear export control regime is establishment of new procedures and priorities to substantially reduce the time U.S. agencies require to process license applications. Although the current time frames for licensing stem in part from the inter-agency coordination and public notice-and-comment processes, U.S. agencies should be able to increase the efficiency of their license processing through stronger Executive Branch coordination and emphasis on adherence to

the time periods currently specified in the Executive Branch procedures. By signaling to potential customers that U.S. exports may be licensed on a schedule comparable to those of foreign export control regimes, such an improvement could significantly “level the playing field” for U.S. exporters in the near-term

A2: Nuke Power DA’s

A2: Causes ProlifNuclear Non-proliferation treaty checks nuclear proliferationWNA 4/12 (World Nuclear Association, entrepot for global nuclear scientists and professions, constantly updating new on nuclear breakthroughs, “Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Non-Proliferation/Safeguards-to-Prevent-Nuclear-Proliferation/#.UdMQ9vmyBsk)

Over the past 35 years the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards system under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a conspicuous international success in curbing the diversion of civil uranium into military uses. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs. In 1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely. Its scope is also being widened to include undeclared nuclear activities. Most countries have renounced nuclear weapons, recognising that possession of them would threaten rather than enhance national security. They have therefore embraced the NPT as a public commitment to use nuclear materials and technology only for peaceful purposes. The successful conclusion, in 1968, of negotiations on the NPT was a landmark in the history of non-proliferation. After coming into force in 1970, its indefinite extension in May 1995 was another. The NPT was essentially an agreement among the five nuclear weapons states and the other countries interested in nuclear technology. The deal was that assistance and cooperation would be traded for pledges, backed by international scrutiny, that no plant or material would be diverted to weapons' use. Those who refused to be part of the deal would be excluded from international cooperation or trade involving nuclear technology.

Safeguards ensure non-proliferation by nuclear powersWNA 4/12 (World Nuclear Association, entrepot for global nuclear scientists and professions, constantly updating new on nuclear breakthroughs, “Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Non-Proliferation/Safeguards-to-Prevent-Nuclear-Proliferation/#.UdMQ9vmyBsk)

The aim of traditional IAEA safeguards is to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximising the risk of early detection. At a broader level they provide assurance to the international community that countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes. In this way safeguards are a service both to the international community and to individual states, who recognise that it is in their own interest to demonstrate compliance with these commitments. The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on;Material Accountability - tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, review and verification of operating records. Physical Security - restricting access to nuclear materials at the site of use. Containment and Surveillance - use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site.All NPT non-weapons states must accept these 'full-scope' safeguards, which apply to all nuclear facilities in the country. In the five weapons states plus the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan and Israel), facility-specific safeguards apply to relevant plants (see further section below). IAEA inspectors regularly visit these facilities to verify completeness and accuracy of records.

Nuclear Prolif by nuclear powers unlikely- Claims exaggerated WNA 4/12 (World Nuclear Association, entrepot for global nuclear scientists and professions, constantly updating new on nuclear breakthroughs, “Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Non-Proliferation/Safeguards-to-Prevent-Nuclear-Proliferation/#.UdMQ9vmyBsk)

Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use. All nuclear weapons programmes have either preceded or risen independently of civil nuclear power*, as shown most recently by North Korea. No country is without plenty of uranium in the small quantities needed for a few weapons. * An exception may have been South Africa. See also individual case studies. Former US Vice-President Al Gore said (18/9/06) that "During my eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs." He is not correct. Iran has failed to convince anyone that its formerly clandestine enrichment program has anything to do with its nuclear power reactor under construction (which is fuelled by Russia), and North Korea has no civil reactor program. In respect to India and Pakistan, which he may have had in mind, there is evidently a link between military and civil, but that is part of the reason they are outside the NPT. Perspective is relevant: As little as five tonnes of natural uranium is required to produce a nuclear weapon. Uranium is ubiquitous, and if cost is no object it could be recovered in such quantities from most granites, or from sea water - sources which would be quite uneconomic for commercial use. In contrast, world trade for electricity production is almost 70,000 tonnes of uranium per year, all of which can be accounted for. There is no chance that the resurgent problem of nuclear weapons proliferation will be solved by turning away from nuclear power or ceasing trade in the tens of thousands of tonnes each year needed for it.

Mexico won’t prolif.World Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

The Mexican Constitution states that nuclear energy may only be used for peaceful uses and this is reiterated in the 1984 Act on Nuclear Activities.Mexico ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1969 and the Additional Protocol in 2004. It is also party to the 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, ratified in 1988. Furthermore, Mexico is the depository of the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty) and has been party to the Treaty since 1967.

A2: HazardsEarthquake and Volcanic hazards minimal for nuclear plantsWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a Safety Guide on Seismic Risks for Nuclear Power Plants, and the matter is dealt with in the WNA paper on Earthquakes and Nuclear Power Plants. Volcanic hazards are minimal for practically all nuclear plants , but the IAEA has developed a new Safety Guide on the matter. The Bataan plant in Philippines which has never operated, and the Armenian plant at Metsamor are two known to be in proximity to potential volcanic activity.

Flooding, storms, tides and tsunamis not hazardous to nuclear reactors – preemptive measures taken when builtWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)Nuclear plants are usually built close to water bodies, for the sake of cooling. The site licence takes account of worst case flooding scenarios as well as other possible natural disasters and , more recently, the possible effects of climate change. As a result, all the buildings with safety-related equipment are situated on high enough platforms so that they stand above submerged areas in case of flooding events. As an example, French Safety Rules criteria for river sites define the safe level as above a flood level likely to be reached with one

chance in one thousand years, plus 15%, and similar regarding tides for coastal sites. Occasionally in the past some buildings have been sited too low , so that they are vulnerable to flood or

tidal and storm surge, so engineered countermeasures have been built. EDF's Blayais nuclear plant in western France uses seawater for cooling and the plant itself is protected from storm surge by dykes. However, in 1999 a 2.5 m storm surge in the estuary overtopped the dykes - which were already identified as a weak point and scheduled for a later upgrade - and flooded one pumping station. For security reasons it was decided to shut down the three reactors then under power (the fourth was already stopped in the course of normal maintenance). This incident was rated 2 on the INES scale. In 1994 the Kakrapar nuclear power plant near the west coast of India was flooded due to heavy rains together with failure of weir control for an adjoining water pond, inundating turbine building basement equipment. The back-up diesel generators on site enabled core cooling using fire water, a backup to process water, since the offsite power supply failed. Following this, multiple flood barriers were provided at all entry points, inlet openings below design flood level were sealed and emergency operating procedures were updated. In December 2004 the Madras NPP and Kalpakkam PFBR site on the east coast of India was flooded by a tsunami surge from Sumatra. Construction of the Kalpakkam plant was just beginning, but the Madras plant shut down safely and maintained cooling. However, recommendations including early warning system for tsunami and provision of additional cooling water sources for longer duration cooling were implemented. In March 2011 the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was affected seriously by a huge tsunami induced by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Three of the six reactors were operating at the time, and had shut down automatically due to the earthquake. The back-up diesel generators for those three units were then swamped by the tsunami. This cut power supply and led to weeks of drama and loss of the reactors. The design basis tsunami height was 5.7 m for Daiichi (and 5.2 m for adjacent Daini, which was actually set a bit higher above sea level). Tsunami heights coming ashore were about 14 metres for both plants. Unit 3 of Daini was undamaged and continued to cold shutdown status, but the other units suffered flooding to pump rooms where equipment transfers heat from the reactor circuit to the sea - the ultimate heat sink. The maximum amplitude of this tsunami was 23 metres at point of origin, about 160 km from Fukushima. In the last century there had been eight tsunamis in the Japan region with maximum amplitudes above 10 metres (some much more), these having arisen from earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 to 8.4, on average one every 12 years. Those in 1983 and in 1993 were the most recent affecting Japan, with maximum heights

14.5 metres and 31 metres respectively, both induced by magnitude 7.7 earthquakes. This 2011 earthquake was magnitude 9. For low-lying sites, civil engineering and other measures are normally taken to make nuclear plants resistant to flooding. Lessons from Blayais have fed into regulatory criteria since 2000, and those from Fukushima will certainly do so. Sea walls are being built or increased at Hamaoka, Shimane, Mihama, Ohi, Takahama, Onagawa, and Higashidori plants. However, few parts of the world have the same tsunami potential as Japan, and for the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of Europe the maximum amplitude is much less than Japan.

Hydrogen containment is safe and controlledWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)In any light-water nuclear power reactor, hydrogen is formed by radiolytic decomposition of water. This needs to be

dealt with to avoid the potential for explosion with oxygen present, and many reactors have been retrofitted with passive autocatalytic hydrogen recombiners in their containment, replacing external recombiners that needed to be connected and powered, isolated behind radiological barriers. Also in some kinds of reactors, particularly early boiling water types, the containment is rendered inert by injection of nitrogen. It was reported that WANO may require all operators to have hydrogen recombiners in PWRs. As of early 2012, a few in Spain and Japan did not have them. In an accident situation such as at Fukushima where the fuel became very hot, a lot of hydrogen is formed by the

oxidation of zirconium fuel cladding in steam at about 1300°C. This is beyond the capability of the normal hydrogen recombiners to deal with, and

operators must rely on venting to atmosphere or inerting the containment with nitrogen.

A2: MeltdownsSAM implemented for all nuclear reactors globally, this includes Mexico World Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)In addition to engineering and procedures which reduce the risk and severity of accidents, all plants have guidelines for Severe Accident Management or Mitigation (SAM). These conspicuously came into play after the Fukushima accident, where staff had immense challenges in the absence of power and with disabled cooling systems following damage done by the tsunami. The experience following that accident is being applied not only in

design but also in such guidelines, and peer reviews on nuclear plants will focus more on these than previously. In mid 2011 the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre launched a new secure web-based communications platform to unify and simplify information exchange during nuclear or radiological emergencies. The Unified System for Information Exchange on Incidents and Emergencies (USIE) has been under development since 2009 but was actually launched during the emergency response to the accident at Fukushima.

A2: Mexico BadMexico’s Government Regulates their nuclear energyWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

The 1984 Act on Nuclear Activities states that the government, through the Ministry of Energy, is responsible for establishing the framework for the use and development of nuclear energy and technology, in accordance with the national energy policy.The National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards (CNSNS) is a semi-autonomous body under the authority of the Ministry of Energy which takes the role of regulator. CNSNS is responsible for ensuring the proper application of regulations and safeguards for nuclear and radiation safety and for physical protection of nuclear and radiological installations to ensure public safety.CNSNS is also responsible for revising, evaluating and approving the criteria for the siting, design construction operation and decommissioning of nuclear installations, proposing the relevant regulations. It has the power to amend of suspend the licenses of nuclear facilities, which are granted on CNSNS approval through the Ministry of Energy.

Nuclear energy not new to Mexico, R&D with Canada since 95World Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

The main nuclear research organisation in Mexico is the National Nuclear Research Institute (NNRI). NNRI have operated a 1000kW Triga Mk III research reactor since November 1968.The University Autonoma de Zacatecas has a subcritical Chicago Modelo 900 assembly used for training, commissioned in 1969.A Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between Mexico and Canada was signed in 1995 for the exchange of information in R&D, health, safety, emergency planning and environmental protection. It also provides for the transfer of nuclear material, equipment and technology and the rendering of technical assistance.

A2: Mexico CPMexico’s Laguna Verde Plant is likely to fail now and US experts are key- others have failed in uprating the plant in the squoNauman 5/10/13 Talli, writer for cip america- this evidence internally quotes reports by power plant officials at the Laguna Verda power plant and cites multiple letters between Mexican officials, “Mexico’s Aging Laguna Verde Nuclear Plant a Fiasco,” CIP America, http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9498

The case of the failure of Mexico’s Laguna Verde Nuclear Plant, nestled on the jagged Veracruz seacoast, reveals the need to nix nukes and fortify public right-to-know mechanisms.With Latin American countries still turned off to nuclear power two years after Japan’s monumental Fukushima meltdowns dispersed radioactive fallout across the ocean to them, events inside a similar facility in Mexico have fueled mounting skepticism over the potential for developing the energy technology.Fissures, leaks, shutdowns, government secrecy, a failed upgrade, alleged bid-rigging and contract fraud at Mexico’s lone atomic power station, the state-run Laguna Verde Nuclear Plant, were vetted during the 9th Regional Congress on Radiation Protection and Safety held in Rio de Janeiro in April.The audience of Latin American experts eager to share the information at the professional association forum starred scientists from Argentina and Brazil, which also have nuclear power plants, as well as from Venezuela, Chile and Cuba, which had made tentative moves toward establishing atomic energy stations before the Fukushima catastrophe stymied aspirations.The irregularities at Laguna Verde came to light thanks to a courageous group of anonymous high-level employees inside the power plant and to the public information requests by their spokesperson, Mexico’s National Autonomous University Physics Professor Bernardo Salas Mar, a former plant employee and valiant whistleblower.Some of Salas Mar’s most recent research was accepted at the International Radiation Protection Association congress in Brazil, but his university did not provide him with travel expenses to attend in person.Salas faces high-level attempts to have him fired as a result of his persistent efforts to make public his discoveries of dangerous faults and cover-ups at the Laguna Verde plant. But Salas’ achievements speak for themselves. Were it not for his ceaseless hammering on the doors of the 10-year-old Federal Information Access Institute (IFAI), perhaps no one ever would have known about the latest incidents at Laguna Verde until it was too late.Based on his freedom-of-information requests to the institute, Salas and Laguna Verde’s own technicians revealed in an April 19 letter to President Enrique Peña Nieto that Mexico has been defrauded to the tune of more than a half-billion dollars by the international companies that won the bid for the federal contract to uprate the two reactors at the plant located near the Caribbean port of Veracruz.“Uprating” is industry jargon for boosting the capacity of nuclear reactors so they can generate more electricity.The letter to the President alleges the Federal Electricity Commission purposely botched the bid letting by omitting the usual requirement for a contractor to abide by the Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates. Apparently the CFD did this to favor the Spanish company Iberdrola Ingenería and the French company Alstom Mexico, which lacked the capability to carry out the changes to the nuclear steam supply system according to standard specifications.Employees in key positions at Laguna Verde had alerted the two previous presidential administrations to the issue as far back as 2006, communicating their “worry over the capacity-boosting work contemplated for this nuclear plant, considering it to be unreliable, risky and overpriced,” according to the letter. Still Iberdrola and Alstom got the $605-million contract to increase the plant’s power output by 20 percent.Iberdrola announced the successful conclusion of the five-year, $605-million modernization project in February, noting that it overhauled equipment dating back to 1990, in the project that created more than 2,000 jobs.The president of Alstom in Mexico, Cintia Angulo, was arrested a week after the announcement of the upgrade conclusion on charges of giving false testimony in an unrelated French case of non-payment.However, the more spectacular fraud for both firms will prove to be the Mexican uprate contract, which not only failed to accomplish the goal of boosting Laguna Verde’s power output, but also left the reactors in worse condition than before, Salas and employees charge.The Federal Electricity Commission responded to Salas’ inquiries, saying that Reactor Unit 2 would be operating at 100 percent of planned output in April and Unit 1 would be at 100 percent in May.

Nonetheless, after further information requests, Salas revealed that the National Nuclear Safety Commission has denied both reactors the licenses to operate at higher output in the aftermath of the contract, due precisely to the fact that the guidelines for the nuclear steam supply system were not followed.Employees say the failure to follow the guidelines during the uprate cracked the jet pumps that inject the water to the core of the General Electric boiling water reactors, the same kind that melted down due to a generator system crash at Fukushima.“The situation of the reactors is not serious yet, but operating with fissures could cause a major problem to the extent that it could endanger national security. (Remember Fukushima and Chernobyl.)” the letter to President Peña Nieto says. The employees consider it “risky and inacceptable for both reactors to continue operating with the fissures that have been encountered.”Simultaneous suspension of operations at both reactors in September 2012 and related confusing news releases, some blaming the pump fissures, caused alarm in the communities around the installation.Authorities first said a diesel generator breakdown was at fault for the interruption in service of one reactor, while fuel-cell restocking was the reason for a stoppage at the other.The next day they said a clogged seawater intake was part of the reason for removing both reactors from service. An escape of hydrogen gas from a condenser was posited. And finally, officials stated to the public that the fissures in both reactors’ water pumps were to blame.Government secrecy about details surrounding the event accentuated longstanding worries in the population near the plant. The fear of accidents and serious concerns over the ongoing situation was highlighted by an NGO’s court appeal arguing that people should be exempted from paying their light bills due to the fact that their civil rights had been violated by the lack of safety measures and accountability at Laguna Verde.In response to Salas’ information requests, the Energy Secretariat, in charge of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the National Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSNS), said it didn’t have the answers to his questions.Its commissions presented incongruous replies. The vagueness of the answers provided by the Federal Electricity Commission prompted the researcher to appeal to the IFAI to require revised responses.After his second round of questioning, he was able to deduce that the cooling water intake channel had indeed filled with sediment and it had been dredged, so it did not present a hazard and did not cause the reactor operations’ interruption.He also then could determine that the hydrogen had been released from the ductwork into the cooling water of the main generator, during the month of August. While the amount of gas was unknown, the escape was not to the atmosphere, and neither presented a danger nor was cause for halting operations.The CSNSNS responded that the diesel generator failed when a piston stuck due to lack of lubrication resulting from a bearing problem on Sept. 12. The event did not endanger life and limb, according to Salas.Simultaneous reloading of fuel cells at both reactors was the most likely reason for the concurrent stalling, Salas concluded after the numerous freedom-of-information requests.While the main present dangers appear to be the fractures in the cores’ water pumps, a Jan. 11, 2013 scram (emergency reactor shutdown) remains to be inspected under the looking glass of the IFAI.The institute created by decree in 2002 has provided important tools for shedding light on the machinations of the nuclear plant, among other formerly opaque federal operations.Yet, as this case underscores, IFAI should strengthen its own processes in order to avoid the kind of inconsistent and self-belying responses that ensnared this most recent of many investigations into the lack of security at Laguna Verde.Even so, that won’t protect the population from the specter of accidents or deteriorating health and safety in the advent of air and water pollution from the facility, which is located on a part of the coast with only poorly maintained roads to offer escape routes.If Peña Nieto and company are to be more responsive to community needs than their predecessors, one way to show good intentions would be to comply with demands for conducting an emergency public evacuation drill, something that never has been done in the history of the 17-year-old nuclear plant. Another would be to take the irresponsible parties to court to establish accountability.

Mexico’s reactor has been wrought with security issues and government cover-ups and lies. Nauman 5/10 Posted on: 10/05/2013 by Talli Nauman Talli Nauman is co-founder and co-director of Journalism to Raise Environmental Awareness, as well as working on many other environmental initiatives and collaborating with the Americas Policy Program. Mexico’s Aging Laguna Verde Nuclear Plant a Fiasco http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/9498

However , the more spectacular fraud for both firms will prove to be the Mexican uprate contract , which not only failed to accomplish the goal of boosting Laguna Verde’s power output, but also left the reactors in worse condition than before , Salas and employees charge. The Federal Electricity Commission responded to Salas’ inquiries, saying that Reactor Unit 2 would be operating at 100

percent of planned output in April and Unit 1 would be at 100 percent in May. Nonetheless, after further information requests, Salas revealed that the National Nuclear Safety Commission has denied both reactors the licenses to operate at higher output in the aftermath of the contract , due precisely to the fact that the guidelines for the nuclear steam supply system were not followed . Employees say the failure to follow the guidelines during the uprate cracked the jet pumps that inject the water to the core of the General Electric boiling water reactors, the same kind that melted down due to a generator system crash at Fukushima. “The situation of the reactors is not serious yet, but operating with fissures could cause a major problem to the extent that it could endanger national security. (Remember Fukushima and Chernobyl.)” the letter to President Peña Nieto says. The employees consider it “risky and inacceptable for both reactors to continue operating with the fissures that have been encountered .” Simultaneous suspension of operations at both reactors in September 2012 and related confusing

news releases, some blaming the pump fissures, caused alarm in the communities around the installation . Authorities first said a diesel generator breakdown was at fault for the interruption in service of one reactor , while fuel-cell restocking was the reason for a stoppage at the other . The next day they said a clogged seawater intake was part of the reason for removing both

reactors from service. An escape of hydrogen gas from a condenser was posited. And finally, officials stated to the public that the fissures in both reactors’ water pumps were to blame . Government secrecy about details surrounding the event accentuated longstanding worries in the population near the plant. The fear of accidents and serious concerns over the ongoing situation was highlighted by an NGO’s court appeal arguing that people should be exempted from paying their light bills due to the fact that their civil rights had been violated by the lack of safety measures and accountability at Laguna Verde. In response to Salas’ information requests, the Energy Secretariat, in charge of the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the National Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSNS), said it didn’t have the answers to his questions. Its commissions presented incongruous replies. The vagueness of the answers provided by the Federal Electricity Commission prompted the researcher to appeal to the IFAI to require revised responses. After his second round of questioning, he was able to deduce that the cooling water intake channel had indeed filled with sediment and it had been dredged, so it did not present a hazard and did not cause the reactor operations’ interruption. He also then could determine that the hydrogen had been released from the ductwork into the cooling water of the main generator, during the month of August. While the amount of gas was unknown, the escape was not to the atmosphere, and neither presented a danger nor was cause for halting operations. The CSNSNS responded that the diesel generator failed when a piston stuck due to lack of lubrication resulting from a bearing problem on Sept. 12.

The event did not endanger life and limb, according to Salas. Simultaneous reloading of fuel cells at both reactors was the most likely reason for the concurrent stalling, Salas concluded after the numerous freedom-of-information requests . While the main present dangers appear to be the fractures in the cores’ water pumps, a Jan. 11, 2013 scram (emergency reactor shutdown ) remains to be inspected under the looking glass of the IFAI . The institute created by decree

in 2002 has provided important tools for shedding light on the machinations of the nuclear plant, among other formerly opaque federal operations. Yet, as this case underscores, IFAI should strengthen its own processes in order to avoid the kind of inconsistent and self-belying responses that ensnared this most recent of many investigations into the lack of security at Laguna Verde . Even so, that won’t protect the population from the specter of accidents or deteriorating health and safety in the advent of air and water pollution from the facility, which is located on a part of the coast with only poorly maintained roads to offer escape routes. If Peña Nieto and company are to be more responsive to community needs than their predecessors, one way to show good intentions would be to comply with demands for conducting an emergency public evacuation drill, something that never has been done in the history of the 17-year-old nuclear plant. Another would be to take the irresponsible parties to court to establish accountability.

A2: Native WastePast empirics prove dumping won’t happen in Mexico – Obama, national councils, and energy secretary prevented in USTreichel 12-03-12 (Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, has published an op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun, “25 years ago today, the "Screw Nevada Bill" was passed”, Beyond Nuclear, http://www.beyondnuclear.org/native-america/2012/12/23/25-years-ago-today-the-screw-nevada-bill-was-passed.html)

But the science -- Yucca's geological and hydrological unsuitability -- caught up to the proposal. So did Harry Reid's revenge, as he grew in power to become Senate Majority Leader. Led by Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney, the Western Shoshone National Council maintained tireless opposition to the dump, joined, over time, by more than 1,000 environmental groups. Then, in 2009, President Obama and his Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, wisely cancelled the dangerous, controversial proposal.

Citizen pressure, US environmental officials, and indigenous governments stop waste landfill on indigenous territoriesNauman 12-18-06 (Talli Nauman, Environmental journalist based in Mexico, is a freelance contributor to the Thomson Reuters Foundation, “Mexico, USA Opposition to Secret Toxic Landfill”, Mexidata Info, http://mexidata.info/id1176.html)

With citizen pressure mounting, U.S. environmental officials have told Mexican counterparts to guarantee public safety or reject the proposed La Choya hazardous waste landfill near the Arizona-Sonora state boundary. Indigenous government and environmental activists at the international crossroads want to nix the private, commercial project.

Mexican government safely stores and disposes of its UraniumWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Nuclear Power in Mexico; November 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Mexico/#.UdLyKPmPOSo; DB)

The government of Mexico, through the Ministry of Energy is responsible for the storage and disposal of nuclear fuels and radioactive waste irrespective of their origin.The Energy Ministry is beginning to take administrative and budgetary steps to create a national company to manage its radioactive waste. It is also planning to sign the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.An engineered near-surface disposal site for low-level waste (LLW) operated at Piedrera between 1985 and 1987. In that time, 20,858m3 of waste was stored.A collection, treatment and storage centre for LLW has operated at Maquixco since 1972.

A2: Shutdowns BadScrams and Seismic shutdowns don’t cause safety risksWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)A scram is a sudden reactor shutdown. When a reactor is scrammed, automatically due to seismic activity, or due to some malfunction, or manually for whatever reason, the fission reaction generating the main heat stops. However, considerable heat continues to be generated by the radioactive decay of the fission products in the fuel. Initially, for a few minutes , this is great - about 7% of the pre-scram level. But it drops to about 1% of the normal heat output after two hours, to 0.5% after one day, and 0.2% after a week. Even then it must still be cooled, but simply being immersed in a lot of water does most of the job after some time. When the water temperature is below 100°C at atmospheric pressure the reactor is said to be in "cold shutdown".

A2: TerorismTerrorism not a threat with nuclear energy – even a plane can’t break open or damage a plantWorld Nuclear Association 12 (The World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear energy and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. WNA represents the industry in key world forums that shape the nuclear industry's regulatory and policy environment, including the UN, IAEA, NEA, ICRP and Ospar; Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors; updated 31 May 2012; http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UdLv2vmPOSo; DB)Since the World Trade Centre attacks in New York in 2001 there has been concern about the consequences of a large aircraft being used to attack a nuclear facility with the purpose of releasing radioactive materials. Various studies have looked at similar attacks on nuclear power plants. They show that nuclear reactors would be more resistant to such attacks than virtually any other civil installations - see Appendix 3. A thorough study was undertaken by the US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) using specialist consultants and paid for by the US Dept. of Energy. It concludes that US reactor structures "are robust and (would) protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft". The analyses used a fully-fuelled Boeing 767-400 of over 200 tonnes as the basis, at 560 km/h - the maximum speed for precision flying near the ground. The wingspan is greater than the diameter of reactor containment buildings and the 4.3 tonne engines are 15 metres apart. Hence analyses focused on single engine direct impact on the centreline - since this would be the most penetrating missile - and on the impact

of the entire aircraft if the fuselage hit the centreline (in which case the engines would ricochet off the sides). In each case no part of the aircraft or its fuel would penetrate the containment. Other studies have confirmed these findings. Penetrating (even relatively weak) reinforced concrete requires multiple hits by high speed artillery shells or specially-designed "bunker busting" ordnance - both of which are well beyond what terrorists are likely to deploy. Thin-walled, slow-moving, hollow aluminum aircraft, hitting containment-grade heavily-reinforced concrete

disintegrate, with negligible penetration. But further (see Sept 2002 Science paper and Jan 2003 Response & Comments), realistic assessments from decades of analyses, lab work and testing, find that the consequence of even the worst realistic scenarios - core melting and containment failure - can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure . This conclusion was documented in a 1981 EPRI study, reported and widely circulated

in many languages, by Levenson and Rahn in Nuclear Technology. In 1988 Sandia National Laboratories in USA demonstrated the unequal distribution of energy absorption that occurs when an aircraft impacts a massive, hardened target. The test involved a rocket-propelled F4 Phantom jet (about 27 tonnes, with both engines close together in the fuselage) hitting a 3.7m thick slab of concrete at 765 km/h. This was to see whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy aircraft. It showed how most of the collision energy goes into the destruction of the aircraft itself - about 96% of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the its destruction and some penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4% was dissipated in accelerating the 700-tonne slab. The maximum penetration of the concrete in this experiment was 60 mm,

but comparison with fixed reactor containment needs to take account of the 4% of energy transmitted to the slab. See also video clip. The study of a 1970s US power plant in a highly-populated area is assessing the possible effects of a successful terrorist attack which causes both meltdown of the core and a large breach in the containment structure - both extremely unlikely. It shows that a large fraction of the most hazardous radioactive isotopes, like those of iodine and tellurium, would never leave the site. Much of the radioactive material would stick to surfaces inside the containment or becomes soluble salts

that remain in the damaged containment building. Some radioactive material would nonetheless enter the environment some hours after the attack in this extreme scenario and affect areas up to several kilometres away. The extent and timing of this means that with walking-pace evacuation inside this radius it would not be a major health risk. However it could leave areas contaminated and hence displace people in the same way as a natural disaster, giving rise to economic rather than health consequences. Looking at spent fuel storage pools, similar analyses showed no breach. Dry storage and transport casks retained their integrity. "There would be no release of

radionuclides to the environment". Similarly, the massive structures mean that any terrorist attack even inside a plant (which are well defended) and causing loss of cooling, core melting and breach of containment would not result in any significant radioactive releases.

However, while the main structures are robust, the 2001 attacks did lead to increased security requirements and plants were required by NRC to install barriers, bulletproof security stations and other physical modifications which in the USA are estimated by the industry association to have cost some $2 billion across the country. See also Science magazine article 2002 and Appendix 3 . Switzerland's Nuclear Safety Inspectorate studied a similar scenario and reported in 2003 that the danger of any radiation release from such a crash

would be low for the older plants and extremely low for the newer ones. The conservative design criteria which caused most power reactors to be shrouded by massive containment structures with biological shield has provided peace of mind in a suicide terrorist context. Ironically and as noted earlier, with better understanding of what happens in a core melt accident inside, they are now seen to be not nearly as necessary in that accident mitigation role as was originally assumed.

A2: US CPUS nuclear tech lead is dying – strict US safety regulations and inefficiency William Tucker 5/22/13 (University of California, Berkeley Bachelor of Science (BS), Electrical Engineering, B, Former DTE jobs, Superintendent – Operations, Assistant to Vice President, General Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering, Superintendent Technical, Assistant to the Technical Manager, Director Nuclear Fuel & Reactor Engineering, USA Management Council Representative / Technological Specialist, and Energy Manager, “America No Longer Leads in Nuclear Technology,” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/22/america_no_longer_leads_in_nuclear_technology_118505.html)

The message is clear. The torch of nuclear technology in passing to the rest of the world. The U.S. may still hold on to some vestiges of leadership -- enough, for example, to try to tell the Koreans what they can and can’t do with their spent fuel. But the cutting edge has moved abroad, to France, Japan, China, Russia and Korea. There are 60 reactors under construction in the world, only four of them in the United States. Those four -- two at the Vogtle site in Georgia,

two at the Virgil C. Summer nuclear generating station in South Carolina -- are all AP1000s, the same model China is now completing. By the time the first Vogtle plant opens in 2017 -- if that happens on schedule -- China will have eight and will be selling its own revised design to the world.

There’s an explanation for this. Nothing in nuclear technology can happen without first getting permission from the government. Unlike fracking on private land or freeing tight oil or putting up solar projects, everything must first be cleared by the NRC. If a 40-year-old reactor in Minnesota wants to switch to a different set of wrenches, it must check first. When employees at the Cooper Nuclear Station in Omaha, Neb., asked permission to ride bicycles in order to avoid long walks between buildings, the NRC reviewed the matter for eight months before ruling that bicycles would be too dangerous -- but they could ride tricycles.

Droughts

1ACs

Ag ShellContention __: Droughts

Massive inevitable droughts trigger thermonuclear water wars and famine – only U.S. led nuclear investment averts crisisRush, 6-14 [Cynthia R., columnist for Executive Intelligence Review, “Mexico's Drought Demands 'NAWAPA-Plus' Infrastructure Projects”, 13, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2013/4024mex_nawapa_plus.html]

Herrera, president of Conago's Water Commission, warned that the three-year-long drought is the longest- lasting in 100 years and has created a life-or-death crisis which threatens to exterminate , not only agriculture, but the Mexican people themselves, for whom food and potable water in the drought-stricken regions of the country have become increasingly inaccessible. The situation could be described as "traumatic," Herrera said. "In terms of water conflicts, fate is overtaking us. We must now think of how to finance hydraulic projects which, although expensive, must become reality." Federico

Arroyo, president of the Chamber of Deputies, added that "there is no water project more expensive than the one that doesn't exist." The consequences of not building these projects is what must be taken into account, he argued The outlook for 2013 is grim, the meeting's attendees explained: 80% of cultivated land is dependent entirely on rainfall, and on the irrigated land that remains, dams are almost completely empty. In some states, such as Chihuahua, which borders the United States, there are dams only 23% full, but most are at 10-15% of capacity! Much of both rural and urban water infrastructure is dilapidated and needs to be rebuilt. A dramatic change in public policy, with aggressive involvement by the federal government, creation of new credit mechanisms, as well as vastly increased emergency assistance to drought-stricken areas, is immediately called for, said the governors and legislators attending the meeting. Failure to find solutions, they warned, could result in "water conflicts " among communities, cities, states, and even countries—not to mention the toll in human lives All true enough; but viewed from the optic of the breakdown and bankruptcy of the global financial system, the threat of thermonuclear war , and the British Queen's drive to kill off what she considers to be 6 billion "useless eaters" on the planet, the governors' and congressmen's proposals in themselves cannot begin to reverse the catastrophe that Herrera described. This is especially the case since the government of President Enrique Peña Nieto has shown little inclination to break with the neoliberal economic framework that has dominated Mexico since the 1982 crushing of the nationalist development perspective of Lyndon LaRouche's close ally, President José López Portillo (1976-82). Despite some efforts to increase palliative measures, the government has done little to dump the "green" policies championed in the previous Felipe Calderón Administration by then-head of the National Water Commission (Conagua), José Luis Luege Tamargo, an agent of the British monarchy's fascist Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). The emphasis is still largely on "managing" and "adjusting to" scarce resources. In an interview with the daily El Universal published May 4, current Conagua director David Korenfeld reported that plans for water rationing are already in place, slated to begin first in rural areas and then, "if the emergency persists, move to urban areas." The only viable programmatic approach to addressing the existential crisis facing the Great American Desert, of which north-central Mexico is a part, to be achieved through a series of sovereign treaty arrangements, is the project known as "NAWAPA-Plus"—the North American Water and Power Alliance, combined with Mexico's long-planned North West Hydraulic Plan (PLHINO) and the Northern Gulf Hydraulic Plan (PLHIGON)—which would create a single, integrated North American water project. LaRouche and his associates have elaborated this project in great detail over a period of years (see following article). Complemented inside Mexico with other major infrastructure projects, including the construction of dozens of nuclear plants for electricity generation and desalination, PLHINO and PLHIGON would transport water from Mexico's south to the water-starved north, and through the hookup with NAWAPA, transform these parched lands into areas capable of producing bountiful quantities of food. These projects are not unknown to some of Mexico's elected leaders. In fact, in a July 27, 2012 press conference, the same Governor Herrera who described Mexico's current crisis in such stark terms threw down the gauntlet to then-President-elect Peña Nieto and, without naming it, called for building the PLHIGON. "We have to bring water from [the southern states of] Chiapas and Tabasco," he said, "where, unfortunately, a large number of cubic meters of water are wasted because of its abundance, to the states of the center-north.... If these droughts are recurrent, we have to think of a solution that goes to the root of the problem.... These are long-term projects, but it will be a challenge facing the new federal government and the new Chamber of Deputies, to carry out studies and make investments.... We have to get going; although they are long-term projects, they can be the solution . Their cost is nothing compared to the lack of water and the dramatic consequences." Herrera explained at that time that his proposal was to build "aqueducts, which would help to fundamentally mitigate the grave problem of drought which the region is suffering, and which is leaving millions of people defenseless." He added that this project would be a "bridge" to unite Mexico's regions, and bring greater economic growth, employment, and welfare to families, and that five regional meetings would be held in different states during August. During the May 29 gathering, Congressman Oscar Cantón Zetina of the southeastern state of Tabasco offered his state's water supply for the nation's development, given that Tabasco possesses 30% of Mexico's surface water and experiences annual floods. If we build pipelines for gas, oil, and their derivatives, he asked, why can't we do the same for water? We must invest in transporting the water and making it potable, he said. Tabasco can provide much

of this water to the entire nation. In March of this year, Energy Minister Joaquín Coldwell, called for a full discussion of nuclear

power as a viable, "clean" answer for Mexico . "It's a discussion we have to have in the energy sector," he said. "We should move

towards a stronger nuclear program."In March of this year, Energy Minister Joaquín Coldwell, called for a full discussion of nuclear power as a viable, "clean" answer for Mexico. "It's a discussion we have to have in the energy sector," he said. "We should move towards a stronger nuclear program."But as organizers of the LaRouche Citizens' Movement (Mocila) told those attending the May 29 meeting, the fight to build these projects and secure the nation's future cannot be won internally. Just as López Portillo did, nationalist forces and institutions must seek out and coordinate with international allies, especially with LaRouche in

the United States , with a principled policy outlook that will overturn the murderous Anglo-Dutch financial dictatorship that has devastated both nations'—and the world's—economies and populations. This means reinstating Franklin Roosevelt's Glass-Steagall law in the United States and passing similar legislation internationally, including in Mexico. It also means creating a Hamiltonian credit and national banking system (a tradition with strong historical roots in Mexico) that can finance great water and related infrastructure projects such as NAWAPA-Plus. The urgency of immediate action can't be overstated. It is estimated that 1.280 million square kilometers out of Mexico's total national territory of 1.973 million km2—almost 65%—is affected by the drought. In several states, especially among poorer Mexicans, hunger and malnutrition are rampant. A number of peasant organizations reported in late May that the high rates of desertification in the north have caused the loss of at least 5 million hectares that used to produce food, resulting in the importation of 34 million tons of grain that otherwise would have been produced in the country.

Mexican water wars are particularly likely – brink is nowBarry 13 [Tom, senior policy analyst and director of CIP's TransBorder Project, cofounded the International Relations Center (IRC) in 1979, author specializing in Latin-American Relations and the Mexican-U.S. Border, “The Coming Water Wars in Mexico,” 4/14, http://newmexicomercury.com/blog/comments/the_coming_water_wars_in_mexico#sthash.37Ascd6q.dpuf, C.Z.]

The most tragic and ominous was the Oct. 21 assassination of a leader of the small farmers’ organization El Barzón and his wife. They had been organizing against the illegal and unsustainable pumping of groundwater by a Canadian mining company and new agribusiness operations in central Chihuahua. The murdered couple had also been associated with the newly formed Colectivo de Defensores del Agua del Desierto Chihuahuense. Several months previously, on July 2, the first shots of the new water war in Chihuahua were fired by rogue police in an unsuccessful attempt to end the mobilization of more than 300 small farmers who had gathered to prevent the drilling by Mennonite farmers of yet another illegal well south of Flores Magón . Wielding semi-automatic weapons, the police barged into the gathering of unarmed farmers and forcibly attempted to confiscate the camera of a reporter/photographer—me—who was chronicling the Barzón-organized action. When the farmers pushed closer to prevent the police from successfully seizing my camera, the uniformed gunmen began firing up in the air and into the ground—a confrontation that is now regarded as the first skirmish in the new water wars.

Those conflicts escalate to nuclear warNASCA 4 [National Association for Scientific and Cultural Appreciation, “Water Shortages – Only a Matter of Time”, http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html]

Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life! This becomes all the more worrying when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst droughts on record. These conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy answer. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in future years countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In the

long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no obvious answer.

Famine causes world war III Calvin 2 [William H., Professor of Biology – University of Washington, “A Brain for All Season”, http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/ NAcoast.htm]

The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies , before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine.  Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people.  It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food.  It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.

Independently, Mexico’s food trade K2 U.S agZahniser 13[Steven, Agricultural economist for the USDA, “Mexico Trade & FDIMexico Trade & FDI,” 5/15, USDA Economic Research Center, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/countries-regions/nafta,-canada-mexico/mexico-trade-fdi.aspx#.UdS47_mfgR6]

Mexico is a major participant in international agricultural trade. In the broad category of agri-food products (Chapters 1-24 in the Harmonized System), Mexico's total exports (to all countries) approached $22.5 billion in 2012. Corresponding imports in 2012 totaled about $26.5 billion. The United States is Mexico's largest agri-food trading partner, buying 75 percent of Mexican exports and supplying 73 percent of the country's imports in this category. Agricultural trade between Mexico and the United States encountered a turning point in the late 1980s when Mexico emerged from a period of economic difficulties and adopted a series of trade reforms. In 1986, Mexico agreed to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor to the World Trade Organization. In the early 1990s, Mexico lowered a number of agricultural trade barriers, and in 1994, Mexico joined Canada and the United States in implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In addition, Mexico has forged trade accords with about 50 other countries. With a growing population, an expanding economy, and a more market-oriented agricultural sector, Mexico has become the second-largest agricultural trading partner of the United States (following

Canada) in terms of exports and imports combined. In 2012, Mexico accounted for 13.4 percent of U.S. agricultural exports and 15.9 percent of imports, as defined and categorized by USDA. Between 1993 (the last year prior to NAFTA's implementation) and 2012, U.S.

agricultural exports to Mexico expanded at a compound annual rate of 9.1 percent, while agricultural imports from Mexico grew at a rate of 9.9 percent . Greater price volatility for many agricultural commodities has caused the total value of U.S. agricultural exports

to Mexico to fluctuate more widely over the past 6 years (2007-12). U.S.-Mexico agricultural trade is largely complementary, meaning that the United States tends to export different commodities to Mexico than Mexico exports to the United States. Grains, oilseeds, meat, and related products make up about three-fourths of U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico. Mexico does not produce enough grains and oilseeds to meet internal demand, so the country’s food and livestock producers import sizable volumes of these commodities to make value-added products, primarily for the domestic market.

The collapse of U.S. agricultural trade turns every impact and makes extinction inevitableLugar, 4 [Richard, U.S. Senator (Indiana), “Plant Power” Our Planet v. 14 n. 3, http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html]

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go

to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand , we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

Internal Links

A2: No Nuclear/Can’t CompeteMexico needs alternativesMorales 11 [Isidro, professor and researcher at Brown, Director of Public Policies and Government at EGAP, ITESM, “The Future of Oil in Mexico,” 4/29 http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-MoralesFactor-04292011.pdf]

In this regard, Mexico's assets in terms of territory, people, natural resources, and governance capabilities have moved the country from being a simple buffer zone to a critical pivot. If the pivot turns unstable, unsafe, and unpredictable, this will directly impact the U.S. This explains why, at present time, the top priority in the agenda of the two countries is the escalation of violence in Mexico, and the political challenges unleashed by the activities of organized crirne. Mexico's public safety has become a part of U.S. security, that is, it has become an "intennestic" problem.27 and this explains why security trumps other issues on the agenda. As long as Mexico remains a major exporter of crude oil to the U.S.—something that is in Mexico's economic and political interests - U.S. energy interests will be fulfilled, despite limited opportunities for private participation in Mexico's energy industiy. If Mexican exports decline dramatically, this will negatively impact Mexico's economic opportunities and intensify tensions in a bilateral relationship already under stress. Furthermore. Mexico has the potential of strengthening its energy relationship with the U.S. as non-conventional and renewable fuels become higher profile . The production of energy from solar, wind, and biomass sources, as well as biomels. escapes the nationalistic and sovereign-based governance of conventional energy resources in Mexico. That is why it is crucial that Mexicans define the new cooperative architecture under which Mexico and the U.S. will pursue their mutual interests while equally reaping the benefits .

Nuclear is the most competitiveFredrick 13 [James, energy reporter for Business News Americas, “Mexico to prioritize nuclear in renewable energy push”. 3/1, http://www.bnamericas.com/news/electricpower/mexico-to-prioritize-nuclear-in-renewable-energy-push]

Nuclear generation is the most competitive option for the future as Mexico aims to have 35% of power generated from renewable

sources, energy ministry Sener said in its 2013-27 energy strategy plan ENE.Both nuclear and efficient cogeneration are listed as renewables under current Mexican law.The ministry presented the strategy to congress this week, where it must be approved before

implementation.GENERATION The 2008 renewable energy and energy transition law (LAERFTE) set a mandate for 35% of power generation

to come from renewable sources by 2024. However, Sener says the law conflicts with national power company CFE's mandate to provide energy at the lowest possible cost, forcing it to continue using fossil fuels. The energy plan says new cost mechanisms, like externality costs and carbon credits, must be implemented to make the mandates mutually feasible. If Mexico only follows the "lowest cost" mandate, the plan predicts 72% of CFE's power in 2027 would

come from natural gas-fired plants compared to 47% in 2012, a serious problem for national energy security. At this point, nuclear generation is the most cost effective way to increase the share of renewables, according to the ENE. "It's essential to increase nuclear generation in the power matrix as it is a viable and proven alternative," the plan says. A large part of nuclear development will be a campaign to educate the public about the safety of the technology. The plan says the 1.6GW Laguna Verde nuclear complex could be expanded or a new site may be explored. The plan also calls for a national database of renewable energy that would map potential for solar and wind generation throughout the country. Finally, the plan calls for improving the small producer modality - which has been deemed unfeasible by many because of its uncertain pricing scheme - for inclusion of more renewable projects. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION Transmission and distribution capacity must not only be expanded but renovated, says the plan. In 2012, 48% of CFE's substations were more than 26 years old while 28% of transmission lines were more than 30 years old. The national distribution infrastructure is also aging, resulting in energy losses of nearly 14% over the last two years. Additionally, the plan aims to reduce non-technical energy losses, specifically theft, that accounted for a loss 7.6% in 2011. The report adds that improving energy efficiency is essential for the country's energy security. Regulations must be changed though, as Mexico lacks financial and regulatory incentives for energy efficiency. Note: BNamericas is hosting the Mexican Energy Summit in Mexico City on March 6-7, focusing on the oil and gas and electric power sectors, including energy investment, project development and new policies. Undersecretary of electric power in Sener, Lourdes Melgar, is scheduled to speak at the event.

A2: Won’t Use for WaterMexico pursuing desalination now proves they willGWI 7 (Global Water Intelligence, provides market leading analysis of the International Water Industry, “Mexico’s desalination dreams,” May, http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/8/5/general/mexicos-desalination-dreams.html, Vuthy)

Mexico aims to develop large-scale desalination plants across its northern states, especially in Baja California on the Pacific coast, according to a senior official at national water commission Conagua. In mid-April, Mexico inaugurated its first major desalination plant in Baja California Sur, which will reduce pressure on aquifers, at least 100 of which are overdeveloped across the country. Mexican officials are clearly beginning to appreciate that desalination can help the country's chronic water problems. “We have water shortages in northern Mexico, especially in coastal areas. Desalination is now a real option as prices for plants come down,” Roberto Contreras, head of drinking water and wastewater treatment at Conagua, told GWI. “Desalting a m3 of water used to cost above US$1 and now it is around US$0.80. Energy consumption at the plants is lower and the plants themselves last for many more years now,” he added. Mexico has about 160 desalination plants in operation, but they are mostly small operations run by private hotels at tourist resorts, handling volumes in the 400-1,300m3/d range. The new plant at Los Cabos in Baja California Sur, which is operated by Spain’s Inima, has a capacity of 20,000m3/d and can serve about 85,000 people. Following the success of the Los Cabos plant, Mexico aims to build a 25,000m3/d plant in the Baja California city of Ensenada, not far from San Diego in the United States. The plant would cost about US$25 million to build and could be operational from late 2008, with the government taking bids in the second half of this year. Eight companies including OHL’s Inima bid for Los Cabos, and Conagua expects a strong response for Ensenada, which would likely involve a 20-year concession, with the winning bidder putting up around 70% of the financing. “We are also considering more desalination plants in the Baja Californian cities of La Paz and Tijuana,” Contreras said. “The Pacific state of Guerrero is also considering this option,” he added. Contreras said much of the progress depends on the political will of state governments, and that the focus is on Baja California and Baja California Sur because the two state governments there are committed to the idea of desalination plants.

Desalination SolvesNuclear Desalination Solves Mexican Water ShortagesKennedy 4/19/12 (Clinton P, PhD candidate of International Bussiness at Utah State University, “WATER DESALINATION: ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA AND MEXICO “, Utah State University, http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=etd)

After discussing some concerns that the Lower Basin states had, research was done on the different types of desalination. This research included the different methods and their processes. MSF, MED, RO and MVC methods are discussed mentioning their different strengths and limitations. Next different possible solutions are discussed. These possible solutions include current practices and their successes. The solution that is discussed in length is water desalination as it offers another method of obtaining water. This part also discusses different ways to power the plant. As Mexico was already going to build nuclear power plants one idea was to build a plant in Mexico and use their power to run a desalination plant. This is one possible solution, to have a desalination plant desalinate water out of the Sea of Cortez in Mexico for the Southwest to use using the Mexico’s nuclear power plant to run the system. The economics of a desalination plant are discussed. The cost of building a plant, cost of desalinating the water, and water transportation costs are examined. After an examination on these different costs are completed it is discussed on who would pay for the desalination plant and who would receive the water. One possibility discussed is that Arizona, California and Nevada all pay an equal share in the cost of building the desalination plant in Mexico. California would then receive the water from the plant and thus would cut back on their consumption from the Colorado River allowing both Arizona and Nevada to increase theirs. A PEST analysis is done at the end of this study. It covers Political, Economical, Socio-cultural and Technological categories associated with this study. It covers different concerns and possible legislations that would need to be amended in order to continue with international desalination.

Nuclear Desalination Uniquely Solves Mexican Water NeedsSchiller Institute 2003 (International Political and Economic think tank, “Water from the Gulf of Mexico Can Green the Great American Desert”, Schiller Institute, http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/phys_econ/no_amer_water.html)

Cooper suggests that one such nuclear desalination complex could be built adjacent to the Permian Basin in Texas-New Mexico, which today produces significant oil and natural gas, but also brings up, in the extraction process, a large amount of saline water. That water could be desalinated, and used. Other plants could be located on Texas's Gulf Coast; at the Rio Grande; and so forth along the proposed route of the new aqueduct. Similar nuclear desalinating plants should be constructed in Mexico, along the coastal routes of the PLHINO and the PLHIGON, as well as along the proposed route of the aqueduct carrying water into the Mexican highlands.

Nuclear Desalination Specifically Solves Water Deficits In Northern MexicoAlonso et al 10/4/03 (Gustavo, Scientist at the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares, “IRIS Reactor a Suitable Option to Provide Energy and Water Desalination for the Mexican Northwest Region”, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/839327-JCuyQY/native/839327.pdf)

Population and water resources are the two factors that define the pressure over the water demand in the different regions of Mexico. Figure 1 shows the water pressure all over the Country [1]. From this figure can be seen that the North part of Mexico is the region with higher potable water demand and also Mexico City and its surroundings due to the high population

concentration. On the other hand, the south part of Mexico is a tropical region and they have just a small pressure over the water resources. Table I shows the water deficit for the different states with greater pressure over the water resources. As can be seen Mexico City is the one with the higher demand due to the overpopulation. Figure 1. Pressure over the water resources in Mexico Table I. Water deficit in Mexico State Water Deficit (m3 /year) Percentage (%) Distrito Federal (México City) 969,582,526 28.4 Chihuahua 591,179,652 17.3 Zacatecas 361,707,380 10.6 Sonora 343,654,396 10.1 Coahuila 312,630,564 9.2 San Luis Potosí 194,336,055 5.7 Nuevo León 176,796,606 5.2 Durango 171,165,154 5.0 Estado de México 163,913,921 4.8 Baja California Norte 86,984,232 2.5 Sinaloa 17,114,248 0.5 Tamaulipas 12,404,009 0.4 Baja California Sur 11,019,478 0.3 Total 3,412,488,221 1003. 2010-2012 Mexican Electricity Requirements The Mexican Electrical Sector Prospective 2003-2012 [2], assumes an annual increment of the gross domestic product of 4.7%. It identifies in the most of the cases the type of technology that will be used to cover the electricity demand in the different Mexican regions. However, in the period 2010-2012 there is some electricity needs that has not technology associated. It opens the possibility that this demand can be cover by using nuclear power. Table II shows the gross capacity by states for the period 2010-2012 that has not engage with any technology. Table II. 2010-2012 Energy requirements State Gross Capacity (MW) Percentage (%) Estado de México 2,200 23.4 Guerrero 2,100 22.4 Veracruz 1,070 11.4 Sonora 938 10.0 Chihuahua 900 9.6 Tamaulipas 550 5.9 Campeche 550 5.9 San Luis Potosí 523 5.6 Baja California Norte 513 5.5 Baja California Sur 38 0.4 Total 9,382 100 From Table I and II can be notice that there are several states that require electricity and water, they are shown in Table III. Table III. States with requirements of water and electricity State Gross

Capacity (MW) Water Deficit (m3 /year) Estado de México 2,200 163,913,921 Sonora 938 343,654,396 Chihuahua 900 591,179,652 Tamaulipas 550 12,404,009 San Luis Potosí 523 194,336,055 Baja California Norte 513 86,984,232 Baja California Sur 38 11,019,478 Now, if nuclear power will be used to cover the electricity requirements, then it is necessary to consider the external cooling for the reactor, and it will be done by using water. The nuclear power plant must be located in a coastal state to guarantee the water supply. The only states that are under this consideration are: Sonora, Tamaulipas, Baja California Norte and Baja California Sur. On the other hand a reactor must be located in a geologic stable zone, Baja California is under the San Andres fail, so no reactor can be allocated on those states. Therefore, Sonora and Tamaulipas are the possible choices. Sonora would be the best selection, because there are specific places in the state that are geologic stable. Furthermore, it requires greater amounts of electricity and water and due to its closeness to Chihuahua, Baja California Norte and Baja California Sur, also it can supply any electricity or water surplus to these states.

Mexico is ModelledDesalination plants in Mexico act as a prototype and become modeled elsewhere.Sergio M. Alcocer and Gerardo Hiriart ’08 (Director, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Researcher, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, “An Applied Research Program on Water Desalination with Renewable Energies,” http://www.iingen.unam.mx/es-mx/SitiosWeb/Proyectos/Impulsa4/Publicaciones/Documents/An%20Applied%20Research%20Program%20on%20Water%20Desalination%20with%20Renewable%20Energies.pdf)Behind all the IMPULSA projects there is a background and tradition in Mexico; previous work on renewable energies has served as a starting point. It is important to recognize that in geothermics for electricity we already have 956 MW installed, making Mexico third place in world ranking. Similarly, at present we have more than a thousand people engaged in one way or another in geothermal exploration, drilling, reservoir evaluation and plant operation. Hence, on finding the hot spots in the Peninsula, many of the researchers involved in IMPULSA already had a good knowledge of the geological and physical properties of the territory. In particular, the co-author of this article worked for 26 years in developing geothermics in Mexico, ten of them as the General Manager for Geothermics. Regarding the solar possibilities, Mexico has done a lot of work with the World Bank to define the best place to install a hybrid solar Combined Cycle, with 25 MWe with parabolic solar collectors, which is to be located in the northern part of the state of Sonora. As for the possibility of using tidal storage generation, the expertise of the CICESE in Baja California was well used with several discussions with the experts even though no specific reference was made to their work The experience and background in renewable energy gave support in the shaping of this project and success up to the stage where we are now, trying to construct models for testing and prototypes to be installed in the real sites.

Impacts

Water Wars – Yes ConflictWater wars real and rapidly approachingHarvey 12 [Fiona, environment journalist for The Guardian newspaper, “Water Wars between Countries Could be Just Around the Corner, Davey Warns,” The Guardian, 3/22, JSTOR, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/22/water-wars-countries-davey-warns, C.Z.]

Water wars could be a real prospect in coming years as states struggle with the effects of climate change, growing demand for water, and declining resources, the secretary of state for energy and climate change warned on Thursday. Ed Davey told a conference of high-ranking politicians and diplomats from around the world that although water had not been a direct cause of wars in the past, growing pressure on the resource if climate change is allowed to take hold, together with the pressure on food and other resources, could lead to new sources of conflict and the worsening of existing conflicts . "Countries have not tended to go to war over water, but I have a fear for the world that climate instability drives political

instability," he said. "The pressure of that makes conflict more likely." Even a small temperature rise – far less than the 4C that scientists predict will result from a continuation of business as usual – could lead to lower agricultural yields, he warned, at a time when population growth means that demand for food was likely to be up by 70% by 2060. By the same time, he noted, the number of people living in conditions of serious water stress would have reached 1.8 billion, according to estimates. "Climate change intensifies pressures on states, and between states," he told the conference, gathered to discuss whether climate change and natural resources should be regarded as a national security issue. "[Its effects] can lead to internal unrest … and exacerbate existing tensions. We have to plan for a world where climate change makes difficult problems even worse." But Davey recalled previous global catastrophes that had been averted, including the threat of nuclear Armageddon during the cold war, and successes such as the elimination of smallpox…

Empirics prove water disputes escalateGleick 93 [Peter, co-Founder of the Pacific Institute, awarded a MacArthur Fellowship, elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security,” 1993, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539033, C.Z.]

There is a long history of water-related disputes, from conflicts over access to adequate water supplies to intentional attacks on water systems during wars. Water and water-supply systems have been the roots and instruments of war . Access to shared water supplies has been cut off for political and military reasons. Sources of water supply have been among the goals of military expansionism . And inequities in water use have been the source of regional and international frictions and tensions. These conflicts will continue-and in some places grow more intense-as growing populations demand more water for agricultural, industrial, and economic development. While various regional and international legal mechanisms exist for reducing water-related tensions, these mechanisms have never received the international support or attention necessary to resolve many conflicts

over water. Indeed, there is growing evidence that existing international water law may be unable to handle the strains of ongoing and future problems.6

Water Wars – Droughts ILMexico drought causes violence over waterSmall 12 [Dennis, Director of Latin-American intelligence for the EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), “Drought, Hunger, and Now Water Wars, Break Out in Mexico,” August 6th, EIR publications, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2012/eirv39n31-20120810/32-35_3931.pdf, C.Z.]

The southwestern United States and northern Mexico are being ravaged by the worst drought and heat wave in 70 years. Up to 85% of all U.S. agricultural production is experiencing drought conditions, while in Mexico, two out of three hectares are affected. Mexico’s all-important corn crop has been especially hard hit, forcing the country to try to import vast amounts from the United States, where there is also a shortage, and where financial speculation has driven up its price by 50% in July alone. In Mexico, 10 million head of cattle have died from the drought since it began more than a year ago, according to Congressman Gerardo Sánchez Garcí, a leader of the National Peasant Confederation (CNC). And in the impoverished north-central region of the country, the drought is driving the population to hunger, despair ... and beyond. Farmers and citizens in different parts of Mexico are fighting each other over diminishing water supplies, drilling illegal wells , and even taking up arms. The first reported death from this descent into the Dark Ages occurred on June 7 in the state of Durango, where an 8-year-old girl was shot when her family was trying to take water from a disputed well . Others in the state are defending their water rights with machetes. Neither corn nor beans for domestic consumption are available in the state. Infant malnutrition is up 50%, with Indian communities hit hardest...Warfare has broken out between a 50,000-strong Mennonite farming community, and producers from the leftist El Barzón and the Democratic Peasant Front, who are accusing the Mennonites of illegally drilling wells and building dams. Barzón activists, with support from the official government water agency Conagua—which is run by radical environmentalist and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) errand boy José Luis Luege Tamargo—have so far destroyed four Mennonite dams; and they are threatening to destroy between 23 and 53 more, as well as to forcibly close 200 of their wells. Mennonite elders [also] report that their youth are arming, and that “the situation is getting out of control.” The elders, true to their religion, say they don’t want bloodshed, but they report that their younger leaders are preparing for violence. Now take a step back—both geographically, and in time.

Droughts are the trigger for political and economic instability, including in MexicoLiverman 90[Diana, Director of Latin American Studies, Regents Professor of Geography and Development, and co-Director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, “Drought Impacts in Mexico: Climate, Agriculture, Technology, and Land Tenure in Sonora and Puebla,” March, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2563328, C.Z.]

Although climatologists, cultural ecologists, and scholars examining natural hazards have provided some important case studies demonstrating the effects of climate variability on human activity, particularly the impacts of drought on food availability, the literature on natural hazards and cultural ecology lacks either detailed quantitative assessments of drought impacts at the regional scale or empirical measures of vulnerability to drought and climate change. Recent studies of droughts, especially those in the Sahel, have made it clear that a large number of both social and environmental variables might influence the impact of climate on society.1 Such studies document how poverty, landlessness, inappropriate technologies, poor soils, and political weakness make some people more vulnerable to drought than others. Climatic variations, then, become the trigger , rather than the root cause of disaster for those groups and regions suffering demographic, economic , political , or environmental stress… ). Natural hazards , including drought, present tremendous risks to the political, economic, and ecological stability of Mexican agriculture and to the livelihood of many people . In the

drive to modernize and expand production, the Mexican agricultural system has incorporated a variety of technologies, for example irrigation to re- duce drought loss (Yates 1981; Venezian and Gamble 1969). At the same time the use of new techniques has replaced some traditional drought prevention strategies, including mixed cropping and microclimate modification (Wilken 1987), and has allowed agriculture to expand into areas of high drought risk and limited water supplies (Sanderson 1986). Mexican agriculture in general and specific groups in Mexico, may have become more vulnerable to drought in recent years.

Resolving distribution chains keyGleick 93 [Peter, co-Founder of the Pacific Institute, awarded a MacArthur Fellowship, elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security,” 1993, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539033, C.Z]

There are growing tensions between rich and poor nations due to inequitable distribution and use of resources. While most of the attention of political scientists interested in the links between resources and interstate conflict has focused on non-renewable mineral resources such as rare metals and oil, some renewable resources such as water also suffer great mal- distribution and may pose comparable risks to international peace in the future. Unlike rare metals, water is quite difficult to redistribute economically. Unlike oil, water has no substitutes.

Drought Kills AgricultureContinued drought is hurting Mexican agricultureGuerrero 12 [Jean- a staff writer for the wall street journal. The Wall Street Journal is an American English-language international daily newspaper with a special emphasis on business and economic news. “mexico drought chokes cattle, crops” 2/4/12, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203711104577201043392294110.html//jweideman]

FRAILE, Mexico—The worst drought on record in various parts of Mexico has destroyed millions of acres of cropland and left millions of livestock without food, leading to fears about potential food shortages at a time when U.S. states like Texas are also suffering unusually dry weather. More than half of the national territory has fallen prey to the drought, with dried-up streams in northern states like Coahuila turning into cattle graves and some towns lying abandoned as people flee the drought. More than 3.7 million acres of agriculture have been lost, an area larger than Connecticut. "I've never seen a drought so intense," said Sergio Ruiz, a livestock producer in Coahuila who has spent most of the year dragging his cattle's carcasses into graves. He has lost 70 head of cattle and is considering moving to nearby Saltillo. Throughout Mexico's northern state of Coahuila, thousands of livestock have been starving to death as a result of the area's worst drought on record. WSJ's Jean Guerrero reports. The dry weather is expected to intensify in coming months. A majority of Mexican states are expected to get between half of the usual rainfall and none at all in February and March, according to Mexico's Agriculture Ministry. Citing the drought, the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday cut its forecast for Mexican corn production for the 2011-12 crop year to 18.4 million tons from 20.5 million tons. Coahuila, which borders Texas, has been especially hard hit. Even cacti in the state have withered. Thousands of corn fields and pasture lie desolate. The state, which is the country's largest producer of sorghum feed, has had to import the product from other states for the first time. "The intensity of this drought surpasses the ability of government resources to address it," said Coahuila's deputy minister of rural development, Reginaldo de Luna Villarreal. So far, officials say no people have died in the state from the drought, but some towns are running out of drinking water. Some small towns near this ranching hub, including one called Buñuelos and another called India, have turned into ghost towns, their schools and houses padlocked and their windows boarded up. Starving cattle roam near the highway munching on bags of chips and other trash thrown from cars. "If there were grass, they would never eat that stuff," said Jesús Parra, a livestock producer who said his costs of production have nearly doubled due to the rising price of feed. "Cattle need to consume at least 3% of their weight daily," he said. Tearing some yellow stubble from the earth, Mr. Parra added, "There's no way a cow is going to get 3% of its weight out of this." So far, 60,000 head of livestock have been reported dead, though many producers don't register their losses. Mr. Villarreal, the state official, lost between 20 and 25 cows, but didn't report it. "I am sure that in Coahuila, [the losses] are much greater than what we're reporting," he said. Mexico is the main supplier of cattle to the U.S., which imported more than 1.23 million head of cattle from Mexico last year, according to the USDA, as well as a record 142 million pounds of beef and veal in the first 11 months of the year. In the past year, prices for sorghum used as feed have doubled. Increased grain costs are exacerbating the problem for livestock producers who can no longer afford feed and are rushing to slaughter their animals before they die. The resulting glut of meat has slightly depressed prices, though they are still higher than a year earlier because of the livestock losses.

It will only get worse – lack of water supply threatens crop yield and livestock. GBIN, 4/24 [Global bioenergy industry news. The bioenergy site. 4/24/13, “mexico facing severe drought again in 2013” http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/12634/mexico-facing-severe-drought-again-in-2013//jweideman]While there are as yet no official estimates or broad projections of potential agricultural losses this year, the expectation is that this year will be worse than last year. Production of corn, Mexico’s staple crop, was better than expected last year because of timely rain that made up for dry conditions at the start of the year. For many farmers in traditionally moist states like Tlaxcala and Morelos, particularly those without access to irrigation, the main problem has been the inability to sow seeds in a timely basis, which could eventually affect overall production. "We cannot move forward with our planting because there is a lot of land that we have been unable to prepare," Tlaxcala farmer Eulogio Roldán said in a television interview on OnceNoticias. " We do not have any irrigation systems." In Tamaulipas, Mexico’s leading sorghum producer, officials estimate that the state might have lost about 10 per cent of the projected crop for this year because of a lack of precipitation, and more losses are anticipated if there is no rainfall in coming weeks. "More than anything, the problem is going to be with yields ," said Jorge

Reyes Moreno, secretary of rural development in Tamaulipas. While the impact of drought on crop output is of some concern in northern states, a much bigger problem is the loss of cattle in states like Coahuila, Durango, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo León. Dry conditions have caused problems for livestock producers in these states for many years, but there is concern that this year could be even worse. "We are already seeing a negative impact for the cattle ranchers in production costs," said Octavio Jurado, president of the Asociación Mexicana de Secretarios de Desarrollo Agropecuario (AMSDA). Cattle numbers are already down 30 per cent, in part because of cattle deaths, but also because many producers are choosing to export their animals since they cannot afford high feed costs and buyers in the US are offering good prices. "As a result of high costs and good export prices, many producers are selling their cows, which is hampering efforts to boost cattle numbers in Mexico," said Pablo Sherwell, a senior analyst for Rabobank International. Rabobank says Mexican cattle growers were only exporting about 10 per cent of their cows before the drought of 2011, but the percentage increased to about 25 per cent last year. And the prospect of replenishing cattle numbers appears dim because a lack of water has caused many cows to lose their calves before birth, CNC officials reported recently. Authorities in Nuevo León are especially worried about the situation in the state. "The latest period of drought between 2011 and 2013 can be considered the most severe in the state in the past 50 years," Monterrey-based daily newspaper El Porvenir said in an editorial calling for state and federal authorities to take emergency action. "In 2012 alone, we lost more than 40,000 hectares of crops and 9,000 head of cattle because of a lack of rain. This came at a cost of 400 million pesos (US$33 million)." The El Porvenir editorial also cited the need to help thousands of families in rural areas who are facing water and food shortages as a result of the drought.

Droughts will only get worseUN 5/22 (United Nations, “Droughts, the ‘most devastating’ disasters, set to increase, warn climate change experts”, UN Press Release, May 22, 2013, Accessed July 2, 2013, C.X.)

GENEVA, 22 May (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) - Every one-degree rise in temperature means a 20-fold increase in global conflicts, Wadid Erian, a specialist in arid zones and dry lands, told a meeting on drought resilience this morning.

He and other speakers warned that, with droughts set to become even more frequent and intense, food shortages, water shortages and conflicts will also increase. Drought resilience, through awareness-raising, conservation measures, capacity-building and local community involvement, was the way ahead, they said.

Juan Manuel Caballero, Head of the National Meteorological System of Mexico, said that drought was the biggest extreme weather event and generated the most serious consequences, including for cattle, crops, food security, health and the environment. Both the United States and Mexico were facing drought-related challenges, which were being addressed thanks largely to regional cooperation. The Mexican Government had taken a number of initiatives, such as launching a national policy to tackle drought and revising legislation to penalize the inappropriate use of water. Knowing that droughts would only increase in intensity, Mexico had been doing what it could to protect against drought and its consequences, taking preventive measures earlier than in the past

Drought Kills MaizeDrought has the greatest negative effect on agricultureHayano-Katashiro et al 09 (October 30, 200, Hayano-Kanashiro C, Calderón-Vázquez C, Ibarra-Laclette E, Herrera-Estrella L, Simpson J (2009) Analysis of Gene Expression and Physiological Responses in Three Mexican Maize Landraces under Drought Stress and Recovery Irrigation. PLoS ONE 4(10): e7531. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007531 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007531 Corina Hayano-Kanashiro, June Simpson Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados, Departamento de Ingeniería Genética de Plantas, Libramiento Norte Carretera Irapuato-León, Irapuato, Guanajuato, Mexico Carlos Calderón-Vázquez, Enrique Ibarra-Laclette, Luis Herrera-Estrella Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados, Laboratorio Nacional de Genómica para la Biodiversidad (LANGEBIO), Libramiento Norte Carretera Irapuato-León, Irapuato, Guanajuato, Mexico Matt Hollander)

Abiotic stress is a major limiting factor for plant growth and food production in many regions of the world and its effects will become more severe as desertification claims more of the world's arable land. Among environmental stresses, drought has the greatest effect on agriculture worldwide   [1], affecting more than one-fifth of the tropical and subtropical areas used for maize production [2]. As an example, in Mexico around 80% of all maize cultivated is grown under rain-fed conditions [3], where the possibilities for alleviating water stress are limited [2]. Therefore, an urgent need exists to develop drought-tolerant varieties either by conventional breeding or by genetic engineering in order to cope with the rising demand for maize to feed both humans and animals.

Drought => InstabilityMexican Drought causes social and economic instability – multiple warrants prove.Rosenberg and Torres 12 (Mica Rosenberg and Noe Torres, Rosenberg and Torres are Mexican correspondents for Reuters, a news source for international and US news, “Stubborn drought expected to tax Mexico for years”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-mexico-drought-idUSBRE82K1E520120321, AN) Reuters) - A severe drought in Mexico that has cost farmers more than a billion dollars in crop losses alone and set

back the national cattle herd for years, is just a foretaste of the drier future facing Latin America's second largest economy.¶ As water tankers race across northern Mexico to reach far-flung towns, and crops wither in the fields, the government has allotted 34 billion pesos ($2.65 billion) in emergency aid to confront the worst drought ever recorded in the country.¶ The water shortage wiped out millions of acres of farmland this winter, caused 15 billion pesos ($1.18 billion) in lost harvests, killed 60,000 head of cattle and weakened 2 million more livestock, pushing food prices higher in Mexico.¶ The overall cost to the economy is still being gauged but Mexico's drought-stung winter has been evolving for years and is expected to worsen as the effect of global

climate change takes hold, according to the government.¶ "Droughts are cyclical - we know that - but they are growing more frequent and severe due to climate change," said Elvira Quesada, the Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources.¶ According to Mexico's AMSDA agricultural association, poor weather destroyed some 7.5 million acres (3 million hectares) of cultivable land in 2011 - an area about the size of Belgium. The federal agriculture ministry puts the figure at about half that.¶ That helped push Mexico's food imports up 35 percent last year, a trend likely to persist through the 2012-13 crop cycle.¶ "There was talk of drought when I got here sixteen years ago," said Ignacio Becerra, a priest working in the rugged town of Carichi in Chihuahua state, which has suffered massive water shortages. "This year, not even corn or beans came up."¶ "Watering holes that never ran dry are empty. Without rain this situation is going to get even more serious," he said.¶ Zacatecas state, the country's main bean producer, harvested only a quarter of the usual crop after months without rain.¶ Agriculture Minister Fransisco Mayorga said this week that Mexico will produce 21.8 million tonnes of corn in 2012 after a sharp drop in production in 2011 to 19.2 million tonnes due to the drought. The country may have to import white corn - used to make staple corn tortillas - on top of yellow corn imports from the United States for animal feed.¶ The water shortage has forced Mexican farmers to cut back cattle herds as pasture lands dry out and increased the risk of wildfires, which ravaged northern Mexico and the southern United States last spring.¶ ACCEPTING A DRY FUTURE¶ Mexican President Felipe Calderon, an outspoken advocate for mitigating and adapting to climate change, has ordered his government to start getting ready for tougher times.¶ Experts believe Mexico will have to spend billions of dollars in the next two decades to maintain the water supply for irrigation and drinking water.¶ Water authority Conagua says it must invest over 300 billion pesos ($23.68 billion) by 2030 to safeguard and modernize infrastructure by sealing leaky pipes, expanding reservoirs and even recycling household waste water.¶ As policymakers plot their response to climate change, Mexicans must simply come to grip with years of little rain - and higher food bills for staples like beef.¶ Darrell Hargrove, owner of farming and trucking firm Southwest Livestock in Del Rio, Texas, said the price of Mexican cattle for export to the United States had jumped by about a third over the last month and a half.¶ Rising U.S. demand and shrinking herds in Mexico and north of the border raised the basic price for a 300 lb head of cattle to about $2 per lb from $1.50 since February, he said.¶ "We have the lowest cattle herd count here that we've had since about 1950," Hargrove said.¶ Total livestock prices in Mexico were up by some 12.5 percent on the year in February, official data shows.¶ Cattle ranchers in Chihuahua are watching their herds wither from malnutrition and say sick cows will have trouble reproducing, causing losses that could take a decade to recover.¶ FOOD SHORTAGES¶ The human cost has also been harsh.¶ The government said it provided food rations to more than two million people, though agricultural group AMSDA said 8 million people had been affected by the lack of water.¶ More than 400,000 residents in the six driest states were without water at the end of December, Conagua said, with reservoirs in two states half-empty and another two less than a quarter full.¶ The indigenous Tarahumara people of northern Mexico suffered particularly hard, with tens of thousands of poor families hit. The government says it delivered millions of liters of milk and tonnes of food, but the situation is acute.¶ "This year the Tarahumaras have not been able to harvest corn or beans, which is the basis of their livelihood," said local priest Becerra. "And the worst is yet to come - April, May, June, July are the driest, hottest months ... which will make the situation much more serious and complex."¶ Deforestation worsened conditions for indigenous people around the copper canyon in Chihuahua and many have left for cities to escape poverty and hunger.¶ "We're at the point of no return. The northern part of the country is drying out. If the rains don't come, the situation is going to be worse than serious. It will be a disaster," he said.¶ While rain-starved communities pray for a downpour that would replenish wells and reservoirs, experts say the

northern half of Mexico is in a persistent dry cycle.¶ "The current drought was probably unfolding 20 years ago," said Fernando

Miralles-Wilhelm, a hydrologist with the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)."These dynamics are going to continue for the next few decades."¶ The IADB, which works in Latin America and the Caribbean, promises $1 out of every $4 it lends over the next three years will go to conservation as well as adapting and mitigating climate change. The bank lent nearly $11 billion last year.¶ A fleet of several thousands trailers is making round-the-clock trips in a race to get clean water to remote communities, but it may not be enough if the drought wears on.¶ Summer rains typically break the winter dry spell but Conagua expects March rainfall to be half of normal years and it does not see a break to the crisis before July.¶ ($1 = 12.6700 Mexican pesos)

Geophysical Issues spill overMcGuire 2006, W.J. McGuire, The Royal Society, “Global risk from extreme geophysical events: threat identification and assessment”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25190306.pdf?acceptTC=true, MG

In an increasingly interconnected world, any single geophysical hazard is capable of having consequences far beyond the range of immediate physical effects. Most recently, this was demonstrated by the 2004 Asian tsunami, which took the lives of citizens from57 different nations, and by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, which raised fuel prices worldwide and contributed to a record UK trade deficit in the month following the devastation of New Orleans. On an

altogether wider scale, global geophysical events (GGEs) are natural phenomena capable of having wholesale deleterious consequences for the world's environment, economy and society. These may arise (i) due to a global physical effect, such as an episode of severe planetary cooling in response to a volcanic'super-eruption' or large comet or asteroid impact, or (ii) as a result of subsidiary ramifications for the global economy and social fabric of a cataclysmic regional event, such as an Atlantic- or Pacific-wide 'mega-tsunami', or a more spatially confined event at a strategically sensitive location, for example the awaited major Tokyo earthquake. While very infrequent, the wide-ranging---and potentially ruinous---consequences of a GGE for the well-being of the international community make it essential that they are seriously considered within any comprehensive assessment of natural threats.

Drought => Mass MigrationMass Migration: drought triggered crop yields displaces millions of Mexican farmers. Corbyn, 10 (Zoe, MSc in science communication, journalist/contributer for The Guardian, The Times, Financial Times, Nature, New Scientist and the Times Higher Education, 26 july 2010 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100726/full/news.2010.375.html “Mexican climate migrants predicted to flood the US,” Matt Hollander)A w ave of up to 6.7 million migrants from Mexico could head to the United States to escape the ravages of climate change on crops, say the authors of a new study. The findings are claimed to be the first to thoroughly quantify how shifts in global climate might affect human migration from one region to another. The study's authors, from Princeton University in New Jersey, say the United States should prepare for the arrival of up to 10% of Mexico's adult population over the next 70 years as a result of falling agricultural productivity due to climate change. According to the Pew Hispanic Centre in Washington D.C., there were 12.7 million Mexican immigrants in the United States in 2008. But the study has also provoked ire from immigrant-rights advocates, who say the findings could be used to advance anti-immigration causes. In the United States, Mexican immigration is a contentious issue, and tough new immigration laws in Arizona, which borders Mexico, have sparked national debate in recent months. The latest study is likely to fan the flames, as it warns of exacerbated environmental, economic and social problems that unmanaged and unexpected climate-related migration could bring to both the United States and Mexico. "It would behoove them as scientists to shift their focus," says Lorenzo Cano, associate director of the Center for Mexican American Studies at the University of Houston in Texas, who is an activist for immigrants' rights. "[This is] research that will contribute to the xenophobia that is already running amok in our country today." Publishing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,1environmental scientist Michael Oppenheimer and economist colleagues set out to develop a model that quantitatively predicts the potential size of the problem of mass human migration spurred by climate change. The team focused on cross-border migration from Mexico to the United States as an example. Applying standard statistical techniques common in economics, they used Mexican state census data to infer the flow of emigration. They then correlated this with data on how changes in climate had affected maize (corn) and wheat productivity in different Mexican states during the same time. In this way, they estimated the sensitivity of Mexican emigration to alterations in crop yields due to climate change. The resulting figure — that a 10% reduction in crop yields leads to an additional 2% of the population emigrating — was then applied to what might happen under the scenario proposed for 2080 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in which levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have stabilized at 555 parts per million, and global temperatures are 1–3 °C above recent temperatures. Keeping other variables constant, the authors modelled the results for a series of different levels of agricultural adaptation that Mexican farmers might undertake to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the worst-case scenario of no adaptation, crop yields dropped by 48%; in the best-case scenario, with major adaptations, crop yields fell by 10%. The authors estimate that this would spur the emigration to the United States of between 1.4 million and 6.7 million adult Mexicans (or 2–10% of Mexico's current adult population). "This is obviously just the opening gun [for the model]," says Oppenheimer. "We want people to be looking at other border regions to build up a global picture." He said the team had thought hard about how their results might be used before undertaking the work. They decided that it was better to provide the information, which would be "of interest" to policy-makers, and to do their best to ensure that it was not used for the wrong purpose. "We certainly don't want these results to be misused as another hammer against immigrants," Oppenheimer says, adding that the team is not making value judgements or specific policy recommendations, but simply trying to determine the "baseline facts" so that policy-makers can decide what to do. But others disagree, saying that it is wrong to make Mexican immigration to the United States the focus of the climate-change problem and that the study lacks context. "Mexican migration is part of the solution to many of the current [US] labour market demands," says Cano. "The scientific community should explain this within the context of any studies focusing on the impact of climate change." Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an anti-immigration group, says the group did not consider that "bad news" was "good news" for its cause, but that the study highlights a serious problem. "This could be yet another area that Mexico neglects," he adds.

Mass Mexican Migration will occur as a result of drought caused crop death Biello 10 (July 26, 2010 Associate Editor, Energy & Environment at Scientific American US Editor at Environmental Finance U.S. Editor at Environmental Finance Magazine Assistant Production Manager - Story at Walt Disney Feature Animation Columbia University - Graduate School of Journalism Mandarin Class (climate change may mean more Mexican immigration) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-may-mean-more-mexican-immigration Matt Hollander)

Climate change's impacts on crop yields may force as many as seven million Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S. over the next 70 years, according to research published July 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study is among the first to attempt to put hard numbers on questions about "environmental refugees" that may be caused by climate change. "There is a significant response of emigration from Mexico to past climate variations," says atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, an author of the study. "Climate changes predicted by the global circulation models would cause several percent of the Mexican population to move north [if] all other factors are held constant." Based on historical patterns of emigration, crop yield and climate change between 1995 and 2005, the researchers project that as much as 10 percent of Mexico's population could be forced to migrate in coming decades. In essence, for every 10 percent reduction in crop yield as a result of climate change an additional 2 percent of Mexicans would emigrate. The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) estimates that every degree Celsius of warming in global average temperatures means a 5 to 15 percent   drop in yield, particularly for corn, in North America. The number of climate refugees could be significant, anywhere from 1.4 million to 6.7 million Mexicans, depending on how much warming actually occurs. The researchers attempted to account for other variables that governed migration in the past—from the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to U.S. border control policy—and isolate the impact of climate change. "For NAFTA, we took special pains to ensure the robustness of the result by comparing Mexican states that were greatly affected by NAFTA with those which were not," Oppenheimer says. But the study relies on census data to estimate actual emigration, and it assumes that climate change's impact on maize   production—for example, via drought—caused migration in the past and will cause it again in future. "Migration decisions, like all livelihood decisions, are about much more than material quality of life," argues geographer Edward Carr of the University of South Carolina, who studies human migration in countries such as Ghana and was not involved in the Mexico emigration research. "What I am seeing in sub-Saharan Africa are very complex patterns in which environmental change is but one of several causal factors."The growth in those causal factors—from a   population boom   to reduced economic opportunity in the countryside—has driven the greatest migration worldwide in recent history. As of 2005, roughly three percent of the world's population lived outside their country of birth—the largest proportion ever recorded by the United Nations. And this represents but a small fraction of migration, since the bulk of that occurs within a given nation from rural to urban areas. "Most often international migration is not an option and rural residents migrate to urban areas, contributing to urbanization and urban poverty in developing countries," says sociologist Elizabeth Fussell of Washington State University.  That is certainly the case in Mexico, according to population and migration researcher Haydea Izazola of the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, also not part of Oppenheimer's team for the new study. "The great majority of the rural population who grow maize—rain-fed agriculture—for their own consumption are the poorest of the poor and lack the means to invest in the very expensive and risky migration venture." In fact, recent trends indicate it is city residents and educated elites who are driving migration from Mexico today, Izazola notes, suggesting a possible shift from the period in this study. That may be because Mexico experienced a severe drought starting in 1994 that persisted throughout this period, making farmers more "susceptible to these climate effects since there was no time to adapt to them," Fussell speculates. "Migration [is] one of several options rural households face when they confront diminishing livelihoods such as a decline in crop yields." Once that process begins, however, it can be self-reinforcing, as community members share their experience—and any wealth gained in the new country—with folks back home. Regardless, "if our study results are valid, the effect could be significant in many regions" of the world, Oppenheimer argues. Of course, the worst-case scenario in this analysis ignores the possibility of new crop varieties that maintain (or improve) yields under warmer average temperatures. "How much can we adapt?" asked climate scientist Susan Solomon of the U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the release of the NRC report on July 16 "Look at corn. Maybe we can choose to grow something else or genetically engineer that corn to make it more robust." And climate change is not confined to Mexico.   Crop yields in the U.S.   will likely suffer as well. "People do not move blindly; they move to greater opportunity ," Carr notes. "So we should probably be using [these economic and climate] models to examine the impact of future climate change on various migrant-employing sectors of the southwestern U.S. economy."

Absent plan, millions of Mexicans will immigrate to USBiello 10 (David Biello, associate editor at Science American, host of 60-second Earth which is a podcast covering environmental news, producer of a documentary with Detroit Public Television on the future of electricity, “Climate Change May Mean More Mexican Immigration”, Scientific American, July 26, 2010, Accessed July 2, 2013, C.X.)

Climate change's impacts on crop yields may force as many as seven million Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S. over the next 70 years, according to research published July 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study is among the first to attempt to put hard numbers on questions about "environmental refugees" that may be caused by climate change.

"There is a significant response of emigration from Mexico to past climate variations," says atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, an author of the study. "Climate changes predicted by the global circulation models would cause several percent of the Mexican population to move north [if] all other factors are held constant."

Based on historical patterns of emigration, crop yield and climate change between 1995 and 2005, the researchers project that as much as 10 percent of Mexico's population could be forced to migrate in coming decades. In essence, for every 10 percent reduction in crop yield as a result of climate change an additional 2 percent of Mexicans would emigrate. The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) estimates that every degree Celsius of warming in global average temperatures means a 5 to 15 percent drop in yield, particularly for corn, in North America.

Competition for Natural Resources => Mass MigrationEnvironmental resource competition leads to mass migration.Deheza, 5/3 [Elizabeth Deheza is a Research Fellow on the Climate Change and Security Programme. Currently, she is leading a project looking at climate change, migration and security in Mexico. She took an honours degree in International Relations from San Francisco State University before undertaking a postgraduate study at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and completing the MALD programme at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. 5/3/13, “Climate-Induced Migration and Security: Best-Practice Policy and Operational Options for Mexico” http://www.ecc-platform.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4446:climate-induced-migration-and-security-best-practice-policy-and-operational-options-for-mexico&Itemid=750//jweideman]Temperatures in Mexico are rising, precipitation levels are falling and the increasing frequency and intensity of flooding and extreme weather events pose serious threats to water, food and energy security. In turn, the availability of and competition over these key resources will alter the spatial distribution of people in Mexico. Our Whitehall Report investigates possible linkages between environmental changes, migration and its repercussions concerning national and human security in Mexico. Controversial suggestions from the academic cluster have predicted that climate change could drive millions of people to migrate from the effects of severe drought, floods and extreme weather events, triggering major security concerns and a spike in regional tensions. Such controversial statements really sparked our attention and inspired us to further understand and quantify the climate-migration-security nexus.

Destabilization Impact

Migration reinforces instability – collapses Central America. Garni 10 (Alisa Garni, member of the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and social work at Kansas State University, “Mechanisms of Migration: Poverty and social instability in the postwar expansion of Central America migration to the United States”, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 2010, Accessed July 3, 2013, C.X.)

The vicious circles of instability and migration evident in Central America are deeply problematic, and deserve further attention in future research. Social networks facilitate and even encourage perpetuated migration, but the ways in which such migration interacts with changing economic, political, and social conditions in sending contexts is a crucial, yet understudied factor. Evidence from Central America suggests that the relationship between on-going migration and deteriorating conditions in the sending context is mutually reinforcing. Reducing migration would thus require effectively stimulating local productivity, assisting Central Americans in recovering assets lost in the wars, creating more stable and higher paying jobs in both the urban and rural sectors, enhancing democratic participation in local and national politics, reducing violent crime, and fostering community solidarity through youth programs and possibly more postwar reconciliation programs. By revealing mechanisms of ongoing international migration from Central America through in-depth, historical case studies, my work raises important questions regarding how the establishment of migration due to political violence and poverty in turn subsequently affects those conditions and, in these cases, promotes additional migration over time. The Central American case illustrates how migration, without appropriate local development policies to counter its effects, can worsen the social dislocation, economic instability, and violent crime that compel people to migrate. Thus, local economic, political, and social factors of migration are crucial components of this process.

Stability ImpactMexico Instability: Catastrophic drought is ravaging Mexico; threatens regional and agricultural instability. Rush 6/10 (Cynthia R., Ibero-American specialist and staff writer for Executive Intelligence Review, “Mexico’s Drought Demands ‘NAWAPA-Plus’ Infrastructure Projects,” Executive Intelligence Review, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2013/4024mex_nawapa_plus.html) June 10— Gov. Jorge Herrera of the Mexican state of Durango warned on May 29 of the "catastrophic" nature of the drought now afflicting 21 of Mexico's 32 states. He spoke at a meeting of the Water Commission of the Mexican Governors Conference (Conago) and the Potable Water and Sanitation Committee of the Chamber of Deputies. Herrera, president of Conago's Water Commission, warned that the three-year-long drought is the longest-lasting in 100 years and has created a life-or-death crisis which threatens to exterminate, not only agriculture, but the Mexican people themselves, for whom food and potable water in the drought-stricken regions of the country have become increasingly inaccessible. The situation could be described as "traumatic," Herrera said. "In terms of water conflicts, fate is overtaking us. We must now think of how to finance hydraulic projects which, although expensive, must become reality." Federico Arroyo, president of the Chamber of Deputies, added that "there is no water project more expensive than the one that doesn't exist." The consequences of not building these projects is what must be taken into account, he argued. The outlook for 2013 is grim, the meeting's attendees explained: 80% of cultivated land is dependent entirely on rainfall, and on the irrigated land that remains, dams are almost completely empty. In some states, such as Chihuahua, which borders the United States, there are dams only 23% full, but most are at 10-15% of capacity! Much of both rural and urban water infrastructure is dilapidated and needs to be rebuilt. A dramatic change in public policy, with aggressive involvement by the federal government, creation of new credit mechanisms, as well as vastly increased emergency assistance to drought-stricken areas, is immediately called for, said the governors and legislators attending the meeting. Failure to find solutions, they warned, could result in "water conflicts" among communities, cities, states, and even countries—not to mention the toll in human lives. All true enough; but viewed from the optic of the breakdown and bankruptcy of the global financial system, the threat of thermonuclear war, and the British Queen's drive to kill off what she considers to be 6 billion "useless eaters" on the planet, the governors' and congressmen's proposals in themselves cannot begin to reverse the catastrophe that Herrera described.

Mexican stability is critical to U.S. powerKaplan ’12 – chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor (Robert D., With the Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns, Stratfor, 3-28-2012, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns) While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related

violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but

Mexico ultimately matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these subjects. I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits

to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater consequences . For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk . It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly seem closer to New York and

Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet , the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural and demographic future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will affect its society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing demographic and

economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example). In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's 32 states, mostly

in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters , as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north, with concrete implications for the southwestern United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run . Looking deeper into

the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but will advance in the more backward society's favor . Thus,

helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of course, in full cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that

verges on partial chaos in some of its northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of China as a rising great

power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine what kind of society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest. The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any

other individual bilateral relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world, especially in the economically crucial Pacific. If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the U nited States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.

Mexican conflict escalates, draws in the U.S., and cements an anti-American allianceTobin 6 (Rick, TAO Emergency Management Consulting, “The Coming Civil War in Mexico”, 4-29, http://www.ricktobin.com/ papers/ thecomingcivilwarinmexico.pdf)

If the July 2nd election results turn the Mexican people rushing head long into a long and vicious civil war, there may be little time for diplomacy. This is especially true if the U.S. does interfere in any way in the election outcome. The disruptions would be even more dangerous if external socialist governments supported a civil war. They might seek to turn Mexico into a bridge for socialism at the very borders of the U.S. These events would lead to a series of events requiring austere strategies. In a fast moving State of War in Mexico, the U.S. government would have to declare neutrality and seal its borders immediately . Within days, the President and Congress would take actions that would be condemned by every country in the world…and of course the U.N. The map on the next page shows the 100-mile buffer zone that would be taken by force by the U.S. military. This would become the new no-man’s zone. Military exchanges would occur between the U.S. and Mexico along the new boundary. After a number of air losses and ground losses, the Mexican government would withdraw and accept the boundary. Every Mexican citizen that remained there would have to carry dual identification at all times. The entire area would be sealed so that traffic of any kind would be highly restricted and monitored. Martial law would be in place with open “shoot-to-kill” orders. At the “old” border, anyone attempting to cross illegally would be shot. The border would be surveilled by the same flying drones now used over Afghanistan and Iraq. They would also be armed with Hellfire missiles. In addition, particularly well-known pathways would be mined and re-mined weekly. In the United States the order would be given to round up all undocumented aliens with Mexican heritage for immediate deportation to the “no-man’s zone.” Those who resisted would be arrested and held in internment camps at abandoned military bases until they could be processed (under the Rex 84 Program and supporting Executive Orders such as 11051 and 11002, etc). A permanent marking would be placed on the hands of those so interned (or a RFID chip). If they were found back in the United States they would face felony imprisonment. An underground railroad would develop to move illegal Mexican aliens to Canada. The U.S. would then demand that if Pemex products were interrupted for even a day, the U.S. would take the oil fields and nationalize them for the U.S. Again, this would raise the threat of intense hostilities, lead ing to new alliance in the Western Hemisphere . Canada would become a neutral party and no longer support NAFTA or trade with the U.S., including cutting water, electrical and petroleum exports. The Latin American countries might unite as a block and form a powerful alliance with a strong socialist, anti-American focus, led by the triad of Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela. Later, Brazil would join to make the fourth major power. The United States federal government would now face the existence of threats that included unfriendly border neighbors to the north and south, a declining world position, and internal strife with its own citizens, especially those with Mexican heritage or Latin America links.

Economy ImpactDrought leads to civil unrest, mass migration, and economic collapse Vital, 6(Wednesday 16 August 2006, John Vidal is the Guardian's environment editor. He joined the paper in 1995 after working for Agence France Presse, North Wales Newspapers and the Cumberland News “cost of water shortage: civil unrest, mass migration, and economic collapse”. He is the author of McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial (1998) and has contributed chapters to books on topics such as the Gulf war, new Europe and developmenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/17/water.internationalnews Matt Hollander)Cholera may return to London, the mass migration of Africans could cause civil unrest in Europe and China's economy could crash by 2015 as the supply of fresh water becomes critical to the global economy. That was the bleak assessment yesterday by forecasters from some of the world's leading corporate users of fresh water, 200 of the largest food, oil, water and chemical companies. Analysts working for Shell, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Cargill and other companies which depend heavily on secure water supplies, yesterday suggested the next 20 years would be critical as countries became richer, making heavier demands on scarce water supplies. In three future scenarios, the businesses foresee growing civil unrest, boom and bust economic cycles in Asia and mass migrations to Europe. But they also say scarcity will encourage the development of new water-saving technologies and better management of water by business. The study of future water availability, which the corporations have taken three years to compile, suggests water conflicts are likely to become common in many countries, according to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, which brought the industrial groups together. Lloyd Timberlake, spokesman for the council, said: "The growing demand for water in China can potentially lead to over-exploitation and a decline in availability for domestic, agricultural, industry and energy production use. This inevitably leads to loss of production, both industrial and agricultural, and can also affect public health - all of which in turn will ultimately lead to an economic downturn. The question is how can business address these challenges and still make a profit." The corporations were yesterday joined by the conservation group WWF and the International Water Management Institute, the world's leading body on fresh water management, which said water scarcity was increasing faster than expected. In China, authorities had begun trucking in water to millions of people after wells and rivers ran dry in the east of the country. "Globally, water usage has increased by six times in the past 100 years and will double again by 2050, driven mainly by irrigation and demands of agriculture. Some countries have already run out of water to produce their own food. Without improvements ... the consequences will be even more widespread water scarcity and rapidly increasing water prices," said Frank Rijsberman, director of the institute. The institute, funded by government research organisations, will report next week that a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, is living in places where water is overused - leading to falling underground water levels and drying rivers - or cannot be accessed. Mr Rijsberman said rising living standards in India and China could lead to increased demand for better food, which would in turn need more water to produce. He expected the price of water to increase everywhere to meet an expected 50% increase in the amount of food the world will need in the next 20 years. According to the institute's assessment, Egypt imports more than half of its food because it does not have enough water to grow it domestically and Australia is faced with water scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of diverting large quantities of water for use in agriculture. The Aral Sea in central Asia is another example of massive diversion of water for agriculture in the Soviet era causing widespread water scarcity, and one of the world's worst environmental disasters.

Mexican collapse goes globalDMN 95 (Dallas Morning News, 11-28, Lexis)

This time, the world is keeping a close eye on Mexico's unfolding financial crisis for one simple reason: M exico is a major international player. If its economy were to collapse, it would drag down a few other countries and thousands of foreign investors. If recovery is prolonged, the world economy will feel the slowdown. "It took a peso devaluation so that other countries could notice the key role that Mexico plays in today's global economy," said economist Victor Lpez Villafane of the Monterrey Institute of Technology. "I hate to say it, but if Mexico were to default on its debts, that would trigger an international financial collapse" not seen since the Great Depression, said Dr. Lpez, who has conducted comparative studies of the Mexican economy and the economies of some Asian and

Latin American countries. "That's why it's in the best interests of the United States and the industrialized world to help Mexico weather its economic crisis," he said. The crisis began last December when the Mexican government devalued the currency. Last March, after weeks of debate, President Clinton, the International Monetary Fund and a handful of other countries and international agencies put together a $ 53 billion rescue package for Mexico. But despite the help - $ 20 billion in guarantee loans from the United States - Mexico's financial markets have been volatile for most of the year. The peso is now trading at about 7.70 to the dollar, after falling to an all-time low of 8.30 to the dollar Nov. 9. The road has been bumpy, and that has made many - particularly U.S. investors - nervous. No country understands better the importance of Mexico to the global economy than the United States, said Jorge Gonzlez Dvila, an economist at Trinity University in San Antonio. "Despite the rhetoric that you hear in Washington, I think that most people agree - even those who oppose any aid to Mexico - that when Mexico sneezes, everybody catches a cold," Mr. Gonzlez said.

2ac Addons

2AC – FamineMexican drought causes famine – killing millions. Hawkes, 12 (Logan, staff writer, “Mexico under strain of severe drought”, Western Farm Press, April 24, 2012, accessed July 2, 2013, C.X.)While recent and substantial rains are a promising sign that drought conditions are improving for much of the U.S. Southwest, a cold and dry winter in northern Mexico has exacerbated conditions there with reports of widespread famine, escalating food prices and extreme dry conditions that have forced the Mexican government to truck drinking water to nearly a half million residents in remote villages across six northern states where lakes and ground wells have run dry. In addition, Mexican aid workers have been offering food rations throughout the winter to more than 2 million residents who are desperately clinging to life in a region that is experiencing its driest period on record. The drought is credited with destroying some 7.5 million acres of cultivable land in 2011 and is responsible for $1.18 billion in lost harvests and has destroyed about 60,000 head of cattle and weakened two million more causing a substantial spike in food prices. In addition, officials say acute food and grain shortages caused Mexico’s imports to soar 35 percent last year and they could go even higher in 2012 as conditions worsen.

Eliminating famine comes first – outweighs extinction.Watson 77 (Richard, Professor of Philosophy – Washington University and Former Visiting Fellow at the Center of International Studies – Princeton University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, p. 122)That is, as stated early in this essay, morality essentially has to do with relations among people, among persons. It is nonsense to talk of things that cannot be moral agents as having responsibilities; consequently, it is nonsense to talk of whatever is not actually a person as having rights. It is deceptive even to talk of legal rights of a corporate entity. Those rights (and reciprocal responsibilities) actually pertain to individual human beings who have an interest in the corporate entity. The State or the human species have no rights at all, let alone rights superior to those of individuals. The basic reason given for preserving a nation or the human species is that otherwise the milieu of morality would not exist. This is false so far as specific nations are concerned, but it is true that the existence of individuals depends on the existence of the species. However, although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival. Having shown above that the principle of equity is morally superior to the principle of survival, we can conclude again that food should be shared equally even if this means the extinction of the human race .

Famine o/w ExtensionFamine outweighs all other consequences – it is the foundation for moral decision making. Watson 77 (Richard, Professor of Philosophy – Washington University and Former Visiting Fellow at the Center of International Studies – Princeton University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, p. 118-119)These arguments are morally spurious. That food sufficient for well-nourished survival is the equal right of every human individual or nation is a specification of the higher principle that everyone has equal right to the necessities of life. The moral stress of the principle of equity is primarily on moral sharing, and only secondarily on what is being shared. The higher moral principle is of human equity per se. Consequently, the moral action is to distribute all food equally, whatever the consequences . This is the hard line apparently drawn by such moralists as Immanuel Kant and Noam Chomsky–but then, morality is hard. The conclusion may be unreasonable (impractical and irrational in conventional terms), but it is obviously moral. Nor should anyone purport surprise; it has always been understood that the claims of morality–if taken seriously– supersede those of conflicting reason . One may even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one, he remains silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral, one distributes available food in equal shares (even if everyone then dies). That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian. The moral world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks to the highest principle–recant or die–and it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough.

Famine o/w Time FrameTime is crucial as starvation strikes through MexicoRush 6/14Cynthia Rush, staff writer for the Executive Intelligence Review (A magazine dedicated to economics), “Mexico’s Drought Demands ‘NAWAPA-Plus’ Infrastructure Projects”, EIR, June 14, 2013, Accessed June 29, 2013.http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2013/2013_20-29/2013-24/pdf/34-39_4024.pdf

The urgency of immediate action can’t be overstated. It is estimated that 1.280 million square kilometers out of Mexico’s total national territory of 1.973 million km2—almost 65%—is affected by the drought . In several states, especially among poorer Mexicans, hunger and malnutrition are rampant. A number of peasant organizations reported in late May that the high rates of desertification in the north have caused the loss of at least 5 million hectares that used to produce food, resulting in the importation of 34 million tons of grain that otherwise would have been produced in the country. Food shortages affect an estimated 28 million people, or one in five Mexicans; 1.2 million children suffer from malnutrition, and 3.6 million children under the age of five do not have enough food to eat. Carlos Ramos Alba, a member of the executive council of the peasant organization National Council of the Plan de Ayala National Coordinator warned at a May 20 press conference that the food crisis is so severe that “trying to eat three meals a day becomes a punishment, when there is nothing to put in your mouth.”

Famine o/w Drug ViolenceStarvation in Mexico causes more deaths than drug violenceFreedman 2013(Lawrence Freedman, 2/19/13, Sir Lawrence David Freedman, KCMG, CBE, PC, FBA is Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and was a foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair. He is a member of the 2009 United Kingdom Iraq War inquiry, “Starvation causes more deaths than the drug cartels,” http://pikapvs.com/2012/02/19/mexico-starvation-causes-more-deaths-than-the-drug-cartels/, AN)According to the Center for Studies on Research in Development and Social Welfare (CEIDAS), and based on data from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), in that period 85,343 people died from malnutrition, compared to 49,804 victims by organized crime. Which are the figures that show that deaths from hunger in the last decade are higher by 35,539 compared to those caused by the cartels.¶ In this regard, the director of CEIDAS, Mario Luis Fuentes, told Excelsior that “there are 12 million Mexicans who do not have enough income to buy basic food basket,” so that “if you do not die from malnutrition, die from diseases generated by it “.¶ In turn, the UNAM researcher Gustavo Gordillo, who was undersecretary of agriculture in the 90′s, said the problem is not lack of funds, but the “fragmentation” and incoordination of the three levels of government to implement programs social.¶ He also outlined the difficulties in food started with the reduction of farm subsidies and the drop in production in 1965.¶ Thus, extreme poverty and limited access to food should be served immediately, sources noted.¶ Hunger kills more than 35 000 violence¶ Mexico has faced the loss of 49,804 Mexicans between 2001 and 2010, who died in clashes between drug traffickers, according to data from the PGR and the Chamber of Deputies, but there is a reality that began more lives in the same period: malnutrition, as 85,343 Mexicans died from this cause in the same period, according to data from the Center for Studies and Research in Development and Social Welfare (CEIDAS) and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).¶ At home, the majority of violent deaths appear in the media, are visible, but the 85,343 deaths from malnutrition are barely visible. The phenomenon just jumped to the media with famine suffered by rarámuri in Chihuahua, but for experts is just the first symptom of a national emergency.¶ “There are 12 million Mexicans who do not have enough income to buy basic food basket,” said Excelsior Mario Luis Fuentes, director of CEIDAS: “If you do not die from malnutrition, die from the disease generated by it,” said the specialist, who also is a researcher and professor at the UNAM.¶ Extreme poverty and limited access to food is not a blip. It is already a reality in 339 municipalities said Fuentes, for whom this fact shows that “requires a thorough review of all social policy to create a proposal to generate equity. We need a new social covenant established guarantees that meet the rights of the people, “he said.¶ Sources said that hunger is not only from lack of food, carbohydrates and proteins, “It is also a lack of water means dirt floors, lack of drainage has to do with the care of the household heads, their ability to protect the most vulnerable children, “he said.¶ In contrast, although the war on drugs has brought an increase of deaths in the past, the figure still does not compare to the famine suffered by some municipalities.¶ Malnutrition and poverty ¶ For Mario Luis Fuentes, the neglect of the field adds the fragmentation and lack of coordination of social policies. He also stressed that the federal government has no effective mechanism to force states and municipalities to realize what they do with the budget for social spending.¶ In addition to the crisis in the country and droughts linked to climate change, “there is impairment in social, generated by fragmentation of social programs, the state is responsible because it has the worst service in the places most vulnerable, with less coverage with poorer ability or quality.”¶ Sources said there was a huge inequality in the Mexican State: “The most in need, have the worst services. The problem today may be emblematic rarámuri in Chihuahua, but there are 339 municipalities where more than 50 percent of the population lives in poverty. We’re talking about people who live daily hunger, “he said. In these municipalities, the indigenous population is particularly affected, it is the people living in remote areas, reported worse with less access to basic services.¶ The investigator noted that the health INEGI figures state that on average each year die from malnutrition eight thousand Mexicans and from 2001 to 2010 it was 85 000 343 deaths by this factor.

2AC - PovertySuccessful Mexican agricultural key to reduce poverty levels. Majid 04, [Nomaan- Specialized in world labour, the International Labour Review contributes to a wider understanding of labour and employment issues, 12/2004, "Reaching Millennium Goals: How well does agricultural productivity growth reduce poverty www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@edemp/@empelm/documents/publication/wcms114303.pdf //jweideman]While poverty has been declining in the world its rate of decline has slowed down and there is a large imbalance in global poverty trends particularly emerging in Sub Saharan Africa, which is likely to jeopardize Millennium poverty goals. While the global output of agriculture has been reasonable in the past three decades, agricultural output growth on a per capita basis has been modest. Agricultural growth however is critical for poverty reduction both in an absolute as well as a relative sense in comparison to other sectors. This is largely because poverty has a very significant rural

dimension. This means that to attack poverty head on we must have an explicit agricultural growth strategy in place. We also find that that this focus on agricultural growth itself needs to be driven at least in some measure by labour productivity – as opposed to being driven only by technical and efficiency change – in order to produce better poverty reduction results. This “balanced” productivity enhancing agricultural growth, it is suggested, would have further beneficial effects on poverty reduction if food crop production per capita were enhanced and food prices kept within some control simultaneously. While a more equal income distribution is generally supposed to be better for poverty reduction, in particular we find better ownership distributions of land in agriculture will facilitate both output growth and accelerate poverty reduction further. This constitutes the broad case for reinstating the role of agriculture in the internal development strategies of developing countries for poverty reduction. Clearly a better external environment with respect to both market access as well as commodity price regulation will make the case much stronger.

Poverty is the equivalent of a nuclear war on the poor. This structural violence outweighs all other impacts. Gilligan, 96 (James, professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. 1996. P. 191-196)The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes.[Continued…]

The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

CPs

A2: PemexPemex cripples Mexican government – means zero solvencyHogan ‘11(Jeff, Lieutenant colonel at the Naval War College, “Reforming Mexico’s Energy Sector to Enhance Stability,” Joint Military Operations at the Naval War College, 10/28, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA555290]

Beyond the reliance of the government on Pemex for revenue, there is an additional ¶ aspect of employment . Despite the negative implications of the union sponsored make-work ¶ jobs within Pemex, people ultimately have jobs and participate in the economy. Retirees ¶ drawing Pemex pensions are also a stabilizing force in the population. As a result, Mexico’s ¶

ownership and management of the oil resource has created a revenue and employment engine ¶ that is “too big to fail .” The consequences of a Pemex failure would cripple the government , ¶ eliminate the income of millions of people, a nd likely cause civil unrest on a national scale .¶

Pemex on track to fail nowHogan ‘11(Jeff, Lieutenant colonel at the Naval War College, “Reforming Mexico’s Energy Sector to Enhance Stability,” Joint Military Operations at the Naval War College, 10/28, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA555290]

burden on Pemex is growing . Some of the challenges have been present for several ¶ years, while others are new or looming on the horizon. The following list of examples ¶ illustrates the scope and scale of these problems, and the role government ownership plays in ¶ each. Viewed separately, the areas also represent a potential threat to stability in their own ¶ right, which simply underscores the necessity to undertake comprehensive corrective action. ¶ Corruption. There are several sources of corruption within the Mexican oil industry . O ne of ¶ the most sinister and far-reaching originates from the powerful unions. Perhaps symbolic of ¶ the relationship between the Mexico's population and her oil industry, these unions maintain ¶ a workforce on Pemex's payroll far exceeding the number required to run the business. ¶ 20 Silvana Tordo, Brandon S. Tracy, and Noora Arfaa. “National Oil Companies and Value Creation.” The ¶ World Bank, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, March 2011, 42-53. ¶ 21 Rodriguez, Pemex’s Proved Oil Reserves Decline for 12th Year in a Row. 9¶ Infrastructure investments designed to improve productivity (partly by reducing the number ¶ of workers required) fail to achieve savings because the unions protect the jobs. For ¶ instance, "In most oil companies, employment at a refinery that processes 200,000 ¶ barrels of oil a day is eight hundred people...But a Pemex refinery of the same size and ¶ capacity employs - through no choice of management - over four thousand workers."22¶ Union leaders also leverage strong political ties to head off government intervention. Oddly, ¶ this practice does not comport with the generic definition of corruption because it is, ¶ generally, legal. Nonetheless, the process is “corrupting” even if it fails to meet the legal ¶ standard of corruption and it contributes to the inability of Pemex to make rational business ¶ decisions.

Mexican Politics

1ACs

Nieto ShellContention __: Politics

Failing drug war risks failed statehood and instability – public government approval key to conflict resolutionDabaghi 10 [Kendall, Fulbright Scholar researching drug trafficking and Mexico, graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Duke, “The Neglected Roots of Mexico's Drug War,” 10/12, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6683/the-neglected-roots-of-mexicos-drug-war]

There is now a growing sense on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border that the Mexican government is making very little progress in turning back the violence and turmoil that have overtaken the country. Nearly 28,000 people have

been killed in the past three years in incidents linked to drug trafficking, while a recent U.S. Joint Forces Command report suggested that Mexico may be at risk of developing into a failed state. Meanwhile, Ciudad Juarez has become the most dangerous city in the world. Drug-related killings there have skyrocketed from 300 in 2007, to 1,600 in 2008, to more than 2,600 in 2009. There have been more people murdered in Juarez in the past three years than U.S. soldiers killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and more than 500,000 citizens have fled the city, leaving tens

of thousands of deserted businesses and homes in their wake. So why have parts of Mexico, such as Juarez, descended so rapidly into violence and chaos in just a few years? Why have the drug cartels found such fertile ground in Mexico for recruiting and operating? The present crisis is rooted in persistent aspects of Mexican government and society that long preceded the emergence of the cartels as a serious national security

threat. Deficiencies in Mexico's law enforcement and criminal justice systems, for example, have existed for decades, allowing crimes of all sorts to go unseen and unpunished. The crisis is fueled by widespread poverty and a lack of social mobility that provide the cartels with an unending supply of young Mexicans desperate to escape their circumstances but with little

means to do so within the legal system. And it is perpetuated by Mexicans' lack of faith in their government , which has created a vicious cycle of public mistrust and government inefficacy at the very moment that citizen support is needed most. Until such issues are addressed as part of a more comprehensive strategy, we are unlikely to see meaningful progress in this war.

Failed states cause nuclear warTI 7 [Transnational Institute, Africa Studies Centre Report, “Failed and Collapsed States in the International System”, April, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/archives/reports/failedstates.pdf]

In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several more countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in 33 various fields, be it commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the national territory for criminal or terrorist

activities. The increase in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration , which could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring countries which, having similar politicoeconomic structures, could suffer increase d destabilization and collapse as well. Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example.

Increased international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe it would put social relations between the population and immigrant communities under further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the security of Western states and societies. Health conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like

Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. W eapons of m ass d estruction could come into the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups , political factions in

control of part of a collapsed state or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in (North) Africa . Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral action - a system that would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one could be faced with an arms race that would sooner or later result in the actual use of these weapons . In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable multilateral regimes towards matters like

terrorism , nuclear weapons and international migration. Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At worst,

even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on countries in the former Third World, i.e. the

European states - could be face d with direct attacks on their national security.

Especially likely for Mexico given drug strife and ineffective governmentKurtzman ’09 [Joel, senior fellow and executive director of the Milken Institute Senior Fellows Program, “Mexico's Instability Is a Real Problem,” 1/16, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html]

Mexico is now in the midst of a vicious drug war. Police officers are being bribed and, especially near the United States border, gunned down. Kidnappings and extortion are common place. And, most alarming of all, a new Pentagon study concludes that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state . Defense planners liken the situation to that of Pakistan, where wholesale collapse of civil government is possible. One center of the violence is Tijuana, where last year more than 600 people were killed in drug violence. Many were shot with assault rifles in the streets and left there to

die. Some were killed in dance clubs in front of witnesses too scared to talk. It may only be a matter of time before the drug war spills across the border and into the U.S. To meet that threat, Michael Chertoff, the outgoing secretary for Homeland Security,

recently announced that the U.S. has a plan to "surge" civilian and possibly military law-enforcement personnel to the border should that be necessary. The problem is that in Mexico's latest eruption of violence, it's difficult to tell the good guys from the bad. Mexico's antidrug czar, Noe Ramirez Mandujano was recently charged with accepting $450,000 from drug lords he was supposed to be hunting down. This was the second time in recent years that one of Mexico's antidrug chiefs was arrested for taking possible payoffs from drug kingpins. Suspicions that police chiefs, mayors and members of the military are also on the take are rampant.

Independently, failure of the drug war allows entrenchment of cartelsHolub, 10 [Hugh, syndicated columnist, “Are the Mexican drug cartels taking over Mexico? Is there any doubt?” 10/8, http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/10/08/are-the-mexican-drug-cartels-taking-over-mexico-is-there-any-doubt/]

It seems like daily we read news accounts from Mexico that more headless bodies have been found, more Mexican police have been assassinated, more newspaper reporters have been killed, and more local political officials have been kidnapped and murdered. It is obvious that the Mexican drug cartels are seeking to create “control zones” within Mexico where they can operate with impunity. The federal government of Mexico is losing control of its countryside to the cartelistas . This is of special concern on the northern border. Cartel gunmen virtually run major border cities such as Juarez prompting a Juarez newspaper to beg cartel shooters to quit killing their reporters. While we don’t get much news about what is going on in our Mexican border cities, there are a lot of anecdotal reports that the cartels are gaining control of northern Sonoran communities. The border town of Sasabe, according to many first-hand accounts from friend s who have been over there in recent weeks, is cartel controlled. Residents of Sasabe can’t even drive from there to Magdalena without cartel permission. Agua Prieta is another border city falling into the clutches of the cartel. Increasingly the economies of Sonoran border community are dominated by drug and people smuggling. The traditional economies of these border towns, such as tourism, have been destroyed by the cartel activities. Ranches on the Mexican side of the border are being bought outright by cartel interests, or being attacked by the cartel to secure their smuggling routes. We are not going to achieve a secure border solely by pouring thousands of additional Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops into our side of the border. A secure border has to be secure on both sides of the border. The Mexican government is rapidly losing the battle with the cartels….and we may be seeing a narco state emerging just across the border. That has profound implications for our national security as well as on the illegal immigrant issue. We could well be looking at a mass exodus of terrified Mexicans fleeing drug cartel terror. We have no apparent ability or willingness to grant Mexican resident’s asylum if they want to escape threats from the cartels. It is long overdue for Mexico to quit blaming US drug users and US gun policies for this situation. The day is rapidly approaching where the central governmental authority of Mexico will not extend much beyond Chapultepec Park in Mexico City.

Key to Hezbollah fundraising, basing and narcoterrorUlloa 6-18 [Jazmine, Columnist for the American Statesman, “Mexican organized crime connection debated”, http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/hezbollah-mexican-organized-crime-connection-debat/nT2TM/]

In an interview last month, McCaul said Iran and Mideast militant groups, such as Hezbollah, have long had money laundering and fundraising hubs across Latin America. The assassination attempt involving the Quds Force took those associations a step further because it was “the first time we have seen that financial relationship become potentially operational — and that is the kind of thing we want to stop and make sure does not happen in the United States,” he said. As the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, McCaul said his priorities include drawing attention to the threat of those emerging partnerships and keeping narcoterrorist operatives from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. A U.S. House report he released in November documents what he describes as the increasing influence of Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America. “A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence and Terror at the Southwest Border,” cites professional and media publications, congressional testimony and insight from a congressional delegation visit to South America that included McCaul. The area near the shared borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina has become one of the largest bases of operations for the illicit financial activities of Hezbollah, the report says. The Islamic militant group’s collaboration with Mexican drug organizations dates back as early as 2005, when Ayman “Junior” Joumaa, a Lebanese citizen and Hezbollah supporter, shipped thousands of kilograms of Colombian cocaine to the United States through Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, according to federal court records. But some academic and law enforcement critics say it is a leap to claim deeper connections between drug networks and Islamic militant groups that have vastly different agendas — and that might not have any objectives in common other than making money. Individual cases like that of Joumaa or Arbabsiar, they said, don’t add up to a systematic partnership. There is no telling whether an actual Zetas member would have agreed to carry out a political assassination, said Cecilia Balli, a freelance writer and University of Texas anthropology professor. “For the groups to work together, they would both need something to gain,” she said. “What is a Mexican drug trafficking organization going to get out of killing a Saudi ambassador?” Tony Payan, a drug war analyst and University of Texas at El Paso political science professor, said Mideast terrorist groups and Mexican criminal organizations have distinct objectives. “It is a very sexy thing to begin to conflate terrorism and drug trafficking,” he said. “I am not saying there is no danger. The narcoterrorism threat could exist, but I question the motivation behind this purposeful attempt to link one to the other. The allegations seem to arise out of a need for imperialistic bureaucracies and agencies to justify their budgets, prestige and existence.” McCaul first suggested a narcoterrorism connection when he introduced legislation last year to label four Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” Had it been adopted, the proposal would have allowed prosecutors to seek higher penalties and fines for convictions, a facet that some law enforcement officials called another tool in the arsenal against organized crime. In pushing for the legislation, McCaul said Mexican drug enterprises might not have the religious ideology that fuels groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah, but they use similar methods to acquire political and economic influence, such as assassinations and attacks on civilian targets. “It is not a real stretch of the imagination that these groups could work together operationally if they already have a financial relationship,” he told the American-Statesman last month. “Mexican cartels don’t want to get into the terrorism business, and I think to a large extent that may be true, but I think the lesson of 9/11 was to connect the dots.” Law enforcement offici als and border experts said they don’t dispute Hezbollah’s financial enterprises in Latin America. All criminal groups to some extent have evolved into transnational networks in recent years. And Mexican drug trafficking groups have diversified their portfolios to include not only drug smuggling but also other businesses, such as extortion, kidnapping and human trafficking.

Plus Hezbollah goes nuclear given increased credibility and fundingHarelfarb 09 [Joel, Columnist for Jewish Policy Center Quarterly, “Would Iran Provide A Nuclear Weapon to Terrorists?”,The Jewish Policy Center, Winter, http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1532/iran-nuclear-weapon-to-terrorists]

Iran could also provide a nuclear weapon to any of its proxy terrorist organizations in conflict with Israel. Indeed, Iran could see this is an insurance policy. In the event that Israel launches a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran may conclude that it has nothing to lose by turning nuclear technology over to terrorists—notably Hezbollah. Iran already has smuggling routes to the group. Recently, it smuggled massive quantities of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in an attempt to help it to rebuild the

weapons arsenal destroyed by Israel during the 2006 war. As a result of that smuggling, Hezbollah now has more than three times the number of missiles it had at the start of that war. Israeli military officials acknowledged in November that Hezbollah now has Iranian-made Fajr rockets that reach Tel Aviv and possibly Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. The Israelis are doing their best to stop the flow of weapons. On November 3, Israeli commandos intercepted an arms shipment on its way from Iran to Hezbollah. The weapons were transported aboard the MV Francop, a cargo ship flying the Antiguan flag. Hidden aboard the civilian vessel were three-dozen shipping containers holding weaponry for Hezbollah. At 500 tons, the Francop was carrying a quantity of armaments at least 10 times as large as that aboard the Karine-A, a ship that Iran loaded up with 50 tons of advanced weaponry for Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority in Gaza. It was captured by Israel in January 2002. In the Francop case, the weapons seized aboard the ship included 3,000 recoilless gun shells, 9,000 mortar bombs, and more than half a million rounds of small-arms ammunition. Also found aboard the ship were 2,800 rockets. English- and Farsi- language markings on the polyethylene sacks containing the munitions proved that Iran's National Petrochemical Company produced the sacks. In January 2009, Cypriot authorities captured a shipment of anti-tank weapons, artillery and rocket-manufacturing materials for manufacturing rockets on a Cypriot ship leased by an Iranian firm. Intelligence officials believe the weaponry was bound for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. In May 2007, the Kurdish PKK terror group derailed an Iranian train in southeastern Turkey carrying rocket launchers, mortar shells, and light arms to Syria (possibly destined for Hezbollah.) In December 2003 and January 2004, after humanitarian assistance was flown into southern Iran for earthquake victims, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards used the return flights

to Damascus to smuggle arms to Hezbollah. These are the instances in which weapons were captured. There are untold numbers of Iranian shipments that get through. The question that analysts must now answer is: could a nuclear weapon get through, too? The

late Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, took this possibility seriously. Under the right circumstances , Tehran might attempt to transfer WMD to Hezbollah, or perhaps other terror groups, such as Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In interviews with

The Washington Times and The New York Times not long before his death in 2007, Leventhal said it was not beyond the realm of possibility that Hezbollah could try to smuggle a crude nuclear device via a ship or truck and deliver it to a highly populated Israeli city.

Causes retaliatory over-reaction and extinctionAyson 10 [Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand – Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(7), July]

A Catalytic Response : Dragging in the Major Nuclear Powers A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly

existential threats . A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible

that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today's

and tomorrow's terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of

imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter- state nuclear war . For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and /or China could plausibly be brought in to the picture , not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the U nited S tates react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks, 40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the

materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.” 41 Alternatively , if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington's relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington's early

response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China . For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the

terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and /or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that

any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.

US led Mexican energy reform reinstates trust in government and stability – reverse impact scenariosRoberts and Walser 09 [James M., Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and Economics, and Ray, Ph.D., is a Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Growing Instability in Mexico Threatens U.S. Economy and Border Security,” 2/12, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/growing-instability-in-mexico-threatens-us-economy-and-border-security]

America's southern neighbor is facing trouble on several fronts: Drug-Related Violence Drug-related crime and rampant violence have battered

Mexico's sense of public security and confidence in the government's capacity to protect the lives of its citizens. Violence against Mexican law enforcement and military officials, as well as the corruption perpetrated by the drug cartels, is undermining public confidence in government institutions. Furthermore, the physical and psychological costs of the fight against the cartels are impacting trade, the investment climate, and the security of the U.S.-Mexico border. Corruption Corruption in Mexico's public and private sectors is endemic. Mexico's score in the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, declined from its 2008 score-a decrease aggravated by the country's low "Freedom from Corruption" rating.[1] Although Mexican President Calderon has been leading a courageous fight against it, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2007, "Mexico ranks 72nd out of 179 countries … [and] corruption has been pervasive for many years."[2] General Barry R. McCaffrey, former commander of the U.S. Southern Command and President Clinton's drug czar, recently reported that Mexico's powerful drug gangs have "subverted state and municipal authorities and present a mortal threat to the rule of law across Mexico."[3] General McCaffrey warns that the spillover effect from the drug violence reaches far into both countries: "The malignancy of drug criminality now contaminates not only the 2,000 miles of cross-border U.S. communities but stretches throughout the United States in more than 295 U.S. cities."[4] Economic Woes In addition to the drug violence and corruption, Mexico is also suffering from economic turbulence. For instance, remittances sent home by Mexican emigrants in the U.S., which are "Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil, [sank] 3.6 percent to $25 billion in 2008 compared to $26 billion for the previous year … and central bank official Jesus Cervantes said the decline will likely continue this year."[5] Furthermore, Mexico's large and important automotive sector has been slammed by the same economic woes facing Detroit.[6] Mexico's economy is now forecast to shrink by as much as 1.8 percent in 2009.[7] And the peso has weakened 32 percent against the dollar over the past six months-the second-worst performance among the world's major currencies after Brazil's real-on concern the economy will sink into recession as demand in the U.S. falters for Mexican exports.[8] Consequently, the Central Bank has been forced to intervene in an "extraordinary" way to prop up the peso.[9] Adding to the economic gloom, Mexican government revenues (more than one-third of which come from PEMEX, the state-owned monopoly oil company[10]) are declining steadily. This revenue drop is the result of lower oil prices and declining output due to

longstanding PEMEX mismanagement and inefficiency. Major political and economic reforms are needed now,[11] yet recent economic turmoil has made the political price of such reforms considerably higher. All of these developments are severely impacting the price Mexican businesses and governments must pay to borrow money. Unfortunately, current ratings of Mexican debt and the attendant risk premiums probably do not fully reflect Mexico's dire straits. Potential foreign investors should beware. A Vital American

interest Mexico's ongoing political stability and economic health are critical to the prosperity and national security of the United States. The Obama Administration must make confronting the many challenges facing our southern neighbor both a foreign and a domestic policy priority. In order to realize this vital American interest, the current Administration should do the following: Not delay in sending an early and loud signal that it is prepared to work closely with Mexico and the Calderon government to defeat the drug cartels and strengthen-to the extent possible-Mexico's critical legal, law

enforcement, and judicial institutions through an expanded and better funded "Merida Initiative" cooperation program. General McCaffrey warns that " Mexico is on the edge of the abyss -it could become a narco-state in the coming decade."[12] Inaction and indifference are not options. Pledge a renewed commitment to reducing the flow of illegally

trafficked guns, bulk cash, and precursor chemicals from the U.S. into Mexico. Together, the U.S. and Mexico should reach out to Colombia and Central America to strengthen international cooperation critical to bursting the narcotics balloon. Recognize that Mexico's economic health is critical to the U.S. Consequently, both countries should reaffirm their commitment to NAFTA, and President Obama should urge President Calderon to continue efforts to reform Mexico's economy by breaking up monopolies and other oligopolies and to look for ways to assist with the

agricultural and commercial development of rural and southern Mexico. Encourage Mexico to open its oil and electrical energy sectors to investment opportunities by U.S. companies. This should be another high priority goal for the Obama Administration, one that can have a stimulus effect on both sides of the border. Recognize that anyone-Mexican or otherwise-who enters, remains in, and works in the United States illegally is in ongoing and extensive violation of U.S. law. This has a corrosive effect on civil society and undermines confidence in the immigration process and the rule-of-law principles that govern the nation. Consequently, Obama should commit to a balanced and well-constructed temporary worker program that diminishes incentives for illegal immigration. Demonstrate that a change in Administrations will not lessen the United States' commitment to building better border security by enlisting the Mexican government as a stakeholder and responsible partner in a comprehensive strategy for controlling the border against all forms of illicit activity, from illegal migration to drugs and terrorism.

Advance with the Mexican government a shared, vibrant, and productive relationship of commerce, investment, and properly regulated movements of people between sovereign nations. In pursuing this relationship, however, the Obama Administration must make clear that the U.S. seeks neither a North America union nor political integration.

Energy is THE way to reform Mexican political support – U.S. key for political coherence and funding consistencyRodriguez ’05 [Raul, managing director North American Development Bank, “Parameters of Partnership in U.S. - Mexico Relations Challenges in Competitiveness: Infrastructure Development,” January, www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Infrastructure.Rodriguez.doc]

Despite progress in telecommunications, housing, and port administration, Mexico and Latin America in general lag behind in terms of overall infrastructure stock and quality. Addressing the financing needs for roads, power, clean water, sanitation, health,

schools, and other investments would create the foundations for Mexico’s productivity and self-sustained growth in a way that would benefit the whole North American region. Throughout the developing world, the public sector has retrenched for fiscal

and policy reasons, but the private sector has not filled the void. According to the World Bank, private investment in infrastructure in developing countries peaked at around $130 billion U.S. dollars in 1997 and dropped to $60 billion by 2003. Expenditures in operations and maintenance have also suffered. Investments needed in Mexico are now over $20 billion per year, far from current levels. Time is of the essence. The demographic bonus from Mexico’s age structure will last 20 years at most. That is the timeframe to achieve radical improvements in productivity through

sweeping reforms in education and infrastructure. How does the Mexico - U.S. relationship fit in this context , and what key

ingredients should a partnership have in order to impact the infrastructure domain? Will that require resource transfers? Will that in turn call for new

institutions? Are both viable? There is no clear answer, but some key tasks for a partnership to materialize are outlined below. 1. Ensure that macroeconomic fundamentals remain in place: Suffice to say, no real progress will be feasible in the area of infrastructure

development in the absence of an open and stable macroeconomic environment. 2. Insist on structural reforms in Mexico: Productivity and competitiveness are first and foremost a domestic task. They require political coherence and a degree of consensus to build a setting that is conducive. Fiscal, energy, judiciary, labor, and municipal reforms are lacking and vital.

Telecommunications is ahead of sector reform curves in Mexico, transportation and housing are at intermediate stages, and energy and water are lagging behind. 3. Craft a regional development strategy: Mexican states in the north are growing twice as fast as those in the south and already contribute three times as much to GDP on a per-capita basis. But despite Mexico's greater urgencies in the south, the region prone to be subject to a real bilateral effort for infrastructure development is the one along the border with the U.S. At least for an initial phase, from a political and financial standpoint that would be the only option. In any event, such an effort could help redirect domestic resources for investment in other regions in Mexico and could spur new approaches there too. This would not preclude other type of development assistance for impoverished regions. A new vision and a paradigm are needed for the border’s development that build on the maquiladora experience of the past 40 years. Some border states are aiming toward a knowledge-based economy in a regional setting. Clusters need to be identified throughout the region and development paths sorted out. Plans for suitable levels of human capital and physical infrastructure will be the blueprint for any viable partnership effort. It is important to note that this is a region that includes some of the poorest communities in the U.S. The onus is on the sub-regions and on governments at the state and local levels along the common border. In an increasingly decentralized environment, the dynamic processes and initiatives happening in San Diego - Tijuana, Sonora - Arizona, El Paso - Cd. Juarez and Texas - northeastern Mexico will be the building blocks. A needs assessment is required -- one that identifies investment priorities on a sector-by-sector basis, with measurable ways in which both sides can participate. Maximizing use of current infrastructure and addressing mismanagement should be a starting point. Each sub-region needs to identify the major deficiencies that limit competitiveness and the best ways to resolve them. This could be done under the stewardship of the ten border state governments through the Border Governors’ Conference structure, with a specific task force or secretariat being highly advisable. 4. Pick the right sectors as priorities: Some sectors are more amenable than others to bilateral cooperation. Water and environmental infrastructure in general have been a must in view of the strategic importance on both sides of the border of shared

resources and their growing complexity as an issue. Among other sectors, energy and telecommunications should be included . Logistics is also a natural choice: fostering the corridors concept, linking inland port projects and facilities on both sides, resolving the NAFTA cross-border trucking issue, promoting jointly bridge and road projects.

Moreover, nuclear especially popular with the publicIAEA 2005[The world's center of cooperation in the nuclear field, “Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues and the IAEA,” October, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/gponi_report2005.pdf]

The situation in the United States is noteworthy: although pluralities agree that nuclear power is safe (40%), Americans appear divided on whether nuclear power should be expanded in order to help combat climate change. This may be a reflection of the United States’ current policy

position on climate change. Only in four countries do majorities (South Korea at 66% and Indonesia at 52%) or pluralities (Mexico at 46% and India at 43%) agree with expanding the use of nuclear power to meet the world’s growing energy needs and to help combat climate change. South Korea also has the highest level of support of all countries for nuclear power.

Internal Links

Uq – Stability on the BrinkDrug crisis means governmental collapse is dueStrategy Page 13[Intelligence summary of current military news, “More violence, fewer dead bodies,” Strategy World, July 1, http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20130701.aspx]

Violence with drug cartels refuses to be put down. A newly elected PRI (the party that controlled the government for most of the 20th century until finally eased out by reformers in 2000) president promised changes but has found that determination is more needed than change. Nearly all the cartel violence (which accounts for three percent of all crime) occurs in 3.2 percent of the 2,500 municipalities. But the often spectacular Cartel War violence gets the headlines, making it appear that the entire country is aflame. Because so much of the violence is on the U.S. border, it seems, to Americans, that Mexico is a war zone. The passing of one-party rule, the growth of drug gangs, and increasing corruption in the security forces has triggered unprecedented levels of violence and unrest in the areas involved. The government has gone to war with the drug gangs, and the outcome is still in doubt. Presidential elections returned PRI to power last year, and now there is fear that the decades old PRI deal with the drug gangs (keep quiet and the police won't bother you) will be quietly reinstated.

Collapse impending – drug resolution keyFPRI 11 (Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Interest think tank, “Toward A U.S.-Mexico Security Strategy: The Geopolitics of Northern Mexico and Implications for U.S. Policy,” February, https://www.fpri.org/docs/Toward_a_US_Mexico_Security_Strategy_Danelo.pdf, Vuthy)

During a September 8, 2010, speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared conditions in Mexico to Colombia’s late twentieth century drug war, saying the Mexican situation was “morphing into, or making common cause with, what we would consider an insurgency.”11 Astonishingly, a day later, President Barack Obama publicly rejected her comments. “Mexico is a vast and progressive democracy with a growing economy,” the president said in the Los Angeles based Spanish newspaper La Opinion. “You cannot compare what is happening in Mexico with what happened in Colombia twenty years ago.”12 Although President Obama is correct in saying the situations in Colombia and Mexico are not directly analogous, his rejection of Secretary Clinton’s more accurate assessment is misleading. Since December 2006, deaths in Mexico have exceeded previous Latin American insurgencies in a dramatic fashion. Almost 30,000 people have died in four years, a staggering statistic of chaos. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 30,000 were also killed from 1980-1994 in Peru’s war against the Shining Path. Estimates of Colombia’s casualties from their 46 year war against the Medellin Cartel and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) are between 70,000 and 100,000 from 1963 to the present.13 Although Mexico has twice the population and size of Colombia and three times that of Peru, the pace of death has accelerated at a rate that is, respectively, 5 and 3.5 times higher. The volume of violence is where the similarities end. Unlike the FARC in Colombia, Mexico’s drug cartels have no desire to reshape their country in accordance with Marxist ideology. In thought and behavior, Mexico’s narcotics groups have more in common with Somali pirates than Colombian rebels: both groups seek to create anarchy so they can exploit the defenseless and dominate local markets. Like Somali pirates in East Africa’s coastal villages, Los Zetas and their ilk have thrived in stateless voids, stealing money from merchants and becoming minor celebrities within their respective regions. While Colombia faced a political insurgency, Mexico confronts something like land piracy. The drug kingpins are bandits, shameless and powerful, sailing untouched through the mountainous seas of the Sierra Madres and Rio Grande Basin, marauding wantonly in their fleets of pickup trucks and SUVs. The absence of politics does not make Mexico’s problems any less virulent, and analysts should pause before dismissing the drug violence as “only a criminal problem” simply because the Sinaloa Cartel lacks a political ideology.

Uq – Drug War WorkingNieto effectively tackling the drug war nowBrown ’13 (Vanda, senior fellow with the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, “Peña Nieto’s Piñata: The Promise and Pitfalls of Mexico’s New Security Policy against Organized Crime,” February 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/02/mexico%20new%20security%20policy%20felbabbrown/mexico%20new%20security%20policy%20felbabbrown.pdf, Vuthy).

Mexico’s new president Enrique Peña Nieto has accepted that prioritization. But he has been rather vague about how he actually plans to reduce violence, particularly homicides, kidnappings, and extortion. Throughout the presidential campaign, Peña Nieto clearly and repeatedly disavowed any inclination to engage in negotiations with the cartels. He also promised to move away from Calderón’s frequent use of military forces in law enforcement tasks. After assuming office he announced that he intended to establish a new 10,000 member National Gendarmerie (Gendarmería Nacional); boost security spending and expand the federal police by at least 35,000 officers; reorganize Mexico’s national security and law enforcement agencies and improve coordination among them; and divide Mexico into five distinct regions according to cartel presence and criminal activity type. 10 His 34-point security plan Pacto por Mexico, which Mexico’s major political parties signed, also includes establishing a unified police command system at the state-level and emphasizing crime prevention. 11 Like his predecessor, he has been asking the United States to do more to combat the southward flow of weapons and money to Mexican drug trafficking groups and to reduce the demand in the United States for illicit narcotics.

Drug war improving – means our public support IL pushes it past the finish lineWyler, 11 (Grace, politics editor and reporter at Business Insider, “How Mexico Can Stop Losing the Drug War”, Business Insider, 3-5, http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mexico-can-stop-losing-the-drug-war-2011-3, DPatterson)

In July, Mexico will elect a new president to replace Felipe Calderón. Whoever wins will need to address the foremost challenge confronting the country today: the battle against the drug cartels. And despite all the negative headlines, the next president will find that the government under Calderón has made huge gains toward defeating them. When Calderón took office five years ago, there were roughly half a dozen cartels, each a large criminal organization in its own right. These illegal enterprises — the Gulf, the Juárez, La Familia

Michoacana, the Sinaloa and the Tijuana cartels — dominated large swaths of Mexican territory and operated abroad as well. Once he assumed the presidency, Calderón realized that he could not rely on the federal police, the Agencia Federal de Investigación, to restore order or track down the cartel leaders. The A.F.I. was riddled with corruption. Over the years, the cartels had bribed not only regional comandantes but also top-level officials at the agency’s Mexico City headquarters. The state police were even more unreliable. Often on the payroll of the cartels in their respective regions, they not only failed to cooperate with the federal police but also regularly protected the cartels and their leaders. With limited options, Calderón turned to the military, which, because it had not been involved in investigating or acting against the cartels, remained relatively immune from their influence. Calderón used the military as a show of force in areas wracked by cartel violence, such as Ciudad Juárez, Michoacán and Veracruz, and to surgically target, capture, and, if necessary, kill cartel leaders. Yet Calderón understood that the military alone could not crush the cartels. To do that, he would need forces capable of patrolling urban areas, collecting intelligence, and gathering the evidence necessary to prosecute drug traffickers — functions that only professionalized law enforcement agencies could carry out. To win this war, Calderón needed cops he could rely on. Calderón set about reforming Mexico’s law enforcement institutions using a three-part strategy: creating a new, professional federal police force; rebuilding each of the 32 state forces and giving them the responsibilities of the discredited municipal police; and overhauling the judicial and penal systems. He began his efforts with the federal police. Fed up with the corruption of the A.F.I., he abolished the agency in May 2009 and created an entirely new force under the secretary for public safety and security. The new federal police force now has 35,000 officers and has built Mexico’s first national crime information system, which, among other things, stores the fingerprints of everyone who is arrested in

the country. The federal police have assumed command from the army in several regions and demonstrated their ability to confront the cartels by apprehending several of their central figures. The force has also avoided any serious incidents of corruption. Calderón has begun restructuring Mexico’s state police forces as well, along the lines of the reforms he made to the federal police. Given the sheer number of new officers that must be vetted, hired, and trained, it will take at least several more years to complete the job. Finally, to address the judicial shortcomings, Calderón has proposed moving to a more transparent criminal justice system, with trials taking place in public, and he has begun building maximum security prisons modeled after those in the United States. Although Calderón has fully achieved only one plank of his

proposed reforms so far — the creation of a new federal police force — he has waged an increasingly effective campaign against the cartels by employing what is known as the kingpin strategy, which Colombia used to defeat its drug cartels in the 1990s. This calls for exploiting all the cartels’ vulnerabilities: intercepting their communications,

disrupting the supply and distribution of drugs and the chemicals needed to make them, and seizing the assets of cartel bosses. Once authorities have weakened a particular group, they can find and arrest the kingpin and the other essential members of the organization, including the kingpin’s potential successors. In the last three years alone, using this strategy, the Mexican government has captured or killed over 40 major cartel leaders; key players who are not easily replaced. Several of the cartels have already been severely weakened or destroyed. To dismantle the remaining cartels, Calderón’s successor will need to use an essential element of the kingpin strategy that has so far been missing: an aggressive asset-seizure program. This would involve identifying and confiscating not only the funds that the cartels use to conduct their criminal activity, but also the assets that cartel members have purchased with illicit profits: houses, ranches, airplanes, boats, vehicles and otherwise legitimate businesses. When Mexico removes the kingpins, their successors and key operators, these large criminal organizations will splinter and collapse, unable to threaten the state any longer. That is when Mexico will have won its war against the drug cartels. Calderón does not have time to finish the job before he leaves office in December. Fortunately for Mexico, he will bequeath to his successor major successes against the cartels, newly invigorated institutions, and a sound strategy.

Energy Key to StabilityFederal approaches to energy key to stabilityEconomist, 6-29 (“The Fed is one bogeyman. Half-hearted energy reform is another”, 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21580165-fed-one-bogeyman-half-hearted-energy-reform-another-rolling]

Financiers in Mexico with a touch of grey in their hair vividly remember the last time the Federal Reserve abruptly tightened monetary policy, in 1994. It helped provoke the peso crisis that nearly drove the country into bankruptcy. The lessons of that debacle are not forgotten. Stability trumps everything. Economic growth and inflation are steady; the current-account deficit is modest; debt is low; and banks are well-capitalised. Yet like other emerging markets, Mexico is suffering from Ben Bernanke’s intention to roll back the Fed’s easy-money policy. Although other Latin American currencies have been weaker for longer, the peso took the Fed chairman’s punch on the nose (see chart). Since early May, when speculation that the Fed was likely to rein in its bond-buying programme increased, the currency has plummeted from below 12 per dollar to over 13. In the same period the yield on Mexico’s benchmark ten-year bonds has risen from an historic low of 4.4% to 6.2%, battering the Mexican pension funds that invest in them. So far the feared mass exodus of foreign investors has not materialised. According to Banco de México, the central bank, there has been a $4.3 billion net outflow of foreign money from the stockmarket in the three months to the end of May. But the stock of foreign holdings remains historically high; several firms have raised money on the bourse in recent days. Foreign holdings of government bonds have been relatively stable. Much of the peso’s volatility has been driven by investors hedging the currency risk on their fixed-income exposure rather than dumping bonds. Craig LeVeille of the Chicago-based CME Group, where peso futures are traded, says investors with Latin American exposure may also have hedged in the Mexican peso market because it is deeper and more liquid than its peers in the region, exacerbating the currency’s slide. One reason investors may be prepared to tread water in Mexico is that economic growth, which has been weaker than forecast in the first four months of the year, is highly dependent on demand in America. If the economy north of the border accelerates that would benefit Mexico, even if it also encourages Mr Bernanke to “taper”. The wild card, though, is whether the seven-month-old government of Enrique Peña Nieto can present a bill in September that succeeds in meaningfully reforming the energy sector, which is considered vital for boosting Mexico’s long-term growth potential. In London this month Mr Peña spoke of big proposed changes to increase the participation of private firms in the energy industry, but it was not clear how dramatically his reforms would alter the 1917 Constitution, which specifies that all natural resources belong to the state. Even such guarded comments sparked a backlash at home, suggesting Mr Peña would need to present a watered-down bill to keep the left in a three-way political pact he has forged to promote reform. It is hard to measure the impact of such uncertainty on markets, but some senior officials think it is meaningful. “Every fund manager that I speak to who knows Mexico well speaks about energy reform,” says one. “There have been so many mixed signals about energy that people are very sceptical.” Mr Bernanke’s writ runs far, but local politics still matter.

Impacts

US-Canada Relations MPXAnd drug cartels undermine US-Canadian relations- border fightsBrister ’12 (Brister, Major Bernard J., CD BComm MA, PhD., Assistant Professor, Canadian and American Foreign and Security Policy, Terrorism, Special Operations, “Forget Al - Qaeda: Think Mexico – The Next Great Threat to Canadian Security”, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Forget%20Al-Qaeda%20Think%20Mexico.pdf, November 2012)

The second way that Mexican affairs are directly influencing Canadian security and welfare is through the flow of illegal drugs into Canada from Mexico. Although it is a relatively small problem at present when compared to the volume of product that American authorities must attempt to deal with, it is growing steadily larger. 12 The latest statistical data (2008) indicates that the volume of cocaine smuggled into Canada has tripled in recent years and the percent age of that increased volume entering the country through the United States has gone from 25% to 40%. 13 As more and more American resources are dedicated to holding back the blizzard of illegal narcotics from Mexico, the flows can be expected to adopt the p ath of least resistance, which in some cases may result in the drug pipeline going north to Canada before dipping south of the border. If this occurs, one would anticipate that thereafter would follow the inevitable destabilizing effect on our society that results from the presence of highly - organized, extremely lucrative and ultra - violent criminal activity. 14 This could include , but not be restricted to , the terrorizing and infiltration of the police and judiciary and be accompanied by elevated levels of vi olence with the associated loss of the domestic public’s confidence in government at all levels to carry out its primary responsibility – ensuring the safety of the country’s citizens. 15 The third and possibly greatest effect that the current domestic ins tability in Mexico is having upon the security and welfare of Canadians is an indirect one by virtue of the negative effects that it is having upon the Canada - United States security relationship . In this regard there are two primary effects. The first is a continuing one of increased thickening of the border as successive American administrations seek to “fire - proof” their citizens from the triple threat of illegal immigration , the importation of increasing amounts of illegal narcotics, and terrorist attack . 16 This process of thickening has been a contributing factor in the steady reduction of trade between Canada and the United States . Trade with the United States has been in a steady decline since 2005 , having decreased almost 20% in the last 5 years. For a country like Canada whose main security interest is primarily economic in nature, this statistic is very disturbing and worthy of some concern. The other direct effect that the ongoing instability in Mexico is having upon the Canada - United States relationship is a continuing attempt by a number of American factions to conflate essentially dissimilar issues occurring on their northern and southern borders. Although clearly motivated by political consid erations, the comments of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, that the threats emanating from the northern and southern border regions were such that they could be addressed with a single policy are an example of this tendency. To put the Secretary’s comments into perspective however, she also stated that the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada.

These disputes spill overBrister ’12 (Brister, Major Bernard J., CD BComm MA, PhD., Assistant Professor, Canadian and American Foreign and Security Policy, Terrorism, Special Operations, “Forget Al - Qaeda: Think Mexico – The Next Great Threat to Canadian Security”, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Forget%20Al-Qaeda%20Think%20Mexico.pdf, November 2012)

The effect would essentially be one of a significant reduction in the Canadian “room to manoeuvre” within the Canada - United States relationship. The added complexity of a third party and issues in the institutions of the existing bilateral relationship would reduce the speed and effectiveness with which common Canada - United States issues and interests could be addressed at every level of the relationship . The differences between Canada and Mexico in the levels of trust between agencies, governance capabilities, and the specifics of the issues to be dealt with as they pertain to the United States, would all complicate the relationship and reduce the precision

with which Can ada could employ its established policy threads in pursuit of quintessentially Canadian interests .

Cooperation with Canada key to cyber-securityCarafano et al 2010 – James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage Foundation. Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security and Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation. Richard Weitz, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political–Military Analysis at Hudson Institute (“Expand NORAD to Improve Security in North America,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/expand-norad-to-improve-security-in-north-america)

Addressing the wide range of threat s confronting America’s security interests in North America will require NORAD’s involvement. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound jetliner was al-Qaeda’s most recent effort to cause mass casualties in America.[22] In addition, threats to energy, communication, and computer networks persist . Malicious third parties can attack the United States through vulnerable intermediaries, such as Canada, which offers a huge backdoor into the U.S. computer networks. Much of the infrastructure of the two nations —from

railroads to aviation to pipelines and electrical systems—is inextricably intertwined . Canada is also America’s largest trading partner, accounting for many links in U.S. supply chains. NORAD and NORTHCOM have partnered with a number of agencies—including the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Strategic Command— to protect U.S. networks. This cooperation will help NORAD to secure U.S. systems against potential attack, but NORAD does not currently

have a lead cyber-security role.[23] The United States needs to deepen cooperation with its North American partners on cyber security. Both the Canadian and U.S. economies depend on a secure and functioning cyberspace. Computer systems and infrastructure in both countries are linked and a substantial amount of bilateral trade is conducted through the Internet. Since cyber terrorists and criminals can operate from anywhere, integration of cyber-security efforts is essential to protect computer infrastructure . Integration is especially necessary for Canada because its 200 law enforcement and 2,500 military personnel dedicated to cyber security are insufficient to prevent cyber attacks effectively. Through NORAD , Canada and the United States could coordinate cyber security with the various military commands and civilian agencies .[ 24] Cooperation with Mexico as its economy and cyber infrastructure develop is also vital, as the U.S. and Mexican governments acknowledged by creating the Working Group on Cyber-Security in 2004.[25]

Cyber attack would destroy critical infrastructure and ensure US retaliation --- expands arid lands and ag collapseHabiger, 2/1/2010 (Eugue – Retired Air Force General, Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism, The Cyber Security Institute, p. 13-15)

There is strong evidence to suggest that al Qaeda has the ability to conduct cyberterror attacks against the United States and its allies. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are extremely active in cyberspace, using these technologies to communicate among themselves and others, carry out logistics, recruit members, and wage information warfare. For example, al Qaeda leaders used email to communicate with the 9‐11 terrorists and the 9‐11 terrorists used the Internet to make travel plans and book flights. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda members routinely post videos and other messages to online sites to communicate. Moreover, there is evidence of efforts that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are actively developing cyberterrorism capabilities and seeking to carry out cyberterrorist attacks. For example, the Washington Post has reported that “U.S. investigators have found evidence in the logs that mark a browser's path through the Internet that al Qaeda operators spent time on sites that offer software and programming instructions for the digital switches that run power, water, transport and communications grids. In some interrogations . . . al Qaeda prisoners have described intentions, in general terms, to use those tools.”25 Similarly, a 2002 CIA report on the cyberterror threat to a member of the Senate stated that al Qaeda and Hezbollah have become "more adept at using the internet and computer technologies.”26 The FBI has issued bulletins stating that, “U. S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have received indications that Al Qaeda members have sought information on Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems available on multiple SCADA‐related web sites.”27 In addition a number of jihadist websites, such as 7hj.7hj.com, teach computer attack and hacking skills in the service of Islam.28 While al Qaeda may lack the cyber‐attack capability of nations like Russia and China, there is every reason to believe its operatives, and those of its ilk, are as capable as the cyber criminals and hackers who routinely effect great harm on the world’s digital infrastructure generally and American assets specifically. In fact, perhaps, the most troubling indication of the level of the cyberterrorist threat is the countless, serious non‐terrorist cyberattacks routinely carried out by criminals, hackers,

disgruntled insiders, crime syndicates and the like. If run ‐ of ‐ the ‐ mill criminals and hackers can threaten powergrids, hack vital military networks, steal vast sums of money, take down a city’s of traffic lights, compromise the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control systems, among other attacks, it is overwhelmingly likely that terrorists can carry out similar , if not more malicious attacks. Moreover, even if the world’s terrorists are unable to breed these skills, they can certainly buy them. There are untold numbers of cybermercenaries around the world—sophisticated hackers with advanced training who would be willing to offer their services for the right price. Finally, given the nature of our understanding of cyber threats, there is always the possibility that we have already been the victim or a cyberterrorist attack, or such an attack has already been set but not yet effectuated, and we don’t know it yet. Instead, a well‐designed cyberattack has the capacity cause widespread chaos , sow societal unrest, undermine national governments, spread paralyzing

fear and anxiety, and create a state of utter turmoil, all without taking a single life. A sophisticated cyberattack could throw a nation’s banking and finance system into chaos causing markets to crash, prompting runs on banks, degrading confidence in markets, perhaps even putting the nation’s currency in play and making the government look helpless and hapless. In today’s difficult economy, imagine how Americans would react if vast sums of money were taken from their accounts and their supporting financial records were destroyed. A truly nefarious cyberattacker could carry out an attack in such a way (akin to Robin Hood) as to engender populist support and deepen rifts within our society, thereby making efforts to restore the system all the more difficult. A modestly advanced enemy could use a cyberattack to shut down (if not physically damage) one or more regional power grids. An entire region could be cast into total darkness, power‐dependent systems could be shutdown. An attack on one or more regional power grids could also cause cascading effects that could jeopardize our entire national grid . When word leaks that the blackout was caused by a cyberattack, the specter of a foreign enemy capable of sending the entire nation into darkness would only increase the fear, turmoil and unrest . While the finance and energy sectors are considered prime targets for a cyberattack, an attack on any of the 17 delineated critical infrastructure sectors could have a major impact on the United States. For example, our healthcare system is already technologically driven and the Obama Administration’s e‐health efforts will only increase that dependency. A cyberattack on the U.S. e‐health infrastructure could send our healthcare system into chaos and put countless of lives at risk. Imagine if emergency room physicians and surgeons were suddenly no longer able to access vital patient information. A cyberattack on our nation’s water systems could likewise cause widespread disruption . An attack on the control systems for one or more dams could put entire communities at risk of being inundated, and could create ripple effects across the water, agriculture, and energy sectors . Similar water control system attacks could be used to at least temporarily deny water to otherwise arid regions , impacting everything from the quality of life in these areas to agriculture. In 2007, the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit determined that the destruction from a single wave of cyberattacks on critical infrastructures could exceed $700 billion, which would be the rough equivalent of 50 Katrina‐esque hurricanes hitting the United States all at the same time.29 Similarly, one IT security source has estimated that the impact of a single day cyberwar attack that focused on and disrupted U.S. credit and debit card transactions would be approximately $35 billion.30 Another way to gauge the potential for harm is in comparison to other similar noncyberattack infrastructure failures. For example, the August 2003 regional power grid blackout is estimated to have cost the U.S. economy up to $10 billion, or roughly .1 percent of the nation’s GDP. 31 That said, a cyberattack of the exact same magnitude would most certainly have a much larger impact. The origin of the 2003 blackout was almost immediately disclosed as an atypical system failure having nothing to do with terrorism. This made the event both less threatening and likely a single

time occurrence. Had it been disclosed that the event was the result of an attack that could readily be repeated the impacts would likely have grown substantially, if not exponentially. Additionally, a cyberattack could also be used to disrupt our nation’s defenses or distract our national leaders in advance of a more traditional conventional or strategic attack. Many military leaders actually believe that such a disruptive cyber pre‐offensive is the most effective use of offensive cyber capabilities. This is, in fact, the way Russia utilized cyberattackers—whether government assets, governmentdirected/ coordinated assets, or allied cyber irregulars—in advance of the invasion of Georgia. Widespread distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks were launched on the Georgian governments IT systems. Roughly a day later Russian armor rolled into Georgian territory. The cyberattacks were used to prepare the battlefield; they denied the Georgian government a critical communications tool isolating it from its citizens and degrading its command and control capabilities precisely at the time of attack. In this way, these attacks were the functional equivalent of conventional air and/or missile strikes on a nation’s communications infrastructure.32 One interesting element of the Georgian cyberattacks has been generally overlooked: On July 20th, weeks before the August cyberattack, the website of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was overwhelmed by a more narrowly focused, but technologically similar DDOS attack.33 This should be particularly chilling to American national security experts as our systems undergo the same sorts of focused, probing attacks on a constant basis. The ability of an enemy to use a cyberattack to counter our offensive capabilities or soften our defenses for a wider offensive against the United States is much more than mere speculation. In fact, in Iraq it is already happening. Iraq insurgents are now using off‐the‐shelf software (costing just $26) to hack U.S. drones (costing $4.5 million each), allowing them to intercept the video feed from these drones.34 By hacking these drones the insurgents have succeeded in greatly reducing one of our most valuable sources of real‐time intelligence and situational awareness. If our enemies in Iraq are capable of such an effective cyberattack against one of our more sophisticated systems, consider what a more technologically advanced enemy could do. At the strategic level, in 2008, as the United States Central Command was leading wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a cyber intruder compromised the security of the Command and sat within its IT systems, monitoring everything the Command was doing. 35 This time the attacker simply gathered vast amounts of intelligence. However, it is clear that the attacker could have used this access to wage cyberwar—altering information, disrupting the flow of information, destroying information, taking down systems—against the United States forces already at war. Similarly, during 2003 as the United States prepared for and began the War in Iraq, the IT networks of the Department of Defense were hacked 294 times.36 By August of 2004, with America at war, these ongoing attacks compelled then‐Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to write in a memo that, "Recent exploits have reduced operational capabilities on our networks."37 This wasn’t the first time that our national security IT infrastructure was penetrated immediately in advance of a U.S. military option.38 In February of 1998 the Solar Sunrise attacks systematically compromised a series of Department of Defense networks. What is often overlooked is that these attacks occurred during the ramp up period ahead of potential military action against Iraq. The attackers were able to obtain vast amounts of sensitive information—information that would have certainly been of value to an enemy’s military leaders. There is no way to prove that these actions were purposefully launched with the specific intent to distract American military assets or degrade our capabilities. However, such ambiguities—the inability to specifically attribute actions and motives to actors—are the very nature of cyberspace. Perhaps, these repeated patterns of behavior were mere coincidence, or perhaps they weren’t. The potential that an enemy might use a cyberattack to soften physical defenses, increase the gravity of harms from kinetic attacks, or both, significantly increases the potential harms from a cyberattack. Consider the gravity of the threat and risk if an enemy, rightly or wrongly, believed that it could use a

cyberattack to degrade our strategic weapons capabilities. Such an enemy might be convinced that it could win a war —conventional or even nuclear—against the U nited States. The effect of this would be to undermine our deterrence ‐based defenses, making us significantly more at risk of a major war .

Failed States – Yes ConflictFailed States spur long-term conflictForeign Policy 5[Foreign Policy, No. 149, “The Failed States Index,” http://www.jstor.org/stable/30048042]

America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones." That was the conclusion of the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy. For a country whose foreign policy in the 20th century was dominated by the struggles against powerful states such as Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, the U.S. assessment is striking. Nor is the United States alone in diagnosing the problem. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned that " ignoring failed states creates problems that sometimes come back to bite us." French President Jacques Chirac has spoken of "the threat that failed states carry for the world's equilibrium ." World leaders once worried about who was amassing power; now they worry about the absence of it.

Massive riskBrooks, ’05 [Rosa, Law Professor at Georgetown University Law Center and served as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, University of Chicago Law Review, “Failed States, or the State as Failure?” Volume 72, Number 4: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495527]

State failure creates numerous challenges for the international system. Some challenges are humanitarian, as state failure generally is both fueled by and creates overwhelming human need. The poverty, disease, violence, and refugee flows accompanying state failures strain foreign aid budgets and philanthropic resources. Some challenges relate to international security: especially since 9/11, failed states have been recognized as breeding grounds for extremism and staging points for organized terrorist groups. In the absence of effective governmental control, both violence and illicit economic activity flourish, and both terrorist groups and the leaders of rogue states take ready advantage of the prevailing anarchy. Failed states also pose legal challenges: in an international order premised on state sovereignty and state consent, societies lacking functioning governments create a range of problems. They cannot enter into or abide by treaties; they cannot participate in the increasingly dense network of international trade, environmental, or human rights agreements and institutions; they cannot enforce contracts between their citizens and foreigners or protect settled property interests. For these reasons

and more, failed states have increasingly been viewed as a cause for concern by the international community, and a variety of international responses have been attempted and proposed.

Failed States – Prolif Add-OnIndependently, failed states cause terror and prolif – Comparatively o/wYoo, 10 [John, former official in the United States Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration, “Fixing Failed States” Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper Series, research paper, 2/13]

Failed states pose one of the deepest challenges to American national security and international peace and stability. They serve as an incubator for international terrorist groups , such as al Qaeda. Their lack of stable government authority allows them to become trans- shipment points for illicit drugs, human trafficking, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (“ WMD ”) technologies . In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, failed states have produced catastrophic human rights disasters. Since the end of World War II, far more lives have been lost due to internal wars —many of which occurred in failed states— than to international armed conflicts . Military intervention in response, often led by the United States and its allies, incurs high costs in terms of money, supplies, and lives. Finding a comprehensive and effective solution to the challenges of terrorism, human rights violations, or poverty and economic development requires some understanding of how to restore failed states.

Proliferation causes extinction.Taylor 2[Stuart, Senior Writer with the National Journal and editor at Newsweek, Legal Times, 9-16]

The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation, another five or 10 potentially unstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one or more bombs will be set off anonymously on our soil by terrorists or a terrorist government. Even an airtight missile defense would be useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. [Continues…] Unless we get serious about stopping proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states, where every crisis threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day , " and where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations." So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The only way to avoid such a grim future, he suggests in his memoir, Disarmament Sketches, is for the United States to lead an international coalition against proliferation by showing an unprecedented willingness to give up the vast majority of our own nuclear weapons, excepting only those necessary to deter nuclear attack by others.

Failed States – Internal Link MagnifierOil dependent economies have a high correlation with becoming failed states – Plan’s nuclear reverses thatForeign Policy 5[Foreign Policy, No. 149, “The Failed States Index,” http://www.jstor.org/stable/30048042]

The discovery of large oil and gas reserves has been a boon to many national economies, and countries often spend decades trying to strike it rich. But is black gold actually good for stable government? Political scientists have coined the term "petrostate" to describe a country that is dependent on income from oil and gas yet plagued by weak institutions, a poorly functioning public sector, and a gross disparity of power and wealth. Some experts have argued that large oil economies often stunt the development of stable, transparent institutions - a phenomenon that has been labeled the "resource curse." Jose Ramos-Horta, the foreign minister of East Timor, has openly worried that his small country might not be able to handle the temptations that will arise when it begins to exploit its offshore oil and gas fields with Australia's help. "While oil and gas revenues can be a blessing," Ramos-Horta has said, "we are conscious that our public administration, our Treasury, and other branches of government are very weak." The index suggests that many states with oil and gas are indeed vulnerable. Iraq, home to the world's second-largest oil reserves, is the fourth most vulnerable country, although the causes of its instability are manifold. Chad, which has negotiated a major oil pipeline deal with private companies and the World Bank, is the seventh most vulnerable. Oil-rich Venezuela, under the mercurial leadership of President Hugo Chavez, is 21st.

A2: Cartels Good – EconDrugs wreck Mexican economy and ROL Gray 10 (Colin, reporter for the Stanford Progressive, “The Hidden Cost of the War on Drugs,” May, http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=521) JRG

As a net effect, most experts would agree that the illicit drug trade adversely affects the Mexican economy. Cartels undermine the rule of law. Instability alienates current investors and deters potential investors or business-owners. Government revenues fall, as taxable commodities are replaced in the economy by illegal goods that are not taxed by the government. Tourism, one of Mexico’s most important exports, suffers: the U.S. military has officially discouraged travelers from vacationing in many parts of Mexico. Drug cartels often intervene in economies directly, further discouraging investment. According to the L.A. Times, the Zetas (the military arm of the Gulf Cartel) “have proved to be ruthless overlords. They have kidnapped businessmen, demanded protection money from merchants, taken over sales of pirated CDs and DVDs and muscled into the liquor trade by forcing restaurant and bar owners to buy from them.” Viridiana Rios of the Harvard Department of Government estimates that “the cost of violence is equivalent to 1.07 billion dollars, investment losses accounts for other 1.3 billion, drug abuse generates a loss of 0.68 billion dollars, and other costs may have an impact as high as 1.5 billion dollars.”

Rule of law prevents extinctionSadat 4 (Henry H. Oberschelp Professor of Law, “An American Vision for Global Justice” Sept 7, http://www.google.com/search?q=importance+of+supreme+court+legitimacy+poverty&num=20&hl=en&hs=277&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=20&sa=N)

Bringing the rule of law back into American thinking about foreign policy will take time. But it is inevitable. Without rules, human civilization cannot survive; without rules, there is no true freedom. Law is, of course, only one element of foreign policy, but it is a powerful one . By appealing to principle, we can better persuade. By acquiring legitimacy, our actions take on a new authority. By delivering justice, we win hearts and minds . From Thomas Jefferson to Warren Christopher, the tradition of the lawyer statesman persists. The challenge ahead is formidable – it is hard to live in a global age. But we can take comfort in the words of Jean Monnet, one of the most passionate advocates of a United States of Europe after the war, and one of the chief architects of the European Community – although I should, in all fairness, disclose that he was a cognac merchant, not a lawyer! Monnet was never discouraged in his efforts to create the European Economic Community, and he later wrote in his memoirs, “ Resistance is proportional to the scale of the change one seeks to bring about. It is even the surest sign that change is on the way. . . To abandon a project because it meets too many obstacles is often a grave mistake: the obstacles themselves provide the friction to make movement possible.”

CPs

A2: Drug Legalization (Federal)CP Can’t solve Cartel power and wrecks Latin American relationsBagley, 2-26 (Bruce, PhD. in Political Science from UCLA, “The evolution of drug trafficking and organized crime in Latin America”, Sociology, Problems and Practices http://spp.revues.org/1010#tocto1n6, DPatterson)

Some Latin American analysts anticipated that the possible passage of California’s Proposition 19 in November 2010, which sought to legalize the cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana in the state, would signal the beginning of the end of the US-led war on drugs and allow Mexico and other countries in the region to move away from the “prohibitionist” strategy that has generated so much drug-related violence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years. Many Latin American political leaders, however, openly oppose the legalization of marijuana in California and stridently argue against the legalization or decriminalization of harder drugs in the USA and around the globe. In the end, Proposition 19 was defeated at the polls by a 52% against versus almost 48% in favor among California voters. Undeterred, proponents of marijuana legalization in California are likely place another Prop-19 style initiative on the California ballot in November 2012 with the hope that a larger turn out among under 30 voters in a presidential year.Whether one did or does favor marijuana legalization in California and beyond, there are many reasons to be skeptical of the real impact of marijuana legalization on drug trafficking and organized crime in California or anywhere else. First, even if such an initiative is ultimately approved in some American states, there are likely to be US federal government challenges that could delay implementation of any such new state laws for years. Second, legalization of marijuana, if and when it ever occurs, will not address the issues — production, processing, trafficking and distribution — raised by criminal activity, violence and corruption spawned by traffic in harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines among other. Criminal gangs in Mexico and elsewhere in the hemisphere will most likely move away from marijuana to deeper involvement in the still-illegal drugs, organized crime and drug-related violence will continue. In the long run, as the 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policy report argues, some combination of legalization and/or decriminalization of illicit drugs along with serious harm reduction policies and programs worldwide may well offer the only realistic formula for reducing the illicit profits that drive drug-related crime, violence and corruption in Latin America and the Caribbean and around the globe, even if addiction rates go up as they did with the end of US alcohol prohibition in the 1930s (Global Comission on Drug Policy, 2011). But in the short- and medium-run, Latin American and Caribbean countries will have to address their own seriously flawed institutions: ending long-standing corrupt practices; undertaking police, judicial, prison, and other key institutional reforms; and insuring greater electoral accountability. Such measures are essential for their own future political stability, democratic consolidation and national security and cannot wait for global decriminalization or legalization to take place at some nebulous point in the future. Neither the legalization of marijuana nor the decriminalization of harder drugs, when and if they ever take place, will constitute panaceas for the resolution of the problems created by proliferating crime, corruption, and violence throughout the region, for they will not do away with the many other types of organized crime that operate with virtual impunity in Latin America and the Caribbean today.

US-Latin American Relations-specifically spills-over to global coop on warming- overcomes alt causesShifter ‘12 (Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)

Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations. Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American engagement. At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An end to the US policy of isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an important first step. Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions. Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent years it has become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of

global political, environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that context, south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a pivotal role.

Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges . This may position them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role to play. Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge. Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the hemisphere and could become increasingly influential in global discussions of drug strategies. Although the United States and Latin America are often at odds on drug policy, they have mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and collaboration on a new, more effective approach to the problem.

Prevents extinctionCummins ‘10 (Ronnie, International Director – Organic Consumers Association and Will Allen, Advisor – Organic Consumers Association, “Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century”, 2-14, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)

The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos , crop failures , endless wars , melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically

reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and

rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else survival for the present and

future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario,

billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas

emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no" Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."

Links to politicsOremus 12 (Will, Slate staff writer, “Not That Kind of Smoke-Filled Room Why doesn’t anyone in Washington take marijuana legalization seriously?” 2/1, Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/pot_legalization_why_doesn_t_anyone_in_washington_take_marijuana_policy_seriously_.single.html, DPatterson)

Potheads had high hopes for President Obama’s Google+ hangout on Monday. The Web superpower had invited citizens to submit questions for the president via YouTube, and it encouraged people to vote on the questions they’d like Obama to answer in a live video chat. The results: 18 of the 20 most popular questions were about marijuana policy. The top vote-getter came from retired LAPD officer Stephen Downing, who said he’s come to see the country’s drug policies as “a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources.” Pointing to a recent Gallup poll that showed, for the first time, a majority of Americans in support of marijuana legalization, he asked Obama, “What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you’ve delivered in your first term?” Nothing, as it turned out. The question wasn’t among those selected by Google. That’s a bummer for the weed lobby but par for the course in Washington, where legalization remains a nonstarter despite fast-growing public support. In 1969, 12 percent of Americans thought pot should be legal. That percentage grew to the mid-20s by the late 1970s, passed 30 percent in 2000, and hit 40 percent in 2009, according to Gallup. A surprising October poll showed support at 50 percent, with just 46 percent against. While voters have mellowed out, their representatives in Congress haven’t. A legalization bill was introduced in Congress last year for the first time, but few expect it to even come up for a vote. Its sponsors are Barney Frank and Ron Paul, legislators who have built their reputations by taking unpopular stands. Those with something to lose—like, say, an election—still won’t touch the issue. When Obama did field a marijuana question in a YouTube chat last year, he laughed at it. “I don’t know what this says about the online audience,” he chortled. Why won’t the president, or anyone else in Washington, take marijuana policy seriously? Pro-legalization types see it as a mere matter of time before the government catches up to the rest of the country. “The

conventional wisdom for decades has been that this is a dangerous issue,” activist Tom Angell told me. “Behind the scenes people will say, ‘I agree, you’re totally right, we need to change these laws, but I’m afraid to say so.’ For some reason it’s still perceived as a political third rail.” A primary reason for lawmakers’ reticence is that, for decades, the most visible advocates of looser weed laws have been, well, weed smokers—and what serious politician wants to be associated with a bunch of stoners, man? Earlier this decade, wealthy liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis (once busted for pot-smoking himself) recognized that problem and shifted the debate to medical marijuana, giving the movement a more sympathetic public face: an ailing grandmother rather than a dreadlocked coach potato. Several states have since passed medical marijuana laws, but they don’t address the bigger issue at play here. It’s recreational users, not glaucoma patients, whose money fuels the illicit drug trade that finances criminal gangs. That’s why Angell’s group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has taken a different approach. It enlists cops and ex-cops to testify to the societal impacts of the failed drug war, pushing decriminalization and legalization as prudent policy solutions. It’s an appeal to reason, not compassion. Downing, the former LAPD cop who asked the YouTube question, is a LEAP board member. The support his video got, from the public if not from Google, testifies to his message’s broad appeal. While the tactic seems to be working in some liberal states, it has yet to make pot legalization safe for lawmakers in Washington. Anti-drug leaders see that as evidence that Angell is wrong when he argues that it’s just a matter of time. Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas congressman who led the Drug Enforcement Administration under George W. Bush, told me he doesn’t see a big difference in how the debate is playing out in Washington today as compared to 10 years ago. That may be partly a function of congressional demographics and partly a matter of incentives. Even if 50 percent of the public supports legalization, a pro-pot bill will never pass the Senate if those people are concentrated on the coasts. There’s also the fact that potheads tend to be less likely to vote than senior citizens, who came of age in the pre-hippie era and have never inhaled. If legalization opponents are willing to back up their conviction at the ballot box, there’s a lot of risk and little reward for a congressman to assume the marijuana mantle

CP increases drug use – turns solvencyCorlett 13(J. Angelo, Professor and philosopher, “Taking Drugs Very Seriously”, February, http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/27/jmp.jht002.full)

Douglas Husak argues that in the end whether or not the legalization and decriminalization of the use of currently illegal drugs (in the United States) poses harms to others ought to be determined in part on grounds of social utility, though he states that his objection to drug prohibition laws is grounded in the idea that they violate users’ rights. I challenge this position, arguing that the harm-based approach ought to be grounded in a conception of rights, but primarily rights that are violated by drug users, rights the violations of which are not given their full due by Husak. Husak’s discussion of drugs is said to be naïve in that it underestimates the extent to which certain widely used drugs are addictive and ruin the lives of others (Hunt, 2003, 46). Drug use is very often economically damaging to others, damages that are not likely to be outweighed or matched by the economic savings of decriminalizing such drug use. Although Husak’s account is somewhat of a rights-based one, it is more indexed to the alleged rights of the drug user than it is to the rights of victims—actual or potential. My rights-based account also takes into account the rights of nonusers to not be wrongfully harmed by the drug-related actions, inactions, or attempted actions of drug users, recreational or not, without adequate compensation from the harmful wrongdoer to her victims. And this is true whether or not the wrongful harms experienced by others result from the actions, inactions, or attempted actions of users directly or indirectly. Of course, drug users, not unlike the rest of us, lack a valid claim to harm others wrongfully. The costs of such drug-related harms to others in terms of health care costs for injuries to users and nonusers alike, property damages, etc., cannot practically be assumed by the users because they are often too great to bear, and so drug use cannot be rightly tolerated in a society that takes compensatory justice seriously. Simply put, users cannot as a class of persons afford what they owe due to their drug use in terms of liability insurance, whether private or public by way of taxation of users. Similar arguments can be made against certain other lifestyles, and the arguments apply to some extent to those cases as well.

A2: Drug Legalization (Mexico)CP Can’t solve Cartel power and wrecks Latin American relationsBagley, 2-26 (Bruce, PhD. in Political Science from UCLA, “The evolution of drug trafficking and organized crime in Latin America”, Sociology, Problems and Practices http://spp.revues.org/1010#tocto1n6, DPatterson)

Some Latin American analysts anticipated that the possible passage of California’s Proposition 19 in November 2010, which sought to legalize the cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana in the state, would signal the beginning of the end of the US-led war on drugs and allow Mexico and other countries in the region to move away from the “prohibitionist” strategy that has generated so much drug-related violence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years. Many Latin American political leaders, however, openly oppose the legalization of marijuana in California and stridently argue against the legalization or decriminalization of harder drugs in the USA and around the globe. In the end, Proposition 19 was defeated at the polls by a 52% against versus almost 48% in favor among California voters. Undeterred, proponents of marijuana legalization in California are likely place another Prop-19 style initiative on the California ballot in November 2012 with the hope that a larger turn out among under 30 voters in a presidential year.Whether one did or does favor marijuana legalization in California and beyond, there are many reasons to be skeptical of the real impact of marijuana legalization on drug trafficking and organized crime in California or anywhere else. First, even if such an initiative is ultimately approved in some American states, there are likely to be US federal government challenges that could delay implementation of any such new state laws for years. Second, legalization of marijuana, if and when it ever occurs, will not address the issues — production, processing, trafficking and distribution — raised by criminal activity, violence and corruption spawned by traffic in harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines among other. Criminal gangs in Mexico and elsewhere in the hemisphere will most likely move away from marijuana to deeper involvement in the still-illegal drugs, organized crime and drug-related violence will continue. In the long run, as the 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policy report argues, some combination of legalization and/or decriminalization of illicit drugs along with serious harm reduction policies and programs worldwide may well offer the only realistic formula for reducing the illicit profits that drive drug-related crime, violence and corruption in Latin America and the Caribbean and around the globe, even if addiction rates go up as they did with the end of US alcohol prohibition in the 1930s (Global Comission on Drug Policy, 2011). But in the short- and medium-run, Latin American and Caribbean countries will have to address their own seriously flawed institutions: ending long-standing corrupt practices; undertaking police, judicial, prison, and other key institutional reforms; and insuring greater electoral accountability. Such measures are essential for their own future political stability, democratic consolidation and national security and cannot wait for global decriminalization or legalization to take place at some nebulous point in the future. Neither the legalization of marijuana nor the decriminalization of harder drugs, when and if they ever take place, will constitute panaceas for the resolution of the problems created by proliferating crime, corruption, and violence throughout the region, for they will not do away with the many other types of organized crime that operate with virtual impunity in Latin America and the Caribbean today.

Mexican public hates drug legalization – turns stability and Nieto confidenceArchibold 6-16 [Randal, syndicated foreign policy columnist, “In Americas, Resistance to Legal Marijuana,” New York Times, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/world/americas/in-americas-resistance-to-legal-marijuana.html?_r=0]

Whatever noisy hints Latin America has been making about a defiant march toward legalizing marijuana, the summit meeting of Western Hemisphere foreign ministers that ended Thursday revealed how rocky that path would be — and how many nations remained reluctant to join it. The meeting, the annual General Assembly session of the Organization of American States, followed a report by the organization that called for “flexible approaches” in drug policy and included a headline-grabbing suggestion that the legalization of marijuana be seriously discussed. Even before the report, Uruguay moved toward a state-regulated marijuana market. Guatemala has talked approvingly of the idea. And the president of Colombia has said marijuana should be legalized worldwide, though his country would not take the first step. So how quickly will pot shops open throughout the region? Not very. The frustration with current drug policy — with its high costs, death tolls in the tens of thousands across the Americas and persistent heavy flow of narcotics — is very real. Consensus on what to do about it, however, is much harder to come by. Diplomats here even tussled behind the scenes on how to follow up on the report and how further talks should be conducted. The focus on the crack in the door for legalization has obscured the fact that several countries in the thick of the problem, and not just the United States, are cool to the idea or reject it outright as any solution to the violence or as a way to control consumption. Brazil has opposed legalization of any drug, and its antidrug chief was fired two years ago after comments perceived as a softened stance on drug users. The head of Peru’s antidrug agency told reporters after the O.A.S. report came out that it rejected legalization and was already overwhelmed with trying to treat the growing number of drug consumers there. Mexico, too, has rejected wholesale legalization, even though former President Vicente Fox expressed his support this week for marijuana legalization and said he would even become a marijuana farmer. One of the more blunt antilegalization voices here came from Nicaragua. Denis Moncada, ambassador to the organization, told the gathering, “Replacing and weakening the public policies and strategies now in use to combat the hemispheric drug problem would end up creating dangerous voids and jeopardize the security and well-being of our citizens.” Public opinion

polls in the region, which trends conservative on social issues, generally show disapproval for the idea and, unlike the United States, few countries have an older generation that is comfortable with the drug and might advocate for it. “In the United States, public opinion leads politicians and not the other way around,” said John Walsh, a drug policy analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America who follows the region closely. “In Latin America, it is going to be a ways before that happens.” Still, he said, the drug report went further than expected by breaking a taboo of not even discussing legalization, though it rejected talk on liberalizing laws against more powerful drugs like cocaine. Over all, he said, the report could give countries leverage to challenge hardened American positions. The United States, despite the states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, has not budged on its position. Yet some Latin American leaders have said the move by those states undercuts the federal government’s argument for seizing and criminalizing the drug. Speaking here Wednesday on his first Latin America trip as chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry said he was open to dialogue but defended American policy. He called it comprehensive, balanced between reducing demand, which he said had decreased by 40 percent in recent years, and increasing treatment, yet not letting up on seizing drug loads and making arrests. He suggested that those pushing legalization were seeking a panacea. “These challenges simply defy any simple, one-shot, Band-Aid” approach, Mr. Kerry told the assembly. “Drug abuse destroys lives, tears at communities of all of our countries.” The United States was among the countries that agreed to keep up the dialogue but behind the scenes scoffed at another foreign-minister-level discussion on drugs, which is now planned for April of next year to provide further guidance on new strategies. The given reasons were the cost of another such meeting while the O.A.S. budget was under scrutiny and worries that politics intruded on such high-level discussions. But diplomats pushing for the meeting wondered if the United States was trying to squelch debate. “They talk about dialogue, so let’s keep having it,” said one involved in the discussions. If widespread legalization is not on the horizon, what is? Several countries, including big, drug-producing nations like Mexico and Peru, have already decriminalized possession or use of small amounts of illicit drugs. The United States has argued that it has effectively gone this route through the use of drug courts, which steer nonviolent drug offenders to treatment programs instead of prisons. In the end, analysts said countries would probably do what they had always done, go their own route in accordance with what their public, and domestic politics, demand. “No one thinks a new policy is going to be simple,” said Daniel Wilkinson, managing director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, which this week urged the decriminalization of drugs for private use. “But that serious debate looking for alternatives has to really happen.”

CP increases drug use – turns solvencyCorlett 13(J. Angelo, Professor and philosopher, “Taking Drugs Very Seriously”, February, http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/27/jmp.jht002.full)

Douglas Husak argues that in the end whether or not the legalization and decriminalization of the use of currently illegal drugs (in the United States) poses harms to others ought to be determined in part on grounds of social utility, though he states that his objection to drug prohibition laws is grounded in the idea that they violate users’ rights. I challenge this position, arguing that the harm-based approach ought to be grounded in a conception of rights, but primarily rights that are violated by drug users, rights the violations of which are not given their full due by Husak. Husak’s discussion of drugs is said to be naïve in that it underestimates the extent to which certain widely used drugs are addictive and ruin the lives of others (Hunt, 2003, 46). Drug use is very often economically damaging to others, damages that are not likely to be outweighed or matched by the economic savings of decriminalizing such drug use. Although Husak’s account is somewhat of a rights-based one, it is more indexed to the alleged rights of the drug user than it is to the rights of victims—actual or potential. My rights-based account also takes into account the rights of nonusers to not be wrongfully harmed by the drug-related actions, inactions, or attempted actions of drug users, recreational or not, without adequate compensation from the harmful wrongdoer to her victims. And this is true whether or not the wrongful harms experienced by others result from the actions, inactions, or attempted actions of users directly or indirectly. Of course, drug users, not unlike the rest of us, lack a valid claim to harm others wrongfully. The costs of such drug-related harms to others in terms of health care costs for injuries to users and nonusers alike, property damages, etc., cannot practically be assumed by the users because they are often too great to bear, and so drug use cannot be rightly tolerated in a society that takes compensatory justice seriously. Simply put, users cannot as a class of persons afford what they owe due to their drug use in terms of liability insurance, whether private or public by way of taxation of users. Similar arguments can be made against certain other lifestyles, and the arguments apply to some extent to those cases as well.

A2: Drug Legalization (States)CP Can’t solve Cartel power and wrecks Latin American relationsBagley, 2-26 (Bruce, PhD. in Political Science from UCLA, “The evolution of drug trafficking and organized crime in Latin America”, Sociology, Problems and Practices http://spp.revues.org/1010#tocto1n6, DPatterson)

Some Latin American analysts anticipated that the possible passage of California’s Proposition 19 in November 2010, which sought to legalize the cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana in the state, would signal the beginning of the end of the US-led war on drugs and allow Mexico and other countries in the region to move away from the “prohibitionist” strategy that has generated so much drug-related violence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years. Many Latin American political leaders, however, openly oppose the legalization of marijuana in California and stridently argue against the legalization or decriminalization of harder drugs in the USA and around the globe. In the end, Proposition 19 was defeated at the polls by a 52% against versus almost 48% in favor among California voters. Undeterred, proponents of marijuana legalization in California are likely place another Prop-19 style initiative on the California ballot in November 2012 with the hope that a larger turn out among under 30 voters in a presidential year.Whether one did or does favor marijuana legalization in California and beyond, there are many reasons to be skeptical of the real impact of marijuana legalization on drug trafficking and organized crime in California or anywhere else. First, even if such an initiative is ultimately approved in some American states, there are likely to be US federal government challenges that could delay implementation of any such new state laws for years. Second, legalization of marijuana, if and when it ever occurs, will not address the issues — production, processing, trafficking and distribution — raised by criminal activity, violence and corruption spawned by traffic in harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines among other. Criminal gangs in Mexico and elsewhere in the hemisphere will most likely move away from marijuana to deeper involvement in the still-illegal drugs, organized crime and drug-related violence will continue. In the long run, as the 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policy report argues, some combination of legalization and/or decriminalization of illicit drugs along with serious harm reduction policies and programs worldwide may well offer the only realistic formula for reducing the illicit profits that drive drug-related crime, violence and corruption in Latin America and the Caribbean and around the globe, even if addiction rates go up as they did with the end of US alcohol prohibition in the 1930s (Global Comission on Drug Policy, 2011). But in the short- and medium-run, Latin American and Caribbean countries will have to address their own seriously flawed institutions: ending long-standing corrupt practices; undertaking police, judicial, prison, and other key institutional reforms; and insuring greater electoral accountability. Such measures are essential for their own future political stability, democratic consolidation and national security and cannot wait for global decriminalization or legalization to take place at some nebulous point in the future. Neither the legalization of marijuana nor the decriminalization of harder drugs, when and if they ever take place, will constitute panaceas for the resolution of the problems created by proliferating crime, corruption, and violence throughout the region, for they will not do away with the many other types of organized crime that operate with virtual impunity in Latin America and the Caribbean today.

US-Latin American Relations-specifically spills-over to global coop on warming- overcomes alt causesShifter ‘12 (Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)

Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations. Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American engagement. At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An end to the US policy of isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an important first step. Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions. Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent years it has become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of

global political, environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that context, south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a pivotal role.

Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges . This may position them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role to play. Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge. Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the hemisphere and could become increasingly influential in global discussions of drug strategies. Although the United States and Latin America are often at odds on drug policy, they have mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and collaboration on a new, more effective approach to the problem.

Prevents extinctionCummins ‘10 (Ronnie, International Director – Organic Consumers Association and Will Allen, Advisor – Organic Consumers Association, “Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century”, 2-14, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)

The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos , crop failures , endless wars , melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically

reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and

rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else survival for the present and

future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario,

billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas

emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no" Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."

CP is struck down or links to politics Hagler 1-13 [Frank, esteemed columnist for Policy Mic, “The economist Marijuana Legalization: Obama Warns States to Abide by Federal Law on Marijuana”, http://www.policymic.com/articles/20299/marijuana-legalization-obama-warns-states-to-abide-by-federal-law-on-marijuana, DPatterson]

Not so fast Washington State potheads. Before you roll that blunt, light that doobie, and pass that joint, know that recreational marijuana possession and distribution is still a federal offense and the Obama administration wants you to know it. On November 6, Washington and Colorado became the first two states to legalize recreational usage of marijuana. The voter-sponsored legislation went into effect on December 6 in Washington. The popular voter-supported initiative has created a gap and a conflict in state and federal law enforcement. A multi-federal-agency taskforce, including the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency, has been contemplating how to respond to the gap created by the voter initiative. The marijuana initiative places the federal government at odds with a large portion of President Obama’s base, who support decriminalization of drugs and the legalization of marijuana. It also provides a wedge issue for Obama’s opposition, including Libertarians who support the decriminalization of drugs but vehemently oppose everything about Obama. Although republicans are not overwhelmingly in support of the legalization of marijuana, they do support state’s rights. Any attempt by the Obama administration to interfere in matters of state creates an opportunity for Republicans and Libertarians to lament the overreach of the federal government into state and local law. Jon Caldara, president of the Denver-based Independence Institute wrote, “This is a massive opportunity for those of us who fear the growing central authority in D.C.” Watchdog.orgs’s Steve Greenhut noted, The best news isn’t that pot will be legal in two states, but that the legalization victories could point the way to a broader, pro-freedom movement.” If Obama doesn’t instruct local law enforcement to uphold the federal law, then that creates an opportunity for Obama opponents to once again suggest that he is an “imperial president” ignoring his constitutional duties to enforce the law. Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the

University of Texas at Austin, told the New York Times, “It’s a sticky wicket for Obama.” Federal law prohibits growing, selling, or possessing any amount of marijuana. Law enforcement officials have acknowledged concerns that the state marijuana laws may set a precedent of flouting federal law. The United States Attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan, issued a strong admonition to Washington marijuana users: the “department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.” The federal government is also contemplating bring legal action against the states if they try to implement “systems to regulate and tax marijuana.” NORML.org reports that “congressional lawmakers have introduced legislation to halt federal interference in state marijuana laws.” The bipartisan House Bill 6606, The Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act of 2012 “seeks to amend the U.S. Controlled Substances Act to provide that federal law shall not preempt state marijuana laws.” U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said, “The federal government’s failure to develop a reasonable approach towards the varying state marijuana use laws has made this legislation necessary.” No timetable has been set to resolve the matter between the states and the federal government. Until now, the Obama administration had instructed federal officials to use their limited resources to focus on large trafficking organizations, largely ignoring the small-time recreational user. This had the unintended consequence of increasing federal raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries. However, the Department of Justice has signaled to the states that they will continue the raids. The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice sent letters to governors encouraging them to “revise or back away from plans to make the medical marijuana industry more mainstream.” For now, the residents of Washington should heed the advice of Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, “don’t break out the Cheetos or Gold Fish too

CP increases drug use – turns solvencyCorlett 13(J. Angelo, Professor and philosopher, “Taking Drugs Very Seriously”, February, http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/27/jmp.jht002.full)

Douglas Husak argues that in the end whether or not the legalization and decriminalization of the use of currently illegal drugs (in the United States) poses harms to others ought to be determined in part on grounds of social utility, though he states that his objection to drug prohibition laws is grounded in the idea that they violate users’ rights. I challenge this position, arguing that the harm-based approach ought to be grounded in a conception of rights, but primarily rights that are violated by drug users, rights the violations of which are not given their full due by Husak. Husak’s discussion of drugs is said to be naïve in that it underestimates the extent to which certain widely used drugs are addictive and ruin the lives of others (Hunt, 2003, 46). Drug use is very often economically damaging to others, damages that are not likely to be outweighed or matched by the economic savings of decriminalizing such drug use. Although Husak’s account is somewhat of a rights-based one, it is more indexed to the alleged rights of the drug user than it is to the rights of victims—actual or potential. My rights-based account also takes into account the rights of nonusers to not be wrongfully harmed by the drug-related actions, inactions, or attempted actions of drug users, recreational or not, without adequate compensation from the harmful wrongdoer to her victims. And this is true whether or not the wrongful harms experienced by others result from the actions, inactions, or attempted actions of users directly or indirectly. Of course, drug users, not unlike the rest of us, lack a valid claim to harm others wrongfully. The costs of such drug-related harms to others in terms of health care costs for injuries to users and nonusers alike, property damages, etc., cannot practically be assumed by the users because they are often too great to bear, and so drug use cannot be rightly tolerated in a society that takes compensatory justice seriously. Simply put, users cannot as a class of persons afford what they owe due to their drug use in terms of liability insurance, whether private or public by way of taxation of users. Similar arguments can be made against certain other lifestyles, and the arguments apply to some extent to those cases as well.

Solvency

Say Yes

GeneralUS and Mexico willing to cooperate in energy reformSeelke, ’12 [Clare, specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies (UT-A), “Mexico’s 2012 Elections,” CRS, 9/4, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42548.pdf]

On April 2, 2012, President Obama invited President Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Harper to the White House for another North American Leaders’ Summit. After the meeting, the leaders issued a joint statement renewing their commitment to North American cooperation in key areas. Those areas included: harmonizing regulations, improving efficiency along the borders, protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights (IPR); enhancing energy cooperation, including electricity interconnection; and expanding security cooperation to support efforts in Central America. This presidential summit was followed by the fourth meeting of the Mérida High-Level Group held on September 18, 2012, after which “both governments said that they have a common interest in continuing “to build on and institutionalize the cooperation the Merida Initiative has established.”53 Few analysts are predicting any major shifts in current bilateral efforts or new bilateral initiatives until after the new Mexican and U.S. Administrations take office. The approach that the incoming Peña Nieto government takes toward the United States may be impacted by whomever wins the upcoming U.S. presidential elections, but strong bilateral cooperation is expected to continue regardless of whom is elected. President-elect Peña Nieto has said that he is committed to “having an intense, close relationship of effective [security] collaboration measured by results”54 with the United States. He has also expressed support for increased bilateral and trilateral (with Canada) economic and energy cooperation.

Nieto SpecificEnergy reform is at the top of Nieto’s agendaMiroff 5-7 [Nick, bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American literature at University of California Santa Cruz, “To power Mexico forward, Peña Nieto looks to energy reform,” 2013, Climate Justice, http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2013/05/to-power-mexico-forward-pena-nieto-looks-to-energy-reform/]

For Peña Nieto, who began his six-year term in December, opening up the energy industry is the most ambitious task on a hefty to-do list that includes fixing the education system, telecommunications and tax collection, areas viewed as major hurdles to Mexico’s development into a more modern, democratic, middle-class society. Peña Nieto has placed a confidant, Emilio Lozoya, at the head of Pemex, even though the 38-year-old former investment fund manager had never run an oil business. And the president insists that the goal is the “modernization” of the company, not its privatization, as opponents allege. “This is about a practical reform that will allow for the introduction of new technology, which we lack, and accelerate the growth of our energy resources in order to lower electricity costs for Mexican families and businesses and give us a more dynamic energy industry,” Peña Nieto said in a speech to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Oil Expropriation Day.

And energy infrastructure coming tooSeelke, ’12 [Clare, specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies (UT-A), “Mexico’s 2012 Elections,” CRS, 9/4, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42548.pdf]

President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto has stressed the importance of passing structural reforms to make the Mexican economy more competitive. Peña Nieto acknowledges that the PAN has maintained macroeconomic stability, but has criticized the past two administrations for failing to spur economic growth rates comparable to those of other developing countries in Asia and Latin America. He has identified several reasons why Mexico’s economic growth has lagged: low productivity, insufficient access to credit, deficient investment in infrastructure, monopolies, a large and expanding informal sector, and a continued over-reliance on the U.S. market. To counter these problems, Peña Nieto advocates a 10-point economic plan that includes, among other measures, implementing recently passed legislation to counter monopolistic practices, passing fiscal reform, opening up the oil sector to private investment, making farmers more productive, and doubling infrastructure investments.

Nieto on board – PPP law provesHanono, 12 [Bram, columnist and an associate in the Business Trial and Labor and Employment Practice Groups, “Mexico Continues to Entice Private Investment in Infrastructure With a New Public-Private Partnership Act”, “ 4/10, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ffi.org/resource/resmgr/practitioner/practitioner_july_25_sheppar.pdf]

On January 16, 2012, Mexico enacted the Law on Public-Private Partnerships (Ley de Asociaciones Público Privadas) ("PPP Law"). The new PPP Law is intended to regulate the formation of partnerships between the public and private sectors in an effort to provide services and build infrastructure to improve social welfare and increase investment levels in Mexico. Since assuming office in 2006, President Felipe Calderon has aggressively lobbied for increased investment in infrastructure in Mexico. In 2007, President Calderon launched the National Infrastructure Program ("NIP") to increase the competitiveness of Mexico's infrastructure. For President Calderon, investing in infrastructure is the way to economic and social development. In November 2009, President Calderon proposed the PPP Law as a compliment to NIP. It took two years for the Mexican Congress to approve the law. We reported on NIP and President Calderon's proposal for the PPL Law here. The PPP Law implements a framework for public-private partnerships to allow better cooperation between the Mexican government and the private sector regarding the construction of infrastructure. The PPP Law is limited to new projects and implementation of its methods are optional. However, it cannot be applied to certain projects and activities reserved for the government, such as the oil industry. Under the PPP Law, the private sector is permitted to submit its own proposals to relevant government agencies, either when opportunities are identified by the private sector or in response to a government agency's identification of the types of proposals it is willing to receive. The proposed project may not be awarded directly to the proposing party without undergoing customary tender procedures. However, in order to generate interest in the private sector, when a proposal leads to a tender offer, the promoter is reimbursed for the costs of project feasibility studies and is afforded a premium of up to 10 percent in the evaluation of the offer. The PPP Law allows the government to enter into contracts with a private company for up to 40 years. In order for a private company to enter into a public-private partnership agreement, its sole corporate purpose must be to carry out the activities necessary to fulfill the agreement and develop the corresponding infrastructure project. The PPP Law provides more legal certainty for private investors. It

contemplates equal distribution of risk, access to financing, step-in rights of the government agency involved, the circumstances under which an agreement may be amended, and contractual penalties and sanctions in the case of default by one of the parties to the public-private agreement. Finally, under the PPP Law it is foreseen that disputes concerning a public-private agreement, as well as the permits and approvals necessary for the development of the project, will be resolved by arbitration. With the implementation of the PPP Law, President Calderon anticipates that Mexico will be able to increase development of its infrastructure by enticing private investment with improved legal protections. The PPP Law is intended to address the need for schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure projects which will be developed with better quality and in areas that the government has been unable to fulfill.

US Key

FrontlineUS Key – shared fate and heritageFPRI 11 (Foreign Policy Research Institute, non-profit think tank, “Toward A U.S.-Mexico Security Strategy: The Geopolitics of Northern Mexico and Implications for U.S. Policy,” February, https://www.fpri.org/docs/Toward_a_US_Mexico_Security_Strategy_Danelo.pdf, Vuthy)

If military assistance and institution building are insufficient, what else is left? The answer is to develop an overt legal and diplomatic framework for security cooperation along the U.S.-Mexico border. In the past 60 years, the United States and Mexico have designed supranational treaties that strengthen both sides of the border. The U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty in 1944, the La Paz Agreement, in 1983 and the NAFTA Free Trade Zone in 1994 created cross-border corridors, established bi-national authorities, and provided geographic structure to partnerships. These treaties have been imperfect, but they have succeeded in unifying policy efforts at local, state and federal levels. An appropriate legal framework for permanent border cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican security forces does not exist. The forum for crafting such an agreement should be the International Boundary and Water Commission, a bi-national organization responsible to the State Department for delineating the border. Advised by commission representatives, U.S. and Mexican defense officials could demarcate a series of joint operating regions ten miles from any city. Peacekeepers would function both as a deterrent and a humanitarian presence. Using military forces in a limited capacity frees more officers and Border Patrol agents to walk beats. Police and policia can partner in the cities, while soldiers and soldados jointly guard the badlands. As Latin America scholar George Grayson says, “One would be too enlightened to think that there is a hard and fast solution to the problems in Mexico right now.” However, measures must be taken to ensure that the current problems in Mexico do not lead to more drastic repercussions that neglecting to take any action would bring. With the help of the United States , Mexico must target the driving force behind its current aspects of non-statehood: money. By targeting the source of money for the cartels, Mexico will jeopardize the existence of private armies, private wealth, longevity of non-state authority, and the illegitimate channels of power and reduce the amount of illegitimate wealth. The lucrative drug industry remains profitable because of the strength of the market. However, this strength can be contested by increasing searches and seizures along the ports of entry into the United States. The U.S. and Mexico could divide up the searches of the thousands of vehicles that pass through these ports daily. With this plan of action, two main variables emerge: trust that the respective border patrol agents are doing their jobs free of corruption and the amount of money that would be needed to enact such a policy. Increasing the salary of border agents so that they cannot be bribed into corruption can create trust. At all costs, the United States should not unilaterally deploy soldiers to the border; Mexico City would justifiably protest such a move as a threat to Mexican sovereignty. A mutual resolution, as described above, emphasizes shared responsibility, particularly in the Sierra Madres and Rio Grande Basin. Historically, the United States and Mexico have cooperated in these regions. By establishing joint federal authority in the desert and mountains, the 23 Foreign Policy Research Institute United States and Mexico could address smuggling both north and south. A border deployment also gives Mexican soldiers a clearer mission than a vague mandate to “beat the cartels” – a goal that, despite their patriotism and valor, is not being achieved. The goal of U.S. policy should be partnership with Mexico that seeks not only to build institutions, but also to restore security to the Sierra Madres and Rio Grande Basin. Achieving this objective will require trust and resources from both countries, something often easier said than done. “Most Mexicans are aware, North Americans less so, that fate has placed both nations upon the same continent,” wrote historian T. R. Fehrenbach. “The people of the United States like to believe that political will and good intentions can solve most human dilemmas. They often find it hard to understand Mexicans, who know better. Yet both heritages are vital parts of the American whole, and together they will forge its future.”18 The United States and Mexico must hang together, or the instability of their common frontier will eventually hang them separately.

Also because geography, cultural ties and interdependenceCFR 08 (Council on Foreign Relations, is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, “200 Years of U.S.-Mexico Relations: Challenges for the 21st Century Symposium Rapporteur’s Report,” July 13, http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/Mexico200_SymposiumRapp_010310.pdf, Vuthy)

Mexico is one of the United States’ most important foreign policy relationships. No other nation directly affects U.S. stability, security, and prosperity across so many dimensions. Mexico increasingly influences (and is influenced by) U.S. domestic policy-no other country is as intertwined with the U.S. economy, environment, culture, and society. Although bilateral relations have always been significant to both nations due to the shared 2,000-mile border, the deepening of business, personal, cultural, and community relations over the last two decades have drawn the United States and Mexico closer. Yet on the tenth anniversary of its democracy, Mexico is facing one of the most challenging times in its modern history. Rising insecurity has revealed the weakness of the country’s police and court systems, and rule of law. As it emerges from a deep recession brought on by close dependence on the U.S. economy, Mexico continues to struggle with low levels of productivity, unequal education, and a lack of public spending on infrastructure, hampering higher economic growth levels necessary to widely improve the standard of living for its citizens. At a symposium convened by the Latin America

Studies program at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “200 Years of U.S.-Mexico Relations: Challenges for the 21st Century,” policymakers, academics, and journalists discussed the opportunities and complex challenges facing Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico partnership, and how U.S. policy might help Mexico follow a path of stability and prosperity. They reflected on the array of issues on the bilateral agenda–including security, the border, political and economic development, and immigration, and the constraints to and prospects for future cooperation. And, during two sessions dedicated to security and economic cooperation, they took a close look at the two facets of the bilateral relationship that will determine whether Mexico follows a path of stability or prosperity, or whether it is consumed by its challenges. The stakes for the United States are undeniably high, as its future, too, depends on Mexico's path. Session One: U.S.-Mexico Relations Today During the first session, U.S. ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual and Mexican ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhán discussed key elements of the U.S.-Mexican bilateral relationship, focusing on the destabilizing effects of narco-violence, economic ties, immigration reform, and, following on the heels of the U.S. midterm elections, the implications of a Republican Congress for the relationship. In a discussion moderated by PBS NewsHour senior correspondent Ray Suarez, both ambassadors stressed the importance of the relationship and the need to turn common challenges into shared opportunities. The ambassadors started out by emphasizing the need to transform the way the bilateral relationship figures in the public debate in the United States. Pascual urged that the perception that the United States is “helping Mexico with their security” be changed, in recognition of the benefits that the partnership brings to both sides. With Mexico the United States’ second largest trading partner and, through its highly integrated production supply chain, the United States depends on Mexico to remain competitive in the global economy. To this end, Sarukhán argued that what “has to be told very clearly to citizens on both sides of the border is that we will succeed or fail together.” To succeed together, they underscored the importance of strengthening the partnership, highlighting the need for the new Congress to understand “that Mexico is a partner and not a problem,” whether on the issue of security, the economy, or immigration.

And geography, mutual interest and cultural alignmentsBurke and Marckwardt ’13 (Crispin and Albert, Majors at U.S. Army North working on Security Cooperation with Mexico, “The Revenge of Geography: Why Mexico Matters,” May 17, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-revenge-of-geography-why-mexico-matters, Vuthy)

Mutual interests and 2,000 miles of shared border mean Mexico’s problems are our problems as well. As Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, IV, who leads the U.S. Army’s outreach program with the Mexican Army, recently wrote, “[S]imply put, Mexico matters to the United States.” Although Kaplan dedicates only one chapter to the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, this chapter is perhaps the most important of his book. With a population of over 114 million—a figure which has doubled over the past twenty years—our southern neighbor is the 11th most populous nation in the world. According to the World Bank, Mexico’s gross domestic product at purchasing power parity exceeded $1.7 trillion in 2011, making it the 11th largest economy in the world as well. In fact, Mexico has become the U.S.’ third largest trading partner—only slightly behind China—with more than one billion dollars’ worth of goods crossing our border each day. Mexico also exerts a very powerful cultural influence within the United States: 30 million Americans are of Mexican descent and over one million Americans reside in Mexico. In contrast, Canada—one of America’s closest NATO allies—has a GDP roughly three-quarters that of Mexico and a population less than one-third as well. Highlighting this growing economic and cultural exchange, Kaplan argues the United States must partner with Mexico during the 21st century as closely as it did with Canada during the 20th. Although most Americans consider Mexico distinct from the United States, geography is once again working to bring our nations together. Mexico’s divisive geography essentially separates its northern border states from their capital in Mexico City, as well as from the rest of the country. As a result, Kaplan describes, many northern Mexicans have their own identity, calling themselves norteño, and seeing themselves distinct from residents in Mexico City. But just as geography separates the norteños from the rest of Mexico, it pushes norteños closer to the U.S. Many portions of the U.S.-Mexican border were the result of land treaties and purchases, with little thought to ethnography or geography. In fact, much of the American southwest was Mexican territory until the mid-19th century. As with many regions in which borders run through distinct ethnic and geographical boundaries, we find that Mexico’s norteños culturally align themselves with the United States. To reinforce this notion, Kaplan interviews a U.S. Customs official, who during extensive travel through Mexico’s northern border region had yet to meet a single Mexican with more than one degree of separation from the United States. As the United States and Mexico become closer partners, Mexico’s problems will undoubtedly become our problems as well, and vice versa. While the United States has been fixated on the Middle East, it has lost sight of a dangerous situation emerging right on its very border: the ever-mounting death toll in the battle between the Mexican government and drug cartels. This battle is fueled in no small part by high demand for illicit drugs in the United States. Ciudad Juarez, located directly across the border from El Paso, Texas, has the grim distinction of perhaps being the most violent city in the world. Revenge describes the historical effects of economic equilibriums between neighboring states that lack a major geographic separation. Historically speaking, borders between a highly developed society and a less developed one will cause the former to regress towards the latter. Therefore, it is clear our future relations must focus on collaborating to tackle these issues and work to bridge our economic, cultural, moral, political, and military inequalities. Security cooperation, in particular, is not unprecedented between our nations—the U.S. and Mexico worked closely to combat banditry for nearly two centuries. Both the U.S. and Mexico have undergone a major resurgence in military-to-military relationships, including extensive engagements between senior military officials. To put these efforts in perspective, in fiscal year 2009, U.S. Army North—the U.S. military’s lead agency for military-to-military relations with Mexico—participated in just three partnered training exercises with its counterparts in Mexico’s Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA). By fiscal year 2012, that number had grown to nearly 100. Though Kaplan’s vision of the U.S. in 2050—a “Polynesian-

cum-mestizo civilization” (or more simply, a super-state consisting of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico) is a little far-fetched, few can deny the important role Mexico will play in the 21st century. As the United States pivots to the east, writes Dr. Robert Bunker in a paper published by the U.S. Army War College, it must also “Half-Pivot” to the south. And so geography—the physical reality of the terrain—will continue to drive communication, competition, and perhaps even conflict. Over a decade of warfighting in nations which bear the legacy of arbitrarily drawn borders has shown that the seas, steppes, and mountain ranges will continue to play just as large a role in the Information Age as they did in the era of Alexander.

Transboundary Aquifers Transboundary acquifers means US cooperation is key. Alexander Sam Fernald, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, 2012, “New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2011”, http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/AnnualReports/2011/FY2011_NM_Annual_Report.pdf mac

Rapid population growth in the United States-Mexico border region over the last decade has placed major strains on limited water supplies in the region. Rapid growth rates are expected to continue for at least several more decades. Water quantity and quality issues are likely to be the determining and limiting factors affecting future economic development, population growth, and human health in the border region. Increasing use of groundwater resources in the border region by municipal and other water users has raised serious questions concerning the long-term availability of the water supply. Cooperation between the United States and Mexico in assessing and understanding transboundary aquifers is necessary for the successful management of shared groundwater resources by state and local authorities in the United States and appropriate authorities in Mexico, including management that avoids conflict between the United States and Mexico. While there have been some studies of binational groundwater resources along the United States-Mexico border, additional data and analyses are needed to develop an accurate understanding of the long-term availability of useable water supplies from transboundary aquifers.

2ac Stuff General

Topicality

Technical Cooperation is TTechnical cooperation is economic engagementCDKN No Date (Climate & Development Knowledge Network, “Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa”, http://cdkn.org/resource/brazils-economic-engagement-with-africa/, No Date)

Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa. Africa offers Brazil an opportunity to expand its bilateral

technical cooperation and to revolutionise renewable energy production – in particular biofuels, where it has assumed a global leadership. Given Brazil’s technical expertise in a range of areas relevant to Africa’s development needs (e.g. agricultural research, social protection, anti-retroviral treatment), it can play an important role in contributing to the continent’s socioeconomic development. This paper explores both the current nature and possible future orientations of Brazil’s economic, commercial and financial relationships with the African countries. The focus of the paper is to assess the volume and trend of trade commodities between Brazil and African countries; to determine the nature of Brazilian investments in Africa; and to scope the benefits of Brazil’s technical cooperation.

Generic DA

N/U – US/Mexico STEM cooperation now

N/U – US and Mexico cooperate on science now. Owen, 2013 (Sian Claire Owen, is a Social Media Editor at Geopolitical Information Service AG Social Media Editor at Geopolitical Information Service AG Online Marketting at Decision Simulation LLC Web Publishing Consultant at University of Warwick Production Editor at Health Outcomes Communicator Newsletter Web Editor, Project Dissemination Officer at eViP Electronic Virtual Patients Website Freelance feature writer at Various women's lifestyle titles and websites Online Production Assistant at University of Warwick Communications Office Freelance Online Communities Assistant (moderator) at Hearst Digital Senior Editorial Project Manager (Online) at Current Medicine Group LtdWorld review, May 17 2013, an independent third-party content provider, “US to help Mexico Upgrade its Sci-Tech industry”, World Review)

Mexico is set to kick-start its sci-tech industry, with help from the US. A joint initiative - the Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research - will offer greater educational and economic opportunities to both countries, writes economist and World Review author Dr Jorge Balan.¶ 'Both US President Barack Obama and Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto want to move away from the contentious topic of drugs, security and immigration, and pay greater attention to issues central to their concerns,' he says.¶ Since he was elected in 2012, President Nieto has aimed to drive technology and industrial learning to reposition the Mexican economy within global markets.¶ 'This move requires a skilled workforce and a stronger research capacity linked to industry,' says Dr Balan. 'Mexico needs more and better engineers, computer scientists, and administrators. It needs to invest more in basic research.'¶ President Obama plans to take a new direction in the federal agendas for higher education and research in the US. His administration has announced moves to tackle shortfalls in science education by supporting strategic research and setting a goal of producing one million university graduates in the sciences over the next decade.¶ 'The bilateral effort will focus on exchanges in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and the partner organisations for the Forum are the science and technology agencies rather than education authorities,' he adds.¶ 'The coming years will be a test of the political capacity to move forward an agenda where previous administrations failed. The future of Mexico's positioning within the global economy depends on it.'

N/U – US/Mexico cooperation on Energy

Empirically, Mexico and US cooperate on energy issues. Lynch 02 Sec Police Office II (Off) BWXT Pantex Privately Held; 1001-5000 employees; Defense & Space industry March 2004 – Present (9 years 4 months) SPO II Offensive Dept of Energy Rocky Flats Environmental Services industry August 1990 – March 2004 (13 years 8 months) Golden, Colorado http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/mexico/LatinAmericanPowerGuide.shtml (an energy overview of Mexico) Matt HollandeMexico has a unified electric grid that serves 97% of the population. Mexico's energy grid can be divided into four sections: Northern, North Baja, South Baja, and Southern. The Northern section of the grid is connected to the U.S. at the Eagle Pass, Texas – Piedras, Mexico border . The connection uses an asynchronous technique that handles the problem of differences in current between Mexico and the U nited S tates. Other trans-border lines are scheduled, including one from a power station outside Phoenix, Arizona to Sonora, Mexico. Another is being planned between Tucson, Arizona, and northern Mexico. The national electric grid, operated by CFE, maintains over 20,000 miles of transmission lines (400, 230, 161, and 150 kilovolt) and over 336,442 miles of sub-transmission and distribution lines (138, 115, 85, 69, 44, 34.5, 23, 13.8, and 6.6 kilovolt). Mexico uses three-phase current (60 cycle), 127 volts for residential and commercial use, and 220 volts for industrial applications. The interconnected system is adequate for Mexico's present needs, but requires significant investment to eliminate losses and enable expansion. CFE has initiated a program to make needed improvements to the national electric grid. A consortium of ABB, Spain's Isolux, and Mexico's Techint won a $250 million contract to improve electrical transmission in Mexico, especially in Tamaulipas and San Luis Potosí estados in northeast Mexico. ABB received $80 million to build a 750-kilometer (466-mile) high voltage power transmission system under this contract. The overall scope of the project includes five power lines with related equipment and four substations linked using fiber optics to control the equipment. Completion is scheduled before the end of 2002. A proposed $400 million transmission project that would run from the Public Service Company of New Mexico's Palo Verde nuclear plant in Phoenix, Arizona, into Mexico is awaiting US Department of Energy approval,

N/U – Mexico SpendingMexican infrastructure spending inevitableCase ’12 (Brendan Case, Bloomberg, “ICA CEO Sees Mexico Infrastructure Spending Rising by 56%”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/ica-ceo-sees-mexico-infrastructure-spending-rising-by-56-.html, September 17, 2012)

Annual infrastructure spending in Mexico could climb as much as 56 percent to $70 billion in the coming years as the country plows more money into roads, ports, water projects, and oil and gas, said Alonso Quintana , chief executive officer of Empresas ICA SAB. (ICA*) Economic growth and financial stability could help Mexico boost infrastructure investment by as much as two percentage points of gross domestic product, from the current level of $45 billion to $50 billion a year, Quintana said today in an interview after participating in a Bloomberg CEO Roundtable in Mexico City. “We’ve been in the range of about 4.5 to 5 percent of GDP these past years, it’s been quite good actually,” Quintana said. “I think we can go to $70 billion a year of investment in infrastructure .” Expectations of heightened spending on construction have fueled a 43 percent gain in ICA’s stock price this year through Sept. 14, the sixth-largest gain in the IPC index of 35 Mexican stocks. ICA, the nation’s largest construction company, has benefited from speculation that President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto, who takes office Dec. 1, will boost investment in infrastructure projects.

Politics

Plan UnpopNuclear energy controversial in congress – empirics prove. ***card means either links to p-tixs or to Iran prolif***Mark Holt 4/29/13 (Specialist in Energy Policy, Oracle Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Inc., Unbelievable Productions, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo, “Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42853.pdf)The long-running policy debate over the future of nuclear energy is rooted in the technology’s inherent characteristics. Initially developed for its unprecedented destructive power during World War II, nuclear energy seemed to hold equal promise after the war as a way of providing limitless energy to all mankind. International diplomacy has focused ever since on finding institutional mechanisms for spreading the perceived benefits of nuclear energy throughout the world while preventing the technology from being used for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Much of this international effort is focused on key nuclear fuel cycle facilities—plants for enriching uranium in the fissile isotope U-235 and for separating plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. Such plants can be used to produce civilian nuclear reactor fuel as well as fissile material for nuclear warheads. Yet even the use of nuclear power solely for peaceful energy production has proven intrinsically controversial. The harnessing of nuclear fission in a reactor creates highly radioactive materials that must be kept from overheating and escaping from the reactor building, as occurred during the disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Spent nuclear fuel that is regularly removed from reactors during refueling must be isolated from the environment for up to a million years. Potential technologies to reduce nuclear waste through recycling usually involve separating plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons and would still leave substantial amounts of radioactive waste to be stored and disposed of. Long-term storage and disposal sites for nuclear waste have proven difficult to develop throughout the world, as illustrated by the Obama Administration’s cancellation of the proposed U.S. waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV

Giving Nuclear Supplies UnpopularYusuf 11/08 (Moeed, PhD student and Teaching Fellow at Boston University’s Political Science Department and a Research Fellow at the Boston University Pardee Center. He is also a Research Fellow at Strategic and Economic Policy Research, “Does Nuclear Energy Have a Future”, Boston University, http://www.bu.edu/pardee/files/documents/Pardee-Nuclear-Yusuf.pdf)

Nuclear power’s preferential position with regard to energy security explains why countries like China and India are adamant about following this path despite the source’s lack of competitiveness, the heavy resource burden it will end up laying on states, and its excessive safety and security concerns. That said, the mere pursuit of energy security will not eliminate these impediments. For one, safety and proliferation concerns may well lead to deliberate tightening of uranium supplies some time in the future. Already, there are concerns about supplying uranium to non-NPT members like Pakistan and India. Although for now, India has managed to conclude bilateral deals for civil nuclear energy cooperation with the U.S., France, and Russia, these arrangements have been highly unpopular and had to face legal and moral hurdles.132 Pakistan’s requests for the same have been persistently denied.133Admittedly, while ‘likable’ countries may still find means to acquire necessary fuel, the process will become increasingly unpredictable as nuclear power expands. The advantage of natural abundance of uranium would thus be artificially neutralized. To be sure, nuclear proponents could point to the fact that availability of uranium can be increased immensely by employing ‘fast reactor’ reprocessing technology. Indeed, if the entire nuclear industry were to use fast reactors instead of the currently prevalent once-through fuel

cycles, the presently extractable uranium can be made to last 3,000 years.134However, this view ignores the economic imperatives that would make such a move untenable. Recent estimates suggest that reprocessing raises costs of electricity production by a factor of 2.42.

Plan PopularMomentum gaining for having nuclear power being built in other countries by the US – support is strong across both genders and all parts of the political spectrumNuclear Energy Institute 2-19-13 (Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization for the nuclear technologies industry with well-qualified reporters, writers, and participates in global policy-making, “New Poll Shows American Support for Nuclear Energy, New Facilities Remains Solid”, Nuclear Energy Institute, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/New-Poll-Shows-American-Support-for-Nuclear-Energy, AAK)

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 19, 2013—A solid majority of Americans continue to hold favorable views of nuclear energy and believe that electric companies should prepare now for new nuclear energy facilities to be built. In a national telephone

survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, 68 percent said they favor nuclear energy, up from 65 percent in September 2012 ,

while 29 percent opposed. Those strongly favoring nuclear energy outweigh those strongly opposed by more than a two-to-one ratio, 29 percent versus 13 percent. The survey was conducted Feb. 8-10 by Bisconti Research Inc., with GfK Roper, and includes some questions trending back 30 years. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. More than 80 percent of the survey respondents give reliability, affordability and clean air top importance for electricity production, and three-fifths strongly associate

nuclearenergy with those attributes. “The survey found double-digit increases since 2012 in Americans who strongly associate nuclear energy with clean air and seven other attributes, and these changing perceptions pushed overall favorability up near historical peak levels,” said Ann Bisconti, president of Bisconti Research. Seventy-three percent of respondents believe that nuclear plants operating in the United States are safe and secure, with 24 percent thinking they are not. Also, 65 percent believe that “nuclear power plants in this area are able to withstand the most extreme natural events that may occur here.” The new survey shows that 81 percent of the respondents see nuclear as a key provider of electricity, up from 77 percent last September. Eighty-one percent of the respondents also agree with renewing the operating licenses of nuclear power plants as long as they continue to meet federal safety standards. Climate change has re-emerged as a frequently discussed policy topic in Washington, and 55 percent of the public give climate change top importance as a consideration in electricity production. Only 40 percent strongly associate nuclear energy as a climate change solution, even though nuclear energy facilities produce 63 percent of the nation’s carbon-free electricity. The strong majority support for nuclear energy extends over a number of metrics: 73 percent believe that electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants can be built if needed in the next decade. 67 percent would find a new reactor acceptable at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that

already is operating. With 71 new reactors under construction worldwide and nearly 200 others planned, 75 percent agree that as countries around the world build new nuclear power plants, the U.S. nuclear industry should play a leading role in world markets. In addition to the strong majority support for various aspects of nuclear energy, the support extends across gender

and political population groups. Those who favor nuclear energy include 64 percent of women, 72 percent of men, 64 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of independents. Consistent with recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on used nuclear fuel management, 77 percent of the survey respondents believe the United States should “retool” its program for managing spent nuclear fuel rods to focus on consolidating the fuel rods at storage centers while the nation develops a permanent disposal facility. At the same time, 61 percent agree that spent nuclear fuel rods are safely stored at nuclear plant sites; 28 percent disagree. Nuclear energy facilities operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses.

Nuclear power popular with republicans AP, ‘9 (“Ga., S.C. senators say SRS is vital to nation’s nuclear renaissance”, Associated Press, May 3, 2009, http://www.theitem.com/apnews01/ga-s-c-senators-say-srs-is-vital-to-nation/article_07863534-140e-554a-9e3e-169aef177349.html// M. Olesberg)AIKEN (AP) - The Savannah River Site should have a critical role in making nuclear energy vital to the nation’s future, according to the four U.S. senators from South Carolina and Georgia. The Republicans toured the former nuclear weapons complex Friday. South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham told the Aiken Standard it was the first time all the senators from the two states had visited the sprawling complex near Aiken at the same time. The lawmakers visited an area of the site where workers will convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear reactors called MOX. Savannah River Site is at the center of the nuclear renaissance, said Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. It’s in all of our interests to reduce carbon emissions, said Johnny Isakson of Georgia. The new Savannah River National Laboratory is the point on the spear of accomplishing that. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said the MOX program shows the importance of looking for new

bipartisan solutions to the country’s problems. The hottest topics in energy are nuclear power production and nuclear weapons proliferation, Chambliss said. Georgia and South Carolina are on the other side of the curve.

Key House republicans support nuclear powerWashington Post, ‘11 (Ariana Eunjung Cha, “Republican leaders express support for nuclear energy as Chu seeks funding for two new reactors”, The Washington Post, 03/16/2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-economy/post/republican-leaders-express-support-for-nuclear-energy-as-chu-seeks-funding-for-two-new-reactors/2011/03/16/ABRRRIe_blog.html // M. Olesberg)As the debate over nuclear energy heats up around the world, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was on Capitol Hill Wednesday asking Congress for money to build two new plants. Chu and Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, didn’t mention the crisis in Japan in their prepared remarks for the hearing which was convened to address the energy department’s budget. But key Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee expressed their support for nuclear energy despite the tragic events in Japan. House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-K.Y.) I know we will learn a great deal from the events unfolding in Japan, but in the process we should not do anything from a regulatory or legislative standpoint to unnecessarily threaten the continued development of what is a safe and important part of our base-load power system here in the United States. Environment and Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) Notwithstanding the fact our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Japan, we should not use these once in a life time events, as an excuse to shutter our domestic nuclear capacity and the clean air benefits that come with it. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) I live 15 miles from two nuclear power plants, so the safety of U.S. nuclear facilities is not an issue I take lightly. I am not straying from my support for nuclear energy as a vital component of America’s present and future energy mix. It is just as important to dispel overstated fears as it is to discuss legitimate concerns, and I know we can begin the process of doing both.

CPs

PrivatePrivates Fail, gut solvency, causing energy strikesBacon, 12 (David, syndicated energy journalist, "No Matter What the Result, We Will Continue to Resist," 6/2, http://truth-out.org/news/item/9534-no-matter-what-the-result-we-will-continue-to-resist-says-mexican-electrical-workers-union-leader)

Humberto Montes de Oca is the international secretary for the Mexican Electrical Workers union. Two years ago, its 44,000 members were all fired when the Mexican government took over generating stations by force to set the stage for privatizing electricity . Montes de Oca describes the role the union has played on the left in Mexico, its resistance to privatization and the way fired workers are now forced to migrate to survive. He was interviewed by David Bacon. Our organization is the oldest democratic union in Mexico . The Mexican Electrical Workers Union [SME by its Spanish initials] was founded in 1914 when the armies of Emiliano Zapata took Mexico City. Our founders saw that the peasant insurrection would finally create the conditions for their efforts to organize and succeed. They'd already made many attempts to set up the union in underground conditions and endured repression because of it. In 1916, we organized Mexico's first general strike. Our leaders were imprisoned and condemned to death, but their lives were saved by huge demonstrations. In 1936, we went on strike against the Mexican Power and Light Company, which at that time had US, British and Canadian owners. Mexico City went without electricity for ninety days, except for emergency medical services. The strike was successful and led to the negotiation of one of the most important labor contracts in Latin America. That strike helped set the stage for the nationalization of oil, and created the political conditions that made the expropriation possible. Then in 1960, we were one of the organizations that pushed for the nationalization of electrical power. President Adolfo Lopez Mateos modified Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution and added a paragraph that says that the Mexican government has the exclusive right to provide electricity to the country. Since then, under the Constitution, public electrical service can be provided only by the state. In 1992, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari changed the regulations to take some kinds of electrical generation out of the public sphere and since then a lot has been in private hands. This started a process of privatizing electricity through secondary laws. In 1994, the company Power and Light was decentralized and it was closed in 2009, putting its 44,000 workers out in the streets. For the previous ten years, these workers, members of the SME, had resisted the privatization of electricity. In 1999, then-President Ernesto Zedillo launched an effort to privatize it through Constitutional reform, by eliminating the 6th paragraph of Article 27, which made the industry the exclusive property of our nation. Zedillo tried to dismantle it. He proposed allowing the creation of private companies for the generating, transmission, distribution and sale of power. The union reacted quickly to stop it. We formed a front of resistance and we succeeded because we were able to bring together many social movements that were opposed to privatization. Zedillo's proposal was defeated