Advantage 2: Science

The embargo is blocking scientific exchange, robbing research opportunities and scientific cooperation throughout the region – ending the embargo is necessary for the open exchange required for scientific progress.Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. 08(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322 no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this

hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.

Scenario 1: Oil Spills

Gulf of Mexico is the fastest growing deepwater market in the world.Beaubouef, managing editor for “Offshore” magazine, 6/1(Bruce, Offshore Magazine, 6/1/13, “Gulf Drilling Rebounds to pre-Macondo levels,” http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-73/issue-6/gulf-of-mexico/gulf-drilling-rebounds-to-pre-macondo-levels.html, 6/26/13, ND)

Drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico is rebounding slowly but surely from the events of 2010, and is part of a general

recovery in E&P activity taking place in the Gulf in the wake of Macondo.¶ The increase in drilling is driven by sustained high oil prices, new lease sales, the promulgation of a new safety regime, fiscal stability, and the fact that the pace of permitting has finally returned to pre-spill levels. Since October 2012, 55 wells have been cleared for drilling.¶ In the first half of this year, the Gulf of Mexico is expected to have 46 competitive deepwater rigs, and this number is projected to increase by mid-2014 to just over 50 competitive deepwater units, according to Rigzone's RigLogix Database.¶ Last year, eight newbuild floaters entered the Gulf of Mexico with another eight expected to enter in 2013. Thus far, five newbuild floaters are forecasted to enter the 2014 GoM market with only one new unit projected for 2015.¶ The deepwater rig count for 2013 is forecasted to be the highest it has been in five years. The overall floater fleet is set to expand by 31% with the newbuild plans, while the jackup fleet will expand by 18%, according to an analysis conducted by Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.¶ Looking at announced contracts in 2013 and 2014, analysts believe that there will be 45 to 50 rigs in the deepwater GoM through 2014, with the possibility of more. Additionally, development drilling activity is expected to reach a new peak in 2013, which will then likely be superseded in the following two years, according to a Wood Mackenzie report.¶ Some analysts describe the Gulf as the fastest growing deepwater market in the world today, one that will continue to grow into 2014. Optimistic projections hold that the Gulf rig count could double by 2017, with predictions that oil service companies alone could see revenue from the Gulf rise from $4 billion in 2011 to $12 billion in 2015.

The Embargo prevents cooperation on oil spills – Cuba needs US equipment. Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas focused on U.S.-Cuba relations, 11(Sarah, 3/14/11, Los Angeles Times, “Like Oil and Water in the Gulf,” http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-stephens-cuba-oil-20110314, 6/26/13, ND)

Thanks to the U.S. embargo against Cuba — a remnant of the Cold War — the risks to the United States begin the moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed. And we are utterly unprepared.¶ Not only does the embargo prohibit U.S. firms from joining Cuba in any efforts to extract its offshore resources, thus giving the

competitive advantage to foreign firms, but it also denies Cuba access to U.S. equipment for drilling and environmental protection — an especially troubling policy considering the potential for a spill. The embargo also compels Cuba's foreign partners to go through contortions, such as ordering a drilling rig built in China and shipping it nearly 10,000 miles to Cuban waters, to avoid violating U.S. law.¶ Most important, the failed policy of isolating Cuba has the U.S.

paralyzed: It stops us from engaging Cuba in meaningful environmental cooperation and prevents us from addressing in advance the threat of potential spills caused by hurricanes or technological failures, which could put our waters, fisheries and beaches at peril.¶ As Cuba gets ready to drill, the Obama administration has limited options. It could do nothing. It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world. Or it could use its executive authority to cooperate with Cuba, despite the embargo, to ensure that drilling in the gulf protects our mutual interests.¶ Since the 1990s, Cuba has showed a serious commitment to the environment, building an array of environmental policies,

many based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience responding to major spills. And, like the U.S., Cuba has to

balance its economic and environmental interests, and the environmental side will not always prevail.¶ Against this backdrop, cooperation and engagement is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it.¶ During the BP spill, Cuba permitted a vessel

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look for damage in Cuban waters. The Obama administration declared

its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to the BP spill, and to others in the future that threaten

Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists to attend an important environmental conference in Florida. But these modest measures are not sufficient.¶ Members of Congress from Florida have introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies and U.S. firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in U.S. waters. These proposals will not stop Cuba from drilling; if enacted, Cuba's partners will disregard them, and they will make cooperation to protect our mutual coastal environment even more difficult.¶ Energy policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the embargo is an abiding threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign policy on the illusion that sanctions will cause Cuba's government to collapse — or stop Cuba from developing

its oil resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from addressing both the

challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.¶

The embargo threatens biodiversity in shared and proximate regions – no bilateral cooperation on endangered species, oil spills, or natural disasters is sufficient in the status quo.Boom 12 (Brian M. Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, September 2012, “Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through ¶ Environmental Research,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶ http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013, RJ)THE ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the ¶ United States provide the opportunity and the need for the two nations to take ¶ an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach to addressing shared issues. Cuba ¶ lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the two countries’ ¶ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and ¶ the United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations ¶ of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, ¶ exotic species invade, disease-causing species disperse, and rare species go extinct ¶ in the face of growing habitat modification. The living components of this shared ¶ environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or ¶ man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries ¶ nor do such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical ¶ storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. ¶ Governments around the world routinely collaborate on shared environmental ¶ concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation being addressed. ¶ Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from local to international ¶

levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems ¶ that extend beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and

there are many effective mechanisms in place to ¶ deal with challenges ranging from endangered species and ecosystems to oil and ¶ toxic waste spills.¶ However, a lack of formal diplomatic relations can limit desirable cooperation ¶ on shared environmental issues. The U.S. embargo on trade with

Cuba —¶ which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to ¶ Cuba’s nationalization of U.S. businesses’ properties in Cuba during the Cuban ¶ Revolution—and subsequent regulations have thwarted the efforts of Cuban and ¶ U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental or other professional and academic ¶ matters.1¶ There is essentially no intergovernmental environmental interaction ¶ between the United States and Cuba . The shared biodiversity of these countries, ¶ and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico ¶ regions, suffers as a result . ¶ Fortunately, some NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in ¶

working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental ¶ issues. The experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring ¶ an enhanced mechanism for bilateral cooperation. Also fortunately, on January 14, ¶ 2011, the Obama administration announced new rules that ease some restrictions ¶ on U.S. citizens’ travel and remittances to Cuba, which will collaterally encourage ¶ more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have created ¶ some space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is ¶ required to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring, and protection ¶ of shared biodiversity.

Environmental cooperation between US and Cuba spills over into the region, creating a paradigm for global sustainabilityConell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)

Sustainability through Collaboration¶ In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean island, and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level.¶ The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba.¶ The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obama’s modifications fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility

throughout the hemisphere.¶ An environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection practices.¶

Offshore oil development threatens Cuba and Florida environment, oil spills could destroy the ecosystem, including coral reefs and fisheries.Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 09(Christina, 6-12-09, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?,” http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/26/13, ND)The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches. Together, Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results

coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum

deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations. The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done.¶ However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development

requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. Washington must work with Cuba to create an ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a reality as well. Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner.

Coral reefs are vital to curbing ocean acidification, necessary for breathable oxygen and the marine food webRomm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, 9 (Joseph, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, “Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is subject of documentary,” http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-change-imagine-a-world-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/, 6-30-13)

Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which warns: The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earth’s breathable oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make up more than a third of the planet’s marine life”¦. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are

at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.”

Scenario 2: Biodiversity

US Cuba cooperation is key to sustain biodiversity – the alternative results in ecosystem degradation and overfishing PR Newswire 13 (“United States Scientists Visit Cuba to Discuss Overfishing, Coral Reefs, Ocean Energy and Ocean Issues”,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-states-scientists-visit-cuba-to-discuss-overfishing-coral-reefs-ocean-energy-and-ocean-issues-65763572.html, 6/24/13, AZ)

RALEIGH, N.C., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Environmental Defense Fund will send a team of experts to Havana, Cuba, on Sunday to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs, conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy - a signal that greater environmental cooperation may be on the horizon. EDF scientists and policy experts and Cuban scientists and environmental officials will have a series of meetings about how the United States and Cuba can work together to protect ocean waters and marine resources shared by the two countries. The meetings come on the heels of a September visit to the United States by Cuban environmental officials.¶ "The United States and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of managing them," said Daniel Whittle, a senior attorney at EDF and director of its Cuba Program. "Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have impacts in the United States, and vice-versa. The sooner we work together to manage shared resources and find solutions common problems, the sooner we'll see benefits for the people, the environment and the economy in both countries."¶ EDF has asked the Obama administration to ease policies that limit scientific exchanges between U.S. and Cuban scientists and conservation professionals. Last month the U.S. State Department issued visas for four Cuban environmental officials to attend scientific meetings hosted by EDF in Washington, DC, and Sarasota, Florida--the first such meetings held in the U.S. in several years.¶ "These precedent-setting meetings are a hopeful sign that greater environmental cooperation is on the horizon," said Dr. Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for EDF. "An important first step toward managing our shared marine resources is to share good science and good ideas. We have a lot to learn from each other."¶ Rader added that expanded scientific and management cooperation can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity.¶ Just 90 miles from the tip of Florida, Cuba shares a large amount of ocean territory with the United States. Because of the prevailing currents and Cuba's proximity, preserving its marine resources is critically important to the economies of coastal communities in both countries.

Overfishing kills food securityKoster, operator of overfishing.org, 2011(Pepijin, 2/1/2011, “Why is Overfishing a Problem?” Online: http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php FG)In the first chapter we already discussed that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the key issue and trends. Due to the difficulty of aggregating and combining the data it can be stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind of the real situation. 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited 20% are moderately exploited 17% are overexploited 7% are depleted 1% is recovering from depletion The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems. We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of collapse. We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons. The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen. It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the food web 3 the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals, sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and threatened by the industrialized fisheries. 4 Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as follows: “The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.”

Food shortages lead to World War IIICalvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, 98(William, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64, 6-31-13)

The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell 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 would be a worldwide problem -- and could 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.