1NC SI

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 31 | Comments: 0 | Views: 322
of 23
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Interpretation In is throughout
Words and Phrases 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207) Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.

US = all states
“United States” means all of the states EPA 6 (EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency Terminology Reference System, 2-12006, http://iaspub.epa.gov/trs/trs_proc_qry.alphabet?p_term_nm=U) United States When used in the geographic sense, means all of the States. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics : Commercial Chemical Control Rules Term Detail

b.violation- they build a tunnel connecting Alaska and Russia- that’s only one state Reasons to prefer - 1. Predictable Limits- they justify having unpredictable affs like a single gateway in Rhode Island. This kills education because instead of learning about macro policy, we are forced to learn about a single bridge in the middle of nowhere. Education alone is a reason to vote down the Affirmative, because at the end of the day education is the only thing we take from debate. 2. Ground- they jump out of key DAs and CPs pertaining to all of the states and allows them to easily outweigh our impacts because they can just say our plan is small. Kills fairness, they don’t allow for an even debate, this matters because fairness is the only way debate can be fun, without fairness people will quit.
And at best they are effects t- the land grants they mandate eventually lead to the bering strait tunnel EFFECTS T IS A VOTER BECAUSE THEY CAN SPIKE OUT OF ALL OUR LINKS SAYING IT’S NOT A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PLAN AND THEY CAN CLAIM ADVANTAGES OFF THE STEPS TAKEN FOR THE TUNNEL A. Obama will win now – polls and economic momentum

Nate Silver (Pollster and creator of fiverthirtyeight) July 2 2012 “July 2: Obama’s Lead Holds, but Manufacturing Report Could Mean Trouble”,

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/july-2-obamas-lead-holds-but-manufacturingreport-could-mean-trouble/#more-31696 President Obama’s position improved modestly in Monday’s FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast. He is given a 68.6 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on Nov. 6, up slightly from 67.8 percent on Friday. Mr. Obama broke something of a stalemate in the forecast last week, buoyed by a series of national and battleground state polls that showed him slightly ahead of Mitt Romney. He was also helped by increasing investor optimism about the situation in Europe after a debt agreement there, which manifested itself in a stock market rally and correspondingly improved the model’s economic index. Two new national polls out on Monday showed Mr. Obama with a lead over Mr. Romney, including the Gallup tracking poll, which had him five percentage points ahead. A third poll, from Rasmussen Reports, had him slipping behind Mr. Romney over the weekend. Mr. Obama’s position in the polls seems to have improved slightly from the middle of June, but the reason remains somewhat unclear. There has been relatively little change in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, which could suggest the change in national polls is in part a statistical fluke. The model’s view in June had been that the national polls slightly underestimated Mr. Obama’s standing: state-level data had seemed to suggest that he was slightly ahead of Mr. Romney rather than tied with him. Now, the national polls may be slightly overestimating his numbers instead.
b. Link and internal link 1. infrastructure will influence voters in November Houston Chronicle May 18 2012 (“Americans Value Highways and Bridges as a National Treasure” http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases/article/Americans-Value-Highways-andBridges-as-a-3568488.php accessed tm 5/19 )

A new survey from HNTB Corporation finds two-thirds (66 percent) of Americans who intend to vote during this
year's presidential election feel that a candidate's standing on American transportation infrastructure will influence their decision; more than one in five (22 percent) say this will be extremely influential on who they vote for. "Our highways, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are essential assets that support growth and investment in the U.S.
economy," said Pete Rahn, HNTB leader national transportation practice. "People expect them to be resilient, reliable and safe."

2. Transporation funding unpopular with the public – spending concerns – outwiehgs the “crumbling infrastructure” claims Ken Orski (editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, He served as Associate Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration under President Nixon and President Ford, J.D. degree Harvard Law School) 02/05/2012 NewGeography http://www.newgeography.com/content/002662-why-pleas-increase-infrastructure-fundingfall-deaf-ears Finding the resources to keep transportation infrastructure in good order is a more difficult challenge. Unlike traditional utilities, roads and bridges have no rate payers to fall back on. Politicians and the public seem to attach a low priority to fixing aging transportation infrastructure and this translates into a lack of support for raising fuel taxes or imposing tolls. Investment in infrastructure did not even make the top ten list of public priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of domestic concerns. Calls by two congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase transportation infrastructure spending have gone ignored. So have repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building America’s Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the

University of Virginia’s Miller Center. Nor has the need to increase federal spending on infrastructure come up in the numerous policy debates held by the Republican presidential candidates. Even President Obama seems to have lost his former fervor for this issue. In his last Stateof-the-Union message he made only a perfunctory reference to "rebuilding roads and bridges." High-speed rail and an infrastructure bank, two of the President’s past favorites, were not even mentioned. Why pleas to increase infrastructure funding fall on deaf ears There are various theories why appeals to increase infrastructure spending do not resonate with the public. One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely. As proof, evidence is cited that a great majority of state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed, because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. No doubt there is much truth to that. Indeed, thanks to local funding initiatives and the use of tolling, state transportation agencies are becoming increasingly more self-reliant and less dependent on federal funding Another explanation, and one that I find highly plausible, has been offered by Charles Lane, editorial writer for the Washington Post. Wrote Lane in an October 31, 2011 Washington Post column, "How come my family and I traveled thousands of miles on both the east and west coast last summer without actually seeing any crumbling roads or airports? On the whole, the highways and byways were clean, safe and did not remind me of the Third World countries. ... Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes?" asked Lane ("The U.S. infrastructure argument that crumbles upon examination"). Along with Lane, I think the American public is skeptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare, transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between. c. Impact—Iran strikes 1. Obama will hold off Israel and prevent Iran strikes Hurst, ’12 (Stephen, AP, 4/18/12, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/18/Romneys-foreign-policymay-mean-hardball-is-back, JD) Even so, Romney

will campaign, Williamson said, as the man who can return the United States to a country that ensures "peace through strength rather than just managing the gradual decline of our military strength." Romney is particularly harsh on Obama's handling of Iran and concerns it may be building a nuclear weapon. The president is clearly trying to head off a threatened Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. While Obama has not ruled out a U.S. attack, he has not been as directly threatening as Romney, who positions himself much closer to Israel and hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In one Republican debate, Romney said: "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon." 2. If Israel or the US attacks Iran, a rapidly escalating war would break out in the Middle East and would engulf all the great powers

Trabanco 9 (Jose M. A., writer for Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=11762)
In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A possible countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases in the regions. Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effec-

tively setting in flames a large portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is indeed asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial and economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary conditions for a major war in the Middle East are given. Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control and thus a relatively minor clash could quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole region and perhaps even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their respective allies and some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America, Russia, Europe, China). Therefore, any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something no one can stop. Taking into consideration that the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the middle of a powder keg.

K
Link---Capitalism is dependent upon new forms of transportation.

Cox and Alm 2008 (W. Michael and Richard; Library of Economics and Liberty, “Creative Destruction,” Conscience Encyclopedia of Economic http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CreativeDestruction.html accessed ac)
The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates. (p. 83) Entrepreneurs introduce new products and technologies with an eye toward making themselves better off—the profit motive. New goods and services, new firms, and new industries compete with existing ones in the marketplace, taking customers by offering lower prices, better performance, new features, catchier styling, faster service, more convenient locations, higher status, more aggressive marketing, or more attractive packaging. In another seemingly contradictory aspect of creative destruction, the pursuit of self-interest ignites the progress that makesothers better off. Producers survive by streamlining production with newer and better tools that make workers more productive. Companies that no longer deliver what consumers want at competitive prices lose customers, and eventually wither and die. The market’s “invisible hand”—a phrase owing not to Schumpeter but to Adam Smith—shifts resources from declining sectors to more valuable uses as workers, inputs, and financial capital seek their highest returns. Through this constant roiling of the status quo, creative destruction provides a powerful force for making societies wealthier. It does so by making scarce resources more productive.

Impact ---Capitalism causes extinction and multiple forms of oppression Brown 2005 ,
professor of economics and research scientist at the University of Michigan
(Charles Brown, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2005w15/msg00062.html, UNT accessed ac)

The capitalist class owns the factories, the banks, and transportationthe means of production and distribution. Workers sell their ability to work in order to acquire the necessities of life. Capitalists buy the workers' labor, but only pay them back a portion of the wealth they create. Because the capitalists own the means of production, they are able to keep the surplus wealth created by workers above and beyond the cost of paying worker's wages and other costs of production.

This surplus is called "profit" and consists of unpaid labor that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. These profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the producers of all wealth-the working class. Capitalists are compelled by competition to seek to maximize profits. The capitalist class as a whole can do that only by extracting a greater surplus from the unpaid labor of workers by increasing exploitation. Under capitalism, economic development happens only if it is profitable to the individual capitalists, not for any social need or good. The profit drive is inherent in capitalism, and underlies or exacerbates all major social ills of our times. With the
rapid advance of technology and productivity, new forms of capitalist ownership have developed to maximize profit.

The working people of our country confront serious, chronic problems because of capitalism. These chronic problems become part of the objective conditions that confront each new generation of working people. The threat of nuclear war, which can destroy all humanity, grows with the spread of nuclear weapons, space-based weaponry, and a military doctrine that justifies their use in preemptive wars and wars without end. Ever since
the end of World War II, the U.S. has been constantly involved in aggressive military actions big and small.

These wars have cost millions of lives and casualties, huge material losses, as well as trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Threats to the environment continue to spiral, threatening all life on our planet. Millions of workers are unemployed or insecure in their jobs, even during economic upswings and periods of "recovery" from recessions. Most
workers experience long years of stagnant real wages, while health and education costs soar. Many workers are forced to work second and third jobs to make ends meet. Most workers now average four different occupations during their lifetime, being involuntarily moved from job to job and career to career. Often, retirement-age workers are forced to continue working just to provide health care for themselves.

With capitalist globalization, jobs move as capitalists export factories and even entire industries to other countries. Millions of people continuously live below the poverty level; many suffer homelessness and hunger. Public and private programs to alleviate poverty and hunger do not reach everyone, and are inadequate even for those they do reach. Racism remains the most potent weapon to divide working people. Institutionalized racism provides billions in extra profits for the capitalists every year due to the unequal pay racially oppressed workers receive for work of comparable value. All workers
receive lower wages when racism succeeds in dividing and disorganizing them. In every aspect of economic and social life, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian a nd Pacific Islanders, Arabs and Middle Eastern peoples, and other nationally and racially oppressed people experience conditions

Racist violence and the poison of racist ideas victimize all people of color no matter which economic class they belong to. The attempts to suppress and undercount the vote of the African American and other racially opinferior to that of whites. pressed people are part of racism in the electoral process. Racism permeates the police, judicial and prison systems, perpetuating unequal sentencing, racial profiling, discriminatory enforcement, and

The democratic, civil and human rights of all working people are continually under attack. These attacks range from increasingly difficult procepolice brutality. dures for union recognition and attempts to prevent full union participation in elections, to the absence of the right to strike for many public workers. They range from undercounting minority communities in the census to making it difficult for working people to run for office because of the domination of corporate campaign funding and the high cost of advertising. These attacks also include growing censorship and domination of the media by the ultra-right; growing restrictions and surveillance of activist social movements and the Left; open denial of basic rights to immigrants; and, violations of

These abuses all serve to maintain the grip of the capitalists on government power. They use this power to ensure the economic and political dominance of their class. Women still face a considerable differential in wages for work of equal or comparable value. They also confront barriers to promotion, physical and sexual abuse, continuing unequal workload in home and family life, and male supremacist ideology perpetuating unequal and often unsafe conditions. The constant attacks on social welfare prothe Geneva Conventions up to and including torture for prisoners. grams severely impact single women, single mothers, nationally and racially oppressed women, and all working class women.

The reproductive rights of all women are continually under attack ideologically and politically. Violence against women in the home and
in society at large remains a shameful fact of life in the U.S.

Alternative--Our alternative is to not do the affirmative—capitalist relations should be withdrawn from and rejected Herod 2004—James, Faculty at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, http://www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/index.ht m
It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes
an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside

attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations
alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can

eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs.

But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless,
there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for

changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system. Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle
is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically con-

trolled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction. The content of this vision is actually not new at all, but quite old. The long term goal of communists, anarchists, and socialists has
always been to restore community. Even the great peasant revolts of early capitalism sought to get free from external authorities and restore autonomy to villages. Marx defined communism once as a free association of producers, and at another time as a situation in which the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all. Anarchists have always called for worker and peasant self-managed cooperatives. The long

term goals have always been clear: to abolish wage-slavery, to eradicate a social order organized solely around the accumulation of capital for its own sake, and to establish in its place a society of free people who democratically and cooperatively self-determine the shape of their social world.

K
A.) The Link: The affirmative’s focus on improving the transportation infrastructure is grounded in a logic that naturalizes mobility with freedom and efficiency- this viewpoint is the outgrowth of the masculine subject at the center of modern thought that desires to conquer and control space
Bauhardt, 04
(Christine, Technical University of Berlin Institute of Urban and Regional Planning, Urban Development and Transportation Infrastructures: Insights from the Ruhr Region, http://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifz.tugraz.at%2FMedia%2FDateien %2FDownloads-IFZ%2FSummer-Academy%2FProceedings-2004%2FUrban-Development-and-Transportation-InfrastructuresInsights-from-the-Ruhr-Region&ei=1bjxT4TdK4is8QS1u4X3DA&usg=AFQjCNETXWV2Zg7c7C1sVijFo3CcG7tCkA [7/2/12]) My first thesis is that the acceleration of these tendencies and their

equation with economic progress, technological modernization and spatial autonomy are deeply related to the construction of the male Enlightenment subject. This masculine subject is constructed through the dissociation of the intellect from nature and the body, as well as through the idea of its dominance over nature and through the valuing of individual autonomy over social bonds. Both natural processes and social ties are anchored in concrete, particular spaces. Overcoming social, natural and spatial bonds by forward motion is understood to guarantee autonomy and freedom. My second thesis posits that this imagined link between acceleration and technological and economic progress influences actions not only in the area of transportation policy; it has been internalized as a social metaphor in the minds of people and thus influences their transportation behaviour. The promise of freedom through accelerated transportation is, however, an illusion given that this desire for freedom has contributed to the creation of and reinforcement of power relations that no longer allow for freedom of movement: If increasing speed is adopted as a principle in city and transportation planning, then mobility becomes a necessity. Compulsory mobility has high economic and social costs, making it all the more important to seek alternatives in transportation planning that guarantee equality in transportation conditions and thereby also guarantee the free movement of all urban inhabitants.

B.) The Impact: Social policies, like the 1ac, are essential to maintaining androcentric relations in American society which provide the ideological basis for a series of violent and exploitive actions that culminate in extinction
Nhanenge 2K7
(Jytte Masters @ U South Africa, paper submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in the subject Development Studies, “ECOFEMINSM: TOWARDS INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, POOR PEOPLE AND NATURE INTO DEVELOPMENT,

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf;jsessionid=D3061E0F47F534573266E459F6B6BB0C? sequence=1)

androcentric premises also have political consequences. They protect the ideological basis of exploitative relationships. Militarism, colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and other pathological 'isms' of modernity get legitimacy from the assumption that power relations and hierarchy are inevitably a part of human soThe ciety, due to man's inherent nature. Because when mankind by nature is autonomous, competitive and violent (i.e. masculine) then coercion and hierarchical structures are necessary to manage conflicts and maintain social order. In this way. the cooperative relationships such as those found among some women and tribal cultures, are by a dualised definition unrealistic and Utopian. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This means that power relations are generated by universal scientific truths about human nature, rather than by political and social debate. The consequence is that people cannot challenge the basis of the power structure because they believe it is the scientific truth, so it cannot be otherwise. In this way,

militarism is justified as being unavoidable, regardless of its patent irrationality. Likewise, if the scientific "truth" were that humans would always compete for a greater share of resources, then the rational response to the environmental crisis would seem to be "dog-eat-dog" survivalism. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which nature and community simply cannot survive. (Birkeland 1995: 59). This type of social and political power structure is kept in place by social policies. It is based on the assumption that if the scientific method is applied to public policy

then social planning can be done free from normative values. However, according to Habermas (Reitzes 1993:40) the scientific method only conceal pre-existing, unreflected social interests and pre-scientific decisions. Consequently, also social scientists apply the scientific characteristics of objectivity, value-freedoni. rationality and quantifiability to social life, hi this way, they assume they can unveil universal laws about social relations, which will lead to true knowledge. Based on this, correct social policies can be formulated. Thus, social processes are excluded, while scientific objective facts are

Society is assumed a static entity, where no changes are possible. By promoting a permanent character, social science legitimizes the existing social order, while obscuring the relations of domination and subordination, which is keeping the existing power relations inaccessible to analysis. The frozen order also makes it impossible to develop alternative explanations about social reality. It prevents a historical and political understanding of reality and denies the possibility for social transformation by human agency. The prevailing condition is seen as an unavoidable fact. This implies that human beings are passive and that domination is a natural force, for which no one is responsible. This permits the state freely to implement laws and policies, which are controlling and coercive. These are seen as being correct, because they are based on scientific facts made by scientific experts. One result is that the state, without consulting the public, engages in a pathological pursuit of economic growth. Governments support the capitalist ideology, which benefits the elite only, while it is destroying nature and increasing poverty for women and lower classes. The priority on capitalism also determines other social policies. There are consequently no conincluded. siderations for a possible conflict between the amis of the government for social control and economic efficiency and the welfare needs of various social

Without having an alternative to the existing order, people become dis-empowered. Ultimately, the reaction is public apathy, which legitimates authorative governments. Thus, social science is an ideology, which is affirming the prevailing
groups. social, political and economic order. (Reitzes 1993: 36-39,41-42).

C.) The Alternative: Reject the affirmative in order to problematize the androcentric nature of the Political. Only replacement of existing structures of transportation planning can reverse gender based oppression and allow for nonmasculine perspectives to guide future transportation infrastructure projects
Riveria, 07

(Roselle Leah K. Assistant Professor Dept of Women and Development Studies, Unviersity of the Philippines, Culture, Gender, Transport: Contentious Planning Issues, Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/bulletin76/bulletin76_fulltext.pdf [7/4/12]) The preceding discussion shows in many ways that there

needs to be a rethinking of the outdated notions of work, the economy and development. The economy is not solely the
productive or commercially oriented economy (formal and informal) that is measured solely in quantitative terms. A purely technology or infrastructure orientation continues to dominate the transport sector; therefore, there must be pressure to push for the social and cultural aspects of transport to be clearly articulated in the policy planning process. Integrating gender into transport policies must take the centre stage in this rethinking process. The

work of women, excluded in policy and planning because it is not traditionally produced for exchange in the market, must be made visible and be given value. Excluding the economy of social reproduction from the transport sector framework translates into ignoring equity the aspect in the design and delivery of transport sector activities. The crucial task of re-examining conventional notions means treating the transport sector as a gendered structure, recognizing the implications of transport policies for men and women and the implications of gender relations for sector level analysis and policy options. This way, the crucial element of equity, or fairness, could be tackled head on. This approach is not meant to complement existing approaches, but to replace outdated approaches. The present approach calls for efficiency, even at the expense of equity, but the proposed approach calls for equity as the primary objective, with efficiency socially accorded and guaranteed. Research on women and transport in
the developing world, specifically in Asia and the Pacific, is in its infancy. Researchers working in the developing world must take the lead in discovering women, gender and transport with serious intention and attention. The

call is now for serious researchers enlightened by progressive perspectives to guide policy and search for new ways to reconsider thinking about transport in women’s lives.

Other countries’ expansion into the Arctic isn’t militaristic Wezeman March 2012 (Siemon T., Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme, Among his publications are several relating to international transparency in arms transfers, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "MILITARY CAPABILITIES IN THE ARCTIC,"//LL)
While some media, politicians and researchers have portrayed the changes in the capabilities of the Arctic littoral states as significant military build- ups and potential threats to security, the overall picture is one of limited modernization and increases or changes in equipment, force levels and force structure. Some of these changes—for example, the strengthening of the Canadian Rangers, the move of the main Norwegian land units to the north of Norway or the new Russian Arctic units—have little or nothing to do with power projection into the areas of the Arctic with unclear ownership; rather they are for the patrolling and protecting of recognized national terri-

tories that are becoming more accessible, including for illegal activities. Others changes—such as new but unarmed navy or coastguard icebreakers—may have more to do with civilian research in support of national claims to an ‘extended continental shelf’ under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).100 While aircraft and ships play a much more important role for Arctic secur- ity than land forces, most of the extensive changes—such as the acquisitions by Canada and Norway of new combat aircraft or large surface combat vessels—have a much more general background than increasing worries about poten-

tial threats in the Arctic region. Russia’s expansion of its fleet in the Arctic also appears more a matter of providing protection for its SSBNs, as the Soviet Union did during the 1970s and 1980s, than a programme building up for a military struggle over Arctic resources. Some of the large military acquisitions announced have little prospect of being completely realized. It is unlikely that Russia will be able to fund the envisaged expan- sion of its navy and even the Canadian and Norwegian plans for the F-35 combat aircraft may be curtailed for financial reasons. This review of current and projected military forces in the Arctic region points to a process of modernization and the creation of new capacity to address challenges associated with the environmental, economic and polit- ical changes anticipated in the region, rather than as a response to major threat perceptions. Conventional military forces specially adapted to the harsh Arctic environment are projected to remain small scale, especially given the size of the Arctic region,
and will remain in some cases consider- ably below cold war levels.

No arctic conflict – multiple reasons. Lundegaard, 9
[Amund, Research Fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, Will US navy Arctic roadmap increase tension?, Geopoliticsin the High North, December 15, 2009, http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:will-us-navyarctic-roadmap-increase-tension-in-the-arctic] First of all, the build up of military forces in the Arctic is not synonymous with conflict. The area has not seen much surface activity because of the ice. The activity has been under water and in the air;
however, if the arctic becomes ice free during summer, it is natural that the navies and coast guards take an interest in this new domain.

There are a number of factors that determines the potential for arms race and armed conflict. The build up of military capabilities is necessary to start an arms race and an armed conflict, but it is not a sufficient factor in and by itself. Looking at other conflict-inducing factors, the potential for arms race and armed conflict in the arctic is rather limited. Most of the known resources are already distributed between the arctic countries. Furthermore, the US Geological Survey 2008 report on undiscovered Arctic petroleum resources indicates that most of the undiscovered resources are in undisputed areas. The conflict potential in the Arctic is thus quite limited, which was underscored at the Ilulissat conference in 2008. There, the states
surrounding the Arctic Ocean (Canada, Denmark, Norway Russia and the United States) agreed to resolve any differences in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) and other international forums. The arctic states most likely have a common interest in subjecting to UNCLOS rather than a specific regulatory regime, and so far, this agreement has been complied with, as claims have been submitted to the UNCLOS.

No risk of Arctic resource war – 3 reasons
The Economist 6-16-12 (The Economist (Special report), "Too much to fight over," http://www.economist.com/node/21556797//[07.04.12]//LL)
THE GEOPOLITICS OF the new Arctic entered the mainstream on August 2nd 2007. Descending by Mir submersible to a depth of over 4km, a Russian-led expedition planted a titanium Russian flag beneath the North Pole (pictured). The news shocked the world. The Lomonosov ridge under the pole, which is probably rich in minerals, is claimed by Russia, Canada and Denmark. The Russians, it was assumed, were asserting their claim, perhaps even launching a scramble for Arctic resources. One of their leaders, Artur Chilingarov, Russia’s leading polar explorer and a Putin loyalist, fanned the flames. “The Arctic has always been Russian,” he declared. Yet the expedi-

tion turned out to have been somewhat international, initiated by an Australian entrepreneur and a retired American submarine captain, and paid for by a Swedish pharmaceuticals tycoon. Even so, fears of Arctic conflict have not gone away. In 2010 NATO’s top officer in Europe, James Stavridis, an American admiral, gave warning that “for now, the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium”. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has hinted at similar concerns. “NATO”, he said, “has
sensed where the wind comes from. It comes from the north.” The development of the Arctic will involve a rebalancing of large interests. The Lomonosov ridge could contain several billion barrels of oil equivalent, a substantial prize. For Greenland, currently semi-autonomous from Denmark, Arctic development contains an even richer promise: full independence. That would have strategic implications not only for Denmark but also for the United States, which has an airbase in northern Greenland. There are also a few Arctic quirks

that turn the mind to confrontation. Most countries in the region (the United States being the main exception) have powerful frontier myths around their northern parts. This is truest of the biggest: Russia,
for which the Arctic has been a source of minerals and pride in the feats of Russian explorers, scientists and engineers since the late 19th century; and Canada, which often harps on Arctic security, perhaps as a means of differentiating itself from the United States. During the cold war the Arctic bristled with Soviet submarines and American bombers operating from airbases in Iceland and Greenland. The talk of Arctic security risks sometimes betrays a certain nostalgia for that period. Some people also worry about Arctic countries militarising the north. Canada conducted its biggest-ever military exercise in the north, involving 1,200 troops, in the Arctic last year. Yet the risks of Arctic conflict have been exaggerated. Most of the Arctic is clearly assigned to individual countries. According to a Danish estimate, 95% of Arctic mineral resources are within agreed national boundaries. The biggest of the half-dozen remaining territorial

disputes is between the United States and Canada, over whether the north-west passage is in international or Canadian waters, hardly a casus belli. The risks of Arctic conflict have been exaggerated. Far from violent, the development of the Arctic is likely to be uncommonly harmonious Far from violent, the development of the Arctic is likely to be uncommonly harmonious, for three related reasons. One is the profit motive. The five Arctic littoral countries, Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway, would sooner develop the resources they have than argue over those they do not have. A sign of this was an agreement between Russia and Norway last year to fix their maritime border in the Barents Sea, ending a decades-long dispute. The border area is probably rich in oil; both countries are now racing to get exploration started. Another spur to Arctic co-operation is the high cost of operating in the region. This is behind the Arctic Council’s first binding agreement, signed last year, to co-ordinate search-and-rescue efforts. Rival oil companies are also working together, on scientific research and mapping as well as on formal joint ventures. The third reason for peace is equally important: a strong reluctance among Arctic countries to give outsiders any excuse to intervene in the region’s affairs. An illustration is the stated willingness of all concerned to settle their biggest potential dispute, over their maritime frontiers, according to the international Law of the Sea (LOS). Even the United States accepts this, despite its dislike for treaties—though it has still not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an anomaly many of its leaders are keen
to end.

Alt causes damaging Russian relations – WTO, BMD, trade ties, and nukes Charap 11 (Samuel, Associate Director for Russia and Eurasia and a member of the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress, interview with Rianovosti, a Russian news agency, “U.S.-Russian relations: The reset process may not be irreversible,” http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20110311/162949812.html) (Accessed 6/4/12) {Andrew Giovanny Alvarado}
I don’t think Vice President Joe Biden’s visit was at all connected to the upcoming presidential elections in the United States. But the fact that he met with both members of the Russian governing tandem in Moscow indicates that the United States is ready to cooperate with either man after the elections, whoever the Russians elect. In my opinion, domestic political processes and election results

in Russia and the United States could influence the relationship. If the current presidents are reelected, the elections’ outcome will not influence it, but internal political tensions during the election period sometimes affect a country’s foreign policy actions… As for the most promising areas of U.S.-Russian relations, bilateral cooperation is possible in many spheres, from economic development to strategic nuclear weapons. The immediate issues on their agenda include Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization, cooperation on ballistic missile defense, and developing trade and economic ties. I am not sure that we have entered a phase of bilateral relations where the current positive atmosphere could be said to be irreversible. In my opinion, we have not yet disarmed all the time bombs that still threaten to take our relations back to where they were 2.5 years ago. I think that, unfortunately, should certain circumstances arise, this process could
be reversed. Russian relations resilient – history proves Fenenko 11 (Alexei, leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for International Security, “The Cyclical Nature of Russian-American Relations,” http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20110621/164739508.html) (Accessed 6/4/12) {Andrew Giovanny Alvarado}

Over the past twenty years, both Russia and the United States have experienced several cycles of convergence and divergence in their bilateral relations. It seems that Moscow and Washington are doomed to repeat these cycles time and again. Such changes in bilateral relations are no mere coincidence. Russia and the United
There is nothing special or unusual about the current difficulties. States base their relations on mutual nuclear deterrence. The material and technical foundations for Russian-American relations differ little from those underpinning the Soviet-American relations of the 1980s. Thus, these cycles of Russian-American rapprochement are due to two factors. First comes the desire to consistently reduce aging nuclear systems so that during

disarmament neither party risked destroying the military-strategic parity. Second, the reaction to a major military-political crisis after which the parties seek to reduce confrontation and update the rules of conduct in the military-political sphere. After confronting these tasks, Russia and the United
States returned to a state of low intensity confrontation. The first rapprochement cycle was observed in the early 1990s. Yeltsin’s government needed U.S. support in recognizing Russia within the 1991 borders of the RSFSR. Boris Yeltsin also needed U.S. assistance in addressing the problem of the Soviet “nuclear legacy” and taking on the Supreme Council. The administrations of George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton were willing to help the Kremlin solve these problems. However, the Americans demanded major strategic concessions from Russia in return, outlined in START-III: making the elimination of heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles a priority. The parties reached an unofficial compromise: U.S. recognition of the Russian leadership in exchange for the rapid decrease in Russia’s strategic nuclear forces (SNF). However, the stronger Russian state institutions became, the weaker the impetus to the rapprochement. In autumn 1994, Russia refused to ratify the original version of START-II and declared NATO’s eastward expansion unacceptable. The

United States adopted the concept of “mutually assured safety” (January 1995) under which Russia’s democratic reforms qualified as inseparable from continued armament reduction. The “Overview of U.S. nuclear policy” in 1994 also confirmed that America deemed Russian strategic nuclear forces a priority threat. The crises that unfolded during the late 1990s in Iran and Yugoslavia were, like NATO expansion, the logical results of a restoration of the old approach to Soviet-American relations. It was actually the events of 1994, not 2000, that in fact predetermined the subsequent development of Russian-American relations. The second cycle of Russian-American rapprochement was also rooted in strategic considerations. In 2000 START-II and
the ABM Treaty collapsed. Both Washington and Moscow were faced with the problem of their agreed decommissioning of nuclear systems dating back to the 1970s. These events pushed presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush to reach a strategic compromise at a meeting in Crawford (12 November 2001). The United States agreed to sign a new Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), and Russia did not object to Washington’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Instead of the ABM Treaty, the parties signed the Moscow Declaration on May 24, 2002, under which the United States pledged to consult with Russia on all issues pertaining to missile defense deployment. However, after the “compromise at Crawford,” the agenda for Russian-American rapprochement was exhausted. The

disputes between Moscow and Washington over Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Ukraine and Beslan, which had been gathering steam since 2003, necessitated a return to the traditional format for Russian-American relations. At the Bratislava meeting (February 24, 2005) President Vladimir Putin refused to accept George W. Bush’s suggestion of including issues of fissile material safety in the agenda. Since then, the “rapprochement” between Russia and the U.S. has reached a dead end, including at the official level.

Arctic cooperation happening now- barent sea boundary and nuclear sub decommissioning check
Macalister 11 (Terry Macalister, energy editor @ Guardian UK, “US and Russia stir up political tension over Arctic, July 6 2011 ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/06/us-russia-political-tensions-arctic, July 4, 2012, LG)
<He added: "The cascading interests and broad implications stemming from the effects of climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation – rather than proceed down the icy slope towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict." Huebert points out that as well as opening a new ultra-hi-tech operations centre inside a mountain at Reitan, in the far north of Norway, Oslo is also spending unprecedented money on new military hardware, not least five top-of-the-range frigates. The class of vessel is called Fridtjof Nansen, after the famous polar explorer, which perhaps indicates where the navy plans to deploy them. Meanwhile Canada's then foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, voiced confidence his nation would win the territory. "We will exercise sovereignty in the Arctic," he told his Russian counterpart in talks in Moscow. But optimists say the

fears are exaggerated and point to positive developments, not least Norway and Russia agreeing a mutually acceptable boundary line dividing up the Barents Sea. A partnership between Russia, Norway, the US and Britain has been quietly and successfully working away at decommissioning nuclear submarines and tackling other radioactive waste problems in the Kola Peninsula and Arkhangelsk regions. One for-

mer foreign minister told the Guardian: "We want to avoid complacency but all this alarmist talk of meltdown should be shunned. The Arctic is quite pacific. It is not a place of turmoil but an area of low tension.">

Countries cooperate under arctic council
Myers 2011 (Stephen Lee Myers, journalist @ NY Times, “Cooperation is pledged by nations in
the arctic,” NY Times; May 12, 2011; July 4, 2012; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/europe/13arctic.html

JB1) The eight Arctic nations pledged Thursday to create international protocols to prevent and clean up offshore oil spills in areas of the region that are becoming increasingly accessible to exploration because of a changing climate. The Arctic Council — the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden — said the protocols would be modeled on a separate agreement signed here in Nuuk on Thursday to coordinate search-and-rescue operations over 13 million square miles of ocean. The search-and-rescue pact is the first legally binding agreement adopted
by the council, which was created in 1996 to address challenges and opportunities in the Arctic spurred by the retreat of sea ice — like growingoil and gas exploration or increasing traffic of cargo and cruise ships, which have doubled the number of tourists in the Arctic in recent years. The council’s actions, officials said, reflected a maturation of a regional

group that has been criticized for not acting more aggressively to address the myriad issues of a drastically changing Arctic.

Arctic countries want cooperation- checks resource wars
Klapper 6/2 (Bradley Klapper, Journalist @ AP, “Clinton: Arctic Cooperation Essential,”
HuffingtonPost.com, June 6, 2012, Date Accessed: July 4, 2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/clinton-arctic-cooperatio_n_1564883.html, LG)
TROMSO, Norway -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday ventured north of the Arctic Circle and urged international cooperation in a region that could become a new battleground for natural resources. On her trip to the northern Norwegian city of Tromso, she conveyed that message of working together in one of

the world's last frontiers of unexplored oil, gas and mineral deposits. The region is becoming more significant as melting icecaps accelerate the opening of new shipping routes, fishing stocks and drilling opportunities. To safely tap the riches, the U.S. and other countries near the North Pole are trying to cooperate to combat harmful climate change, settle territorial disputes and prevent oil spills. "The world increasingly looks to the North," Clinton told reporters after a two-hour boat tour of the nearby Balsfjord and meeting with Arctic scientists. "Our goal is certainly to promote peaceful cooperation," she said, adding that the U.S. was "committed to promoting responsible management of resources and doing all we can to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change." At

the least, the U.S. and the other Arctic nations hope to avoid a confrontational race for resources. Officials say the picture looks more promising than five years ago when Russia staked its claim to supremacy in the Arctic and its $9 trillion in estimated oil reserves by planting a titanium
flag on the ocean floor. The United States does not recognize the Russian assertion and has its own claims, along with Denmark, Norway and Canada, while companies from Exxon Mobil Corp. to Royal Dutch Shell PLC want to get in on the action. China also is keeping a close eye on the region. Moscow has eased tensions somewhat by promising to press any claims through an agreed U.N. process. But Washington has yet to ratify the 1982 Law of the Sea treaty regulating the ocean's use for military, transportation and mineral extraction purposes. With 160 countries having signed on, the Obama administration is making a new push for U.S. Senate approval. Refusal puts the U.S. at risk of getting frozen out of its share of the spoils. Arguing for its ratification at a recent Senate hearing, Clinton said the treaty would offer the U.S. oil and gas rights some 600 miles into the Arctic. She said American companies were "equipped and ready to engage in deep seabed mining," but needed to join the treaty to take exploit oil, gas and mineral reserves. On Saturday, in the eight-nation Arctic Council's home city, she stressed that the international agreement "sets down the rules of the road that protect freedom of navigation and provides maritime security, serving the interest of every nation that relies on sea lanes for commerce and trade." The Arctic's warming is occurring at least twice as fast as anywhere else, threatening to raise sea levels by up to 5 feet this century and possibly causing a 25 percent jump in mercury emissions over the next decade. The changes could threaten polar bears, whales, seals and indigenous communities hunting those animals for food, not to mention islands and low-lying areas much farther away, from Florida to Bangladesh. The changing climate also is changing the realm of what is possible from transportation to tourism, with the summer ice melting away by more than 17,000 square miles each year. During the most temperate days last year, only one-fifth of the Arctic Circle was ice-covered. Little of the

ice has been frozen longer than two years, which is harder for icebreakers to cut through. Europeans see new shipping routes to China that, at least in the warmth and sunlight of summer, are 40 percent faster than traveling through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. A northwest passage between Greenland and Canada could significantly speed cargo traveling between the Dutch shipping hub of Rotterdam and ports in California. The Arctic Council is hoping to manage the new opportunities in a responsible way. It includes former Cold War foes U.S. and Russia, but Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said governments were prepared to deepen cooperation "in a region that used to be frozen, both politically and climatically." "Now there is a thaw," he said. Last year in

Greenland, Clinton and her counterparts from other nations took a small step toward international cooperation by agreeing to coordinate Arctic search-andrescue missions for stranded sailors and others. Officials are now trying to enhance the cooperation, including through joint plans to prevent oil spills in an environment that would make cleanup a logistical nightmare. The U.S. has been championing measures such as shifting away from dirty diesel engines, agricultural burning and hydrofluorocarbons to lessen the effect of shortlived greenhouse gases that are a particularly potent source of climate change in the Arctic.

Russian Far East
The plan causes US-Chinese conflict
FTSE Global Markets 07 [FTSE Global Markets, June 2007, “Strait Across”, Issue 19,
http://www.ftseglobalmarkets.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1035:strait-across,

DMintz]
Despite the potentially significant advantage of tapping into Russia’s vast petroleum resources, Fred Stakelbeck, senior Asia fellow with the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, agrees that the negatives outweigh the positives at

present. “Given the US situation in terms of lowered reserves and declining domestic production, I can see where an energy pipeline could be viewed as a plus,” says Stakelbeck. “However, bear in mind that the Chinese have a historical viewpoint that Siberia is their territory. There is also a tremendous amount of Chinese immigration into that area, which brings the whole issue of future control of the tunnel and the surrounding region into question. So I’m not completely sure if it’s in the best interest of the US at this point, even from an energy perspective.”

Free trade doesn’t prevent trade conflicts. JOHN McLAREN 97 (Department of Economics, Columbia University , “Size, Sunk Costs, and Judge Bowker's Objection
to Free Trade”,http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2951352.pdf?acceptTC=true, CF) The difference in language between econo-mists and noneconomists on trade policy can be bewilderingly wide. For example, when a small country considers liberalizing trade be-tween itself and a much larger one, protection-ist rhetoric often stresses the danger to the "sovereignty" of the small country, threat-ened by its increased "dependence" on the large one.' By contrast, these misgivings are not even part of the vocabulary of most econ-omists. The usual economist's view is that ab-sent large-scale trade diversion problems (usually seen as empirically unlikely), two liberalizing countries will realize an increased gain from trade, and if one country is very much smaller than the other, it will tend to realize most of these gains itself.2 Perhaps the vocabulary can be enlarged. This paper reexamines the question of the small country's gains from bilateral liberaliza-tion, with an emphasis on some strategic ques-tions not heretofore emphasized in the theory.

Specifically, we look at the effects of antici-pated future trade relations in the context of irreversible investments. When these factors are present, current investment decisions can affect future trade policies, and conversely, an-ticipated policy affects current investment de-cisions. Recognizing this allows us to study the evolution of national bargaining strength as part of the general equilibrium of the sys-tem. A key conclusion is that expected future bilateral negotiations can have strategic dis-advantages for a small country not heretofore recognized in trade theory, and can be harmful on balance. The key is that the very anticipa-tion of those negotiations hurts the small coun-try's bargaining power in equilibrium.3 Thus, in some cases a small country can improve its welfare by committing never to negotiate on free trade with the large country. Further, if it cannot do so, it can be desirable to use protec-tion in the meantime to become less dependent on trade with the large country. Since the loss of bargaining power affects all aspects of relations between the two coun-tries, the trade-off might be viewed as a price the small country must pay in "sovereignty" for the benefits of free trade. This analysis thus allows us to address this set

of "nonecon-omic" issues squarely, and make precise the conditions under which they do and do not outweigh the usual "economic" benefits of liberalization. The basis for the canonical theory of bilat-eral trade relations was laid by Harry G. Johnson (1953-1954), Carlos Alfredo Rodriguez (1974), and others who studied trade wars, or Nash equilibria of tariff and quota games. This has then been built into a theory of bilateral liberalization as a bargain-ing problem in which the Nash equilibrium is used as the threat point (see Wolfgang Mayer [1981], and the survey by Avinash Dixit [19871). More recent variations include Kyle Bagwell and Robert W. Staiger (1990), in which the focus is the dynamic enforcement problem, and Gene Grossman and Elhanan Helpman ( 1995 ), where the focus is the effect of domestic interest groups. In

all of these in-terpretations, both countries are weakly better off in the negotiated outcome than in the trade war, regardless of size, because if they did not benefit from the outcome they could simply refuse to participate.

Free Trade only increases the risk of trade related conflicts. JOHN McLAREN 97 (Department of Economics, Columbia University , “Size, Sunk Costs, and Judge Bowker's Objection to Free
Trade”,http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2951352.pdf?acceptTC=true, CF) However, some

of the concerns of real-world skeptics are not addressed by this body of work. For example, some Canadian oppo-nents of the CUFTA in the key year 1988 dwelt on the agreement as a harbinger of future trade talks as well as a product of current talks. This is because the agreement shattered a long-standing taboo for Canadian politicians on comprehensive trade talks with the United States, going back at least to Wilfred Laurier's crushing 1911 electoral defeat on a platform of reciprocity. Furthermore,

the agreement vir-tually guaranteed ongoing renegotiation through its abrogation clause, permitting eithei side to cancel the agreement without cause on six months' notice. Therefore, if the traditional taboo on reciprocity could be thought of as a credible commitment never to negotiate with the United States, the CUFTA brought thai commitment to an abrupt end. One skeptic who made much of these issues was a retired judge named Marjorie M. Bowker, who became a minor celebrity with a grass-roots campaign against ratification and won many converts.5 The abrogation clause, and the effect on future bargaining power, were key in her arguments. In her words, taker from a widely circulated pamphlet (Bowker, 1988 pp. 45-46), Some Canadians have been heard to say, "Let's sign the Agreement anyway. We can terminate it with 6 months' no-tice if we don't like it." However it is not necessarily so sim-ple. For one thing, the termination clause works both ways. The U.S. could, for ex-ample, use it as a threat against Canada in order to force agreement to certain concessions, in other words, the U.S. could enforce its future demands by threatening to pull out-at a time un-suitable to Canada. This could arise, for example, in the controversial subject of unfair subsidies and countervailing du-ties which must still be worked out dur-ing the coming years. The U.S. might threaten to terminate the Agreement un-less the new definitions are to their liking. No matter which country were to ter-minate the Agreement, it could place
Canada in a serious predicament for this reason: once the Agreement takes effect in January 1989, Canadian industries would begin "gearing up" and restruc-turing in anticipation of greater exports to the U.S. This

could include costly capital expenditures for upgrading fac-tories, modernizing equipment, re-government when making their decisions, this can lead to erroneous conclusions. I am grateful to Preston McAfee for pointing this out. 'Strictly speaking, in Grossman and
Helpman ( 1995), it is for the two politicians running the two countries that bargaining is Pareto-improving. ' See John Howse (1988) for a concise account. 402 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW JUNE 1997 training workers (with some being laid off, temporarily at least). Once Canada had embarked on an industrial conver-sions process,

cancellation would simply create another disruption to our national economy. For these reasons, termination cannot be looked upon as a "way out."

Trade causes tension, resource competition, and strategic vulnerabilities- all lead to war
Reuveny 2k
(Rafael Reuveny, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Winter 19992000, The Trade and Conflict Debate: A Survey of Theory, Evidence and Future Research, Journal of Peace Economics, Peace Science and Peace Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, http://www.crp.cornell.edu/peps/Journal/Vol6-No1/Rsr-Reuveny.pdf.) A second body of work argues that trade causes conflict. This claim also is relatively old (e.g., Hobson, 1902; Lenin, 1916). Park et al. (1976), Feld (1979), and Ashley (1980) argue that international trade raises conflict by generating friction and intensifying competition among countries. Related arguments are offered by Choucri and North (1975), Sayrs (1990) and others. Trade increases the level of hostility by enhancing outward expansion. This argument assumes that traders compete for scarce production inputs and markets. As competition intensifies, state

power is used to guarantee national access to resources and markets. When the level of state intervention increases, one is more likely to observe a rise in protectionism, trade wars, economic penetration, colonial expansion, intervention in local conflicts, and an overall decrease in international cooperation. Realist scholars offer several other explanations as to why trade causes conflict. Waltz (1970) and Buzan (1984), for example, claim that trade makes states vulnerable since they are no longer able to steer economic policies independently of other states’ goals. Consequently, conflicts may arise because of trade. Other scholars argue that states seek to maximize relative gains from trade (i.e., to gain more than their partners). In an anarchic international system, states’ concerns for relative gains apply both to national security and to economic matters because economic status is a component of political power, and trade gains imply security externalities. States measure their capabilities relative to those of their potential enemies. The pursuit of relative gains from trade induces conflict (e.g., Grieco, 1988; Mastanduno, 1991; Gowa, 1994). Another explanation is offered by Uchitel (1993). She argues that dependence on the importation of strategic goods increases the likelihood of conflict, since countries tend to pursue aggressive expansionist policies to ensure the supply of such goods. The argument is then illustrated in case studies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the UK during the period leading to the Second World War.

Disease---

Free Trade Spreads Diseases
Zwerdling ‘1
{NPR, http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/mar/010309.disease.html}
More travel, more trade – Globalization certainly has its benefits. But it has its victims too, and the results can be deadly. As the global economy knits countries closer together, it becomes easier for dis-

eases to spread through states, over borders and across oceans – and to do serious damage to vulnerable human and animal populations. American Radio Works and
NPR News present a series on this lethal side effect of globalization.

Extinction
The Boston Globe, 95
[June 18, 1995, Pg. 62, “Plagued planet” ] But these diseases learned to mutate and become drug-resistant. Today, according to The Economist magazine, 90 percent of staph infections have become resistant to penicillin. Mutating, drug-resistant turberculosis, taking advantage of deteriorating immune systems, has become the handmaiden of AIDS. The ability of diseases to switch back and forth between animals and man is not new. In 1918 an influenza pandemic born of swine killed 20 million people. Modern flus, although less dangerous, race around the world periodically, usu-

ally originating in rural China, where people live close to their pigs in an environment where flu viruses can jump from animals to humans and back. The true terror will come if and when viruses like AIDS and Ebola find a way to become airborne like flu. Modern air travel has made these diseases almost impossible to isolate. The potential for a disease that kills not 20 million, but 90 percent of the world's population, is the ultimate environmental horror.

Solvency FL
Multiple political barriers prevent the Bering tunnel. Berry, 11
[Mark, Senior Fellow for Public Policy, Summit Council for World Peace, 10-4-2011, Universal Peace Federation, http://www.upf.org/programs/bering-strait-project/4017-mp-barry-advancing-the-beringstrait-tunnel-project-in-the-united-states-and-canada]
Aside from building an ACRL, which would be the foundational stage, stages two and three of creating a Bering Strait crossing really involve Russia. Frankly, there is no reason to lay track in Alaska between Fairbanks and Nome unless there is clear intent to connect to the Russian rail system. Privately, one senior Alaskan political leader admitted he supports eventually building a Bering Strait tunnel, but unless Russia and other countries (e.g., China, South Korea, Canada) clamor for it, the American side will never act on its own. [18] Without clear-cut demonstra-

tions of international support and even insistence, from the American point-of-view this project will remain a pipe dream. Since 2007, Russia has expressed noticeable interest in a Bering Strait tunnel according to press reports.
[19] In fact, in the lead up to recent G8 and G20 summits, the Russian news services have speculated that the project would be on the summit agenda. Even though that did not occur, one may presume that behind the scenes Russian delegates broached this subject with Chinese, Canadian, American and other attendees. While the degree of Russia's professed interest may vary depending on the current world economy, the country that will most influence the U.S. to begin to take the project seriously is Russia. Perhaps a sustained Russian effort to lobby the American political leadership over a decade or more will ultimately bear fruit, especially if world economic and political conditions become more stable. Of course, over such a period, U.S.-Russian relations must greatly improve -- and definitely not sour. Once the Americans realize the Russians are indeed serious, and consistently so over several Russian administrations, then the U.S. will get the message that it cannot afford to ignore this project. Not to be

underestimated are the national security implications of creating a Bering Strait project. A great deal of the strategic and military policy of each nation toward the other will have to be modified and updated to reflect a higher level of trust that will be a prerequisite to commencing this project. More immediately, the maritime boundary between Russia and the U.S. in the Arctic is still not agreed upon, despite an exchange of diplomatic notes with the Soviet Union in 1990. [20] This will have to be settled well before consideration of a Bering Strait tunnel. The Bering Strait project must be seen by both Russia and the U.S. (as well as Canada and China) as an historic task that will cement their ties for the long-term, and bridge not only former adversaries but entire continents and hemispheres. It should be seen as a great global task of permanent peace-building.

Russia can’t fund the project—other infrastructure priorities MOSCOW NEWS 2011 (“Digging to America,” Sep 5, lexis)
For their part, Russian

Railways officials say that if the government supports and finances the idea, they are ready to construct the tunnel. Currently, however railroad construction projects in the Far East are taking priority, and funding for those is yet to surface. As well as the expansion of the railroad network to
Yakutia, the railway company is also building railroads to Magadan on the Sea of Okhotsk and constructing a bridge to the Far Eastern Sakhalin Island.

Such projects are vital since Russia's resource base is shifting from Eastern Siberia toward the
north east, increasing the burden on the aged railroads in the region. Viktor Ishaev, the presidential representative to the region said recently that capacity on the Baikal- Amur railroad, which runs between Eastern Siberia and the Far East, needs to be increased to 52 million tons from the current 12.5 million to meet the increased demands. He added that the entire Trans-Siberian network should be able to carry 110-115 million tons a year by 2015. But even with the

question of who will finally foot the bill for the ambitious developments remains unclear. RZD's senior vice president Vadim Mikhailov said last week that the monopoly wants to significantly increase its borrowing volumes and plans to issue 20-year bonds soon. He said that if the company's under-financing problems persist, it will not be able to ship some 230 million tons of cargo by 2015 due to infrastructure problems. The tunnel, then, may have to wait.
expansion program, the

Bering Strait Tunnel can’t make profit – Jones Act April 23, 2007 Charles Ganske
http://www.russiablog.org/2007/04/bering_strait_tunnel_its_possi.php The second issue for a Bering Straits Tunnel is the Jones Act, a law affecting the U.S. maritime industry. At a conference in 2005, then Governor of Alaska (and former U.S. Senator) Mike Murkowski strongly promoted connecting Alaska to the Lower 48 by a rail corridor through Canada. His rationale: it is politically impossible to modify the Jones Act, which makes coastal shipping uneconomical because it restricts cabotage (sailing from one U.S. port to another to deliver freight or passengers) by foreign vessels, thus requiring uneconomically costly U.S. bottoms and U.S. crews for American domestic coastal shipping. The question is, will the U.S. Congress be able to take on maritime labor unions and the Jones Act in the name of efficient transportation? If the Jones Act were amended to remove the cabotage restriction -- which is not likely but perhaps not impossible -- it would reduce the amount of freight flowing on an Alaska-to-Lower-48 rail line, perhaps to the point of making the rail line uneconomic.

Can’t build the tunnel—weather conditions
MOSCOW NEWS 2011 (“Digging to America,” Sep 5, lexis)
However, Andrey

Rozhkov, senior engineering and machinery analyst at Moscowbased Metropol investment bank said the isolation and harsh weather conditions of the area in question make the project infeasible. 'It is unlikely that cargo trains would ever be favored over vessels since a whole network of access routes would also have to be built to support the project,' Rozhkov said. 'Given the weather conditions, the final cost would be astronomical. Currently the area has no infrastructure at all.'

NO SOLVE - BERING STRAIT too Dangerous to build
Tom Ricci January 2012
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/arctic-engineering---offshore-technology/connectingtwo-continents--the-ultimate-engineerin

Connecting the continents with a bridge or tunnel would represent an extraordinary engineering feat. A bridge would trump the world's longest, China's 102.4-mile Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge, a viaduct on the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway. A tunnel would be nearly twice as long as the "Chunnel," the 31-mile-long tunnel that connects England and France. The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering Team's concept estimated the cost of the tunnel to be $70 billion. In addition to the exceptional length, the greatest challenge to bridge design is speeding ice flows, most deadly in the spring when big sheets melt into fast-moving blocks. The supporting bridge piers would need to withstand up to 5,000 tons of pressure or more. Concrete, steel, and other building materials would need to resist radical temperature changes and the wear and tear of seawater and ice. Under these extreme temperature variations, even the smallest crack in the materials could cause corrosion and jeopardize the integrity of the structure.

NO Solve – Too Much Climate problems
Tom Ricci January 2012

http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/arctic-engineering---offshore-technology/connectingtwo-continents--the-ultimate-engineerin The Bering Strait lies just south of the Arctic Circle and is subject to long, dark winters and extreme weather [average winter lows of −20 °C (−4 °F) with extreme lows approaching −50 °C (−58 °F)] and high winds. The strait is also choked with ice flows up to 6 feet thick for nearly eight months out of the year. The region is marked by frequent and sometimes large-magnitude earthquakes. Just south of the strait is the northern edge of the Pacific Ring of Fire, or "CircumPacific belt," which generates 90% of the world's earthquakes, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Adding to these challenges is the barren desolation on either side of the strait. The nearest town of any size is 100 miles away, requiring thousands of miles of new highways and railways to support the infrastructure and workers for the project.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close