1AC

Plan
The United States federal government should
substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic
engagement by proposing a cooperative agreement to
safeguard Arctic Ocean environmental resources with the
Peoples Republic of China.

1
Current fishing practices make Chinese expansion to the
Arctic inevitableLucas Jackson November 11, 2015
"Potential already there for global race to exploit Arctic resources Kerry."
https://www.rt.com/usa/321529-arctic-kerry-national-security/
Why is this so important to China? One reason is access to the Arctic Oceans
fishing supply. The new fishing grounds will become the worlds largest
storehouse of biological protein, wrote Tang Guoqiang, Chinas former
ambassador to Norway, in a recent paper (link in Chinese.) As we recently discussed, fishing is a big
business for China, so much so that its raiding the territorial waters of other
countries. Arctic nations are currently mulling an accord to prevent fishing in
the open water above the Bering Strait until scientists can assess fish stocks.
The objective would be to manage commercial fishing, not to protect the fish habitat, noted the New York Times. Heres what the territory
currently looks: The other reason is that the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage, as theyre sometimes called, connect China to
Europe, reducing travel from around 15,000 miles to 8,000 miles. That would save ships time and fuel. Heres what that looks like now, on the
left, and how thats set to change:

Absent a legal framework in place, China wont be

constrained to overfish and that collapses Arctic
biodiversity
Hoag, 4/28. Hannah, staff writer and managing editor of Arctic Deeply ,
UPI, 2016. Nations negotiate fishing in Arctic high seas.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/04/28/Nations-negotiate-fishing-inArctic-high-seas/6491461866116/
Last week, delegates from six Arctic nations and other countries with major
fishing fleets met in Washington, D.C., to discuss plans to prohibit commercial
fishing in the central Arctic Ocean until scientists can find out more about the
fish stocks and how they are changing. "Fishing shouldn't occur up there until
we have the science and the rules in place," said Scott Highleyman, director
of the International Arctic Program at The Pew Charitable Trusts. No
commercial fishing occurs in the high seas of the Arctic Ocean yet. The 2.8m
square kilometer area (1.08m sq. mile) region surrounds the North Pole. It is
referred to as the high seas because it lies beyond the 200 nautical mile limit
of the Arctic nations. Without regulations, it is permissible for fishing fleets to
cast their nets within these waters. Until recently, the area has been largely
impenetrable to fishing fleets. According to satellite records spanning 19792000, this high seas area remained ice covered throughout the year, even
during the summer. But in the past decade, summer sea ice has retreated
dramatically. During the summers of 2007 and 2012, as much as 40 percent
of the Central Arctic Ocean particularly the waters adjacent to Canada,
Russia and the United States was open water, Highleyman said. Permanent
ice has given way to navigable seas and seasonal ice, he added. In August
2015, the five Arctic countries with coastlines bordering the Arctic Ocean

Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States signed a voluntary
agreement to bar commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. The
declaration, signed in Oslo, is a voluntary agreement between the nations to
keep commercial fishing vessels out of the region until scientists have
improved their understanding of the region and can produce science-based
assessments of the fish stocks and distribution. Last week, Canada, China,
Denmark, the European Union, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Russia
and the United States met to discuss ways to bring other countries in on the
agreement or to create a new one. China, Japan and South Korea are all
observers to the Arctic Council, and the European Union's status within the
organization is pending. The Central Arctic Ocean is a 2.8 million square
kilometer area (1.08 million square miles) of international waters that lie
beyond the 200 nautical mile boundary. Map courtesy of the Pew Charitable
Trusts China, for example, captures more fish than any other country. In 2012,
its fishing vessels captured almost 14 million tonnes (15.4 million U.S. tons)
of marine fish globally, a 13 percent increase in a decade, according to the
U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization. Pollution and overfishing near
China's coast and high demand for fish are driving its fishing vessels into
more distant waters, according to a 2012 report by the European Parliament.
The report found China was aiming to increase its distant-water fishing fleet
to 2,300 vessels by the end of 2015. In contrast, other nations are decreasing
their fishing fleets to address overfishing. Some researchers, including Daniel
Pauly, from the University of British Columbia, warn that China's longdistance fishing fleet may be under-reporting its catch. In a 2013 study, he
and his colleagues estimate that China's long-distance catch may have been
as much as 4.6 million tonnes per year from 2000-11, more than 12 times the
reported catch of 368,000 tonnes per year. Non-Arctic nations are interested
in access to shipping routes, natural resources and fishing, making it
important to include them in any discussions about future fishing in the
Central Arctic Ocean. There are concerns that in the absence of an
international agreement that the region could become quickly overfished. "As
the sea ice starts to melt and the high seas of the Central Arctic Ocean
become accessible for the first time in human history, how do we approach
it? The idea of doing the science first and crafting the rules before we start is
a really good idea," Highleyman said. At present, there is "zero" evidence that
commercially interesting fish stocks will extend in the Central Arctic Ocean,
Highleyman said. Part of the reason for that is that no one has surveyed
them. Researchers have studied the bottom and top of the food chain,
studying phytoplankton and seabirds and mammals, respectively, but not the
fish that occupy the middle rungs, he said. "It wouldn't take very many boats
to wipe out populations before we know what they are," Highleyman said. In
the 1970s and '80s, South Korea, China, Poland, Japan and other countries
hauled millions of tonnes of pollock from the international waters in the
central Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia. A conservation agreement
was signed in 1994, closing the area to pollock fishing until the stock
rebounded. It has yet to recover. Scientific experts from the Arctic coastal
states and the additional nations have held meetings in parallel with the

ongoing policy meetings, to share information on Arctic fish stocks and to

develop research and monitoring priorities for the Central Arctic Ocean. One
of the key questions they hope to study are the links between fish stocks and
the adjacent ecosystems. The policy talks are discussing three different
possible approaches: modifying the signed declaration to include other
nations in a non-binding agreement; drafting a new binding international
agreement; and negotiating the creation of a regional fisheries management
organization. All three could also be combined in a "stepwise" approach. Both
the United States and Canada support a binding agreement on Arctic
fisheries. "It will fill an important gap in the ocean governance system,"
Karmenu Vella, the European Union's commissioner for the environment,
fisheries and maritime affairs, said in a statement. The next round of
negotiations will be held in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in July.

Existing prohibitions fail- only engaging China on a

cooperative agreement to maintain fisheries protects
Arctic biodiversityPan 16. Min, Center for Polar and Oceanic Studies, Tong Ji University,
Shanghai, Peoples Republic of Chinam, January 16, volume 63 of Marine
Policy. A precautionary approach to fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean:
Policy, science, and China.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002997
In recent years, up to 40% of the central Arctic Ocean has been ice-free in
summer. This open water makes access possible for ordinary vessels,
including fishing boats. The five Arctic Ocean coastal states (Canada,
Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States) have agreed to
develop an international agreement to prohibit unregulated fishing in
international waters of the central Arctic Ocean . Non-Arctic countries, including China, and regional
Abstract

organizations such as the European Union will be invited to join the ensuing negotiations. Participation would strengthen China's interest in Arctic affairs in a cooperative fashion,
in contrast to a perception that China is interested solely in extracting Arctic resources and is thus a competitor with Arctic states. China's scientific capacity, including the
icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon), provides it with an opportunity to practice marine and polar science diplomacy and to contribute further to Arctic cooperation and
collaborative understanding. The precautionary approach of managing resources before extraction begins may make cooperative actions easier, as no one yet has a stake in the
resource, and could provide a model for other regions that are developing international mechanisms for governance of international waters. 1. Introduction The waters of the
central Arctic Ocean (Fig. 1) have been increasingly ice-free in summer for the past 15 years, particularly north of the Chukchi Sea, off the coasts of Russia and the United States
[1]. In the summer of 2012, as calculated from National Snow and Ice Data Center data, 40% of the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) had less than 15% ice
cover, thus appearing as open water in maps of sea ice extent. For the first time in human history, a new ocean is opening up [2]. And as warming continues, the likelihood of an
ice-free Arctic in the next few decades becomes greater [3]. are moving north [4], including in subarctic waters [5]. The combination of open water and north-moving fish raises
the prospect of Arctic fisheries, though it remains unclear which species might move into the waters of the CAO, in what numbers, and when [6]. The management of fisheries in
the CAO, beyond national jurisdictions, has nonetheless become a more pressing issue in Arctic marine governance. In July 2015, the five Arctic coastal states signed the
Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, including their intent to create a broader international agreement on the
same principles. But CAO fisheries governance is not only about fishing. It has many other aspects, such as cooperative governance of the Arctic, the relations among Arctic states,
and the relations between Arctic and non-Arctic states. The sequence of events surrounding CAO fisheries may provide a novel opportunity for countries such as China to become
involved cooperatively and constructively in Arctic affairs. By acting in advance of any fishing activity and any negative impacts to fish stocks, a CAO agreement creates an
unusual pathway for participation on the basis of caution rather than reaction. Such an agreement is thus a question of policy, science, and international relations. With these
themes in mind, this paper explores first the interactions of policy and science concerning the CAO, noting that in this instance policy is leading science rather than the reverse.
Then it examines China's interest in the CAO and its evolving role in Arctic affairs, including Arctic science as a form of diplomacy. It concludes with observations on the
implications of China's participation in CAO fisheries discussions as a symbol of the potential shift towards greater international involvement in the development and management
of Arctic resources. 2. Fishing, science, and policy Typically, issues are raised as societal or economic ones, which in turn generate political interest, resulting in policy planning

Fisheries in the international waters of the Bering Sea, the so-called

Donut Hole, demonstrate this pattern. International fishing fleets operated in these waters,
eventually attracting attention from American fishers who feared that unregulated
fishing could undermine management of pollock (Gadus chalcogramma) in
U.S. waters. Their economic concerns led to a U.S. policy supporting an
international agreement for the Donut Hole . The Convention on the
Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea
and eventual policies.

was signed in 1994, too late for the pollock stocks that were by then depleted
and have yet to recover to levels that would sustain a fishery [7]. Scientific efforts helped identify
management targets for the Donut Hole stock and continue to support sound management of pollock harvests in U.S. waters [8]. By contrast, the CAO fisheries issue began as a
policy matter, as the United States Senate passed a resolution in 2007, directing the U.S. government to pursue an international agreement for the CAO. The resolution was signed
into law in June 2008 and is based on the same logic that supported the U.S. Fishery Management Plan for the Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, which established a
catch quota of zero for U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas until there is sufficient information to support an economically and environmentally sustainable fishery [9].
This approach was also taken by Canada for its portion of the Beaufort Sea in 2014 under the Beaufort Sea Integrated Fisheries Management Framework, where new commercial
fisheries will only be considered after research has shown surplus and sustainable stocks [10]. Rather than being driven by scientific findings or by unsustainable or unmanaged
activities already taking place, the policy-driven approach is based in part on the lack of scientific information concerning fish stocks and ecosystem dynamics in the CAO. One
challenge in this approach is the potential lack of incentive to act before there is clearly a problem to address. Some countries and some scientists considered a CAO fisheries
agreement unnecessary or not urgent, on the grounds that there was no fishing taking place nor any evidence that such a fishery might begin in the foreseeable future [6]. There has
been little advocacy by non-governmental organizations, other than the Pew Charitable Trusts [11]. These circumstances also meant that no one has a stake in CAO fisheries at
present, so there is little or no active opposition. The lack of activities in the region also meant that states all approached the issue from a similar standpoint, with no need to justify
or protect current practices. Instead, all parties had the opportunity to engage cooperatively. This idea has important implications for the engagement of non-Arctic states such as
China, as discussed below. To date, formal diplomatic discussions have been limited to the five Arctic Ocean coastal states: Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Russia,
and the U.S. The policy meetings have been complemented by three closed scientific meetings involving the same countries, in addition to various events outside the channels of
international diplomacy (Table 1). Despite tensions between Russia and other countries concerning the Ukrainian crisis, the five countries signed the Declaration Concerning the
Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean in July 2015, a year after it was drafted in Nuuk, Greenland. The progression of events and meetings
concerning a CAO fisheries agreement is shown in Table 1. Among the key next steps is the engagement of non-Arctic actors such as the European Union, South Korea, Japan, and

China is a near-Arctic nation [12]; what happens in the Arctic

increasingly has great impacts on China, and vice versa. Climate change in
the Arctic can affect China's weather, which in turn may have great impacts
on China's agricultural production and living conditions [13]. The opening and
commercial use of Arctic shipping routes also have great potential impacts on
China's economic development and trade [13]. The development of Arctic
mineral and petroleum resources is of great interest to China, as a major
consumer of raw materials and producer of manufactured goods [14]. China has
a long history of participation in the Arctic. China signed the Svalbard Treaty
in 1925, and opened the Huang He research station there in Ny-lesund in 2004 [15], an icon of what Chinese scholar Kai Sun has called China's substantive
China 3. China and the Arctic

presence in the Arctic. China has conducted six scientific expeditions in the Arctic since 1999, and in 2012 committed to making these voyages every two years. In August 2012,
Chinese scientists aboard the icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon) completed the country's first trans-Arctic voyage from Shanghai to Iceland [16]. The goals of China's scientific
expeditions to the Arctic include environmental concerns, aurora observations, and marine biological research. Social scientists have also contributed to Arctic research through
various conferences and collaborations, such as the Sino-Russia Arctic Forum (established in 2012), China-Nordic Arctic Cooperation Symposium (2013), and Sino-U.S. Arctic

China has realized from the beginning that cooperation with the
Arctic states is the preferred path for China's participation in Arctic matters [17].
In 2012, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited Iceland and signed deals with Iceland
for Arctic and marine scientific cooperation, and also agreements on trade,
joint business ventures, and so on [18]. The same year, President Hu Jintao visited
Denmark to consolidate and strengthen friendly cooperation between the two
countries, including in the Arctic [19]. Those all paved the way for China's
acceptance in the Arctic Council (a regional intergovernmental organization)
as an observer in 2013, which it had sought since 2008 [15]. China has also been
investing in Arctic areas. For example, in March 2015 China provided US$15
billion to contribute to the financing of a US$27-billion liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plant on Russia's Yamal Peninsula, in cooperation with the Russian natural gas producer Novatek [20]. A
Chinese company attempted a cooperative project with UK-based London
Mining to develop the Isua iron ore mine in Greenland , but this failed when London Mining went bankrupt
Social Science Forum (2015).

after iron ore prices plunged in 2014. However, the Chinese company retains the exploration rights for Isua as it acquired London Mining's subsidiary in Greenland. In 2015,
General Nice Group, a Chinese private trading company, took over a large iron ore mine in Greenland, which was reported to be worth around US$2 billion [21]. Chinese

The potential for CAO fisheries, too, is of

interest to China. With the collapse of fish stocks in China's coastal seas [23] and [24]
and the rapid increase in the income of the Chinese population, China's
demand for fish has been increasing rapidly [25]. This demand has led to recent
expansion and improvement of China's distant-water fishing fleet (XG Lai,
personal communication, January 2015). Specialists in the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences proposed that the long-term priority of China's agricultural
development should be its overseas fisheries [26]. China will inevitably be
companies are also interested in investing in local infrastructure in the Arctic [22].

interested in fisheries throughout the world, including the CAO . 4. Science and diplomacy At the
intersection of China's interest in fisheries and its interest in the Arctic is its role in a CAO fisheries agreement. Observer status at the Arctic Council is recognition of China's
contributions to Arctic research and Arctic affairs more generally, but observers play no role in the decisions that are made there. While the five Arctic Ocean coastal states have so
far limited participation in CAO fisheries discussions, the recent declaration is the start of wider engagement, including perhaps a more substantive role for China and others than

China's role in developing Arctic resources causes concern in

some areas, China's participation in a cooperative agreement to safeguard
the CAO ecosystem and its fish stocks offers another pathway for China. And
China brings its research and ice-breaking capacity to the discussion . China
could play an important role in investigating the marine living resources in
the CAO. Scientists agree that there is little information about the CAO
ecosystem, especially in the deep area [27]. Much information will be needed to
manage sustainable fisheries in the CAO. By strengthening research in the
region, China could demonstrate the importance it attaches to Arctic fisheries
issues and to the Arctic in general, and its willingness to act cooperatively
with Arctic states and others. For example, China could help to promote
scientific cooperation agreements for the CAO and could push to establish
appropriate research institutions that bring together the expertise, capacity,
and funds of the Arctic and non-arctic states. The government of China is
further strengthening diplomatic relations with Arctic states through scientific
research. Science diplomacy can help build trust and foster intercultural
understanding. Science diplomacy is not new [28]. A prominent example is the
governance of Antarctica, where the soft power of science has helped strike a
balance between national and common interests [28]. In 1959, the Antarctic
Treaty was signed and came into force in 1961 [29]. The most important common interest articulated in the Treaty is
they enjoy at the Arctic Council. While

the freedom of scientific research, including the exchange of data and people. This is crucial for informing management strategies to protect the Antarctic environment and ensure
the sustainable use of its resources [28]. During the Cold War, the Antarctic Treaty kept the region peaceful and fostered scientific cooperation, despite tensions and battles

China might take several steps further towards the

governance of Arctic fisheries. First, China must attach great importance to
the Arctic fisheries issues and strengthen the scientific research on the Arctic
marine living resources. Second, as a stakeholder in Arctic fisheries, China
needs to strengthen international cooperation with the Arctic countries,
individually and collectively. Some journalists in China argue that the sooner
China participates in the Arctic fisheries issues , the better it can act in its own
interests for this and other Arctic matters [30]. 5. Conclusions CAO fisheries is more than a fishing issue, it opens a new path
elsewhere in the world [29]. In the near future,

for Arctic governance and for international cooperation in general. The policy-first approach to CAO fisheries is an innovative way to address potential problems before they
become real problems, following the precautionary principle and avoiding the exploit-first, manage-second disasters seen in many fisheries around the world [31]. Doing so allows
all participating states to act cooperatively from the beginning, rather than separating into competing sides and judgments about which are the good actors and which the bad. The
alternative could lead to power struggles and missed opportunities for good governance. China is trying hard to strengthen the connection between China and the Arctic and to
participate in Arctic affairs. An overemphasis on resource development may alienate Arctic states or at least some constituencies in those states. Contributing to the research of
Arctic marine living resources and the protection of the Arctic environment, however, is likely to be seen as a more benign role. The CAO fisheries negotiations may thus provide
an opportunity for China to be involved in Arctic affairs in a new and non-threatening way, perhaps reducing concerns among Arctic states about China's intentions and thereby
creating new opportunities for collaboration based on better relations and better mutual understanding. The management of CAO fisheries is at the intersection of geopolitics,
policy, diplomacy, and science. The countries individual interests can only be achieved through effective management of the CAO fisheries, which can only be achieved
cooperatively. In this case, cooperation also means the involvement of non-Arctic states such as China. The recognition of the respective roles of policy and science may be an
effective way of putting the precautionary principle into practice and harnessing the mutual interests and abilities of the various states that have Arctic interests. Such a precedent
would be a valuable contribution to effective governance of international waters in the Arctic and could provide a useful model for other regions as well.

The Arctic is a biodiversity hotspot baseline policies are

key to protecting it
CBD 5-20-14 [Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit membership organization with approximately
625,000 members known for protecting endangered species, REPORT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONAL
WORKSHOP TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE
AREAS, pg. 28-30, http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-2014-01/official/ebsaws-2014-01-05en.pdf]

Arctic biodiversity is an irreplaceable cultural, scientific, ecological,

economic and spiritual asset. (CAFF 2013, p. 4) The challenges facing Arctic
biodiversity are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and
international cooperation. (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Key Finding No. 9, 2013) 1. The Arctic
hosts a globally significant array of biodiversity, and the size and nature of
Arctic ecosystems make them of critical importance to the biological,
chemical and physical balance of the globe (ACIA 2005). 2. The marine waters of
the Arctic are unique in that they contain a deep ocean basin which until recently
was almost completely covered in multi-year ice. No other area in the world
has such an ice- dominated deep ocean . That property alone would make conservation of the
Arctic deserve the attention of Arctic States and the rest of the world . The increasing

loss of the multi-year ice places the Arctic under increasing pressure and is exerting impacts on sensitive Arctic ecosystems. These pressures
and impacts emphasize the urgency of adopting effective conservation and management measures. The Arctic, as defined by CAFF, covers 32

The ecosystems of this vast area exhibit

substantial biodiversity, comprising more than 21,000 known species . 3. Arctic
species have developed remarkable adaptations to survive both extreme cold
and highly variable climatic conditions. Iconic ice-adapted species such as polar bear, bowhead whale,
million km2, 40.6% of which is composed of marine areas.

narwhal, and walrus, live among thousands of lesser-known species that are adapted to greater or lesser degrees to exploit the habitats
created by sea ice (Eamer et al. 2013). Some species have adapted to the point where they have become ice-dependent, making their

Sea ice is a generic term for a variety of critically

important Arctic marine habitats, which include ice shelves, pack ice, and the
highly mobile ice edge. The sea ice complements and modifies other types of habitats, including extensive shallow ocean
shelves and towering coastal cliffs (CAFF/ABA 2013). 4. In addition to supporting a diversity of ice-adapted species, Arctic habitats
are also remarkable for their roles in supporting globally significant
populations, including more than half of the worlds shorebird species . Millions of
population levels vulnerable to loss of sea ice.

migratory birds breed in the Arctic and then fly to every continent on Earth, contributing to global biodiversity and ecological health (ABA
2013). During the short summer breeding season, 279 species of birds arrive from all corners of the Earth3 to take advantage of the long days
and intense period of productivity. Thirty species come from as far away as South Africa, 26 from Australia and New Zealand and 22 from
South America. Several species of marine mammals, including grey and humpback whales and harp and hooded seals, also join the migration
(CAFF 2010). 5. Recent changes in Arctic sea-ice cover, driven by rising temperatures, have affected the timing of ice break-up in spring and
freeze-up in autumn, as well as the extent and type of ice present in different areas at specific dates. Overall, multi-year ice is rapidly being
replaced by first-year ice. The extent of ice is shrinking in all seasons, but especially in the summer. The Arctic Ocean is projected to be
virtually ice- free in summer within 30 years, with multi-year ice persisting mainly between islands of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and in
the narrow straits between Canada and Greenland (Eamer et al. 2013). 6. Changes in ocean conditions also mean that subarctic species of
algae, invertebrates, fish, mammals (Kaschner et al. 2011) and birds are expanding northwards into the Arctic, while some Arctic- adapted
species are losing habitat along the southern edges of their ranges. Relationships among species are changing, with new predation pressures
and shifts in diets recorded for some animals. To what extent Arctic species will adjust to these changes is uncertain. Changes are too rapid for
evolutionary adaptation, so species with inborn capacity to adjust their physiology or behaviour will fare better. Species with limited
distribution, specialized feeding or breeding requirements, and/or high reliance on sea ice for part of their life cycle are particularly vulnerable
(Eamer et al. 2013). 7.

Humans have long been part of Arctic ecosystems, and presently

the Arctic is home to more than four million people (AHDR 2009). Arctic biodiversity has been the basis for ways of life of indigenous
peoples for millennia and is still a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. The CBD recognizes this link, inter alia in the draft plan of
Action for Article 10 (c), which states that biodiversity, customary sustainable use and traditional knowledge are intrinsically linked (CBD
2013). In addition to its intrinsic worth, Arctic biodiversity also provides innumerable services and values to people. 8. Industrial exploitation of

ommercial exploitation
of natural resources, including fisheries, only takes place in waters under national
jurisdiction in the marginal seas surrounding the Arctic Ocean . While the Arctic Ocean was
once ice-covered for most of the year, climate change has reduced ice cover, creating the
potential for utilization of natural resources, including fish stocks, in the central portion
of the Arctic Ocean, i.e. marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (Lin et al. 2012). The
renewable and non-renewable natural resources poses special challenges in the Arctic. Currently, c

newly seasonally ice-free areas of the Arctic Ocean contain protected species such as bowhead whales (Moore et al. 2011) and fish species

the Arctic is estimated

to contain a fifth of the worlds remaining oil and gas reserves, the
development of which is expected to increase . Already, 10% of the worlds oil and 25% of the worlds
natural gas is produced in the Arctic, predominantly onshore, with the majority coming from the Russian Arctic (AMAP 2007). 9. The
foregoing makes clear that the Arctic is a region of global significance and
that may support a commercial harvest (Lin et al. 2012). Among non-renewable natural resources,

that what happens there will have an effect felt far beyond its extent . The description
of Arctic areas meeting EBSA criteria is important and necessary because this relatively pristine environment now faces threats from increased
warming, ocean acidification and increased pollutants, causing among other things erosion of sea ice, changes in weather patterns, altered

hanges will have significant

consequences for marine biodiversity and biological productio n, as well as for indigenous
peoples subsistence use of these resources. Describing ecologically or biologically significant
marine areas in the Arctic is an essential process for informing policy and
management and for establishing a scientific baseline for future observations
and to better inform policymaking. 10. The Arctic Council is a regional body with a long history of effective
natural habitats, and the opening of areas for new development (ACIA 2005). These c

cooperation on issues related to environmental conservation and sustainable development; it provides an important forum in relation to
marine conservation, monitoring and research. Data generated through Arctic Council activities provide important inputs into the EBSA
process, e.g., through the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) and the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). Specific
reports, such as AMSA IIC, demonstrate the important contribution of these activities. AMSA IIC identified areas of heightened ecological and
cultural significance in light of changing climate conditions and increasing incidences of multiple marine uses, and encouraged the
implementation of measures to protect these areas from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping. 11. In summary, when considering the EBSA

the Arctic is unique relative to the rest of the worlds marine and coastal
areas for a number of reasons, including that: (a) It supports unique cold- and
ice-adapted species, biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems (ABA 2013); (b) The
Arctic is undergoing change at a more rapid rate than other places on the
globe, threatening the existence of ecosystems such as multi-year sea ice. In the
process,

past 100 years, average Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the average global rate (IPCC 2007); (c) When viewed on a global
scale, the region as a whole meets several of the EBSA criteria: Uniqueness, naturalness, vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity and slow recovery,
which can be found at many scales throughout the Arctic; (d) Owing to cold temperatures, breakdown processes for anthropogenic
contaminants occur more slowly than in a temperate and tropical climate (AMAP 2011); (e) The Arctic is more clearly defined as a distinct and
unique geographical region than other areas where the EBSA process has been applied; and (f) In the Arctic, there exists a challenge for
indigenous peoples and Arctic States in how to include traditional knowledge in the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria, as well as how
to assess and include social and cultural significance, especially when these areas cross national borders. 12. These factors justify adopting a

The challenges in
maintaining the functionality and biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems are
interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and international
cooperation (ABA 2013), hence the importance of the EBSA process as a means of drawing attention to the Arctic and
higher baseline level of risk aversion in managing of activities in the Arctic relative to the rest of the world.

helping to inform responses to the challenges it faces.

Biodiversity loss risks extinction

Danovaro 8 [Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12,
2008. Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem
Collapse. http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-SeaBiodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/]

The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of ecological research .

The dark
portion of the biosphere likely hosts millions of undiscovered-yet new species .
A global scale study conducted on biodiversity collected down to 8000 m depth reveals for the first
time that small invertebrates (including worms and crustacea) play a key role in sustaining the
overall functioning of these ecosystems. This study concludes that even a minor loss
of biodiversity can cause a major impact on the functioning of the global
biosphere. In the future, we should start protecting not only large flag species, but also the almost
invisible and sometime monstrous creatures that inhabit the abyss and the ocean interior. Hard to believe,
but so far we dedicated more efforts on the exploration of the Moon or on searching the life on Mars than
on exploring the deep interior of our oceans. The total amount of seafloor recovered from depths higher
than 4 km (which is the average depth of the oceans) is equivalent to less than the surface of a football
pitch. Till few decades ago, we believed that deep-sea habitats were the equivalent of the terrestrial

the dark side of the

biosphere is plenty of life and characterized by an enormous number of
species. Despite the deep-sea ecosystems are apparently far from us and
deserts, devoid of life. But recently we accumulated evidence that

difficult to reach and investigate there is an increasing evidence that they are
susceptible to the direct and indirect impact of human activities . At the same time
they help sustaining human life by providing essential goods and services
(including food, biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, minerals) and contribute to climate
regulation, nutrient regeneration and supply to the upper ocean. The oxygen
produced in the upper ocean, for instance, is about half of the total oxygen
produced on Earth and largely depends on the availability of the nutrients
regenerated in the deep-sea floor. Therefore, for their profound involvement
in global biogeochemical and ecological processes deep seas are essential for
the air, water and food we consume and consequently crucial for the
sustainable functioning of our biosphere and for human wellbeing. Deep-sea
ecosystems are becoming a target for industries for exploiting the huge natural resources (trawling,
drilling, dumping, oil, gas and mineral extraction) and are already being threatened by other
pollution sources. These impacts might have important consequences on these
highly vulnerable ecosystems determining biodiversity losses . A study published on
January 8th on Current Biology, a prestigious publication of Cell Press, provides for the first time evidence
that the functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems depends on the richness of species living there. The
researchers of a joint team collaborating within the frame of the project Hermes (Hotspot ecosystems

health and
functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems are not only linked to biodiversity,
but also increase exponentially with the increase of the diversity of species
living there. In this study, it was found that sites with a higher diversity of species support
along European Margins) and to the EU network of excellence MARBEF, found that the

exponentially higher rates of ecosystem processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes

a higher biodiversity can enhance the

ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and
biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning .
This finding, which has no equivalents on terrestrial ecosystems, has an important consequence: the
loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to the future of the oceans. In
are performed. Overall, these results suggest that

fact, a biodiversity loss by 20-25% is expected to reduce drastically (by 50%) the functions of these

The exponential
increase in ecosystem function as species numbers rise indicates that
individual species in the deep sea make way for more species, and facilitate
each other life. Facilitation among species could be therefore the most efficient strategy to increase
the ecological performance of the communities. Deep seas are the largest ecosystem on
Earth, covering approximately 65% of the total surface. As such it is possible to conclude that
facilitation could be the most common typology of interactions among life
forms. There are several possible applications of this finding to other systems, and even to human
societies, as facilitation could be the most convenient interaction for the overall
wellbeing of the ecosystems and humans. Overall the results of this study indicate that
we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deep-sea biodiversity,
because otherwise the negative consequences could be unprecedented . In
particular we must care also about species that are far from us and [essentially] invisible. To do this
we must preserve deep-sea habitats of these life forms. An immediate policy
action can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions of the largest
ecosystems on the planet.
ecosystems, whilst a species loss by 50% could lead to ecosystem collapse.

2
International credibility is declining specifically because
of a lack of Artic leadership
Ebinger et al. 14
(Charles Ebinger is a senior fellow and director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings. He has more
than 35 years of experience specializ- ing in international and domestic energy markets (oil, gas, coal, and
nuclear) and the geopolitics of energy, and has served as an energy policy advisor to over 50
governments. He has served as an ad- junct professor in energy economics at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Stud- ies and Georgetown Universitys Walsh School of Foreign Service. Alisa
Schackmann is the senior research assistant in the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings. With a
background covering international ener- gy policy and climate change negotiations from abroad, her
research focuses on the impact of U.S. policies on global energy markets and security. She has a Masters
degree from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and a B.A.
from the University of Southern California. John P. Banks is a nonresident senior fellow at the Energy
Security Initiative at Brookings. He has worked with governments, companies and regulators for over 25
years in establishing and strengthening policies, institutions, and regulato- ry frameworks to promote
sustainable energy sec- tors. Mr. Banks also serves as an adjunct professor at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He has worked in over 20 countries. Offshore Oil and
Gas Governance in the Artic: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Published in the March 2014 Policy Brief 14-01
(Energy Security Initiative) for the Brookings Institute. Pages 19)//JHH

Despite the developments summarized above, within the broader Arctic community
the U.S. is often criticized for not prioritizing the Arctic as an important
policy area. Many of our regional counterparts want to know: What are U.S.
inten- tions not only as one of the eight Arctic countries, but also as a
superpower? Typical criticisms cite the inability of the U.S. to accede to UNCLOS, the U.S.s hesitancy
to enhance the legal authority and mandate of the Arctic Council, and the slow pace of elevating the Arctic
as a key policy prior- ity within the government, especially at the State Department. Another problem
highlighted in our discussions is the State Departments reluctance at the highest levels to have close
interaction with the private sector, even though the private sector has the most resources in the Arctic in

There is
also a rising chorus within the U.S. complaining that the government and most
Americanssimply does not see itself as an Arctic nation, and that the U.S. does
not have an effective, comprehensive Arctic strategy. The chief obstacle
in effecting a coher- ent Arctic strategy is a long-standing challenge in
balancing Alaskan and broader pan-Arctic interests. One of the manifestations of this
is mul- tiple government agencies with policy and over- sight roles in the
Arctic posing coordination chal- lenges. Issues relating to Alaska are in the hands of
terms of implementing the Search and Rescue Agreement and the Oil Pollution Agreement.

domestic agencies, most notably the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Se- curity
(Coast Guard), the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, and the Department of Commerce (NOAA) as well
as others. On the international level, primary representation of the U.S. govern- ment in international
forums is the responsibility of the Department of State, with the Coast Guard and Navy interacting on
cross-border maritime issues with Canada and Russia as well as with other Arctic states in a number of
areas. The historic lack of focus on the importance of the Arctic is illustrated in another perspective ex-

too long the government has treated the Arctic

as something that scientific experts deal with in obscure loca- tions, having
little relevance to larger geopolitical issues. Institutionally, the U.S.
government has focused on the Arctic as a technical rather than a
strategic issue, hindering the elevation of the region as a priority in the
policy hierarchy. As a result, in this view, too much of Arctic policy is conducted at
lower levels of the government rath- er than at the highest levels of the
Department of State or White House. This in turn constrains the organizational, human,
pressed to us. This belief is that for far

and financial resources dedicated to the Arctic. Several participants in our research, including
some former Arctic of- ficials, were forceful in their contention, saying We can no longer pretend that we
can deal with the challenges of the Arctic and not budget the resources to meet them. The overall result,

U.S. Arctic policy right

now is very broad and not real defined. There are signs of progress. The last two Arctic
ac- cording to a senior U.S. government official based in Alaska, is that

Council ministerial meetings were attended by the U.S. Secretary of State (Sec. Clinton in Nuuk, Greenland
and Sec. Kerry in Kiruna, Sweden), representing the most senior level U.S. officials to attend Council
ministerial meetings. The strategy documents produced in 2013 by the White House, Coast Guard and the
DOD, as well as the January 2014 Implementation Plan for the National Strat- egy for the Arctic Region and
Secretary Kerrys intention to designate a senior representative for the Arctic region demonstrate
movement in the right direction. In addition, as noted, the work of the Interagency Working Group on
Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska is an important step to improving
de- cision-making and coordination among govern- ment agencies, as well as promoting a whole of

wide- spread agreement

that the rapidity of the chang- ing Arctic environment and commercial activity
is outrunning the institutional capacity of the U.S. government . The current policy
government approach. Nevertheless, in our discussions there was

framework does not insure that response capabilities are adequate to have any meaningful impact on the
region, and there is a need to act now.

US leadership is key- gets Arctic nations on board,

spreads diplomacy, and is key to avoiding regional
instability-

Osullivan 14, Connor, 2015 M.S. Candidate at NYUs Center for Global
Affairs, International Relations Concentration. Breaking Energy April 28.
Opinion: Arctic Development Could Ignite Next Great-Game Competition
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/04/28/opinion-arctic-development-couldignite-next-great-game-competition/
The United States and other Arctic Council members must check the
exploration and production ambitions of Russia and China to prevent a great
power game developing. A cohesive policy between member states and
international institutions will be vital in preventing a resource competition
that could have severe economic, political, military and environmental
implications

. The flag planting by a Russian submarine in August 2007 underneath the Arctic seabed symbolized Russias intentions to use Arctic exploration as a means of securing its desired

imperial status pursuing a zero-sum game. The Kremlin plans to establish a new international order in which it becomes a regional hegemon. It is my opinion that Russia intends to end its role as an isolated entity
in international affairs, becoming closely integrated with the global economy and dictating policy. Russian officials view the Arctic as securing its energy security ambitions for the next century. Dwindling Russian gas
and energy reserves, in the underdeveloped Siberian fields, and over-reliance on European imports of its natural gas has led to a push towards the Arctic. Russias jurisdictional claim over the Arctic seabed will
challenge the existing international law criteria, the UNCLOS, which specifies jurisdictional authority over international waters. Arctic stakeholders must be wary of Russian intentions over Arctic development,
considering the nationalistic rhetoric of the current government in power. Russias nationalized energy companies maintain an influence in formulating Arctic Policy and influencing the Russian government to their
advantage. Russia will also use its energy security policy in the Arctic to become a naval superpower as new shipping lanes for trade and energy production will run along its extensive northern coastline.Russias
actions in Crimea and the Ukraine emphasize their willingness to revert to military action over issues of territorial sovereignty and that the U.S. requires an assertive foreign policy with Russia. Ensuing competition
over Arctic energy resources and shipping lanes will increase geopolitical competition among the Great Powers. The Bering Sea provides the U.S. with access to Arctic shipping lanes and can act as a strategic

Arctic
Council members, the Nordic States and Canada, will align with the U.S. to impose
strict restrictions over extraction and production in the Arctic Ocean.
International law and conventions can only be implemented if supported by
U.S. diplomacy in international institutions.
counterbalance to Russia. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13% and 30% of the worlds undiscovered oil and natural gas respectively lies under the Arctic seabed. I believe that

Domestic and multi-national energy companies must continue their innovation in technology

to finance exploration in competition with foreign NOCs. Regional competition with its East Asian neighbors, South Korea and Japan, for energy security will lead to an assertive foreign policy from China to lead Asian
exploration in the Arctic. Chinas pursuance of energy resources in the Arctic and use of new shipping lanes along Russias coast line will increase tensions between the two states as they strive to become naval
superpowers.
The Chinese government has maintained that they have no clear agenda regarding its Arctic Policy. However, China still harbors ambitions of becoming a regional hegemon and for energy diversification away from

. Chinas application for permanent observer status in

the Arctic Council signifies their intention to influence Arctic Policy despite
their inferior geographic location.
The U.Ss relatively superior military and economic resources and growing
energy self-sufficiency means it must implement policies that will satisfy
world energy security demands through Arctic development. The United
States must use its clout within the Arctic Council to check the
ambitions of
fossil fuels to satisfy its population and production demands

Access to the Arctic shipping lanes will significantly reduce risks and costs for Chinese trade to the West via the Northern

Sea Route.

imperial

of China through effective State and Energy Department

mandates. In my opinion, an inability to do this will threaten a return to Cold War
geopolitics, increasing the risk of energy security competition and Great
Power military conflict.
Russia and the vast energy demands

Absent engagement, Chinas current Arctic development

makes conflict inevitable.
Kuersten 15 (Andreas, Legal fellow with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce, Russian
Sanctions, China, and the Arctic, 1/3/15,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/russian-sanctions-china-and-the-arctic/)
the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) has systematically increased
its activity in the high north through various avenues. Russias current relations with the West
are likely to substantially boost this enterprise, which should concern the international
community given the importance that the Arctic will play in the years to come. The
regions massive resource reserves, Chinas growing presence, Chinese
challenges to regional Arctic governance, and the current standoff between
Russia and the West are a potentially potent combination . This situation should be
recognized and efforts should be made to mitigate possible negative
consequences. These efforts, however, should not be directed at preventing
Chinese Arctic activity. Chinas wealth and capital make it an important partner for Arctic nations
in developing the high north, and it holds legitimate interests in the region. Rather, Chinas entry
into the Arctic must be managed responsibly through international channels
to mitigate or prevent any harmful effects. Doing so may also create a rare
avenue through which the West can seek common ground and understanding with
Russia that can be built upon. Chinas Interest in the Arctic China consumes energy on an
unmatched scale, and its hunger is only forecast to grow. This makes the Arctic a natural
area of Chinese concern. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Arctic accounts
Over the past 10-15 years,

for 13 percent of the worlds undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent
of its undiscovered natural gas liquids. These percentages respectively equate to roughly 90 billion barrels
of oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. Beyond raw
numbers, the Arctic offers China diversity, security and savings. Despite significant inroads with Russia,

China is largely dependent on oil imports from the volatile Middle East that
must pass through the chokepoint of the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia. In 2011,
approximately 85 percent of Chinas oil imports transited this passage. The source and travel path for
these resources, and Chinas current lack of alternatives, are not ideal.

Arctic energy sources and

shipping lanes provide attractive diversity and security . Arctic shipping would also
substantially reduce transport costs. The distance from Shanghai to Hamburg along the Northern Sea
Route over Russia is approximately 30 percent shorter than the comparable route through the Suez Canal.
Such a reduction in shipping time and distance will yield large savings on fuel and increase Chinas export
potential to Europe. In 2013, 71 vessels sailed the Northern Sea Route, moving 1,355,897 tons. This is a
substantial increase over the four vessels that did so in 2010. China hopes to send 15 percent of its
international shipping through the Arctic by 2020. Chinas Pivot North In pursuit of northern opportunities,
China has taken substantial steps toward establishing a financial and physical presence in the Arctic and
placing itself in the conversation on Arctic affairs. China is spending approximately $60 million annually on
polar research (more than the U.S., which actually controls Arctic territory), runs the Chinese Arctic and
Antarctic Administration, opened the China-Nordic Arctic Research Center in Shanghai in late 2013, and
plans to dramatically increase its Arctic research staff. Chinas physical presence in the Arctic has also
increased considerably in the past decade. In 2003, it completed the Arctic Yellow River Station, a
permanent research facility on Norways Spitsbergen Island. China also currently possesses one icebreaker
directed toward Arctic operations, with another to be completed by 2016. Despite being a non-Arctic

nation, it will soon have the same number of Arctic icebreakers as Arctic littoral states Norway and the U.S.
In the realm of international organizations and politics, China has joined a litany of international Arctic
scientific groups. In 2013, it also became a permanent observer to the Arctic Council the eight-member
intergovernmental forum that is the center of international Arctic policy formulation. Similarly, with respect
to bilateral relations, the PRC has actively courted northern states, and made substantial progress with
both Iceland and Denmark. Following Icelands 2008 economic crash, China provided it with large aid
packages. In 2012, then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao began his tour of Europe in the small country, and a
Chinese-Icelandic free trade agreement was inked in 2013. China is also aggressively seeking energy
projects in Greenland and courting Danish leaders. The targeting of small countries in great need of
capital, investment and labor allows China to use its wealth and resources to cultivate economic
entanglement and, ultimately, degrees of dependence. As a result, Iceland and Denmark have become
very supportive of China having a louder voice in Arctic affairs and policy. Now, something similar is
developing between China and Russia. Russias Pivot East The Arctic has always been a vital interest to
Russia. It did not open up northern sea routes or energy resource opportunities to outsiders until after the
fall of the Soviet Union, when it was desperate for international investment. As Arctic forums and
frameworks developed, Russia was quick to assert control over its share of the region. Along with the four
other Arctic littoral states (the U.S., Canada, Denmark, and Norway), Russia signed the Ilulissat Declaration
in 2008 asserting regional state predominance in Arctic affairs. Russia also traditionally showed a clear
preference for cooperation in Arctic energy development with Western energy firms over those from China
and elsewhere. Even prior to the 2014 sanctions, tensions between Russia and the West altered Russian
calculations. Given disagreements over the handling of international situations (the Libyan intervention
and the Syrian Civil War, for instance) and Western condemnation of Russian actions (such as its 2008
invasion of Georgia and tainted 2012 elections), Moscow found it prudent to diversify its energy partner
and customer base beyond a strong reliance on Europe and the West. Energy-hungry China is a natural
partner for that diversification. While energy trade between Russia and China has been steadily advancing
since the mid-2000s, early 2013 saw the first major Arctic cooperative deal between the countries. The
China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) contracted with Rosneft to survey three areas of the Arctic in the
Pechora and Barents Seas. Later that same year, CNPC announced it would partner with Novatek, Russias
largest independent natural gas producer, and take a 20 percent stake in the Yamal Project tapping the
resource rich Arctic South Tambey gas field. Although Russias turn east has thus far been largely on its
terms, this years sanctions are changing the dynamic. Compared to smaller countries, Russia has
traditionally not been as susceptible to foreign influence. Yet the sanctions are taking a significant toll and
severely limiting its potential Arctic partners, leaving Russia with few places to turn. When it comes to its
needs and bargaining stature with China on Arctic issues, Russia is progressively finding itself in an even
weaker position than that which Iceland and Denmark occupy: in need of capital and funding but severely
limited in partner choice. Western Sanctions as Chinese Arctic Opportunity While initial Western sanctions
avoided Russias economically important energy industry, later measures have targeted this area robustly,
with express focus on Arctic energy procurement. As a result, Western firms such as Exxon, Eni and Statoil
have pulled out of operations in northern Russia, leaving Russian firms in need of financial and
technological partners. Absent Western companies, there are a limited number of places to turn for the
financing and technology necessary for Arctic resource ventures. There is, quite frankly, no replacement
for the technological expertise of Western firms. Yet Russia has demonstrated its willingness to lease or
buy necessary technologies from any source it can, reuse old Soviet technology, or simply prevent Western
companies from taking their equipment so it can operate them itself. In terms of financing, Russia has a
ready and established partner in China, a country not above using Russias isolation to its advantage. The
resource rich Kara Sea is likely the first place where Western sanctions will significantly benefit China.
Exxon and Rosneft jointly discovered a massive reserve in the region estimated to contain 11.9 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas and 750 million barrels of oil. After completing the much more complex tasks of
exploration and drilling but before pumping any gas or oil, Exxon was forced to pull out. Now, Russia is
faced with an expensive undertaking that necessitates a partner and China is in an excellent position to
assume Exxons stake in the resource operation for several reasons. For one, Russia has already begun
talks with China to sail rigs from the South China Sea to the Arctic Ocean to replace exiting Western
installations. Rosneft, which is currently studying Arctic offshore cooperative offers from Asia, has also
contracted to sell a 10 percent percent stake in one of Russias largest oil fields and Rosnefts biggest
production asset to China, evidencing its readiness to partner with China on nationally important projects
to ease sanctions-related burdens. In addition, Chinese prospecting areas in the Pechora and Barents Seas
in the Russian Arctic directly abut the Kara Sea. While assuredly not negating the impacts of Western
sanctions, partnership with China in the face of these measures offers Russia much of what it needs:
convenience, capital, financial backing, and a ready customer. It gives Russia an outlet as Western
pressure mounts in response to its aggressive regional actions. As such, Sino-Russo partnership in the
Arctic sustains and reinforces a cooperative framework that stands in opposition to Western international
initiatives. Just as with Iceland and Denmark, China will slowly increase its trade and Arctic partnerships
with Russia to substantial levels. This will breed a level of economic dependence. Trade between Russia
and China was already trending upward before Western sanctions were levied; these measures will serve

to speed up this process. Russias lack of alternative partners gives China a distinct advantage in any
negotiations, and the PRC has displayed this new dynamic by driving hard bargains in energy deals
reached with Russia since the Ukrainian crisis began. Concerns Over a Chinese Arctic What is concerning
about the impact of Western sanctions on Chinas entry into the Arctic is not the PRC potentially locking

the introduction of
a large, assertive, and potentially combative actor into already tense Arctic
relations where Arctic states have a host of conflicting claims to the region
that will likely only be exacerbated as global warming opens it up. China
declares itself to be a near Arctic state and an Arctic stakeholder, even though its
up a substantial portion of the Earths untapped resources. Rather, the issue is

northernmost territory lies more than 1,000 miles south of the Arctic Circle. As the most populous country
in the world, China claims that it should have a say in Arctic policy and disagrees with Arctic issues being
decided by Arctic states alone. More broadly, given the regions resource reserves, shipping lanes, and
implications for global warming, China argues that Arctic state interests and claims must be balanced

prominent and
influential Chinese scholars and officials push this rhetoric . For example, the head of
against international interests in the seas and resources of the region. Very

the European department of the China Institute for International Studies recently pronounced: Countries
closer to the Arctic, such as Iceland, Russia, Canada, and a few other European countries may tend to wish
the Arctic were private or that they had priority to develop it, but China insists that the Arctic belongs to
everyone just like the Moon. Similarly, the director of the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration has
stated that Arctic resourceswill be allocated according to the needs of the world, not only owned by

in response to Russian Arctic territorial claims, Chinese Rear

Admiral Yin Zhuo declared that the Arctic belongs to all the people around the
world as no nation has sovereignty over it. In the context of the countrys quest for
natural resources, Chinese attitudes toward the Arctic are unprecedented. While it
has been aggressive in pursuing resources around the globe, China has also
maintained a clear respect for sovereign claims in doing so. Its rhetoric
concerning the Arctic diverges from this practice. Moreover, the PRC has
become increasingly bellicose over issues it considers to be core interests .
certain countries. And

Nowhere is this more vivid than in the South China Sea, where Chinese maritime claims go well beyond
what can be realistically claimed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which it is

Chinas growing physical presence in the Arctic, the statements of

prominent government officials, and the regions significant potential benefits
encourage the sense that China may label its activity in the region as a core
interest. The introduction of such a large actor into Arctic international
relations with interests beyond mere investment and trade i.e., claims and
ownership is a recipe for elevated conflict in a region that already possesses
its share of tension due to the often incompatible claims of Arctic littoral
states. Finally, the economic dependence being nurtured between China and certain Arctic nations has
a party.

the potential to hasten the arrival of the situation noted above. This dependence could give China an
amplified voice in northern affairs and an ever-deepening Arctic presence. For Iceland and Denmark, Arctic
trade with and investment from China are significantly more important to them than the reverse is for the
PRC. This gives those countries a strong incentive to support Chinas regional ambitions and, accordingly,
affords China significant leverage. As Russia becomes increasingly isolated and its economy suffers due to
its actions in Ukraine and resulting sanctions, it will find itself in a similar position in Arctic interactions.
Russian support for Chinese Arctic ventures and interests will begin to grow in attractiveness out of a
desire to gain investment and trade, and not to offend its sole significant partner. Managing Developments

The task for the international community, and Arctic states in particular, is not to
attempt to prevent Chinese entry into the Arctic, but to minimize the
potential negative impacts this may have on regional and international relations. China is
coming, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, it has the finances and capital to significantly spur
northern development and it does possess legitimate interests in the Arctic. But

Chinas entry must

be handled responsibly, and there are several avenues through which this can be pursued.

Climate change is a threat-multiplier that greatly

increases the risk
Goldenberg 14 US environmental correspondent for the Guardian
(Suzanne, May 23rd, Guardian Weekly: Conflict fears rise as Arctic ice
retreats, ProQuest)
Climate change poses a growing security threat and could cause conflict in
the Arctic, a group of retired American generals and admirals said last week.
In a report, the former military officers said the Pentagon had been caught out
by the rapid changes under way in the Arctic because of the melting of the
sea ice. "Things are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at,"
said General Paul Kern, chairman of the Centre for Naval Analysis
Corporation's military advisory board, which produced the report. " The
changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged ." The
prospect of an ice-free Arctic by mid-century had set off a scramble for
shipping lanes by Russia and China especially, and for access to oil and other
resources. "As the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it
represents a lot of opportunities for Russia ," he said. Oil companies were also
moving into the Arctic. "We think things are accelerating in the Arctic faster
than we had looked at seven years ago," he said, saying the situation had the
potential to "spark conflict there". The report deepens concern about the
security risks posed by climate change. In March, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, in a landmark report, also warned that growing competition for resources in a world under

The report from the retired generals goes

further, however, upgrading the climate risk from a "threat
multiplier" to a "conflict catalyst".
climate change could lead to conflict.

Thats key to preventing Arctic warfareBorgerson 10 SCOTT G. BORGERSON is International Affairs Fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations and a former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S.
Coast Guard, April 2008, Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security
Implications of Global Warming,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20032581.pdf?acceptTC=true
Washington cannot afford to stand idly by. The Arctic region is not currently
governed by any comprehensive multilateral norms and regulations because it was
never expected to become a navigable waterway or a site for large-scale commercial development. Decisions made by
Arctic powers in the coming years will therefore profoundly shape the future of the
region for decades. Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic
solutions to competing claims and potential conflicts, the region could
erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.

Goes nuclearWallace and Staples 10 Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the

University of British Columbia; Steven Staples is President of the Rideau
Institute in Ottawa, March 2010, Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons A

Task Long Overdue, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-reportweb.pdf

The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition.
Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir
Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russias submarine fleet would increase its
operational radius. Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January
2009, on the eve of Obamas inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed
as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage,

The Bush administrations disastrous

eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty
and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern
Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama
and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic.

administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems,
particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The
Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including
proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence
position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets
with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year
Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a
major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs.
The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since
the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of

From those in the

international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed
over the fact that two nuclear weapon states the United States and the Russian
Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world
converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together
with those of other allied NATO countries Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, if
unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of
nuclear weapons. Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in
which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken
lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary,
[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin
to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of
climate change.
Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly:

Independently, the plan shifts Arctic strategy towards

collaborative science diplomacy preventing escalatory
conflict
Berkman 6/23/14
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stability-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-sciencediplomacy
Paul Arthur Berkman is a research professor at the Marine Science Institute and Bren School of
Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

High north, low tensions has been the mantra of diplomats , as coined by former
Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Stre. After all, the Cold War is over and cooperation has
been evolving in productive directions ever since for the North Polar region .
Lessons of the Arctic, such as those from the Antarctic, reveal science as a tool
of diplomacy that creates bridges among nations and fosters stability in
regions. It is well known that science is necessary for Earth system monitoring and
assessment, especially as an essential gauge of change over time and space. Science also is a
frequent determinant of public policy agendas and institutions , often for early

warning about future events. However, even more than an immediate source of insight, invention, and
commercial enterprise, science provides continuity in our global society with its evolving
foundation of prior knowledge. These and other features of science diplomacy,1 as a field of human
endeavor, are relevant to our global future in the Arctic. Building on the East-West breakthrough in the
1986 Reykjavik Summit, with his Murmansk speech in October 1987, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev
envisioned a shared path where the community and interrelationship of the interests of our entire world is
felt in the northern part of the globe, in the Arctic, perhaps more than anywhere else. Recognizing that
scientific exploration of the Arctic is of immense importance for the whole of
mankind, Gorbachev called for creation of a joint Arctic Research Council. Emerging from his Murmansk
speech, the International Arctic Science Committee was founded in 1990, followed by the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991, which revealed a common future among Arctic countries and
peoples. Also involving the eight Arctic states,2 the Barents-Euro Arctic Council and Standing Committee of
the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region were formed in 1993 and 1994, respectively.

the Arctic Council breathed life into a circumpolar

community of the eight states and six indigenous peoples organizations inhabiting the region north of
Eventually established in 1996,

the Arctic Circle. As a high level forum, the Arctic Council has become central in an institutional arena for
the high north that includes the above organizations along with many others, starting with the 1920 Treaty
Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. With its forty-two signatories, this treaty still stands as a

the six scientific working groups

of the Arctic Council are facilitating knowledge discovery and contributing to
informed decisions about common Arctic issues of sustainable development and
environmental protection. As a direct consequence of the Arctic Council, pan-Arctic
agreements are being signed by all Arctic states, beginning with the 2011 search and
beacon of peaceful development in the high north. Together,

rescue agreement and 2013 marine oil pollution response agreement. Interests of twelve non-Arctic states,

including China and India, also are being accommodated as they are brought in as observers to the
Arctic Council. Moreover, the so-called Arctic Five3 coastal states are reaching territorial agreements. As
noted in their 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the
Arctic Oceanare being addressed cooperatively under the Law of the Sea, particularly with regard to
outer limits of the continental shelf. This commitment includes the United States, even though it has not
yet ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Highlighting the cooperation,
Russia and Norway signed an agreement in 2010 about Barents Sea resources, ending a dispute that had

Winds Are Changing The current

crisis related to Ukraine has introduced global geopolitics into the Arctic unlike
escaped their resolution for the previous four decades.

any world event since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within weeks of the Crimea annexation, former U.S.
secretary of state Hillary Clinton was linking the Arctic, Russia, and Ukraine ,
suggesting in a March 2014 speech in Montreal that we need a united front, as reported by the Globe
and Mail. The following month, Canada, the current chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted the Arctic Council
meeting in Moscow. Lines are being redrawn, which the May/June 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs reflected

Such political posturing risks

fueling the long-dormant burning security issues that Gorbachev warned of
with its articles related to The Return of Geopolitics.

in the Arctic. Perhaps the world was arriving at this security intersection in any case, but for different
reasons. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where the boundary conditions of
the system are being altered. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental state-change, where the
boundary conditions of the system are being altered. In factwith the Arctic warming twice as fast as
anywhere else on Earththe Arctic Ocean is undergoing the largest environmental state-change on our
planet. The surface of this maritime region surrounding the North Pole is being transformed from a sea-ice
cap that has persisted for millennia (perhaps even hundreds of millennia) to a system with sea ice
retreating and advancing seasonally. Rather than projecting out to the mid-twenty-first century, it is clear
that the Arctic Ocean already has crossed a threshold with open water during the summer and first-year
sea ice during the winter covering more than 50 percent of its area. Of greater significance, the volume of
Arctic sea ice has decreased more than 70 percent since the late 1970s. With increasing accessibility in the

countries, along with multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch
Shell, are preparing to exploit the regions enormous energy reserves , estimated to
contain 30 percent of the worlds undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil. Fisheries
are opening to commercial harvesting without regulation, especially in areas
of the high seas lacking any regional fisheries management organization. Arctic shipping
Arctic Ocean,

routes are being established to supplement trade through the Panama and Suez Canals. It is not
a matter of waiting decades or even years for the Arctic Ocean to be completely ice-free during the
summer. There is now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Like
removing the ceiling to a room, the fundamental shift in the surface boundary of the Arctic Ocean has
created a new natural system with different dynamics than anything previously experienced by humans in
the region. There is now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Separate from the

the environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean is

introducing inherent risks of political, economic, and cultural instabilities
which are at the heart of every security dialogue. Exposing security risks in the Arctic may
be a good thing, but only if accompanied by inclusive solutions that
both promote cooperation and prevent conflict. Achieving International Stability
Ukraine situation,

Leaving loose the elephant in the room, questions about conflict in the Arctic Ocean remain unattended. As
a consequence, the associated community of states and peoples lacks a shared understanding of
expectations, capabilities, interests, and wills to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. Matters related
to military security are off the table for the Arctic Council. The council avoids even general considerations
of security in the Arctic Ocean, as reflected by elimination of the security chapter from its second Arctic
Human Development Report, which is due in 2014. Matters related to military security are off the table
for the Arctic Council. With all Arctic coastal states except Russia as members, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) is the only northern Atlantic organization without a remit in the Arctic Ocean. This
position seems reasonable as long as NATO is seen by Russia as the main external threat of war, as
stated in the 2010 Military Doctrine of Russia. These positions made sense immediately after the Cold War,
but decades of cooperation have followed and there now is capacity to project peace into the future for the
Arctic Ocean. Not all military capabilities are designed for force,4 as affirmed for the Arctic Ocean in
2010 by then NATO supreme allied commander, Admiral James Stavridis. Illustrating this point, in
association with the Arctic Council, meetings among the chiefs of defense from all Arctic states began in
2012 with regard to their shared emergency responses in the Arctic Ocean. An opportunity to think about
the Arctic more holistically is further revealed by the NATO Advanced Research Workshop Environmental
Security in the Arctic Ocean, which the author chaired with Russian co-directorship in 2010 at the
University of Cambridge. That workshop became the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia

Global recognition of the need for

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

International stability is inextricably linked to sustainable development, which already is acknowledged as

a common Arctic issue to balance economic prosperity, environmental protection and social equity, taking
into consideration the needs of present and future generations. Even more basic to stability in the Arctic
Ocean is balancing national interests and common interests. Although peace is the most basic foundation
for international stability, the term was consciously rejected as a common Arctic issue when the Arctic
Council was established. The fear then, as now, was that peace implies demilitarization. It was only in 2009
that this term even began to appear in Arctic Council ministerial declarations. Still, peace is not used
among all Arctic states in their national security policies for the Arctic. In fact, it remains to be seen
whether Canada, in contrast to its Arctic foreign policies, will include peace in the 2015 Arctic Council
ministerial declaration. If the Arctic states are too timid or nationalistic to openly discuss balance, stability,
and peace when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate when conflicts arise? The path forward
is reflected by the Arctic states commitment to the Law of the Sea, which includes zones within as well as
beyond sovereign jurisdictions. Even if continental shelf extensions were conferred all the way to the North
Poleunambiguously in the overlying water columnhigh seas still would exist beyond sovereign
jurisdictions, where more than 160 nations have rights and responsibilities under international law.
Implications

of the high seas surrounding the North Pole are just now
entering front stage. At their February 2014 meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, the Arctic Five took the
initiative to prevent unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. Whatever the international outcomes
from this meeting, lessons will resonate from the high seas of the Arctic Ocean outward across our

At the moment, there is neither a

forum nor leadership to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean . To prepare for
civilization on a planetary scale. Statesmanship Is Required

the 2016 Arctic heads of state meeting that is being considered in the United States on the twentieth

anniversary of the Arctic Council, President Barack

Obama has the option to inspire

stability and peace for the Arctic

across the twenty-first century and beyond. Turning

back the calendar only a few months to winter 2014 (remember the Sochi Olympics), Russia was seen in a
different light. Since 2010, the Russian Geographical Society had been convening the Arctic Forum for
Dialogue, first in Moscow then in Arkhangelsk in 2011 and in Salekhard in 2013. Each of these
international gatherings in Russia involved scientists and diplomats as well as government administrators,
commercial operators, advocates from nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples. Most
prominent in the Arctic forums were the head-of-state presentations, stimulated by participation of
Vladimir Putin initially as prime minister and most recently as president of the Russian Federation.
President lafur Ragnar Grmsson of Iceland, as the elder statesman of the Arctic, participated in all three
forums. Prince Albert II of Monaco presented in 2010 and 2011. With invitations extended to all Arctic
heads of state, President Sauli Niinist of Finland also participated in 2013. As a common interest, these
heads of state all spoke of stability and peace in the Arctic, even if only for their national benefit. In each
forum, it also was clear that the level of trust and cooperation in the Arctic had matured since the Cold
War, signaling that international relationships in the Arctic are open and strong enough to deal with the
more difficult issues of preventing conflict. To build on the earlier head-of-state engagements for the Arctic,
Obama has the opportunity to convene a meeting with all other Arctic heads of state and act as a
statesman who puts out the brushfires of the moment while planting seeds of hope and inspiration for the

The challenge is to create a process of ongoing and inclusive dialogue

about Arctic issues that have so far eluded shared consideration . With the Arctic,
Obama must be brave enough to share the coin of peace, promoting cooperation on
one side and preventing conflict on the other. Historic perspectives and the roles of science
diplomacy will help provide direction. However, to bear fruit in the interests of
humankind, the political will for lasting stability and peace in the Arctic must
come from all Arctic heads of state. At the end of the day, peace must be established
future.5

explicitly as a common interest among all states and peoples in the Arctic Ocean. As Gorbachev imagined
a generation ago, Let the North Pole be a Pole of Peace.

Science diplomacy solves all impacts

Federoff 8 professor of biology at Penn State University known for her
research on biology and life sciences, president of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (April 2008, International Science
and Technology Cooperation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)
mj

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at
the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its
leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of
``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for
creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic
and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the
Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and
technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and
fragile states.
S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and
global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies.
Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations

are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and

physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T
advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity,
some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and
influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the
forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading
the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement.
The Public Diplomacy Role of Science
Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political
relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The
global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish:
transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of
evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is
inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all.
Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and
religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions
serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As
scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system,
members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language
of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly transnational and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There
is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive
the successful economies of the 21st century.
Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives
The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe
require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal
factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that
are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide
economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule,
and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among
them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health
emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and
religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the
United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political
boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no
monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges
facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges
demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common
standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of
American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships
with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the
U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.

There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their
populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising
affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create
unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and
grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular
techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for U.S. science
diplomacy.
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of
economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism
than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed
to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of
rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people's lives.
We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for
the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals.
Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce
the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has
been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative threat reduction activities,
former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful,
collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In
addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and
nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a
means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create
sustainability.

US lead in liberal institutions key any other powers

leadership cant solve any of our internal links
Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13
Stephen G., G. John, William C., Don't Come Home, America: The Case
against Retrenchment International Security
Volume 37, Number 3, Winter 2012/2013 //mtc
What goes for the global economy also applies to larger patterns of
institutionalized cooperation. Here, too, the leadership enabled by the
United States' grand strategy fosters cooperation that generates diffuse
benefits for many states but often disproportionately reflects U.S.
preferences. This basic premise subsumes three claims. First, benefits
flow to the United States from institutionalized cooperation to address a
wide range of problems. There is general agreement that a stable, open,
and loosely rule-based international order serves the interests of the
United States. Indeed, we are aware of no serious studies suggesting
that U.S. interests would be better advanced in a world that is closed
(i.e., built around blocs and spheres of influence) and devoid of basic,
agreed-upon rules and institutions. As scholars have long argued, under
conditions of rising complex interdependence, states often can benefit
from institutionalized cooperation.109 In the security realm, newly

emerging threats arguably are producing a rapid rise in the benefits of

such cooperation for the United States. Some of these threats are
transnational and emerge from environmental, health, and resource
vulnerabilities, such as those concerning pandemics. Transnational
nonstate groups with various capacities for violence have also become
salient in recent decades, including groups involved in terrorism, piracy,
and organized crime.110 [End Page 46] As is widely argued, these sorts
of nontraditional, transnational threats can be realistically addressed
only through various types of collective action.111 Unless countries are
prepared to radically restrict their integration into an increasingly
globalized world system, the problems must be solved through
coordinated action. 112 In the face of these diffuse and shifting threats,
the United States is going to find itself needing to work with other states
to an increasing degree, sharing information, building capacities, and
responding to crises.113 Second, U.S. leadership increases the
prospects that such cooperation will emerge in a manner relatively
favorable to U.S. interests. Of course, the prospects for cooperation are
partly a function of compatible interests. Yet even when interests
overlap, scholars of all theoretical stripes have established that
institutionalized cooperation does not emerge effortlessly: generating
agreement on the particular cooperative solution can often be elusive.
And when interests do not overlap, the bargaining becomes tougher yet:
not just how, but whether cooperation will occur is on the table. Many
factors affect the initiation of cooperation, and under various conditions
states can and have cooperated without hegemonic leadership.114 As
noted above, however, scholars acknowledge that the likelihood of
cooperation drops in the absence of leadership. Finally, U.S. security
commitments are an integral component of this leadership. Historically,
as Gilpin and other theorists of hegemonic order have shown, the
background security and stability that the United States provided
facilitated the creation of multilateral institutions for ongoing
cooperation across policy areas.115 As in the case of the global
economy, U.S. security provision [End Page 47] plays a role in fostering
stability within and across regions, and this has an impact on the ability
of states to engage in institutional cooperation. Institutional cooperation
is least likely in areas of the world where instability is pervasive. It is
more likely to flourish in areas where states are secure and leaders can
anticipate stable and continuous relationswhere the "shadow of the
future" is most evident. And because of the key security role it plays in
fostering this institutional cooperation, the United States is in a stronger
position to help shape the contours of these cooperative efforts. The
United States' extended system of security commitments creates a set
of institutional relationships that foster political communication. Alliance
institutions are in the first instance about security protection, but they
are also mechanisms that provide a kind of "political architecture" that
is useful beyond narrow issues of military affairs. Alliances bind states
together and create institutional channels of communication. NATO has

facilitated ties and associated institutionssuch as the Atlantic Council

that increase the ability of the United States and Europe to talk to
each other and do business.116 Likewise, the bilateral alliances in East
Asia also play a communication role beyond narrow security issues.
Consultations and exchanges spill over into other policy areas.117 For
example, when U.S. officials travel to Seoul to consult on alliance issues,
they also routinely talk about other pending issues, such as, recently,
the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. This gives the United States the capacity to work across
issue areas, using assets and bargaining chips in one area to make
progress in another. It also provides more diffuse political benefits to
cooperation that flow from the "voice opportunities" created by the
security alliance architecture.118 The alliances provide channels and
access points for wider flows of communicationand [End Page 48] the
benefits of greater political solidarity and institutional cooperation that
follow. The benefits of these communication flows cut across all
international issues, but are arguably enhanced with respect to
generating security cooperation to deal with new kinds of threatssuch
as terrorism and health pandemicsthat require a multitude of novel
bargains and newly established procedures of shared responsibilities
among a wide range of countries. With the existing U.S.-led security
system in place, the United States is in a stronger position than it
otherwise would be to strike bargains and share burdens of security
cooperation in such areas. The challenge of rising security
interdependence is greater security cooperation. That is, when countries
are increasingly mutually vulnerable to nontraditional, diffuse,
transnational threats, they need to work together to eradicate the
conditions that allow for these threats and limit the damage. The U.S.led alliance system is a platform with already existing capacities and
routines for security cooperation. These assets can be used or adapted,
saving the cost of generating security cooperation from scratch. In
short, having an institution in place to facilitate cooperation on one
issue makes it easier, and more likely, that the participating states will
be able to achieve cooperation rapidly on a related issue.119 The
usefulness of the U.S. alliance system for generating enhanced nonsecurity cooperation is confirmed in interviews with former State
Department and National Security Council officials. One former
administration official noted, using the examples of Australia and South
Korea, that the security ties "create nonsecurity benefits in terms of
support for global agenda issues," such as Afghanistan, Copenhagen,
disaster relief, and the financial crisis. "This is not security leverage per
se, but it is an indication of how the deepness of the security
relationship creates working relationships [and] interoperability that can
then be leveraged to address other regional issues." This official notes,
"We could not have organized the Core Group (India, U.S., Australia,
Japan) in [End Page 49] response to the 2004 tsunami without the deep
bilateral military relationships that had already been in place. It was

much easier for us to organize with these countries almost immediately

(within forty-eight hours) than anyone else for a large-scale
humanitarian operation because our militaries were accustomed to each
other."120 The United States' role as security provider also has a more
direct effect of enhancing its authority and capacity to initiate
institutional cooperation in various policy areas. The fact that the United
States is a security patron of Japan, South Korea, and other countries in
East Asia, for example, gives it a weight and presence in regional
diplomacy over the shape and scope of multilateral cooperation not just
within the region but also elsewhere. This does not mean that the United
States always wins these diplomatic encounters, but its leverage is
greater than it would be if the United States were purely an offshore
great power without institutionalized security ties to the region. In sum,
the deep engagement strategy enables U.S. leadership, which results in
more cooperation on matters of importance than would occur if the
United States disengagedeven as it pushes cooperation toward U.S.
preferences.

US multilateral leadership is an impact filter solves your

disads but also independently functions as a reverse
casual extinction scenario
Shaw 1 Professor of IR @ Sussex
Martin, The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of
international relations, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/unfinished.pdf
The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the antiimperialism of the intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of
the academic discipline. We need to recognise three fundamental truths: First, in the
twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the non-Western world
are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and
other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They deserve the
unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking
in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries
conviction despite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right
and the anti-American left. The idea that global principles can and should be
enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people.
This consciousness will a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global
state-formation is a fact. International institutions are being extended, and they
have a symbiotic relation with the major centre of state power, the
increasingly internationalised Western conglomerate. The success of the globaldemocratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each
national context but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international
networks of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political
fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic

movements cannot regard non-governmental organisations and civil

society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilise local states,
rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary
and violent exercise of power. Second, democratising local states is not a separate
task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing
isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war.
Embedding global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional
frameworks are essential to the control of violence . (To put this another way, the
proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.)
Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN,
neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power
networks, but we need to tame them, too, to make their messy
bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of
society worldwide. This will involve the kind of cosmopolitan democracy
argued for by David Held80 and campaigned for by the new Charter 9981.
It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to
address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. Fourth,
if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratise it and make its institutions
friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates . It
matters to develop robust peacekeeping as a strategic alternative to bombing our way through
zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather
than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid. Likewise, the internal politics of Western elites matter.
It makes a difference to halt the regression to isolationist nationalism in
American politics. It matters that the European Union should develop into
a democratic polity with a globally responsible direction. It matters that
the British state, still a pivot of the Western system of power, stays in the
hands of outward-looking new social democrats rather than inward-looking
old conservatives. As political intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the
ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic
drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state, as well as
between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global
revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of
both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this
prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push
Western governments towards the required restructuring of world
institutions.82 What I have outlined tonight is a huge challenge; but the
alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into defeat, degenerate into new genocidal
wars, perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all
concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges for
students of international relations and politics, are intertwined.

3
Bilateral arctic engagement Arctic engagement key to
effective fishing reformSlayton, 15. David Slayton is research fellow, co-chair and executive
director of the Arctic Security Initiative at Stanford Universitys Hoover
Institution. Lawson W. Brigham is distinguished professor of geography and
Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, a fellow at the U.S. Coast
Guard Academys Center for Arctic Study & Policy, and a member of Hoovers
Arctic Security Initiative. Strengthen Arctic cooperation between the US and
China, Aug 27, Alaska Dispatch News (ADN),
http://www.adn.com/article/20150827/strengthen-arctic-cooperationbetween-us-and-china
The China-U.S. relationship is a daily and recurring, sometimes dominant, news story. Select news has been positive and indicates close collaboration, such as the November 2014 joint announcement on climate and
energy initiatives. Other news is more worrisome and ominous. Recent concerns for Chinas actions in the South China Sea, cybersecurity, and devaluation of the yuan are serious matters of domestic and

With Chinas presence more visible on every continent including

Antarctica, is there room for Sino-U.S. areas of cooperation at the top of the
world
There are three approaches for engagement.
One
strategic Arctic issues to the established U.S.-China Strategic and
Economic Dialogue, a longer-term approach. Second, and potentially effective
in the near-term, leverage the opportunity to strengthen our relationship with
China on Arctic affairs while the U.S. is Arctic Council chair. Third, hold
enhanced dialogue on Arctic issues
international security.

? The Nordic states and Canada have already established Arctic policy and research ties to China. With the U.S. chairing the Arctic Council through May 2017, now is the opportune occasion for the

U.S. to develop a collaborative strategy, on a range of Arctic research and policy issues.
, add focused,

between the two national delegations at meetings of the International Maritime Organization, World Meteorological

Organization, and International Hydrographic Organization, among other institutions. Five key areas of cooperation can enhance Arctic cooperation between the U.S. and China: First, since the Arctic is at the

Arctic climate change research and policy is a natural area of

cooperation between our two countries. We are already addressing global
climate change issues in our formal dialogue, so inserting Arctic issues such
as black carbon from ship emissions and sea ice and glacier research should
resonate with our ongoing discussions
Second, focus joint discussions on Arctic marine safety and strategies
to protect the Arctic marine environment
Bilateral cooperation could also include
identifying the range of marine conservation measures
epicenter of climate change,

. Working together on WMO Arctic initiatives and the linkages of the polar regions to global change is another

fruitful course ahead.

. Implementation and future enforcement of the mandatory IMO Polar Code for ships operating in

polar waters (to come into force Jan. 1, 2017) is a topic of national interest to both maritime states.

, such as marine protected areas, and studying how these

measures might mesh with future commercial voyages in the Arctic Ocean. Third, maritime law enforcement, specifically related to fisheries, in northern waters is of practical and operational concern. The two coast
guards have agreements in place and have worked together in the Pacific; extending this enforcement collaboration builds trust and resilience when marine operations become more complex. An agreement signed
in Oslo in July by the five Arctic Ocean coastal states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the U.S.) barring their fishing fleets from the central Arctic Ocean will surely require the engagement of non-Arctic states

Engaging China early in Arctic fisheries discussions on a

bilateral basis with the U.S., or among the Arctic five, can be an effective
strategy to minimize future disagreements
who have deep-water fleets such as China.

. Fourth, the wide gap in Arctic marine infrastructure identified in the Arctic Councils Arctic

Marine Shipping Assessment (2009) demands critical attention by the major maritime states. China-U.S. cooperation on infrastructure can identify potential public-private partnerships, discuss strategies for much-

The U.S. can also foster Chinas

engagement within the Arctic Council on matters related to Arctic search and
rescue, and Arctic oil spill preparedness and response, as it is plausible
Chinese-flagged commercial ships will sail in Arctic waters joint Arctic
marine research is an arena with much promise. Joint oceanographic research
between the U.S. and China would attain global attention and herald an era
of close collaboration in Arctic Ocean research highly relevant to global
climate change. Joint icebreaking research ship operations in Arctic icecovered waters could provide unique and lasting cooperative experiences for
needed Arctic observing systems, and study port and maritime communications requirements.

. Fifth,

the Chinese and American operating agencies, as well as key links between
our research funding organizations. China and the U.S. have an obligation
and opportunity to work together on a range of cooperative issues to
maintain the Arctics future as a peaceful, safe and secure region

, as that new frontier opens. Both

nations must be proactive in Arctic matters within their already existing dialogue and in international organizations including the Arctic Council.

China says yes to curb unregulated fishing in the ArcticBloomberg , 6/7/16. Maritime Dispute Missing From Outcomes After
U.S.-China Talks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-07/maritime-disputemissing-from-outcomes-after-u-s-china-talks
The 32-page outcome document from two days of talks between U.S. and Chinese leaders didnt mention tension over Beijings actions in the
disputed South China Sea, reflecting how far apart the countries remain over the issue. The closest the two sides got after the Strategic and
Economic Dialogue in Beijing was the 30th of 120 points, where they reaffirmed their commitment to uphold the principle of peaceful
resolution of disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. The annual dialogue is billed as a chance for the worlds two biggest economies to shore up
ties and work on areas of disagreement, in what the U.S. cites as the most important bilateral relationship there is. The final document from

The
key is to always bear in mind that our common interests outnumber our
differences, President Xi Jinping said in a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry as the dialogue concluded on Tuesday. So we
the diplomacy and strategy portion of the talks signaled that the South China Sea remains an area they dont see eye-to-eye on.

need to respect each others core interests and major concerns and on that basis, try to work together to seek solutions to the differences.
China contests more than 80 percent of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion in seaborne trade passes every year, its
claims overlapping those from countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. It has reclaimed more than 3,000 acres of land in the past few years,

Over the course of the June 6-7 talks, the

countries affirmed their desire for North Korea to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and to work together to
seek reconciliation in Afghanistan. They pledged to implement the Paris climate-change agreement by the end of the year and to work
toward an agreement to control unregulated commercial fishing in the Arctic
Ocean. There was agreement also enhance communication on military issues, Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang said Tuesday in a
and built some military infrastructure, including airstrips.

briefing, without giving specifics. The countries have developed a code for unplanned encounters at sea that covers the military but does not
extend to the coast guard, and its non-navy boats that China is increasingly using to assert its South China Sea claims, patrolling the area and
chasing away other vessels. On the South China Sea, possibly the single-biggest source of tension now, the countries appeared to talk past
each other. China has already said it wont heed a ruling from a United Nations tribunal, expected within weeks, on a dispute over the
waterway with the Philippines. Some security analysts have said China could soon build on the Scarborough Shoal, which it wrested from the
Philippines in 2012, a move the U.S. has warned it would take action over. The friction was on display during Kerrys talks with State
Councilor Yang Jiechi. In the meeting, Kerry reiterated that the U.S. doesnt take a position on sovereignty claims in the region. Seconds later,
Yang said China hopes the U.S. will honor its promise of not taking a position on the territorial disputes. A later story by the official Xinhua
News Agency made no mention of Kerrys remarks. The atmosphere echoed the dynamic last weekend at the Shangri-La security dialogue in
Singapore, where U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said China risks erecting a Great Wall of self-isolation in Asia over its actions in the
South China Sea. Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo used a subsequent speech in Singapore to highlight his militarys cooperation in the western
Pacific, while implicitly questioning the U.S. tactic of sailing ships near reefs that China claims in what the Pentagon calls freedom of navigation
operations. Our position is very clear with respect to maritime law, Kerry said. We want the traditional historic freedom of navigation and
overflight to be respected; China has said it will be respected. At the same time, Kerry sought to highlight how stronger ties with China
allowed the two sides to move past areas of dispute. We do have some differences but what we did over the last two days was professionally,
respectfully, I think thoughtfully articulate those differences and agreed on ways in which we can try to find progress, Kerry said.

Governments obey institutional logics that exist

independently of individuals and constrain decision
making thats true regardless of this debate
Wight Professor of IR @ University of Sydney 6
(Colin, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology,
pgs. 48-50
One important aspect of this relational ontology is that these relations
constitute our identity as social actors. According to this relational
model of societies, one is what one is, by virtue of the relations within
which one is embedded. A worker is only a worker by virtue of his/her
relationship to his/her employer and vice versa. Our social being is

constituted by relations and our social acts presuppose them. At any

particular moment in time an individual may be implicated in all manner
of relations, each exerting its own peculiar causal effects. This latticework of relations constitutes the structure of particular societies and
endures despite changes in the individuals occupying them .
Thus, the relations, the structures, are ontologically distinct from the
individuals who enter into them. At a minimum, the social sciences are
concerned with two distinct, although mutually interdependent, strata.
There is an ontological difference between people and structures:
people are not relations, societies are not conscious agents. Any
attempt to explain one in terms of the other should be rejected. If there
is an ontological difference between society and people, however, we
need to elaborate on the relationship between them. Bhaskar argues
that we need a system of mediating concepts, encompassing both
aspects of the duality of praxis into which active subjects must fit in
order to reproduce it: that is, a system of concepts designating the
point of contact between human agency and social structures. This is
known as a positioned practice system. In many respects, the idea of
positioned practice is very similar to Pierre Bourdieus notion of
habitus. Bourdieu is primarily concerned with what individuals do in their
daily lives. He is keen to refute the idea that social activity can be
understood solely in terms of individual decision-making , or as
determined by surpa-individual objective structures. Bourdieus notion
of the habitus can be viewed as a bridge-building exercise across the
explanatory gap between two extremes. Importantly, the notion of a
habitus can only be understood in relation to the concept of a social
field. According to Bourdieu, a social field is a network, or a
configuration, of objective relations between positions objectively
defined. A social field, then, refers to a structured system of social
positions occupied by individuals and/or institutions the nature of
which defines the situation for their occupants. This is a social field
whose form is constituted in terms of the relations which define it as a
field of a certain type. A habitus (positioned practices) is a mediating
link between individuals subjective worlds and the socio-cultural world
into which they are born and which they share with others. The power of
the habitus derives from the thoughtlessness of habit and habituation,
rather than consciously learned rules. The habitus is imprinted and
encoded in a socializing process that commences during early
childhood. It is inculcated more by experience than by explicit teaching.
Socially competent performances are produced as a matter of routine,
without explicit reference to a body of codified knowledge, and without
the actors necessarily knowing what they are doing (in the sense of
being able adequately to explain what they are doing). As such, the
habitus can be seen as the site of internalization of reality and the
externalization of internality. Thus social practices are produced in, and
by, the encounter between: (1) the habitus and its dispositions; (2) the

constraints and demands of the socio-cultural field to which the habitus

is appropriate or within; and (3) the dispositions of the individual agents
located within both the socio-cultural field and the habitus. When placed
within Bhaskars stratified complex social ontology the model we have is
as depicted in Figure 1. The explanation of practices will require all three
levels. Society, as field of relations, exists prior to, and is independent
of, individual and collective understandings at any particular moment in
time; that is, social action requires the conditions for action. Likewise,
given that behavior is seemingly recurrent, patterned, ordered,
institutionalised, and displays a degree of stability over time, there must
be sets of relations and rules that govern it. Contrary to individualist
theory, these relations, rules and roles are not dependent upon either
knowledge of them by particular individuals, or the existence of actions
by particular individuals; that is, their explanation cannot be
reduced to consciousness or to the attributes of individuals .
These emergent social forms must possess emergent powers. This leads
on to arguments for the reality of society based on a causal criterion.
Society, as opposed to the individuals that constitute it, is, as Foucault
has put it, a complex and independent reality that has its own laws and
mechanisms of reaction, its regulations as well as its possibility of
disturbance. This new reality is societyIt becomes necessary to reflect
upon it, upon its specific characteristics, its constants and its variables.

We should evaluate consequences

Isaac 2Professor of Political Science at IndianaBloomington
Jeffery C., Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life,
PhD from Yale Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, Ends, Means, and Politics,
p. Proquest.
As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It
is assumed that U.S. military intervention is an act of "aggression," but no
consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a
response. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not, as peace activists
would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime-the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression. This
requires us to ask a question that most "peace" activists would prefer not
to ask: What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam
Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop
violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and
international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent
and civilized ethic of global order. But they are also vague and empty,
because they are not accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or
international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand. The
campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to
contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility .

Here what matters is not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of
power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It
is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world.
Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of
power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to
the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such
means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that
power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to
morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold
Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with
moral goodness undercuts political responsibility . The concern may be
morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from
three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does
not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or
refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may
seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is
hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean
conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real
violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness;
it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint
of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral
stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to
oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that
politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about
intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action,
that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender
impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the
lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's
goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about
the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic
and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this
judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes
arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

Case Extensions

Inherency
United States and China relations in the Arctic are Icy
Denyer, 14. Simon Denyer is The Posts bureau chief in China. He served
previously as bureau chief in India and as a Reuters bureau chief in
Washington, India and Pakistan https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/uschina-try-to-emphasize-potential-for-cooperation-at-high-leveltalks/2014/07/09/dcb6e0d8-e007-491a-abde-c2d2e6d60e19_story.html--SP
The United States and China said Wednesday that they are
determined to avoid conflict and maintain peace with each other , but deep
BEIJING

differences over maritime security and mutual recriminations over cyber-espionage continued to loom as
high-level annual talks between the two governments began here .

Relations between the two

sides have been on a downward spiral this year, but as the sixth round of the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue got underway in Beijing, the United States
and China were trying to calm fears about a further deterioration in ties and
stressing the potential for cooperation on a broad range of issues.
Confrontation between China and the United States would definitely spell
disaster for the two countries and for the wider world, Chinese President Xi Jinping
told delegates as he opened the two-day talks. He added that the countries need to respect
each others sovereignty and territorial integrity, strengthen dialogue and
promote cooperation. The immense sea allows fish to leap at liberty, the
vast sky lets birds fly freely, he said. The broad Pacific Ocean has ample space to
accommodate our two great nations. The talks took place in the same complex of villas in western Beijing
where President Richard M. Nixon met Chinese leader Mao Zedong on a historic visit in 1972 .

Secretary
of State John F. Kerry said the two countries have a profound stake in each
others success but need actions not words to avoid tension. It is not
lost on any of us that throughout history there has been a pattern of strategic
rivalry between rising and established powers, he said. But such rivalry was
not preordained, he added. It is not inevitable; it is a choice, he said. I can tell
you that we are determined to choose the path of peace and prosperity and
cooperation and, yes, even competition, but not conflict . Before the talks, U.S.
officials had criticized China for its aggressive pursuit of maritime claims in Asia. Kerry appeared to make
little progress Wednesday in persuading China to take a softer line, submit its territorial claims to
arbitration or enter meaningful negotiations. Trying

to fix the problem, so to speak,

through creating a new status quo, at the expense of regional stability and
regional harmony, is unacceptable, a senior U.S. official said in a background briefing after
the talks. It is precisely there, the secretary pointed out, that the U.S. takes a
very firm view. Chinas unilateral declaration of an air defense identification zone in the East China
Sea last year, including over islands administered by Japan, and its forceful assertion of claims to South
China Sea waters potentially rich in oil and gas have raised the hackles of many neighboring nations. As
China has flexed its military muscles, the United States has moved to bolster its security ties with key allies
Japan and the Philippines, as well as with other Asian nations. Kerry, however, tried to counter a
widespread impression in Beijing that this represents an attempt to contain China or slow its rise while
simultaneously telling Beijing to play by the rules. Let

me emphasize to you today, the

United States is not trying to contain China, he said. We welcome the
emergence of a peaceful, stable, prosperous China that contributes to the
stability and development of the region and chooses to play a responsible
role in world affairs. Bilateral relations have also been buffeted by mutual accusations of cyber-

espionage, fueled first by reports that units of the Chinese army were systematically spying on U.S.
companies and then by Edward Snowdens revelations of widespread U.S. spying on foreign
governments. In May, the Justice Department charged five members of the Chinese military with cyberespionage against U.S. firms. China responded by suspending talks under a cybersecurity working group
that had formed part of the broader Strategic and Economic Dialogue. While the United States reiterated
its call for those talks to restart, the Chinese did not agree, U.S. officials said. Kerry also raised the issue of
human rights in a very direct, candid and constructive way, especially criticizing the repression of ethnic
minorities in Chinas western regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, U.S. officials said. But in an apparent snub to
the United States, well-known Tibetan writer Tsering Woeser was placed under house arrest with her
husband late Tuesday, the day before she was to attend a dinner at the U.S. Embassy, according to her
Web site. Woeser was awarded the 2013 International Women of Courage Award by the State Department,
but Beijing banned her from traveling to Washington to receive the honor. Raising another long-standing
bone of contention, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said it is crucial for China to move to a marketdetermined exchange rate as it attempts to rebalance, reform and reinvigorate its economy. The United
States has long argued that Chinas currency, the yuan, is undervalued, giving Chinese exports an unfair
advantage in global markets and exacerbating a trade deficit with the United States.

Heg

Uniqueness
US policy is ignoring the Arctic now- that risks our global
primacy
Hobson 12 - Energy and Environmental Correspondent for the National
Journal
White House candidates for polar summit, Iceland president tells Alaskans,
Margaret Kriz Hobson, August 27, 2012, Warrant Cites Rubenstein CoFounder of Carlyle Group & Energy, Politics & Economics Expert,
www.eenews.net; and, http://www.arcticimperative.com/?page_id=2078
Grimsson noted that despite the increased international interest in oil and gas
development in the American Arctic, the United States has been less
involved in Arctic policy issues than any other Arctic nation, particularly much
less so than Russia. He also said that when he visited China, Singapore and
South Korea, the heads of state buttonholed him to support their request to
become permanent observers to the Arctic Council, a high-level
intergovernmental forum that addresses issues faced by Arctic governments
and indigenous people in the region. Grimsson said China, which has no
coastal lands located on the Arctic, recently launched a new heavy-duty
icebreaker designed to travel through the polar waters. By contrast, the U.S.
Coast Guard has only one older operating research icebreaker, the Healy, and
no new ice ships under construction. Theres something profound in the
political system of the United States that prevents Washington from
becoming as active as China is now in the Arctic, Grimsson said. Im not
talking about Russia. It would take you a long time to catch up with Russia.
But you can hopefully in the next few years match China in the interest in the
Arctic. Meanwhile, investor David Rubenstein told the conference that
Washington isnt likely to consider underwriting new ice breakers or
prioritizing Alaska issues unless the nation suddenly faces a crisis in the
Arctic. The co-founder of the Carlyle Group, Rubenstein compared todays
lack of federal investment in the Arctic infrastructure and Coast Guard
activities to the 1950s when the government ignored space exploration until
Russia launched the Sputnik, the first earth satellite. In the aftermath, the
Kennedy administration inspired the nation by channeling federal funds into
the space race and beating Russia to land a man on the moon. Whats
going to have to happen is that somebody from outside the United States,
perhaps Russia, will have to take such a compelling lead in the Arctic that our
national security and our economic viability is clearly threatened in ways that
people in Washington see it, Rubenstein said. I think you need to have a
boogeyman, he suggested. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin might be the
best one in some respects. He said that the Arctic is his strategic reserve for
the 21st century. And people in Washington need to remember what he said.
Because if its his strategic reserve, then its not our strategic reserve.
Iceland President Grimsson said that as the world increasingly looks to the
Arctic for resource extraction and international shipping, America must take

a larger role in Arctic policy issues or risk losing its primacy on the
world political scene. Quite seriously, he said, I cannot see how the
United States of America is going to conduct a comprehensive, responsible
foreign policy in the coming decades without being the leader of the
Arctic.

SQ environmental leadership fails- US can reverse this

through encouraging sustainability in the regionThe Energy Collective, May 17, 2013.
http://theenergycollective.com/francesbeinecke/225521/white-house-arcticstrategy-clear-drilling-goals-not-conservation-goals
Secretary Kerry was committed to making progress this week at the Arctic Council meetingsa gathering of foreign ministers from the eight
Arctic nations and several indigenous groups. As someone concerned about climate change, the oceans, and the Arctic region, Secretary

the U.S. cannot urge

other countries to protect the regions environment if we are not making concrete
commitments to do the same in our own Arctic waters and landscapes. Now is not the time to
ignore the hazards of unbridled energy development and unchecked climate change. There is simply
too much at stake in the Arctic. It is home to the worlds last wild ocean, some of Americas most
Kerry is poised to help the U.S. become a leader in sound Arctic management. But

breathtaking natural treasures, and an indigenous culture thousands of years old. The Arctic is also the air conditioner for
the worldas it warms our communities suffer more extreme weather events. If

we fail to protect the

Arctic in this time of rapid change, we risk losing one of the crowning jewels of Americas natural
heritage. We have a responsibility to preserve this spectacular and fragile region .

Climate change and the massive energy potential of the

Arctic is creating power grab over resources. War is
inevitable absent cooperation causes extinction
Gordon, 14. JD, Former DoD Spokesperson and a retired Navy
commander who served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 20052009. He is a senior fellow at the Center for a Secure Free Society, based in
Washington, D.C., The Hill, Feb. 12. Russia, China set sights on Arctic riches.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/198177-former-dod-spokesman-jdgordon-russia-china-set-sights
the Polar Vortex and Sochi Olympics may have dominated world headlines this winter,
both are relatively minor in size and scope when compared to an evolving geopolitical crisis also featuring freezing temps and international competition.
The high stakes Great Game over Arctic riches will affect billions of people
in the coming years, yet appears near completely out of sight, out of mind.
Though polar sea ice has increased this past winter, satellite photos clearly show a
decades-long melting trend, which, according to the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration, is now an average of 45 percent smaller
than during the 1980s and 1990s. Thus the race is on for the Arctics vast
petroleum, fishing and mineral resources. And I do mean vast . Polar bears on
While

floating ice blocks may soon be the least of our worries.

A 2008 study by the U.S. Geological Survey

the Arctic Circle, north of 66 degrees latitude, contains 90 billion barrels of

undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of
technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically
estimates

recoverable natural gas liquids. Thats approximately 22 percent of the

worlds untapped petroleum product resources, including 13 percent of oil, 30
percent of natural gas and 20 percent of natural-gas liquids. So what are
folks doing about it? The strong are going for the gold. Its like the Latin motto of the
Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Regiment: fortes fortuna juvat, or fortune favors the bold. Too bad those
Marines are not setting national policy.

While the White House retreats from assertive

foreign policy, Russia and China have stepped in to fill that power vacuum.
Russias President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang are tough,
pragmatic leaders. They dont mind stepping on toes for their national
interests. Russia, a member of the eight-nation Arctic Council, along with the U.S., Canada, Norway,
Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark, which represents Greenland, has claimed that its 200mile Economic Exclusion Zone ought to extend hundreds more to the North
Pole. Insisting the undersea Lomonosov Ridge is really just part of Russias continental shelf, Putin
launched a scientific expedition to plant a rust-proof titanium Russian flag on
the North Poles sea floor. Putins claim to nearly half the Arctic Oceans
international waters and seabed outraged the Canadians , as then-Foreign
Minister Peter Mackay exclaimed, This isnt the 15th century. You cant go
around the world and just plant flags and say Were claiming this territory.
Canadas Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pushing back, ordering his government in December 2013 to
draft up a robust international claim to the Arctic seabed including up to the North Pole. Both the Russians
and Canadians have boosted their military presence northwards. China is taking a different approach,
acquiring two ice-breaker ships, building a research facility dubbed the Arctic Yellow River Station in
Norways Ny-lesund Spitsbergen archipelago, starting Arctic expeditions and pushing a comprehensive
Though China is nearly 1,000
miles south of the Arctic Circle, it insists on near-Arctic status. To gain
legitimacy for such a claim, Beijing is not shy about throwing around money . It

plan that would make ancient military strategist Sun Tzu proud.

helped Iceland survive a banking crisis by launching a currency swap worth $500 million and signing a
free-trade agreement with Reykjavk. It is negotiating another agreement with Oslo and partnering with
several Arctic nations on a variety of other projects. Those investments have paid off, as China was
admitted last year to the Arctic Council as a permanent observer, along with India, Japan, Singapore,

With China
easing its way northward as it grows in economic, diplomatic and military
might, it will undoubtedly nudge aside Arctic nations for resources and
challenge Canada on its claim of the Northwest Passage as an internal waterway. Its not a
South Korea and Italy. All of a sudden, everyone wants in. But China wants even more.

theoretical exercise. In 2010, just four ships transited the northern shipping route, but two years later 46
ships carrying 1.26 million tons of cargo made the voyage. In a report titled Global Arctic by Finlands
Institute for International Affairs, authors Juha Kpyl and Harri Mikkola get it exactly right: the

Arctic
today is a global Arctic: it can no longer be perceived as a spatially or
administratively confined region, but is instead taking on a new form and
dynamics in the midst of contemporary global politics. Lets hope the White
House, Congress and elected leaders in Ottawa and Scandinavian capitals start paying
close attention. And perhaps more importantly, that they stand together for our
collective national interests.

Brink
Risk of arctic conflict high nowGoldenberg 14 [Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Climate
change poses growing threat of conflict in the Arctic, report finds,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/14/climate-changearctic-security-threat-report]
Climate change poses a growing security threat and could cause conflict in
the Arctic, a group of retired American generals and admirals said on Tuesday. In a new report, the former military officers said the
Pentagon had been caught out by the rapid changes under way in the Arctic because of the melting of the sea ice. Things are
accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at ," said General Paul Kern, the
chairman of the Centre for Naval Analysis Corporation's military advisory
board, which produced the report. The changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged. The prospect of an ice-free
Arctic by mid-century had set off a scramble for shipping lanes by Russia and China especially, and for access to oil and other resources. As
the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it represents a lot of opportunites for Russia, he said. Oil companies were also moving

the
situation had the potential to "spark conflict there". The CNA report deepens concern
about the security risks posed by climate change. In March, the United Nations' IPCC, in a landmark report, also warned that growing
competition for resources in a world under climate change could lead to
conflict. The report from the retired generals goes further, however, upgrading the
climate risk from a threat multipler to a conflict catalyst.
into the Arctic. "We think things are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had looked at seven years ago," he said, saying

Arctic threatened by International Conflict

Mikhailov 13
Andrel, Russian news reporter, Pravdareport January 7. Worlds strongest
powers get ready to fight for the Arctic riches
http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/01-07-2013/124989-arctic-0/
The Arctic is one of the few places on the planet that has not yet been
nationally defined. Initially the Arctic resources were not clearly divided between countries. The
arctic zone is now claimed by at least five countries: Russia, Norway,
Denmark, Canada and the United States. All of them have direct access to the Arctic
Ocean. National claims may in the future be supported by different arguments, but it is clear that the main
ones are practical, and there is a real willingness to actively explore the north.

The contradictions between the countries interested in the Arctic, according

to some international analysts, may well lead to an increase in the
international tension and a likelihood of emergence of international conflicts
of local nature in particular. After all, there is something to fight for, and
conflicts may arise. Analysts point out several causes of the aggravation of the geopolitical struggle
in the Arctic. The main ones among them are the current status of the national borders in the region that is
not legally defined, rich subsoil resources, and the strategic importance of the Arctic region's
transportation arteries.

Risk of Arctic conflict highTassinari 12 Fabrizio Tassinari is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the
German Marshall Fund and the Head of Foreign Policy and EU Studies at the
Danish Institute for International Studies, September 7, 2012, Avoiding a
Scramble for the High North, http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/09/07/avoiding-ascramble-for-the-high-north/

The geopolitics of the Arctic are stuck in a paradox : The more regional players
restate the importance of international cooperation, the more some pundits and
policymakers seem to conclude that the Arctic risks descending into competition and
even conflict. The world is awakening to the growing strategic importance of the
High North. As the Arctic ice melts due to global warming, it opens up new opportunities, from shorter shipping lanes to newly
accessible oil and gas reserves; respectively, about 13 percent and 30 percent of the worlds undiscovered resources are in the Arctic,

declarations of the littoral

nations to the effect that any potential disagreements over them will be resolved peacefully.
However, beneath expressions of goodwill, the Arctic debate is often
characterized by a sense of urgency, and even forms of alarmism . In recent years,
instances of growing securitization of the Arctic have abounded . Back in 2008, a paper by Javier
according to the U.S. Geological Survey. These discoveries are usually followed by

Solana, then the EUs foreign policys chief, and the European Commission warned about potential conflict over resources in Polar regions as
they become exploitable due to melting ice. In 2010, NATOs supreme allied commander in Europe, Adm. James Stavridis, argued that for
now, the disputes in the North have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium. Then

there are

actions that speak louder than prepared speeches from the famous August 2007 expedition that
planted a Russian flag on the North Poles seabed to the annual summer military exercises carried out by Canada to assert its sovereignty in
the North. Although the Russian stunt was most likely aimed at nationalist domestic audiences, some observers view these exercises as the

The Arctic powers are fast

approaching diplomatic gridlock, and that could eventually lead to the sort
of armed brinkmanship that plagues other territories. The geopolitical
constellation in and around the region provides a ready justification for
such an assessment. While no-one really imagines the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark fighting over the Arctic,
some of their politicians have occasionally framed rhetoric in more peppered terms than one might expect. Russia, the fifth Arctic littoral
nation, typically treads a fine line between declarations of cooperation and an
innate instinct for great-power competition. Add to that the EU, which is seeking to
carve its own role, and Asias giants, above all China, for which the opening of the Northeast passage may reduce sailing distance with
Europe by some 40 percent, and it is not hard to conjure up the prospect of an Arctic race
building up.
expressions of competing national interests. As the scholar Scott Borgerson ominously put it:

Link-US Key
The Arctic lacks leadership and the US is in an ideal
position to provide leadership
Bert 12, Melissa Bert is a captain in the U.S. Coast Guard and a military
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A Strategy to Advance the Arctic
Economy
http://www.cfr.org/arctic/strategy-advance-arctic-economy/p27258
The United States needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic.
Melting sea ice is generating an emerging Arctic economy. Nations bordering the
Arctic are drilling for oil and gas, and mining, shipping, and cruising in the region. Russia, Canada, and
Norway are growing their icebreaker fleets and shore-based infrastructure to support these enterprises. For
the United States, the economic potential from the energy and mineral resources is in the trillions of
dollarsbased upon estimates that the Alaskan Arctic is the home to 30 billion barrels of oil, more than
220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, rare earth minerals, and massive renewable wind, tidal, and
geothermal energy. However, the U.S. government is unprepared to harness the potential that the Arctic

The United States lacks the capacity to deal with potential regional
conflicts and seaborne disasters, and it has been on the sidelines when it comes to developing
offers.

new governance mechanisms for the Arctic. To advance U.S. economic and security interests and avert

the United States should ratify the UN Law of the

take the lead in developing mandatory international
standards for operating in Arctic waters, and acquire icebreakers, aircraft, and
infrastructure for Arctic operations. Regional Flashpoints Threaten Security Like the United
potential environmental and human disasters,
Sea Convention (LOSC),

States, the Arctic nations of Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have geographical claims to the Arctic.
Unlike the United States, however, they have each sought to exploit economic and strategic opportunities
in the region by developing businesses, infrastructure, and cities in the Arctic. They have also renewed
military exercises of years past, and as each nation learns of the others' activities, suspicion and
competition increase. When the Russians sailed a submarine in 2007 to plant a titanium flag on the "north
pole," they were seen as provocateurs, not explorers. The continental shelf is a particular point of
contention. Russia claims that deep underwater ridges on the sea floor, over two hundred miles from the
Russian continent, are part of Russia and are legally Russia's to exploit. Denmark and Canada also claim
those ridges. Whichever state prevails in that debate will have exclusive extraction rights to the resources,
which, based on current continental shelf hydrocarbon lease sales, could be worth billions of dollars.
Debates also continue regarding freedom of navigation and sovereignty over waters in the region. Russia
claims sovereignty over the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which winds over the top of Russia and Alaska and
will be a commercially viable route through the region within the next decade. The United States contends
the NSR is an international waterway, free to any nation to transit. The United States also has laid claim to
portions of the Beaufort Sea that Canada says are Canadian, and the United States rejects Canada's claim
that its Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific is its internal waters, as opposed to an
international strait. Canada and Denmark also have a boundary dispute in Baffin Bay. Norway and Russia
disagree about fishing rights in waters around the Spitsbergen/Svalbard Archipelago. U.S. Capacity in the
Arctic Is Lacking Traffic and commercial activity are increasing in the region. The NSR was not navigable for
years because of heavy ice, but it now consists of water with floating ice during the summer months. As
the icebergs decrease in the coming years, it will become a commercially profitable route, because it
reduces the maritime journey between East Asia and Western Europe from about thirteen thousand miles
through the Suez Canal to eight thousand miles, cutting transit time by ten to fifteen days. Russian and
German oil tankers are already beginning to ply those waters in the summer months. Approximately
150,000 tons of oil, 400,000 tons of gas condensate, and 600,000 tons of iron ore were shipped via the
NSR in 2011. Oil, gas, and mineral drilling, as well as fisheries and tourism, are becoming more common in
the high latitudes and are inherently dangerous, because icebergs and storms can shear apart even large
tankers, offshore drilling units, fishing vessels, and cruise ships. As a result, human and environmental

the Arctic has no mandatory

requirements for those operating in or passing through the region. There are
no designated shipping lanes, requirements for ice-strengthened hulls to
withstand the extreme environment, ice navigation training for ships' masters, or even
disasters are extremely likely. Despite the dangerous conditions,

production and carriage of updated navigation and ice charts. Keeping the Arctic safe with the increased

The U.S. government is further

hindered by the lack of ships, aircraft, and infrastructure to enforce
sovereignty and criminal laws, and to protect people and the marine
environment from catastrophic incidents. In the lower forty-eight states, response time to
activity and lack of regulations presents a daunting task.

an oil spill or capsized vessel is measured in hours. In Alaska, it could take days or weeks to get the right
people and resources on scene. The nearest major port is in the Aleutian Islands, thirteen hundred miles
from Point Barrow, and response aircraft are more than one thousand miles south in Kodiak, blocked by a

The Arctic shores lack infrastructure to

launch any type of disaster response, or to support the growing commercial
development in the region. U.S. Leadership in Arctic Governance Is Lacking Governance in the
Arctic requires leadership. The United States is uniquely positioned
to provide such leadership, but it is hampered by its reliance on the eight-nation Arctic
mountain range and hazardous flying conditions.

Council. However, more than 160 countries view the LSOC as the critical instrument defining conduct at
sea and maritime obligations. The convention also addresses resource division, maritime traffic, and
pollution regulation, and is relied upon for dispute resolution. The LOSC is particularly important in the
Arctic, because it stipulates that the region beyond each country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) be
divided between bordering nations that can prove their underwater continental shelves extend directly
from their land borders. Nations will have exclusive economic rights to the oil, gas, and mineral resources
extracted from those outer continental shelves, making the convention's determinations substantial.
According to geologists, the U.S. portion is projected to be the world's largest underwater extension of land
over 3.3 million square milesbigger than the lower forty-eight states combined. In addition to global
credibility and protection of Arctic shelf claims, the convention is important because it sets international
pollution standards and requires signatories to protect the marine environment. Critics argue that the LOSC
cedes American sovereignty to the United Nations. But the failure to ratify it has the opposite effect: it
leaves the United States less able to protect its interests in the Arctic and elsewhere. The diminished
influence is particularly evident at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the international body

By remaining a
nonparty, the United States lacks the credibility to promote U.S. interests in
the Arctic, such as by transforming U.S. recommendations into binding
international laws. A Comprehensive U.S. Strategy for the Arctic The United States needs a
comprehensive strategy for the Arctic. The current National/Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (NSPD-66 / HSPD-25) is only a broad policy statement. An effective Arctic strategy
would address both governance and capacity questions . To generate effective
that "operationalizes" the LOSC through its international port and shipping rules.

governance in the Arctic the United States should ratify LOSC and take the lead in advocating the adoption
of Arctic shipping requirements. The IMO recently proposed a voluntary Polar Code, and the United States
should work to make it mandatory. The code sets structural classifications and standards for ships
operating in the Arctic as well as specific navigation and emergency training for those operating in or
around ice-covered waters. The United States should also support Automated Identification System (AIS)
carriage for all ships transiting the Arctic. Because the Arctic is a vast region with no ability for those on
land to see the ships offshore, electronic identification and tracking is the only way to know what ships are
operating in or transiting the region. An AIS transmitter (costing as little as $800) sends a signal that
provides vessel identity and location at all times to those in command centers around the world and is
currently mandated for ships over sixteen hundred gross tons. The United States and other Arctic nations
track AIS ships and are able to respond to emergencies based on its signals. For this reason, mandating AIS
for all vessels in the Arctic is needed. The U.S. government also needs to work with Russia to impose a
traffic separation scheme in the Bering Strait, where chances for a collision are high. Finally, the United
States should push for compulsory tandem sailing for all passenger vessels operating in the Arctic. Tandem
sailing for cruise ships and smaller excursion boats will avert another disaster likeRMS Titanic. To enhance
the Arctic's economic potential, the United States should also develop its capacity to enable commercial
entities to operate safely in the region. The U.S. government should invest in icebreakers, aircraft, and
shore-based infrastructure. A ten-year plan should include the building of at least two heavy icebreakers,
at a cost of approximately $1 billion apiece, and an air station in Point Barrow, Alaska, with at least three
helicopters. Such an air station would cost less than $20 million, with operating, maintenance, and
personnel costs comparable to other northern military facilities. Finally, developing a deepwater port with
response presence and infrastructure is critical. A base at Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, where
ships and fishing vessels resupply and refuel, would only cost a few million dollars per year to operate.
Washington could finance the cost of its capacity-building efforts by using offshore lease proceeds and

federal taxes on the oil and gas extracted from the Arctic region. In 2008, the United States collected $2.6
billion from offshore lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (off Alaska's north coast), and the
offshore royalty tax rate in the region is 19 percent, which would cover operation and maintenance of

The United States needs an Arctic governance and

acquisition strategy to take full advantage of all the region has to offer and to
protect the people operating in the region and the maritime environment.
Neglecting the Arctic reduces the United States' ability to reap tremendous
economic benefits and could harm U.S. national security interests.
these facilities down the road.

Experts say the Arctic council should take a on a bigger

leadership role with the US as its current chair
Hobson 4/15/16, Margaret Kriz Hobson is the Alaska correspondent for
E&E, where she specializes in Alaska energy and environmental issues,
climate change and politics. She joined the company in 2010 after two
decades as the energy and environmental correspondent at National Journal.
Margie began her career as a general assignment reporter for the Suburban
Trib, a now-defunct subsidiary of the Chicago Tribune. She also covered
environmental issues for the Bureau of National Affairs. From 2005 to 2006,
she was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. She has a bachelor's degree
in journalism from the University of Illinois and a master's degree from
American University. As region thaws, leaders face changing mandate
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060035656
The Arctic Council is suffering growing pains as rising temperatures from climate change create serious
problems for the region's people and ecosystems, while also opening lucrative business opportunities in

The Arctic's shifting conditions are attracting attention from a

broad cross-section of international interests -- from scientific researchers and
environmental activists to non-Arctic nations and corporations . Seeking to influence
Arctic policies, those parties are flocking to the Arctic Council , the only high-level
the Far North.

intergovernmental organization focused on Arctic issues. Created 20 years ago, the council was formed by
the eight nations that border the polar region: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden

The
United States is the current chair, with Finland due to take the lead in May 2017. The
Arctic Council was originally designed as a loosely structured, informal
diplomatic forum focused on the Arctic environment and sustainable
development issues. The panel has no authority to regulate or to commit the
eight nations' funding to any of its projects. But over time, the council has expanded
its agenda to address a broad cross-section of critical challenges facing the
northern nations as the Arctic continues to warm at twice the rate of the rest
of the world. The United States has made climate change the top priority of its
and the United States. Leadership of the group circulates among member countries every two years.

chairmanship, persistently urging the circumpolar nations to take a leadership role in countering the
impacts of the warming Arctic. A council working group is crafting a plan to cut international black carbon
and methane emissions, which are adding to Arctic warming pollution. "If we can reduce emissions of black
carbon, we can make a dent in climate change in the North," U.S. Ambassador David Balton asserted at
last month's meeting of the Arctic Council's senior officials. "e are pushing as hard as we can to get Arctic
states and the near-Arctic states to do just that" (ClimateWire, March 21). Another Arctic Council
committee is developing proposals to establish a network of marine protected areas throughout the Arctic,
with the ultimate goal of having at least 10 percent of ocean space subject to some form of protection by
2020. That goal comes at a time when the increasingly ice-free Arctic waters are attracting interest from

international experts
suggest the time has come for the Arctic Council to consider a more
the world's shipping, resource extraction and fishing industries. But some

activist, leadership role to address the physical transformation

occurring in the polar region and the growing international focus on all
things Arctic.

It is key for the US to assert a leadership role to address

issues in the Arctic
Begich 14, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) Chairman, U.S. Senate Commerce
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. Arctic
Needs US Leadership
http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/9_Begich.php
Readers of Sea Technology may recall my frustration in previous years about the lack of progress toward
ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention and our nation's widening gap in icebreaker capability. We are still
behind the curve on both fronts, but let us take stock in what we have accomplished in Arctic policy. At the
urging of Alaska's congressional delegation, the Barack Obama administration issued a national Arctic
Strategy. This expansion of existing policy is still a work in progress but demonstrates the administration's
interest in, and commitment to, the Arctic. The Coast Guard issued its own strategy to ensure maritime
governance in the Arctic, and Operation Arctic Shield was back again this past summer, focusing on the
increasing vessel traffic through the Bering Strait. The Coast Guard's icebreaker Polar Star is back in
service, and the Alaska Region Research VesselSikuliaq was launched. NOAA has developed an Arctic

The Arctic Council has

reached legally binding agreements on search and rescue, and oil spill
prevention and response. The Council now has a permanent secretariat, and the U.S. is preparing
to assume chairmanship in 2015. Meanwhile, the ice pack continues to diminish and more
and more shippers are taking advantage of that . Vessels transiting the Northern Sea
Nautical Charting Plan to update the region's woefully inadequate charts.

Route now include LNG tankers and container ships, and you can book a cruise through Canada's
Northwest Passage. The organizers of the Sochi Olympics even arranged for the carrying of the Olympic
torch to the North Pole, aboard an icebreaker, of course. Energy development is underway in the Arctic's
open waters. Exploratory work began in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas last year, and I am confident it will
resume next summer with new and better engineered technology. Earlier this year, I told President Obama
the Arctic presents our nation with both a historic opportunity and a challenge. The Arctic offers
tremendous resources and benefits to our nation, but we have a responsibility to protect its unique and
often extreme environment. The Coast Guard will be a key player in the Arctic but we cannot expect them
to expand their operations without additional resources. We need to keep the Coast Guard's fleet

We need a forward operating base in the Arctic to

support marine and aircraft operations. We need strengthened
communications and vessel tracking systems to monitor the increasing
maritime shipping through the Bering Straits. The International Maritime Organization
needs to finalize a robust polar code to protect the Arctic. We need greater icebreaking
capacity to assert a strong, national maritime presence in the Arctic at a time
when Russia, China and now even India are building icebreakers. Finally, any discussion of
recapitalization efforts on track.

Arctic governance has to include the Law of the Sea. The treaty provides a basic governance structure and
means to resolve claims over high-seas resources. I was disappointed by the failure of the U.S. Senate to
ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty last year, but this fight is not over. I remain a strong supporter of the Law
of the Sea and will continue to work for its ratification. People have dreamed about the promise of the
Arctic for more than 500 years. We have explored the margins of the polar ice pack in ships, dogsleds and
balloons. Changes over the past decade have made the Arctic more accessible than few could ever

serious challenges remain. Our nation has a responsibility to

assert leadership in the changing Arctic. It will take significant investment
of time, intelligence and resources, but is necessary to assert the United
States' role as an Arctic nation and fulfill that Arctic promise .
imagine, but

Plans bilateral approach spills over to multilateral Arctic

conflict resolution- non-binding standards dont fill in
Ebinger et al 14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute,
Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S.,
March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshoreoil-gas-governance-arctic
Regional and bilateral instruments are an impor tant component of the overall
governance approach since they can be customized to specific, local marine
conditions, and involve fewer actors to establish and implement. These
cooperative instruments can then feed into the development of more broadly
applicable standards and best prac tices and be used to compare with other
regional or national efforts as well. However, they cover only parts of the
Arctic, such as OSPAR.
Recommended standards, guidelines, and best practices, such as those
developed by trade associations, industry, NGOs, or standards organizations
also contribute to strengthening governance. Yet given their voluntary nature,
these instruments are feared by some to be too general, lack sufficient detail,
and often reflect the lowest agreeable standard (least common denominator)
of a consensus-based process.

Aff is key to creating effective arctic council action and

cooperation status squo fails
DUBOIS and TESAR 11/14 (MARC-ANDR DUBOIS Advisor, External
Relations, coordinates the WWF Global Arctic Programmes engagement with the
Arctic Council and other international organisations. Marc-Andr has a background in
political science with degrees from Universit de Montral and the Institut d`tudes
Politiques de Lille, and CLIVE TESAR Head of Communications and External Relations,
worked throughout the Arctic as a communications consultant for NGOs, Indigenous
peoples organizations and governments. Clive has a Masters degree in
Environmental Education and Communications, Arctic Council needs better way of
acting on recommendations, NUNATSIAQ NEWS, WWF Global Arctic Program,
11/14/14
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674the_arctic_council_needs_a_better
_way_to_implement_recommendations/)

the Arctic Council has done a commendable job of

developing implementation plans and follow-up mechanisms for its
recommendations and decisions. This has been an incremental process. Landmark reports such as
the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment fell a little flat because, despite thorough research
and scholarship, the recommendations that flowed from such assessments
went largely undone and unremarked. By 2009, the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was
Over the past five years,
increasingly

implemented through the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment plan that has been monitored, with

The flaw in the implementation of

recommendations flowing from Arctic Council reports is that the only entities
that truly take on the recommendations from Arctic Council working groups
implementation reports in 2011 and 2013.

are Arctic Council working groups . What these working groups can do is
limited. They can develop further research, they can convene symposiums, and they can make
recommendations. They cannot compel the activities that would make the biggest
difference: implementation at a national and international level . We are not
suggesting that should change. The Arctic Council is unlikely to ever have the
authority to compel member states to undertake activities on a national level.
However, as the recommendations are decided by a process of negotiation by
those member states together with permanent participants, we believe it is
not too much to ask that those same states decide how they will implement
recommendations, and account for the implementation of the
recommendations. Such an initiative could be led by the incoming chair. The
United States has already signaled that a focal area of its chairmanship will
be strengthening the council as an institution . What could strengthen it more
than giving real national expression to the recommendations arrived at by
the council, and accepted by ministers? Arctic Council assessments and the related policy
recommendations are financed by public money, and governments should start using them to implement

accelerating action
for conservation achievements will lead to true delivery on the mandate of
the Arctic Council. The WWF recommends that the U.S. lead a process to
ensure that recommendations flowing from agreed recommendations are
implemented at a national (and where necessary, international) level, and
that the level of implementation is monitored by each state, and reported
back to the council every two years. Such a process would include the
development of implementation plans for all policy recommendations
outlining specific methodologies, processes, timelines, milestones and
approaches for implementation of the many working group
recommendations. Member states and working groups should agree to present, around each
their own work and provide results and benefits for their citizens. Ultimately,

ministerial meeting, rigorous implementation progress reports, which should be based on a similar agreedupon format. The implementation of the recent recommendations of the CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora
and Fauna working group) Arctic Biodiversity Assessment could be a litmus test for integrating national
implementation with Arctic Council-specific implementation. The coming Arctic Biodiversity Congress in
Trondheim is an opportunity for states to foreshadow a commitment to follow up with national

This
should include not just commitments to research, but putting into action some of the
already well-researched recommendations of the ABA conference such as
advancing the protection of large areas of ecologically important marine,
terrestrial and freshwater habitats, taking into account resilience in a
changing climate. This could be done through outlining the national
components of a plan to complete a network of Arctic conservation
management areas, then working collectively to ensure the necessary connectivity. Declarations
and voluntary adoption of policies by countries alone are not enough and Arctic ministers and
leaders need to follow through with new domestic laws and regulations as
good intentions will not be enough to translate words into deeds . The
creation of an Arctic Council process for ensuring Arctic Councilspecific actions are coupled with bold and concrete national actions
to bolster implementation will provide Arctic governments with a
more complete response to Arctic challenges. Ensuring that there are
monitoring, implementation, and reporting requirements will provide the
implementation plans, which could be cemented by the Iqaluit ministerial meeting in April 2015.

council with a solid basis to inform future policy development. A focus on

actionable goals and deliverables will add credibility to the Arctic Councils
desire to be seen as a sufficient steward of the Arctic.

Link-Science Dip
Science collaboration is key to US leadership within
multilateral institutions and independently functions as a
conflict dampener
Bement, 08. Dr. Arden, testimony to the Committee on Science and
Technology, April. Dr. Arden is the Director of the National Science
Foundation.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/legislative/hearings/2008%20hearings/4-208%20Bement.pdf
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss intern ational science and tec hnology (S&T) cooperation and the National

science
collaboration and science diplomacy are essential ingredients for Americas
future progress and prosperity
Science Foundations (NSF) curren t international activitie s. NSFs combined research and education portfolio provides rich examples of global S&T cooperation. We believe that

. I am pleased to te stify on this important and timely issue. Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. dipl

omacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewe d and strengthened relati ons with Egypt, India,
and Pakistanall started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy. For instance, polls indicate that people in th e Middle East generally view American S&T more favorably than other aspects of our
society. This approving attitude provides for favorable forums to explain other aspects of American policies and actions. Our nations citizens also benefit directly from

provides our scientists

with greater access
across geographical boundaries to solve global problems
as it

and engineers

S&T cooperation
to work

to cutting-edge research and allows us

. 1 In addition, globalization has amplified the wo rldwide

competition for ideas, science and engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turn ing new knowledge into real -world applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and development,

To c ontinue being a global leader in S&T, we must

ensure that we have access to discoveries being made in every corner of the
world
education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic growth.

. The National Science Foundation unde rstands the global nature of scientific discovery, and the international character of knowledge creation and research activities ar e stressed in NSFs FY 2006-

2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in Americas Future . For more than 55 years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in acad emic organizations, industry and informal science institutions, both nationally
and internatio nally, to leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the nations collaborative advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by devel oping innovative
collabora tions across all S&E disciplines. Three categories of activities illustrate NSFs engagement in international S&T: (1) leadership and diplomacy efforts to foster global S&E connectivity; (2) th e coordination
and support of research projects, both large and small, that have an international component; and (3) the activities of NSFs Office of International Sc ience and Engineering (O ISE). The following selected examples
underscore the br oad influence of NSF activities. Leadership and Diplomacy Efforts to Foster Global Science and Engineering The exchange of scientific information and the cooperation in internationa l scientific
research activities were identified by the first NSF Dir ector, Alan Waterman, as two of the major responsibilities that Congress had given the agen cy. NSF embraced those responsibilities in its first cycle of grants,
supporti ng international travel and the dissemination of scientific information originating overseas. NSF recognize d that a two-way flow of information and individuals between nations resulted in both better
science and improve d international goodwill. In 1955, NSF took a comprehensive look at the role of the federal government in international science, and warned that it was important that "ac tivities of the U.S.

international scientific
collaboration, based on considerations of scientific merit and the selflessness
of the United States, could help ease international tensions
Government in the area of science not be tagged interna tionally as another weapon in our cold war arsenal." NSF concluded that

, improve the image of the United States abroad,

and help ra ise the standard of living among less-developed nations. NSF has long embraced multilateral projects as an essential aspect of its portfolio, beginning with the International Geophysic al Year of 1957,
and continuing with such activities as the International Biological and Tr opical Oceans-Global Atmosphere programs, and, more recently, the International Continental Drilling Program , Gemini Observatory, Rice
Genome Sequencing Project, and International Polar Y ear. The agency has also fostered bilateral partnerships in all parts of the world. These overarc hing partnerships, most of whic h involve extensive interagency
2 collaboration on the U.S. side, have generated thousands of cooperative research projects on multiple scales. As you know, the Office of Science and Tec hnology Policy (OSTP) guides and oversees the
administrations international science and techno logy strategies and portfolio. Through OSTP, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has a pivotal role in setting priorities for and coordinating
interagency coll aborations, including those that are international in nature. International cooperation is integrated throughou t the four committees of the NSTC, and NSF participates in this work on many levels. I
currently co-chair the Committee on Science and serve as the NSF representative on the Comm ittee on Homeland and National Security. NSF Deputy Director Kathie Olse n serves as the NSF repres entative on the
Committee on Environment & Natural Resources and Committee on Technology. NSF is involved in most of NSTCs subcommittees and working groups, and leads many. For example, Dr. Jim Collins, the Assistant
Director of the Di rectorate of Biological Scie nces, chairs the Biotechnology Subcommittee, and Dr. Jeannette Wing, the Assist ant Director for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering, co-c hairs the
Networking and Inform ation Technology Research and Development. NSFs senior management team also participates in other important in ternational bodies. As NSF Director, I represent the Un ited States at the
annual meeti ng of the Heads of Research Councils (HORCS) for the G-8 countries (Canad a, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). These meetings provide opportunities
for international leaders to meet on a regular basis, to review bilateral issues or problems with individual counterpart agencies, and to propos e cooperation on particular topics of common interest. In the last few
years, NSF has chaired HORCS work ing groups on public understanding of science, evaluation of research re sults, and science and math education in schools. I also currently serve as a member of the U.S. National
Commission for UNESCO and as the vice-chair of the Commissions Natural Sciences a nd Engineering Committee. As part of the our involvement with US National Committee for UNESCO International Hydrological
Programme, NSF is currently working with UNESCO, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of State, and other federal science agencies to organize a high-level Water Science Forum to explore the
potential contributions of U.S. science to the challe nges of drinking water supply and safety, sanitation, drought, and resource manageme nt. The forum, to be held on June 27, 2008, will involve about 80 people,
including UNESCO leadership, foreign embassies, and experts from U.S. agencies and academia. A larger mee ting, also sponsored by this group and involving hundreds of scientists from around the world, will be
held in Irvine, CA, December 1-6, 2008. NSF also actively participates in the OSTP-led Interagenc y Working Group on Science of UNESCO, which is exploring future collabo rative opportunities between the U.S. S&E
community and UNESCO. Additionally, NSF Deputy Director Ka thie Olsen serves as vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the Human Frontier Science Program and as co-cha ir of the U.S.-EC Biotechnology Task
Force. NSF leadership also represents the U.S. government on the Intern ational Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research, and thro ugh multiple roles in the activities of OECDs Global Science Forum.
For example, NSF has recently been involved in hosting workshops on 3 the science of science policy and biocomplexit y, and the agency plays a major role in the coordination of the U.S. role in large facilitie s. NSF
also plays si gnificant roles in the consultative meetings of the Anta rctic Treaty, in the scientific activities of other United Nations specialized agencies, such as th e World Meteorological Organization, and in the
activities of the Arctic Council, where we represen t the scientific intere st of all the Arctic nations. Through these activities, NSF leadership interacts directly with h eads of state, ministers, and other principals to
discuss forming new multilateral and bilateral agreements, or to alter or extend already existing agreements. Such leadership roles play a critical role in keeping the nation proactively involved in the international
S&T arena. NSFs overseas offices in Beijing, Paris, and Tokyo also proactively promote collaboration between the United States and international S& E communities. Staff headquartered in these offices report on incountry and regional S&T deve lopments and policies, serve as resources of information on current and emerging issues in S&E and policy, and work as liaisons between NSF and foreign organizations and
researchers. The offices also regularly support NSFs directorates and research offices efforts to e xpand NSF programs internati onally and to finalize implementing agreements. Thus, they play an important role in
helping NSF pursue its mission of promoting U.S. research and educati on excellence in a global context. Moreover, program officers from NSFs OISE and the heads of its overseas offices have helped establish solid
working relations hips with counterpart agencies and organizations abroad. Examples are the UK Research Councils, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the National Natural Science Foundation in China,
CONACyT in Mexico, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France, the Deutsc he Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, the National Research Foundation in South Africa, the Russian F oundation for
Basic Research and the Czech Ministry of Education. Over the year s, senior officials and program officers from these and other organizations have held numerous discussions, participated in seminars and
workshops, and funded cooperative research proj ects. Since we fund the U.S. portion of international research, these venues provide numerous U.S. S&E researchers, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and
undergraduates o pportunities to gain im portant international perspectives. NSFs support of the annual U.S. contribution to the In ternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the International
Council fo r Science (ICSU) via grants to the National Academy of Sciencesthe National Member Organization for both IIASA and ICSUalso facilitates involvement of U.S. scientists a nd engineers in internat ional
non-governmental organizations. This support enables U.S. scientis ts and engineers to participate in global S&E projects. Of particular intere st for this hearing, both organizations concentrat e on scientific fields of
policy importance, including topi cs focused on the developing world, such as environmental, economic, technological, and soci al issues in the cont ext of global change. The Embassy Science Fellows program,
admini stered by the Department of State and coordinated within NSF by OISE, also provides fo r valuable international experience. Fellows from NSF and certain other U.S. Government ag encies spend between
one and three months at foreign posts as visiting scien tist/engineer-consultants to the Embassy, working closely with the Science Counselor and/or other embassy sta ff involved in S&T issues . The fellows
conduct 4 assessments of in-country S&E institutions, fi elds, and priorities, and meet with leading scientists and science administrators. Finally, facilitating the flow of S& E talent to the United States is also a major
concern of NSF. OISE continues to serve as a resource on visa policies both to the scie ntific and engineering community at large and to the Department of Stat e. OISE continues to track the visa situation, providing
timely information to NSF senior ma nagement and program officers as the policies evolve. NSFs International Research and Education Portfolio The U.S portion of international S&E research and education activities
is funded by all NSF directorates and resear ch offices. International implicati ons are found throughout all of NSFs activities, from individual res earch awards and fellowships for students to study abroad, to
centers, collaborations, joint projects, and shar ed networks that demonstrate the value of partnering with the United States. As a result of its international portfolio en compassing projects in al l S&E disciplines,
NSF effectively partners with almost every country in the world. The following examples illustrate the international breadth and scope of NSFs international portfolio. The Research Experiences for Undergradua tes
program, an NSF-wide activity, gives undergraduate students the opportuni ty to engage in high-quality research, often at important international sites. One of these sites is CERN , the European Laboratory for
Particle Physics in Switzerland, and one of the worlds premier inte rnational laboratories. Undergraduate students work with faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to facilities
unavailable anywhere else in the world. NSF also provides support for the Large Hadron Collider housed at CERN. Collaborations among individual NSF-supported investigators are also common in NSFs portfolio.
Recently, scientists at the University of Chicago created a single-molecule diode, a potential building block for nanoel ectronics. Theorists at the Univ ersity of South Florida and the Russian Academy of Sciences
then explained the principle of how such a device works. They jointly published their findings. The Foundations Division of Materials Resear ch supports the Mate rials World Network (MWN), a global collaborative
aimed at fosterin g partnerships between materials science and engineering researchers at institutions around the globe, includ ing institutions in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The MWN wa s launched in 1995
and further de veloped via a series of NSF co-sponsored workshops around the world. Th rough MWN, NSF and international partner agencies jointly solicit proposals for collaborative projects. Since 2001, N SF has
participated in funding over 180 awards. Research is targeted at improving medical diagnosis, developing stronger materials for the housing and tr ansportation industries, and more. At the ends of the world, NSF
coor dinates nearly all of the U.S. scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctica through its Office of Polar Programs. In fact, N SF was designated as the lead 5 federal agency for the Intern ational Polar Year (IPY)
2007-2008. During this campaign, more than 100 countries undertook projects involving scientists, students, teachers, and the public to increase understanding of the polar region. Research at NSF supported-

centers also has significant international implica tions. For example, the NSF Center for Sustainability of Semi-Ari d Hydrology and Riparian Areas recently won the International Great Man-Made River Prize awarded
by UNESCO. The prize rewards remarkable scientific research work on water usag e in arid region as well as areas subject to drought and also for the development of agri culture for the benefit of humanity and the
environment. More than three dozen scientists and support staff at another NSF-supported center recently won a different prestigious award for their work on climate change. Researchers and staff at National Ce
nter for Atmospheric Research (N CAR), as well as many other NSF- supported researchers, were involv ed in reports by the U.N. In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former Vice President Al Gore. There are also examples where NSF partners wi th the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support international S& T programs to facilitate capacity building. For example, the U.S.-Pakistan Science a nd Technology Program, led by a coordinating committee chaired by Dr. Arden
Bement, NSF Di rector, and Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, Pakistan Minister of Education and Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. USAID funds the U.S. contribution of the joint program and supports other programs in
Pakistan involving NIH and other agencies. This US-Pakistan S&T program supports a number of joint research projects peer reviewed by the National Academy of Scie nces and approved by the joint S&T committee.
Over the past year, the Committee has also esta blished sixteen S&T working groups that involve interagency participation in Pakistan and in the Un ited States to carry out joint research projects of mutual interest
(with dire ct benefit to Pakistan). Through this collaboration, NSF just completed a network connection of Internet 2 with Pakistan to facilitate research and edu cation collaborations a nd data exchanges under the
program. This project embodies one of NSF's top priorities, the development of the national science and engineering cyberinfrastructure, enabling a prime role for the United States in global research networks.
NSF's goals for the national cyberinfra structure include the ability to integrate data from diverse disciplines and multiple locations , and to make them widely available to researchers, educators, and stude nts.
Already, the Grid Physic s Network and the international Virtual Data Grid Laboratory are advancing IT -intensive research in physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. In today's highly sophisticated, technology-driv en
science, many international partnerships center around major, high-budget re search facilities that are made possible only by combining the resources of more than one nation. Fo r example, NSF's facilities budget
includes construction funds for the IceCube neutrino detect or, antennas for the At acama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), and observation technologies fo r the Arctic Observing Network (AON). The IceCube Neutrino
Observatorythe worlds first high-energy neutrino observatoryoffers a powerful example of an international, inter-agen cy research platform. Agencies in Belgium, 6 Germany, and Sweden have joined NSF and
Depa rtment of Energy (DOE) in providing support for IceCube, which will search for neutrinos from deep within the ice cap under the South Pole in Antarctica. Neutrinos are hard -to-detect astronomical messengers
that carry information from cosmological events. The Atacama Large Millimeter A rray, currently under construction near San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, will be the worlds most sensitive, hi ghest resolution,
millimeter wavelength telescope. The array will make it possible to search for planets around hundreds of nearby stars and will provide a testing ground for theori es of star birth, galaxy form ation, and the evolution
of the universe. ALMA has been made possible via an international partnership among North America, Europe, and East Asia, in cooperation with the Re public of Chile. NSF is the U.S. lead on this groundbreaking
astronomical facility. As part of the aforementioned IP Y activities, NSF serves as lead contributing agency for the Arctic Observing Network (AON)an effort to significantly adva nce our observational capability in
the Arctic. AON will help us document the state of the present climate system, and the nature and extent of climate changes occurrin g in the Arctic regions. The network, organized under the direction of the U.S.
Interagency Ar ctic Research Policy Committee, involves partnerships with the National Oceanic and At mospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Interi or, Department
of Defense, Smithsonian Institution, National Institutes of Health, DOE, and USDA. NSF coordinates AON activities across the U.S. government, as well as with international collaborators, including Canada, Norway,
Sweden, Germany, and Russia. Such international infrastructure projects will co ntinue to play a key role in advancing S&E capacity worldwide. NSF leadership and proactiv e involvement in large international
research projects helps ensure that U. S. S&E stays at the frontier. The Office of Internationa l Science and Engineering The Office of International Science and Engin eeringthe centerpiece of NSFs international
activitiesintegrates Foundation- wide activities and manages a broad range of programs that support U.S. scientists and engineers engaged in international research an d education. OISE is currently leading the
agencys effo rt to develop a goal-or iented strategic plan that will inform the coordination of international activities acros s the Foundation. In FY 2009, NSF proposes a budget of $47.44 million for OISE.
Organizationally, OISE is comp rised of five regional groups and the three aforementioned international offices. OISE has two programmatic priorities: (1) to enhan ce research excellence through international
collaboration; and (2) to serve as a catalyst for partnerships between the U.S. and the international research community. OISE works closely with the NSF directorates and other research offices to co-fund innovative
awards and supplements that promote research excellence through international collaboration and develop the next generation of globally engaged U.S. scientists and engineers. For example, OISE and NSFs
Directorate of Mathematics a nd Physical Sciences co-fund the East-West 7 Collaboration. The East-West Co llaboration supports frontier rese arch in elementary particle physics. This scientific interchange
between a 20-university collaboration centered at Cornell University and an 18-university collaboration cente red at the Institute for High Energy Physics in Beijing, China has enabled a faster start-up fo r the first
superconducting magnet in China, advances in "new physics," and for the direct pa rtnership of U.S. and Chinese scientists. As China continues to invest heavily in science and engineering research, such
collaborations will foster necessary intellectual exchange for U.S. scientists and engineers as well lead to greater connectivity between the United States and China. OISE also serves as an interface for NSFs dir
ectorates, offices, divisions, and programs with multi-national organizations, intern ational science organizations, and national funding agencies and ministries in other countries. OISE often wo rks with international
co unterpart agencies to educate them on the Foundations peer review pr ocess, organizational structure, and funding process, as many, particularly those in developi ng countries, look to NSF as a model for how
to run their programs.. These efforts help align agency proced ures close to those of NSF, which can often make collaboration and science fundi ng more effective in these countries. For example, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Higher Education has commissioned their scientists to es tablish a National Research Foundation by early 2008. These scientists visited NSF in January 2008 to learn about NSF procedures
for support of research and evaluation of results. Additionally, the King Abdulaziz City for Scie nce and Technology in Riyadh, NSFs counterpart agency in Saudi Arabia, will send its Director of Research in August
2008 to learn about NSF. China is also pla nning to send a representa tive to study the NSF model, as they are planning a similar research agency. Additionally, Turkey, France, Japan, and Ireland, among others, are
emulating the NSF model. NSFs international office has implemented specific programs to stimulate innovative international partnerships. The East Asia a nd Pacific Summer Graduate Research Institutes (EAPSI),
International Research Fellowship, a nd Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) Programs are examples of three OISE-supported programs that facilitate partnership across instit utions and
countries. The East Asia and Pacific Summer Graduate Re search Institutes (EAPSI) Program enables U.S. graduate students to build collaborations with scientists and engine ers working in the top research facilities
in East Asia and the Pacific region. The eight-week institute programs are held at top research instituti ons in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chin a, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Over 1,600 U.S. gra duate students
have participat ed in the program since its inception in 1990. The program fosters a U.S. S& E workforce capable of operating in a global marketplace increasingly impacted by scientific developments in Asia and
the Pacific Region. The research of a behavioral biology student from Texas A&M University offers one example of the resulting increased international connectivity. The student studied the ability of giant pandas to
recognize their kin by estab lishing a live web based Panda Cam at Chinas Wolong Nature Reserve. This students project not only opene d the door for researchers and the broader public to observe the behavior
of pandas in their natu ral habitat, but it helped develop a bridge among Chinas Forestry Ministry, the Chinese Acad emy of Sciences, and U.S. researchers. 8 The International Research Fellowship Program supports
approximately three dozen U.S. postdoctoral fellows for 9 to 24 months at fore ign host institutions annually. The programs objective is to introduce U.S. scientists and engi neers to cutting-edge international
research opportunities in the early stages of their careers. Fellows research projects involve international collaboration, the use of overseas instrumentation, and access to unique research environments in a wide
range of fields, including biology, physics, engineering, geosciences, computer sciences, and social and behavioral sciences. In fiscal year 2007, 39 fellowship recipients from 21 states were selected to conduct
research in 21 foreign countries. After completion of the fe llowship, the researchers return to jobs in academia and industry in the United States. Past fellows attest that their experiences abroad were unparalleled
career-enhancers and that the fellowship placed th em at the leading-edge of their field of research and positioned them to build new collaborations with colleagues in their host country. These collaborations have
also led to foreign hosts of NSF International Research Fellows joining U.S. research teams. The Partnerships for International Rese arch and Education (PIRE) Program is an example of a larger collaborative research
activity supported by OISE. PIRE enables U.S. institutions to establish collaborative re lationships with international groups or institutions to conduct research dependant upon international collaboration. The
program catalyzes a cultural exchange in U.S. institutions by establishing innova tive models for internationa l collaborative research and education. PIRE also readies U.S. students to partic ipate in international
rese arch collaborations. To date, the PIRE program has supported the work of 32 institutions in 23 states. Research collaborations with more than 40 countries have resulted. The U.S.-China PIRE project on electron
chemistry and catalysis was listed in the Chinese media as one of the top ten S&T developments in China for 2006. The PIRE program supports research projects that nurture U.S. relationships with inte rnational
counterparts. Another PIRE project has significantly impacted the developing world. The AfricaArray brought together U.S. and African geoscientists, as well as studen ts, to study seismological and volcanic activity
in Africa. Collaborators from Penn State Universit y, the University of Witwatersrand (South Africa), the University of Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania), and the National Seismological Network (Uganda) have developed a
network of seismic mon itoring stations that cross the African continent to study the origins and structure of the African Superplume, an anomalous part of the Earths mantle that stretches from deep in the mantle
to near the surface. To date, the NSF-supported resear chers leading AfricaArray have co llaborated with more than 20 U.S., African, and European universities, in addition to large coope rations, in order to advance
the understanding of Earths mantle dynamics. AfricaArray is only one of 15 PIRE projects involv ing collaboration with scie ntists in developing countries. Other examples incl ude a project with Indonesia, Ma laysia,
and the Philippines to transform a biodiversity hotspot into a research and education opportunity as well as a project with Argentina and Mexico to enab le cyberinfrastructure applicatio ns. In total, the 15 projects
represent approximately $36 million in NSF funds, invested in U.S. collaborating institutions. 9 In recent years, OISE has put greater emphasis on increasing linkages between scientists in the United States and those
in de veloping countries. Specifical ly, OISE hired a new Program Manager for Developing Countri es to expand collaborations with developing countries. Outreach presentations have been given at 12 domestic
institutions and 20 international institutions in 10 countries. This OISE program manager and NSF senior leadership are also initiating and continuing dialogue with 12 funding agencies appropriate to co-fund the
developing countries portion of S&E projects, e.g., the Internati onal Foundation for Science, the International Rice Research Inst itute, USAID, and the World Bank. The progress of humankind will depend increas

The collaborative pursuit of new know ledge is a powerful

tool for bringing people together,
International
collaboration in S&E is a necessa ry foundation for the future. In order for the
United States to be competitive in this new gl obal society, we must engage
in international research
The more widely
research, data, and new knowledge are shared, the broader the resulting
perspectives
ingly on the new knowledge of science and technology.

and OISE activities will continue to stimulate global collaboration. Conclusion

. And, we must proactively devel op a workforce that is adept at working on international research teams . For NSF, this means a continued

commitment to fo ster collaborations of all kinds and to seek new forms of partnership to address today's re search challenges and opportunities.

. As you can see from the numerous examples above , the National Science Foundation is committed to international partnership a nd collaboration on many levels. We will

continue to leverage our broad mission to catalyze international research endeavors in all disciplines and to train an internationally en gaged S&E workforce. We will also continue to leverage science and engineeri
ng know-how and the NSF model to catalyze larger diplomatic efforts. Lastly, we look forward to any new insights that can be garnered from the National Science Boards new report entitled, Int ernational Science
and Engineeri ng Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nations Innovation Enterprise; we are curre ntly working with the board on their recommendations. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify, and I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Science diplomacy is a strategy for expanding US soft power our ev assumes

the aff
Copeland 13
(Daryl, University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies as a Senior Fellow, and the
USC Center on Public Diplomacy as a Research Fellow, A Role for Science Diplomacy? Soft
Power and Global Challenges Part I, http://www.guerrilladiplomacy.com/2010/11/a-role-forscience-diplomacy-soft-power-and-global-challenges-part-i/)

Were policy-makers to accept this formulation, then diplomacy, and in particular public
diplomacy (PD), would be placed front and centre in international relations. Science diplomacy
(SD), a term which encompasses both the use of international scientific cooperation to advance
foreign policy objectives and the use of diplomacy to achieve scientific ends, represents a critical
component within the broader public diplomacy ambit. Science diplomacy is an expression of
soft power. It is perhaps best understood as a way to liberate scientific and technological (S&T)
knowledge from its rigid national and institutional enclosures and to unleash its progressive
potential through collaboration and sharing with interested partners world-wide.

Yes War
Arctic conflict risks a nuclear confrontation
Wallace & Staples 10 *Professor Emeritus at the University of British
Columbia, **President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa (Michael, Steven,
Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue,)
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition.
Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military
force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov
declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and
that Russias submarine fleet would increase its operational radius. 55
Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast
for the first time in 15 years. 56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obamas
inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive
on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S.
military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic,
including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect
U.S. borders in the Arctic. 57 The Bush administrations disastrous eight years
in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy
missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have
greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the
Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic
has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems,
particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System
radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian
government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect
Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable
ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this
year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the
country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on
army, navy and air force assets with ship- based helicopters able to drop
troops anywhere. 58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol
Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March,
that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers
from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore
oil rigs. 59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia which objected
again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since
the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and
several warships were involved. 60 9 Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons:
A Task Long Overdue Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former
UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation
bluntly: From those in the international peace and security sector, deep
concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states
the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per
cent of the nuclear weapons in the world converge on the Arctic and have

competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO
countries Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, if unresolved,
lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons. 61
Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no
circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military
confrontation can be taken lightly.

That causes extinction

Vestergaard 10 visiting fellow with the CSIS Proliferation Prevention
Program, researching uranium governance, specialist in nuclear weaponry for
DIIS (Conference on an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Copenhagen, 1011, 2009, Danish Institute for International Studies, *note: the document
was released in 2010)
Global climate consequences of a regional nuclear war a certain number of
small weapons will have much greater consequences, both in the number of
people killed from the explosions and in the amount of soot produced, than a
smaller number of larger bombs with the same total explosive force (Robock
et al 2007a). The new insights into the circulation of the atmosphere have also
shown that a limited nuclear war, such as a war between India and Pakistan, where about 100
Hiroshima-size, 15 kt bombs are used, mostly over population centres, would result in the
release of about 5 Tg of soot. This soot, mostly from burning cities, would decrease the
global temperature by about 1.25 degrees C, over 6-8 years. That is not
nuclear winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in
temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years . The temperature
over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global
average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow (Figs. 2 & 3).
The growing season would be shortened by 10 to 20 days in many of the
most im - portant grain producing areas in the world, which might completely
eliminate some crops that have insufficient time to reach maturity (Fig. 4). An
accurate evaluation of the global decrease in food production has yet to be done, but there will
be substantial deficits (Helfand 2007). In earlier periods we have seen that a global
decrease in grain production of 5% over a couple of years brought about a
sharp increase in prices, and that starvation increased in countries that are
normally dependent on the import of food. The period of nuclear darkness would cause a
much greater decrease in grain production than 5%, and it would continue over many years. The reserves
of the most important grains in the world have, in recent years, been corresponding to less than six weeks
of consumption (see ref: Wikipedia 2007-2008; World hunger facts 2009). There are currently more than

Several hundred million more

live in countries which are dependent on imported grain for their survival. In a
situation of severe food shortage globally, can we expect that the wealthy
countries will accept tightening their belts to such an extent that the poor
and undernourished survive these seven years of famine? If not, hundreds of
millions of people in many continents, in particular Africa, will die from
hunger (Helfand 2007). In the war zone of India and Pakistan it can be expected that 20 million people
will die from blast and fire, millions more from the radioactive fallout. Many tens of millions will
flee the contaminated areas. And many will die from epidemics and hunger,
maybe more than from the bombs. But the greater number of fatalities will
800 million people in the world who are chronically malnourished.

occur in countries far away, of those who will succumb to starvation because
of the global nuclear darkness (Toon et al 2007a, 2007b). Severe ozone depletion To make
matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere
would cause a huge reduction in the Earths protective ozone (Mills et al 2008). A
study published two years ago by the National Academy of Sciences , using a
similar nuclear war scenario involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs, shows ozone losses in excess
of 20% globally, 25-45% at mid latitudes and 50-70% at northern high
latitudes, persisting for five years and with substantial losses continuing for
five additional years (Fig. 5). The resulting increases in UV radiation would have
serious consequences for human health . Here in Copenhagen we would be advised not to
be outdoors for several hours around the middle of the day. The effects on agriculture, on
animals, on the economy and on the human population of this unprecedented
increase in ultraviolet radiation have not yet been evaluated . The effects would
undoubtedly be serious. A regional nuclear war would result in an
unprecedented global catastrophe I have decided to present this material
at this conference because it shows the global consequences of any nuclear
war, even a war in which less than one half a per cent of all the nuclear
weapons in existence are used. Nuclear proliferation is a threat to all of
us. Nuclear weapons in the Arctic zone would increase the danger of
a nuclear confrontation. And, most importantly, it is not sufficient to decrease the number of
nuclear weapons to a few hundred. They must be abolished . Also shown for comparison, in the lower
panel, is the global average change in downward shortwave radiation for the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic
eruption, the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century, as compared to the nuclear war scenarios.
Figure 1. Change of global average surface air temperature, precipitation, and downward shortwave
radiation reaching the surface of the Earth for the 5 Tg ( Robock et al 2006), 50 Tg and 150 Tg cases. DIIS

The decrease in average global temperature after a

regional nuclear war with 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons, compared to
the development of the temperature over the recent century. The decrease in
temperature will be much more pronounced (Robock et al 2007b). Figure 3. Changes in
REPORT 20 10:03 49 Figure 2.

global temperature and precipitation after a regional nuclear war using 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear
weapons, producing 5 million tons of soot (Robock et al 2007b). DIIS REPORT 20 10:03 50 Figure 4.
Changes in the growing season frost free days in the northern and southern hemispheres in the first
year after a regional nuclear war using 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons (after Robock et al 2007a) .
Acknowledgement: PowerPoint graphs made available by Dr Alan Robock at http://
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear Figure 5. Time evolution of the total ozone column after a 5 Tg soot
injection into the upper troposphere at 30N latitude. Changes in ozone are given as a per cent devia - tion
of the integrated column from the control run, or baseline value, as a function of time since soot injection.
The global mean total ozone variation is shown along with zonal average changes at four specific latitudes
(as labelled) (Mills et al 2008).

Arctic war goes nuclear -- independently spills over to

global security
Dhanapala 2013 member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists and a governing board member of the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (Jayantha, The Arctic as a bridge,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/arctic-bridge)BC

There are in fact many reasons that the international community -- and not
just the countries with coastlines on the Arctic Ocean -- should focus on the

Arctic.

First, the world is increasingly interdependent, and the hard evidence of climate change proves
that the felling of Amazon forests in Brazil and increased carbon dioxide emissions in China have a
cumulative global impact, leading to the incipient disappearance of Tuvalu into the Pacific Ocean and the
gradual sinking of the Maldives. In a literal sense, English poet John Donne's celebrated line -- "No man is
an island, entire of itself" -- is truer today than ever before. The environment of the Arctic affects the world
environment. Beyond its contribution to rising sea levels, the melting of the Arctic ice cap will facilitate the
mining of resources, especially oil and gas, and lead to an increase in commercial shipping. The ownership
of the resources and the sovereignty of Arctic areas, including the Northwest Passage, are already being
contested. The applicability of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has to be more sharply defined,
especially in those areas of the Arctic where claims overlap. And clearly, access to the resources of the
Arctic north is of concern to the global south, where the "bottom billion" people of the world live in extreme
poverty. Increasingly, science shows that those people are going to be hit hardest by climate change.
Some of those people also see the area outside the territory claimed by the littoral states of the Arctic as
part of the global commons and, therefore, the shared heritage of humankind. A global regime could thus
be established over the Arctic to mitigate the effects of climate change and to provide for the equitable
use of its resources outside the territory of the eight circumpolar countries. Third, as someone who has
devoted most of his working life to the cause of disarmament, and especially nuclear disarmament ,

I am
deeply concerned that two nuclear weapon states -- the United States and
the Russian Federation, which together own 95 percent of the nuclear
weapons in the world -- face one another across the Arctic and have
competing claims. These claims -- not to mention those that could be made by North Atlantic
Treaty Organization member states Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway -- may lead to conflict
that has the potential to escalate into the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the
Arctic is ripe for conversion into a nuclear weapon free zone. I discussed a fourth
reason the international community should focus on the Arctic with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
(who has in fact visited the Arctic on an icebreaker) when I met him in New York last fall.

The Arctic, I

is the one region in the world where the environment (and climate change in
the threat of nuclear weapons, the human rights of indigenous
people, and the need to advance the rule of law converge as international
issues. The Arctic, therefore, offers a unique opportunity to make
international diplomacy work for the benefit of the entire international
community. Security and interdependence. Security today is a concept that is much broader than
military security alone. It encompasses international peace and security, human
rights, and development. Twenty-first century security is also a cooperative and
common security, in which one region's insecurity inevitably and negatively
affects the security of other regions of the world. And so Arctic security is
inextricably interwoven with global security, giving us all a role as
stakeholders in the north.
told him,

particular),

Could go nuclear
Cohen, 10 - Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and
Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy in the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation
(From Russian Competition to Natural Resources Access: Recasting U.S.
Arctic Policy 6/15,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/from-russian-competitionto-natural-resources-access-recasting-us-arctic-policy)//DH

Russian Militarization of the Arctic. The military is an important dimension of

Moscows Arctic push. The policy calls for creating general purpose military
formations drawn from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation as well
as other troops and military formations [most importantly, border units] in
the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, capable of ensuring security under
various military and political circumstances.[28] These formations will be
drawn from the armed forces and from the power ministries (e.g., the
Federal Security Service, Border Guard Service, and Internal Ministry). Above
all, the policy calls for a coast guard to patrol Russias Arctic waters and
estuaries.
Russia views the High North as a major staging area for a potential nuclear
confrontation with the United States and has steadily expanded its military
presence in the Arctic since 2007. This has included resuming air patrols over
the Arctic, including strategic bomber flights.[29] During 2007 alone, Russian
bombers penetrated Alaskas 12-mile air defense zone 18 times.[30]
The Russian Navy is expanding its presence in the Arctic for the first time
since the end of the Cold War, increasing the operational radius of the
Northern Fleets submarines. Russia is also reorienting its military strategy to
meet threats to the countrys interests in the Arctic, particularly with regard
to its continental shelf.[31]

Even a limited war with Russia causes extinction

Corcoran 9 Senior Fellow at Global Security (Ed, STRATEGIC NUCLEAR
TARGETS, Sitrep Global Security,
http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090421301-strategic-nucleartargets.htm)BC

That brings us to Russia, our former main adversary, now a competitive partner and still a
potential future adversary, particularly as relations have gradually soured in recent years. Russia is
the only other nation with a formidable arsenal of some three thousand
strategic weapons. Our opposing arsenals were built up in the period when
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the underlying strategic concept -each side deterred from striking the other by the prospect of assured
retaliatory destruction. The situation became even madder as both sides worked to develop a
capability to destroy the other's strike force with a crippling first strike. This resulted in further
large increases in the sizes of the arsenals , as well as early warning systems
and hair-trigger launch-on-warning alert procedures. The final result was an
overall system in which each side could destroy the other in a matter of
minutes. And it also raised another chilling specter, Nuclear Winter, in which the
atmospheric dust raised from a major nuclear exchange would block sunlight
for an extended period and essentially destroy human civilization globally.
The collapse of the Soviet Union collapsed this threat, but did not eliminate it. US
and Russian nuclear forces remained frozen in adversarial positions . The May

strategic nuclear
forces down to levels of about two thousand on each side by 2012. These levels are still sufficient
to destroy not only both nations but also human civilization. It is hard to even
construct scenarios where the use of even a few strategic nuclear weapons
does not risk a total escalation. Strikes on Russian warning facilities or strike
forces would almost certainly bring a wave of retaliatory strikes. Strikes on
hardened command centers would be of questionable effectiveness and also
risk total escalation. In addition, successful elimination of Russian leaders could
greatly complicate any efforts to stop escalation short of a total nuclear
exchange.
2002 Moscow Treaty began to address this legacy and is leading to a reduction in

Nuclear war would cause extinction reject old models,

new data proves the climate and ecological impact
Hosansky 14 media relations manager at the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (David, Regional nuclear wars global reach, March
5th, http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2014/03/05/regional-nuclear-wars-globalreach/) //J.N.E
New research suggests that a
regional nuclear war could trigger significant global cooling that would be
reinforced by an expansion of high-latitude sea ice . Credit: UCAR Scientists for several
Sunset over ice on the Chukchi Sea near Barrow, Alaska.

decades have studied the potential environmental impacts of a nuclear conflicteither an all-out

a research team led by

scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research has produced
an unusually detailed picture of the aftermath of a hypothetical regional
nuclear war by using a modeling approach that includes simulations of
atmospheric chemistry, the oceans, land surface, and sea ice. The study,
accepted online this month in the American Geophysical Union journal Earths
Future, finds that an exchange of 100 nuclear weapons between two regional
adversaries would have more severe global implications for society and the
environment than previously thought. The research teams model simulations
show that global temperatures would drop initially by 1.5 degrees Celsius
(about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) to their lowest levels in more than 1,000 years. The
cooling would be caused by firestorms in major cities lofting ash and other
particles high into the atmosphere, where they would block incoming solar
heat. The colder temperatures would reduce precipitation, likely leading to
widespread fires in regions such as the Amazon and pumping still more
smoke into the atmosphere. Whereas previous studies had projected
that global temperatures would recover after about a decade, the
new work indicates that cooling would persist at least 26 years , which is
as far into the future as the simulations went. Two major factors would cause this
prolonged cooling: an expansion of sea ice that would reflect more
solar heat into space, and a significant cooling in the upper 100
meters (about 330 feet) of the oceans, which would warm only
gradually. The new study also tracked the influence of the urban firestorms on stratospheric
chemistry. Approximately five teragrams of black carbon would be lofted up to
conflagration between superpowers or a more limited regional war. Now

the stratosphere, where it would spread globally . The smoke would absorb
sunlight and heat the stratosphere, accelerating chemical reactions that
destroy ozone. The resulting damage to the ozone layer would allow much
greater amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach Earths surface. The midlatitudes
would experience a summertime UV increase of 30-80 percent. The col der temperatures and
higher UV levels could have widespread and potentially devastating impacts
on society, the authors found. In addition to the destruction caused directly
by the nuclear bombs, the colder temperatures worldwide would lead to
killing frosts that would reduce growing seasons by 10-40 days per year for
several years. The higher levels of UV would pose a threat to human health,
agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The research team used an NCARbased computer model: the Community Earth System Model, which simulates interactive responses in
atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice components of the Earths climate system. For the atmospheric
component, the team turned to the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, which extends from the
Earths surface to the edge of space, and includes interactive calculations of stratospheric ozone chemistry

The scientists ran a total of seven simulations,

comparing a hypothetical war between two nations that have developed
nuclear arms relatively recently (India and Pakistan) with control simulations
in which there was no nuclear war. Its such a complex process that you need
sophisticated climate models to understand it, said NCAR scientist Michael
Mills, the lead author. As we get a more detailed picture, we find that the
atmospheric effects for a given amount of weapons deployed are even more
severe than we previously thought. He added that the 100 relatively small
nuclear bombs in the study represent just a small fraction of the worlds
approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons.
and atmospheric dynamics.

A2: Heg Bad

No heg turnsa strategy of primacy is inevitableits a
question of the plans ability to sustain effective
leadership within institutions
Brooks, Ikenberry and Wohlforth 13
Stephen G., G. John, William C., Don't Come Home, America: The Case
against Retrenchment International Security
Volume 37, Number 3, Winter 2012/2013 //mtc
Critics of deep engagement often call it "primacy,"10 but this
terminology obscures more than it clarifies because it begs the core
strategic questions at issue. Primacy is not strategy but a fact of
international life: even if America "came home" and slashed
military spending, it would retain the world's greatest latent
power potential. Indeed, the grand strategy debate presumes
primacyit is the United States' unrivaled power and favorable
geographical position that give it such a wide range of strategic
choice.11 The strategic question is whether to translate that
latent power into the global capacity to manage security affairs
in multiple regions.

Overfishing

Fisheries Low
Several species in the Arctic are in danger of going
extinct. Biodiversity in the Arctic is a top priority
Pedersen, 14. 2/14/14. Jens Christian Pedersen has a PhD in Molecular
Biology, Microbiology, and Ecology from Aarhus University.
http://scitech.au.dk/en/current-affairs/news/show/artikel/arctic-biodiversityunder-serious-threat-from-climate-change/
Unique and irreplaceable Arctic wildlife and landscapes are crucially at risk due to global warming caused
by human activities according to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), a new report prepared by 253
scientists from 15 countries under the auspices of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the

An entire bio-climatic zone, the high

Arctic, may disappear. Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms
cannot move further north, so they may go extinct. We risk losing
several species forever, says Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University, chief
scientist of the report. From the iconic polar bear and elusive narwhal to the
tiny Arctic flowers and lichens that paint the tundra in the summer months,
the Arctic is home to a diversity of highly adapted animal, plant, fungal and
microbial species. All told, there are more than 21,000 species.
Maintaining biodiversity in the Arctic is important for many reasons.
For Arctic peoples, biodiversity is a vital part of their material and spiritual
existence. Arctic fisheries and tourism have global importance and
represent immense economic value. Millions of Arctic birds and
mammals that migrate and connect the Arctic to virtually all parts of the
globe are also at risk from climate change in the Arctic as well as from
development and hunting in temperate and tropical areas. Marine and terrestrial
biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council.

ecosystems such as vast areas of lowland tundra, wetlands, mountains, extensive shallow ocean shelves,
millennia-old ice shelves and huge seabird cliffs are characteristic to the Arctic. These are now at stake,
according to the report.

Climate change is by far the worst threat to Arctic

biodiversity. Temperatures are expected to increase more in the Arctic
compared to the global average, resulting in severe disruptions to Arctic
biodiversity some of which are already visible, warns Meltofte.

Arctic Ocean Seriously Overfished

DNews 11 (DNews publishes articles that educates
readers about new discoveries in the scientific world and
recent research, Arctic Ocean Said Seriously Overfished
http://www.seeker.com/arctic-ocean-said-seriouslyoverfished-1765177759.html)

For the last 56 years, countries have failed to report Arctic

fish catches to the FAO of under-reported catches. The
United Nations Food and Agriculture Administration (FAO)
seriously underestimated the amount of fish being pulled
from Arctic waters, according to researchers at the University of British Columbia. Discovery News' Christina Reed
mentioned this research in a recent blog. The Food and Agriculture Administration's official estimate is 12,700 metric tonnes, or about 14,000
tons.

But the researchers' estimate is 75 times that of the Food

and Agriculture Administration. Between 1950 and 2006,

nearly 1,050,000 tons, or 950,000 tones, of fish were caught
in the Arctic Ocean, according to research from the University of British Columbia published in the journal Polar
Biology. Ineffective reporting, due to governance issues and a lack of
credible data on small-scale fisheries, has given us a false
sense of comfort that the Arctic is still a pristine frontier
when it comes to fisheries, said lead author Dirk Zeller, of
the University of British Colombia in a press release. We now offer a
more accurate baseline against which we can monitor changes in fish catches and to inform policy and conservation efforts.

Melting Arctic ice could lead to overfishing: Practice must

be banned as new regions become accessible, committee
warns
Jonathan O'Callaghan 05:39 EST, 27 February 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2970620/Melting-Arctic-icelead-overfishing-Practice-banned-new-regions-accessible-committeewarns.html (Jonathan O'Callaghan is a Journalist specializing in the fields of space,
science and technology.)

The melting Arctic sea ice could open up new areas for fishing that run the
danger of being completely unregulated , experts have warned. Yesterday it
was revealed how in just 40 years the Arctic could be 'ice-free' as
temperatures in Polar Regions rise faster than predicted . And this could open
up the previously inaccessible offshore Arctic coast , giving fisherman access
to whole new ecosystems - without any constraints in place . The latest
warning came from the House of Lords Arctic Committee . They said that

potentially uncontrolled fishing in the Arctic's international waters raised serious

concerns about fish stocks in the region. They called for fishing in the central
Arctic Ocean to be banned, until a recognized management regime could be
agreed. Predictions suggest that the Arctic will be soon be ice-free , although it
should be noted this does not mean it will be devoid of ice . Rather, an area (or
grid) is said to be ice-free when it has lower than a 15 per cent ice
concentration, enough for a ship to pass through. The committee urged the
UK to appoint an Ambassador for the Arctic - as France , Singapore and Japan
have done - to ensure its influence there. Considering that much of the Arctic
Ocean is inaccessible, the population of various species of fish in the region is
unknown. As summer ice continues to fall, opening up the region, this raises the
prospect of over-fishing becoming a problem, as if commercial fishing is
allowed, the effect it is having will not be clear . 'The Arctic is changing in front
of our eyes. That change is momentous and unprecedented,' said the
committee's chairman, Lord Teverson. 'It will bring both difficulties and
opportunities and it is vital that the UK takes this challenge seriously and is able
to respond to it - indeed, is positioned as the premier partner for Arctic states
and other interests in Arctic co-operation as that change happens . 'We also
have serious concerns about the potential opening up of fishing in the central
Arctic Ocean caused by a reduction in sea ice . 'We are calling for a ban on

fishing there at least until more research is undertaken and we have a better
understanding of the eco-systems that will be affected. 'We need to get a proper
management regime in place for the central Arctic Ocean now , before the
area is opened to the risk of over-fishing.' he UK has a long history of
successfully engaging with the Arctic, as its 'closest neighbor', but the
Government's approach is too hesitant and cautious in the face of other countries
being assertive about their interests, a report by the committee said. And the
peers warned that with Russia's foreign policy becoming increasingly hard to
predict, efforts should be made to insulate the Arctic from other geopolitical
tensions because of a 'global interest in protecting this unusually vulnerable
environment'. The UK, the most northern country below the Arctic circle ,
should play an active role in managing fishing opportunities which are likely
to open in previously inaccessible areas as sea ice retreats and fish stocks
move north. Potentially uncontrolled fishing in the Arctic's international waters
raises serious concerns about fish stocks in the region, the Lords warned, and
called for a moratorium on fishing in the central Arctic Ocean until a
recognized management regime could be agreed . Meanwhile, the recent fall
in world energy prices may limit exploitation of the potentially vast oil and
gas supplies in the Arctic in the short to medium term , offering a 'window of
opportunity' to examine if extraction can be done safely and responsibly and
under agreed international standards . The committee also concluded it was a
matter of 'when', not 'if', the Arctic would be free of sea ice in summer .
Warming in the Arctic raised the prospect of additional climate change
caused by the release of methane gas from the seabed and melting
permafrost, as well as other impacts such as altering the jet stream and
bringing more extreme weather to the UK. The Lords called for increased
funding for British Arctic science, and an examination of potential methane
releases as part of a dedicated Arctic research program .

The Arctic is at risk from Overfishing

Kelly Hamilton 15 https://forcechange.com/33928/protect-the-arctic-fromoverfishing/ (Kelly has graduated from California State University and hold a
degree in English Rhetoric and Composition.)
Draft an international agreement that would prohibit industrial fishing in the
Arctic Climate change has shaken the stability of the Arctic region , changing

the once permanent ice-based environment into one of seasonal ice

and open water. As global temperatures continue to rise, this
ecosystem centered on permanent ice structures will become
vulnerable to devastating ecological and industrial changes. The Arctic,
with its four million inhabitants and vast array of unique animal
species, is undergoing changes never before seen in human history . As the
amount of permanent ice in the Arctic continues to shrink , global industry
will now have access to areas of ocean previously inaccessible. Most of
this newly open water will be under the jurisdiction of Arctic countries (like
Russia, Greenland, Norway, Canada, and the United States); but just
beyond the 200-mile maritime boundary a new expanse of open water will be

available to the industry of the world. Without oversight and regulations,

this open expanse will be threatened by exploitation and overfishing . In
order to protect populations of fish in this newly open areaand the
members of the food chain that depend upon these populations an

international agreement must be drafted to prevent these high seas

from excessive fishing. Until scientific research can determine how
commercial fishing in the area can be accomplished sustainably, it
must be prohibited. Already, the United States, Greenland and Canada
have expressed support for such an agreement. If all Arctic nations can
get behind it, the region may be protected from future environmental
damage. Urge the Arctic Council to protect the Arctic from overfishing . As
global temperatures rise, permanent ice in the Arctic continues to shrink ,
leaving the doors open for industrial fishing operations in the area . Once
protected by the ice, fish populations are now at risk of being fished to
unsustainable levels. Countless animal species and millions of people
that depend on this valuable link in the food chain will soon be feeling
the impact of this ecological shift. In order to best protect this area and
the animals and people that call it home, an international agreement
must be set that would prohibit industrial fishing in the area until
scientific research determines a way to regulate fishing to keep with
sustainable levels. Until regulations are put into place, for the benefit of
both humans and animals, fishing in the Arctic must not be allowed. This is
your area to protect and it is hoped that you do so accordingly .

Arctic facing massive over-fishing

Kirby 2014, Alex Kirby is a former BBC journalist and environment
correspondent. He now works with universities, charities and international
agencies to improve their media skills, and with journalists in the developing
world keen to specialize in environmental reporting.
http://climatenewsnetwork.net/us-urges-fishing-ban-in-melting-arctic/

The countries that ring the Arctic Ocean will soon face a dilemma: can they risk
commercial fishing fleets shooting their nets in those soon-to-be-ice-free seas?
Before long quite possibly before mid-century the Arctic Ocean will be free of
ice during part of each summer, scientists are now saying confidently. For better
or worse that will open up huge opportunities for shipping and hydrocarbon
exploitation. And for the first time in recorded history it will allow the fishing boats
access to whatever has lived undisturbed until now beneath the ice. A three-day meeting began
today in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, where US officials are hoping to persuade the other nations which border the Arctic Ocean to introduce a moratorium on

David Benton, of the US Arctic

Research Commission (USARC), said the Americans were proposing an
agreement that would close the international waters of the Arctic Ocean to
commercial fishing until there is a good scientific foundation on which to base
high seas fishing there (the other members of the group are Canada, Russia and Norway).

management of any potential fishing. All coastal countries control fisheries within
200 miles of their own coastlines. The high seas beyond that limit belong to no
country and can be protected only by international agreement. Once the five Arctic nations have
agreed a fishing moratorium, Benton said, they would then approach other countries with major commercial fishing fleets, such as China, Japan and Korea, to

The Arctic was experiencing a fairly rapid rate

of change, said Benton, as the permanent ice melted. Thats potentially causing
large changes in the ecosystem, but we dont understand whats going on up
there. If we want to do things right, this is the approach we should be taking. In
2009, the US adopted its own Arctic Fishery Management Plan, closing
American waters north of Alaska to commercial fishing until scientific research
proves that the fishery is sustainable. Scott Highleyman, director of the international Arctic program for the Pew Charitable
negotiate full protection for the central Arctic Ocean. Previous ban

Trusts, said that had been a precaution that took account of the way warming was changing the Arctic ecosystem faster than science could keep up with it. He told
the Los Angeles Times: There are no stock surveys or scientific assessments for fish there. You dont want to fish a place where you dont know the fish population

Any time weve done that, it led to catastrophic overfishing. One example,
Highleyman said, is the New England Atlantic cod fishery, which was shut down
in the 1980s due to overfishing, costing 50,000 jobs. An open letter to the Arctic
governments, signed by 2,000 scientists from around the world, says that if the
Ocean is overfished that will damage species that live there, including seals,
whales and polar bears, and the people who use them for food. Until recently, the region has been
dynamics.

covered with sea ice throughout the year, creating a physical barrier to the fisheries, the scientists wrote. A commercial fishery in the central Arctic Ocean is now
possible and feasible. Climate News Network

China = threat
The Arctic Vulnerable of Chinas exploitation
Gulford 13 (Gwynn Guilford is a reporter for Quartz who
writes about the US elections, China, and her obsession
with the sea. Before joining Quartz, she spent six years in
China researching the economy and Chinese companies
for hedge funds. Why China Oh-so-desperately wants a
claim to the Arctic
http://www.theatlantic.com/author/gwynn-guilford/)

Every two years, the Arctic Council, the group of eight countries with Arctic territory, convenes to set regional policy. China really wants to be a
part of this, and has twice before been turned down for observer status, which would let it sit in on meetings without voting.The third time's a
charm, it seems. The Arctic Council, which is now meeting in Sweden, just admitted China as an observer member, along with India, Italy,
Japan, Singapore and South Korea.Contrary to what you might expect, the reason

be a fly on the wall of the council

China wants so badly to

doesn't have as much to do with its push to mine the Arctic's

trove of oil, natural gas, and metals. It can negotiate mining and extraction concessions for that on a country-by-country basis.What it can't do

Each of the last two summers, more

than 50 percent of the sea-ice cover has receded -- and it is
disappearing faster than climate models expected. The thaw
of the polar ice cap each summer means that waters once
dense with ice floes are now navigable by ship. And because
it's not clear that those waters are covered by the international
law of the sea, which allows all countries the right to exploit
international waters, issues like delineating territory and establishing fishing rights in large part falls to
is determine territorial claims to the Arctic Ocean.

the Arctic Council. Indeed, that's something the council will be discussing in the upcoming meeting. Here's a look at how

Why is this so important to

China? One reason is access to the Arctic Ocean's fishing
supply. The "new fishing grounds" will become "the world's
largest storehouse of biological protein," wrote Tang Guoqiang, China's former
ambassador to Norway, in a recent paper. As we recently discussed, fishing is a big
business for China, so much so that it's raiding the territorial
waters of other countries. Arctic nations are currently mulling
an accord to prevent fishing in the open water above the
Bering Strait until scientists can assess fish stocks. The objective would be
waters have been and are expected to continue receding:

to manage commercial fishing, not to protect the fish habitat, noted the New York Times. Here's what the territory currently looks like:

biod
Arctic ecosystems are key to sustainability of biodiversity
Gofman 6
Victoria Gofman is the Executive Director Bering Sea Sub-Network Implementation Workshop November
26, 2006 Aleut International Association 333 W. 4t h Avenue, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99501
907-332-5388 email: aia@alaska.net, http://www.aleut-international.org/files/Download/BSSN%20Report
%2002.21.07.pdf

The Arctic is home

to diverse indigenous cultures. It is the breeding ground for hundreds of
migratory species that occupy every part of the world with the exception of the
interior of Antarctica. Species within the Arctic have a high genetic diversity and
the Arctic biodiversity is critical to human well-being providing fuel, food, fodder,
Mr. Gill provided information on the importance of preserving

nature tourism, fiber,

arctic biodiversity.

pharmaceuticals and more. Some of the worlds few remaining

pristine

The Arctic plays a key

role in the physical, chemical and biological balance of the globe and
represents an early warning system. By monitoring its changes, we will provide
environments can be found in the Arctic including vast

wilderness areas.

knowledge that can be used elsewhere around the world. Arctic biodiversity is facing growing pressures
from climate change to the cumulative impacts of roads and pipelines, oil/gas development,
urbanization, forestry, mining and agriculture.

Overfishing destroys biodiversity interdependence

theory proves.
Science Daily 14 leading publishers of science news citing Flordia
State University research (Snowball effect of overfishing highlighted, Jan 7 th,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140107163737.htm) //J.N.E
Florida State University researchers have spearheaded a major review of
fisheries research that examines the domino effect that occurs when too
many fish are harvested from one habitat. The loss of a major species from an
ecosystem can have unintended consequences because of the connections
between that species and others in the system. Moreover, these changes
often occur rapidly and unexpectedly, and are difficult to reverse. "You don't
realize how interdependent species are until it all unravels," said Felicia Coleman,
director of the Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory and a co-author on the study.

Coleman and her co-authors, led by FSU biology professor Joe Travis,
examined case studies of several distressed ecosystems that had been
thoroughly changed over the years because of overfishing. For example, in the
Northern Benguela ecosystem off Namibia, stocks of sardine and anchovy collapsed in the 1970s from
overfishing and were replaced by bearded goby and jellyfish. But the bearded goby and jellyfish are far
less energy-rich than a sardine or anchovy, which meant that their populations were not an adequate food
source for other sea animals in the region such as penguins, gannets and hake, which had fed on the
sardines and anchovies. African penguins and Cape gannets have declined by 77 percent and 94 percent
respectively. Cape hake and deep-water hake production plummeted from 725,000 metric tons in 1972, to
110,000 metric tons in 1990. And the population of Cape fur seals has fluctuated dramatically. "When you

there really is something important going on

in the world's ecosystems," Travis said. "It's easy to write off one case study. But,
when you string them all together as this paper does, I think you come away
put all these examples together, you realize

with a compelling case that tipping points are real, we've crossed them in
many ecosystems, and we'll cross more of them unless we can get this
problem under control." The full study appears in the Dec. 23 issue of Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. Travis and Coleman and their colleagues are hoping that their research will
accelerate changes in how fisheries scientists approach these ecosystem problems and how fisheries

They hope that more effort will be

devoted to understanding the key linkages among species that set up tipping
points in ecosystems and that managers look for data that can show when a
system might be approaching its tipping point. "It's a lot easier to back up to avoid a
managers integrate system issues into their efforts.

tipping point before you get to it than it is to find a way to return once you've crossed it" said Travis.

Fishing experts do generally understand how overfishing affects other species

and the ecosystem as a whole, but it "needs to be a bigger part of the
conversation and turned into action," Coleman said. Travis and Coleman were joined in
their research by eight other scientists from University of Connecticut, University of California-Berkeley,
University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Chicago, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
University of Maine, the Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mditerranenne et Tropicale in France.

Overfishing disrupts a delicate balance in diversity kills

millions and risks extinction.
Nuttall No Date - Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya (Nick, Overfishing: a threat to marine
biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?
storyID=800) //J.N.E
Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine
biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among
biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200
million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet
depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture
- the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs,
crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal
food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring
worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global
main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing
and environmental degradation. Overfishing cannot continue, warned Nitin Desai, Secretary
General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. The

depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of

people. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet,
according to the UN Environment Programmes (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in
Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the worlds oceans and seas are currently in MPAs. The

magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the

competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource
exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in
demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster
than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more
attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of
small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in

commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and

flounder have fallen by as much as 95% , prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are
the north Atlantic region,

even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing

over 70% of the

worlds fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic
increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine
mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to
avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and
declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed
industry. According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate,

ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea
Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global
Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are
cleared at twice the rate of forests. The Johannesburg forum stressed the importance of restoring depleted
fisheries and acknowledged that sustainable fishing requires partnerships by and between governments,
fishermen, communities and industry. It urged countries to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and
other instruments that promote maritime safety and protect the environment from marine pollution and

Only a multilateral approach can counterbalance the

rate of depletion of the worlds fisheries which has increased more than four
times in the past 40 years.
environmental damage by ships.

Overfishing scientifically causes mass biodiversity loss.

Lee and Safina 95 - *assistant director of National Audubon Societys
Living Oceans Program **PhD in Ecology, author of over six books on
biodiversity/conservation, finalist for Indianapolis prize for conservation 2014,
Adjunct Professor at Stony Brook (Mercedes, Carl, The Effects of Overfishing
on Marine Biodiversity, Current: The Journal of Marine Education, 13: 5-9,
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/articles/writings/safina1.php) //J.N.E
"The last fallen mahogany would lie perceptibly on the landscape, and the last black rhino would be
obvious in its loneliness, but a marine species may disappear beneath the waves unobserved and the sea

Overfishing occurs when fish are

being caught faster than they can reproduce and replace themselves.
Overfishing can affect biological diversity. Biodiversity is the diversity of living
things, and can be thought of as occurring on three levels: genetic, species,
and ecosystem. Genetic diversity is the genetic variability that occurs among members of the same
would seem to roll on the same as always." (Ray, p. 45)

species. Species diversity is the variety of species found in a community or ecosystem. And ecological
diversity is the variety of types of biological communities. An additional means of categorizing biological
diversity is functional diversity; the variety of biological processes characteristic of a particular ecosystem.

units of diversity are interrelated. As Thorne-Miller and Catena explain, In the face
of environmental change, the loss of genetic diversity weakens a population's
ability to adapt; the loss of species diversity weakens a communitys ability to
adapt; the loss of functional diversity weakens an ecosystem's ability to
adapt; and the loss of ecological diversity weakens the whole biospheres
ability to adapt. Because biological and physical processes are interactive,
losses of biological diversity may also precipitate further environmental
change. This progressively destructive routine results in impoverished
biological systems, which are susceptible to collapse when faced with further
These

environmental changes. (Thorne-Miller and Catena, 1991, p. 10)

Genetic Diversity
Genes are the materials that codify the characteristics and functions contained within an organism.
Genetic diversity enables a species to persist in the face of environmental changes that occur naturally. If a
species population is large or dispersed over different geographic areas, it is virtually assured of having
abundant genetic variation. Abundant genetic variation within a species "increases its potential for
successfully evolving in response to long-term environmental changes" (Ehrlich, 1988, p. 24). Selection
pressures, whether natural (such as predation and competition for food) or human-related (such as
fishing), can shape the heritable adaptations of a species and thus alter its characteristics over time.
Fishing mortality can be a form of environmental change that selects for and alters certain physical and
developmental characteristics of a population of marine animals. In other words, fishing activities can

The frequency of occurrence of certain genes in a fish population

can be altered by overfishing in two ways: if fishing activity applies a
selective pressure; and if the fishing activity applies a random pressure so
great that the population is driven low enough to reduce genetic variability.
cause evolution.

Heavy fishing pressure can change the genetic characteristics of a population by selecting for or against
certain genetically heritable traits like size at first sexual maturity (Policansky, 1993). This can happen, for
example, when the larger fish in a population are selectively overexploited. Removing the larger fish over
time results in favoring the survival of smaller fish that mature at an earlier-than-average age or smallerthan-average size. If heavy fishing removes most fish early in their reproductive life, individuals that
mature younger or smaller than average are at an evolutionary advantage: the fish that survive and do
more of the reproducing (e.g., the smaller-at-maturity ones) are able to pass on their genes to future
generations. The genetic variability of the population is changed from its former state to now containing a
larger proportion of individuals that are genetically encoded to begin reproducing at a smaller size and/or

Fishing can in this way inadvertently exert a pressure to selectively

breed toward miniaturization or early maturation. Fishing pressure selecting for smalleryounger age.

sized fish can be found in the case of Pacific pink salmon. Over time, with about 80 percent of the
spawning fish being caught, catch data registered a decrease in the average weight per fish. After
evaluating and accounting for other factors, such as environmental causes, researchers concluded that

Fishing activities
could also apply a pressure so great that the population goes low enough to
lose genetic variability simply because there are not enough individuals in the
gene pool to carry the full range of variability that once comprised the
population. Genetic changes within a population undergoing intense fishing pressure can be measured
fishing pressure was the cause in miniaturization of the pink salmon (Law, 1991).

within as little as ten years. An example is the orange roughy, a fish which does not mature until it is 20
years old, and can live as long as 50 years. A large spawning aggregation was found off New Zealand in
the early 1980s. After ten years of heavy commercial fishing of adults, the total biomass of orange roughy
declined 60-70 percent. Genetic studies revealed that genetic diversity within the orange roughy
population decreased significantly during this time period (Smith, et al., 1991). One example of overfishing
having induced early maturation in a population can be found in the Northeast Arctic cod. In this case, the
trawling practiced was indiscriminate, intensively exploiting all age-classes of the cod. Fishing of ArctoNorwegian cod on their feeding grounds since the onset of trawling in the 1930s gradually caused the
breeding stock to become younger overall (Sutherland, 1990). A "large change in mortality imposed by
fishing generate[d] a big selection pressure for early maturation irrespective of any change in size-at-age"
(Law, 1991, p. 36). Between the 1930s and 1950s, the fish were known to mature between the ages of
nine and 11, and "immature individuals had roughly a 40 percent chance of surviving from age 3 to 8
years" (Law, 1991). Overall mortality was increased by this fishing pressure to such a level that it
significantly reduced the chances of the breeding-age cod reaching their spawning grounds to two percent.
As a result, remaining faster-growing cod entered the breeding stock, and as such, "there has been a
gradual shift toward earlier maturation" (Sutherland, 1990, p. 814). The cod now mature when they are

Species richness, that is the numbers of

species per area, and the pattern of their distribution under normal stresses,
is used to assess species diversity (Thorne-Miller and Catena 1991). Fishing-related activities
about seven or eight years old. Species Diversity

can in some cases actually add species to a given ecosystem. There are numerous examples of fish
introduced to natural waterways for food or recreation, or accidental introductions of fouling organisms,
symbionts, and diseases associated with transfer of creatures for aquacultural activities. Shellfish are the
basis of many introductions to marine environments for commercial cultivation. Many times, these, and
other introductions, have negative consequences for native organisms. For example, the Japanese oyster
was introduced to help boost British Columbia's declining commercial shellfish fishery, which had been

based on the native Olympia oyster. Competition from the Japanese oyster and other introduced species
exacerbated the decline of the Olympia oyster. While the native oyster is still extant, it can no longer be
considered ecologically functional, and the shellfish industry there is now based on the introduced species
(Lipton et al., 1991). Overexploitation and introductions have also been a source of severe problems for the
sole native oyster species of France, the European oyster. In 1979, a disease from cultivated oyster stocks
of the European oyster in Washington was inadvertently introduced to France's native oyster population
(Lipton, et al., 1991). The persistence of this disease has undermined subsequent oyster introductions of
various species as well. It is not known whether any original stocks of the European oyster continue to
exist in the waters off France. Overfishing can deplete biological diversity by causing extinctions. While no
marine species is known to have gone extinct due solely to fishing, the Atlantic gray whale was hunted to
extinction, and other marine mammals were placed close to extinction by overexploitation. For example,
between 1920 and 1986, the population of humpback whale was reduced to five percent of its former level
(Butman, et al., 1993). Several fish species are being reduced to very low levels by fishing, especially
species that have concurrent habitat problems, such as many sturgeons, several North American salmon
stocks, and the totoaba of the Gulf of California, suggesting biological extinction may become a possibility.
Overfishing can affect biological diversity by reducing species richness. When an animal's population is
depressed to such low levels that the species no longer fulfills its role as prey, predator, or competitor in
the ecosystem, it has essentially become ecologically or functionally extinct. This can have the effect of
relaxing competition or predation, allowing other species to become more dominant in the ecosystem. This
affects the naturally evolved numerical and functional relationships--which may be called the ecological
integrity--among species in a community. Overfishing of wrasses and triggerfishes off the coasts of Haiti,

overexploitation can
disrupt predator-prey relationships . Wrasses and triggerfishes feed on sea urchins.
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Hainan Island, China, provide an example of how

Overexploitation of these wrasse and triggerfish populations resulted in sea urchins reproducing
unchecked. As sea urchins are herbivores dependent on algae as a major food source, the increased
population of urchins over-grazed the areas' seagrass beds to the point of obliteration (Norse, 1993).
Somewhat conversely, removal of most herbivorous reef fish from some Caribbean coral reefs appears to
have had consequences during a natural die-off of algae-eating urchins there. With the urchins reduced to
very low levels and few herbivorous fish to compensate for their absence, algae overgrew corals, causing
large-scale mortality, with consequences for the coral-dependent community (Robertson, 1991). The

effects of overfishing on humans, as top predators, is a good indicator, on a

qualitative level, of when the richness of species is diminished and a
biological community becomes changed. For example, as much as ten pounds of
unwanted creatures are killed for every pound of shrimp caught in the
southern U.S. This bycatch, according to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, has
contributed over the last 20 years to an 85 percent decline in the Gulf of Mexico population of bottom
fishes like snappers and groupers--which themselves support commercial fisheries. Some people who once
fished for adult snappers in the Gulf have been forced to fish for other species or driven out of the fishing
business altogether. Georges Bank once supported one of the richest cod and haddock fisheries in the
world. However, decades of overfishing drove these groundfish to such low populations that spiny dogfish
and skates now dominate the ecosystem. This ecological shift may well be permanent, as the recovery of
cod and other groundfish populations may not be possible if they are unable to successfully compete with
the spiny dogfish, skates, and other opportunistic species to regain their ecological niche. Fishermen and
fisheries managers are now discussing the possibility of redirecting the overcapitalized fishing fleet to
target the now-dominant dogfish and skates; but uncertainty remains as to whether sufficient markets can
be found for these species, which were once considered "trash" fish. Ironically, humans suffer the major
effects of overfishing long before the animals themselves completely vanish. Ecosystem Diversity
Analogous to species diversity, the number of ecosystems and pattern of their distribution can be used as
a measure of ecosystem diversity. While we know of no examples where fishing activities eliminated an
ecosystem, there are several examples where fishing activities have resulted in major reduction in the
regional distribution of ecosystem types over large areas. Mariculture--the farming of economically
valuable sea life--is a fishing activity that has significantly altered coastal and estuarine habitats in many
parts of the world. Along the coasts of Ecuador and Thailand, for example, fish farms have replaced
mangrove habitats over fairly extensive areas. In order to build aquaculture facilities to raise shrimp and
fish, mangroves are dug out and replaced with ponds, eliminating essential nursery habitat for many
fishes. While mangrove ecosystems have not disappeared on a global scale, on a regional level there have
been significant reductions in the total area of mangroves; a form of ecosystem depletion. There are other
examples of ecosystem diversity being affected by fishing activities that destroy habitat upon which
complex communities of marine organisms rely. Overfishing of herbivorous fishes on coral reef complexes
in the Caribbean, as in the example above, has directly resulted in coral reef die-offs. The use of dynamite
and cyanide in Southeast Asia to catch reef fish for local consumption and the aquarium trade has also

killed off significant expanses of coral reefs. Trawling, where heavy nets are dragged along the ocean floor,
can also damage seagrass or rocky habitats, physically dislocating or crushing fish and shellfish,
undermining structural needs, and disrupting food availability for creatures such as shellfish and

The dance of life operates in diverse, strange, and

mysterious ways. Understanding the biological processes influencing the
functional relationships of marine organisms, species, and whole communities
has practical implications for understanding the consequence of human
actions. As a species reliant on the biological productivity of oceans, in order to optimize the
benefits humans can gain from this vessel of life, we need to know how to
minimize the negative consequences of our actions for other living things,
and for future generations. Even with better understanding of the human factors influencing
marine biological diversity, fisheries management is inevitably a matter of politics,
not science. Management will not succeed in preserving future options unless
it is both scientifically informed and ethically responsible.
groundfish. Conclusion

Best science verifies interdependence theory.

McGill University 11 research published by ScienceDaily, research
was funded by a Discovery grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Council of Canada and by the Canada Research Chair program. (Biodiversity
critical for maintaining multiple 'ecosystem services, August 19th,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110819155422.htm) //J.N.E
As biodiversity declines worldwide, there is concern that this will lead to
declines in the services that ecosystems provide for people, such as food
production, carbon storage, and water purification. But until now it has been unclear,
whether just a few or in fact a large number of the species in an ecosystem are needed to provide

By combining data from 17 of the largest and longest-running

biodiversity experiments, scientists from universities across North America
and Europe have found that previous studies have underestimated the
importance of biodiversity for maintaining multiple ecosystem services across
many years and places. "Most previous studies considered only the number of
species needed to provide one service under one set of environmental
conditions," says Prof. Michel Loreau from McGill University's biology department who supervised the
ecosystem services.

study. "These studies found that many species appeared redundant. That is, it appeared that the extinction
of many species would not affect the functioning of the ecosystem because other species could
compensate for their loss." Now, by looking at grassland plant species, investigators have found that

most of the studied species were important at least once for the maintenance
of ecosystem services, because different sets of species were important
during different years, at different places, for different services, and under
different global change (e.g., climate or land-use change) scenarios. Furthermore, the species
needed to provide one service during multiple years were not the same as
those needed to provide multiple services during one year . "This means that
biodiversity is even more important for maintaining ecosystem services than
was previously thought," says Dr. Forest Isbell, the lead author and
investigator of this study. "Our results indicate that many species are needed
to maintain ecosystem services at multiple times and places in a changing
world, and that species are less redundant than was previously thought." The
scientists involved in the study also offer recommendations for using these results to prioritize

conservation efforts and predict consequences of species extinctions. "It is nice to know which groups of
species promoted ecosystem functioning under hundreds of sets of environmental conditions," says Isbell,
"because this will allow us to determine whether some species often provide ecosystem services under
environmental conditions that are currently common, or under conditions that will become increasingly

"We should be
careful when making predictions. The uncertainty over future environmental
changes means that conserving as much biodiversity as possible could be a
good precautionary approach."
common in the future." But Michel Loreau, of McGill, adds au cautionary note:

Oceans
Overfishing will destroy the ocean in the short term
Oceana 7 - adapted from a briefing given on May 24, 2007 at the World
Trade Organization by Andrew Sharpless, Chief Executive Officer of Oceana
and Dr. Rashid Sumaila, Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at
the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre (STATE OF THE WORLDS
FISHERIES,
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/o/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/R
eports/SOWF_document_070907.pdf) //J.N.E
What Will Be the Future of the Oceans?

The oceans contain a vast diversity of life, from the

smallest micro-organisms to the largest mammals on earth, blue whales. The oceans provide food,
medicine, energy and serve as a recreational resource, but they are not as once commonly believed, an

Global overfishing and other unsustainable fishing practices

have depleted nearly all commercial fish populations and degraded the
ecosystems that support them. Since the late 1980s global fish catches have
actually declined, despite significant increases in fishing effort and
improvements in technology In May 2007, a group of 125 scientists from 27
countries issued a warning to the world about the perils of global overfishing
and the need to act: There is no longer any question we have reached a critical
state. The worlds ocean ecosystems are at a tipping point, and overfishing
represents one of the greatest threats to their productivity... There are only
decades left before the damage we have inflicted on the oceans becomes
permanent. We are at a crossroads. One road leads to a world with tremendously
diminished marine life. The other leads to one with oceans again teeming
with abundance, where the world can rely on the oceans for protein, and
enjoy its wildlife. The choices we make today will determine our path for the future. Climate
change and pollution continue to have huge impacts on the health of our
oceans, but global overfishing directly threatens the immediate viability of
the worlds fisheries and the billions of people who depend on the bounty of the seas.
inexhaustible resource.

Eliminating destructive fishing subsidies, strengthening management regimes, and controlling illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing are some of the key actions that need to be taken to restore the

the once unthinkable possibility that

there will be no fish is quickly becoming a real threat. We need to avert
disaster now. While life depends in large part on the health of the oceans, the
health of the oceans depends on us. What Will Be Left in the Sea? The worlds fisheries are
facing an unprecedented crisis. Fisheries are already severely depleted or in sharp
decline in nearly every part of the world. A new study by an international team of scientists
found that 29 percent of the worlds fish species are currently in collapse . A
species is considered to be in collapse when its catch falls below 10 percent
of the recorded maximum. Most alarming, the study projects that all major
commercial fisheries will collapse within the next 50 years if current trends
are not reversed. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 75
percent of the world commercial fish populations are depleted, recovering,
fully exploited, or overexploited. Of the top ten species that account for about 30 percent of
oceans biodiversity and productivity. Alarmingly,

the world capture fisheries production in terms of quantity, seven are fully exploited or overexploited and
cannot be expected to produce major increases in catches. This includes the anchoveta in the Southeast
Pacific; the Alaska Pollock in the North Pacific; the blue whiting in the Northeast Atlantic; and the Atlantic

90 percent of all the big

fish tuna, marlin, and swordfish are gone. The scientists found that the
near total depletion of these fish populations occurred in only a few decades,
coinciding with the introduction of industrialized fishing. Still, global fleets
continue to increase fishing of major tuna species despite the fact that most
populations are in need of reduced fishing pressure in order to recover. These
herring. A study published in the scientific journal Nature concluded that

trends are occurring in all the worlds oceans. A major factor in the decline in fishery resources is the
impact of distant water fleets, which travel far from their home ports to exploit fisheries in the high seas

staggering
reduction of the abundance of the worlds fish also has serious effects on the
throughout the oceans. As the exploitation of fisheries increase, the recovery
potential of fish populations, the stability of marine ecosystems, and water
quality all decrease exponentially.
and in some cases the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other countries. The

MPX- laundry list

Overfishing causes massive economic losses and destroys
regional biodiversity
FOC 9 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Global Consequences of
Overfishing, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/isu-global-eng.htm)
//J.N.E
Overfishing is a global problem with many serious social, economic and
environmental implications. Everyday, billions of people around the world rely on
fish and seafood as a direct source of nutrition and a means of income . Now,
more than ever before, our oceans are under pressure to meet the needs of growing
populations in developing countries and a growing appetite for fish and
seafood in developed nations. Advances in fishing equipment and methods and
increasingly large vessels have made it possible for commercial fishing operations to
capture more fish, further from home, than ever before . This access is putting
increasing pressure on fish stocks and also having an effect on the ability of smaller-scale fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is

also a major contributor to declining fish stocks and marine habitat
destruction. The global consequences of overfishing have been the focus of
much scrutiny in recent years by scientists, economists and policy makers
and this important work continues. While there is much more to be learned about the longterm effects of overfishing, there is ample evidence to support taking a
precautionary approach and to ensuring that entire ecosystems, and not just
individual fish stocks, are considered when it comes to fisheries
management. Overfishing refers to: A rate or level of fishing that is not sustainable, i.e. that hampers
the rebuilding or recovery of a fish stock. Economic and Social Effects Despite having one of the
operations to make a living from fishing.

most regulated fisheries in the world, Canada has not been immune to the effects of overfishing. The

collapse of the Atlantic Canadian cod fishery in the 1990s is one of the most
commonly cited examples in the world of overfishing and its economic, social
and cultural implications. Since the collapse of the cod, and resulting cod fishing moratorium,
which has been in place since 1992, other fisheries, such as lobster and shrimp, have provided alternatives
for some fish harvesters, however, many harvesters were forced to give up fishingand a way of life
passed down from generation to generationaltogether. Thousands of individuals have left the fishery for
work in other trades or professions, and in many cases, other parts of the country. Today, overfishing
remains a threat to the social and economic welfare of many countries, but none more so than in
developing island states. Fishing is not only an important facet of these economies, in many cases it is a
central element in the traditional diet of its citizens. In many African and South Asian coastal nations, fish
may account for as much as 50 per cent of protein in a typical diet. The decline of fish stocks in coastal
waters as the result of overfishing and illegal fishing activities is making this important resource much less
accessible for some of the worlds poorest citizens. Environmental Effects There is also growing evidence
that the increased volume of fishing activity worldwide is having a very serious effect on the health of the
oceans as a whole. When commercially valuable species are overexploited, other species and habitat that
share the same ecosystem are affected. For example, recent studies suggest that overfishing of large
shark species has had a ripple effect in the sharks food chain, increasing the number of species, such as
rays, that are usual prey for large sharks, which result in declining stocks of smaller fish and shellfish
favoured by these species. In addition to harvesting large amounts of fish and seafood to sell, large-scale
fishing operations catch and often unintentionally kill untargeted marine life, including juvenile fish, corals
and other bottom-feeding organisms, sharks, whales, sea turtles, and birds. Killing these unintended
species can have significant effects on marine ecosystems. Based on new information about the dynamics

of marine ecosystems, more and more countries and regional fisheries management organizations
(RFMOs) are adopting an ecosystem-based approach to the management of fish stocks.

Extinction
Continued loss of biodiversity causes extinction
Bamosky et al 11 - Department of Integrative Biology, University of
California, Berkeley, University of California Museum of Paleontology,
California, USA. University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,
California, USA. Human Evolution Research Center, California, USA, (Anthony
D. Barnosky, Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O. U. Wogan, Brian
Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall , Jenny L. McGuire, Emily L.
Lindsey, Kaitlin C. Maguire, Ben Mersey & Elizabeth A. Ferrer, Has the Earths
sixth mass extinction already arrived?, Nature Journal, Volume 471, Peer
Reviewed)
Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses
more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has
happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so . Biologists now suggest
that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species
losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences
between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information

current
extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record,
highlighting the need for effective conservation measures. O f the four billion
species estimated to have evolved on the Earth over the last 3.5 billion years,
some 99% are gone 1 . That shows how very common extinction is, but normally it is
balanced by speciation. The balance wavers such that at several times in lifes history extinction
influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that

rates appear somewhat elevated, but only five times qualify for mass extinction status: near the end of
the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous Periods 2,3 . These are the Big Five mass
extinctions (two are technically mass depletions) 4 . Different causes are thought to have precipitated the
extinctions (Table 1), and the extent of each extinction above the background level varies depend- ing on
analytical technique 4,5 , but they all stand out in having extinction ratesspiking higher than inanyother
geologicalintervalof thelast , 540 million years 3 and exhibiting a loss of over 75% of estimated species 2 .
Increasingly,scientistsarerecognizingmodernextinctionsofspecies 6,7 and populations 8,9 . Documented
numbers are likely to be serious under- estimates, because most species have not yet been formally

Such observations suggest that humans are now causing the

sixth mass extinction 10,1217 , through co-opting resources, fragmenting
habitats, introducing non-native species, spreading pathogens, killing species
directly, and changing global climate 10,1220 . If so, recovery of biodiversity will not occur
on any timeframe meaningful to people: evolution of new species typically takes at least
hundreds of thousands of years 21,22 , and recovery from mass extinction episodes probably
described 10,11 .

occurs on timescales encompassing millions of years 5,23 . Although there are many definitions of mass

we take a conservative approach

to assessing the seriousness of the ongoing extinction crisis, by setting a high
bar for recognizing mass extinction, that is, the extreme diversity loss that
characterized the very unusual Big Five (Table 1). We find that the Earth could reach
that extreme within just a few centuries if current threats to many species are
not alleviated. Data disparities Only certain kinds of taxa (primarily those with fossilizable hard parts)
extinction and grada- tions of extinction intensity 4,5 , here

and a restricted subset of the Earths biomes (generally in temperate latitudes) have data sufficient for
direct fossil-to-modern comparisons The Big Five mass extinction events Event Proposed causes The
Ordovician event 6466 ended , 443Myr ago; within 3.3 to 1.9Myr 57% of genera were lost, an estimated

86% of species. Onset of alternating glacial and interglacial episodes; repeated marine transgressions and
regressions.UpliftandweatheringoftheAppalachiansaffectingatmosphericandoceanchemistry. Sequestration
of CO 2 . The Devonian event 4,64,6770 ended , 359Myr ago; within 29 to 2Myr 35% of genera were lost,
an estimated 75% of species. Global cooling (followed by global warming), possibly tied to the
diversification of land plants, with associated weathering, paedogenesis, and the drawdown of global CO
2 . Evidence for widespread deep-water anoxia and the spread of anoxic waters by transgressions. Timing
and importance of bolide impacts still debated. The Permian event 54,7173 ended , 251Myr ago; within
2.8Myr to 160Kyr 56% of genera were lost, an estimated 96% of species. Siberian volcanism. Global
warming. Spread of deep marine anoxic waters. Elevated H 2 SandCO 2 concentrations in both marine and
terrestrial realms. Ocean acidification. Evidence for a bolide impact still debated. The Triassic event 74,75
ended , 200Myr ago; within 8.3Myr to 600Kyr 47% of genera were lost, an estimated 80% of species.
Activity in the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) thought to have elevated atmospheric CO 2
levels,whichincreasedglobaltemperaturesandledtoacalcificationcrisisintheworldoceans. The Cretaceous
event 5860,7679 ended , 65Myr ago; within 2.5Myr to less than a year 40% of genera were lost, an
estimated 76% of species. AbolideimpactintheYucata
nisthoughttohaveledtoaglobalcataclysmandcausedrapidcooling. Preceding the impact, biota may have
been declining owing to a variety of causes: Deccan volcanism contemporaneous with global warming;
tectonic uplift altering biogeography and accelerating erosion, potentially contributing to ocean
eutrophication and anoxic episodes. CO 2 spike just before extinction, drop during extinction. Myr, million
years. Kyr, thousand years. 3MARCH2011|VOL471|NATURE|51 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights
reserved 2011 (Box 1). Fossils are widely acknowledged to be a biased and incomplete sample of past

modern data also have important biases that, if not accounted for,
can influence global extinction estimates . Only a tiny fraction ( , 2.7%) of the
approximately 1.9million named, extant species have been formally
evaluated for extinction status by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). These IUCN compilations are the best available, but evaluated
species represent just a few twigs plucked from the enormous numberof
branches that compose the tree of life. Even for clades recorded as 100% evaluated, many
species, but

species still fall into the Data Deficient (DD) category 24 . Also relevant is that not all of the partially
evaluated clades have had their species sampled in the same way: some are randomly subsampled 25 ,
and others are evaluated as opportunity arises or because threats seem apparent. Despite the limita- tions
of both the fossil and modern records, by working around the diverse data biases it is possible to avoid
errors in extrapolating from what we do know to inferring global patterns. Our goal here is to high- light

Defining mass extinctions relative to the Big Five

Extinction involves both rate and magnitude, which are distinct but intimately
linked metrics 26 . Rate is essentially the number of extinctions divided by the time over which the
some promising approaches (Table 2).

extinctions occurred. One can also derive from this a proportional ratethe fraction of species that have

Magnitude is the percentage of species that have gone

extinct. Mass extinctions were originally diagnosed by rate: the pace of
extinction appeared to become significantly faster than background
extinction 3 . Recent studies suggest that the Devonian and Triassic events resulted more from a
gone extinct per unit time.

decrease in origination rates than an increase in extinction rates 4,5 . Either way, the standing crop of the

mass extinction, in the

conservative palaeontological sense, is when extinction rates accelerate
relative to origination rates such that over 75% of species disappear within a
geologically short intervaltypicallylessthan2million years, in some cases much less (see Table
Earths species fell by an estimated 75% or more 2 . Thus,

1). Therefore, to document where the current extinction episode lies on the mass extinction scale defined
by the Big Five requires us to know both whether current extinc- tion rates are above background rates

biodiversity losses approach

75% of the Earths species. Background rate comparisons Landmark studies 12,1417 that
highlighted a modern extinction crisis estimated current rates of extinction to be
orders of magnitude higher than the background rate (Table 2 ). A useful and widely
(and if so, how far above) and how closely historic and projected

applied metric BOX 1 Severe data comparison problems Geography The fossil record is very patchy,
sparsest in upland environments and t ropics, but modern global distributions are known for manyspecies.
Apossiblecomparativetechniquecouldbetoexamineregionsorbiomes wherebothfossilandmoderndataex ist
suchasthenear-shoremarine realm including coral reefs and terrestrial depos itional lowlands (river valleys,

coastlines, and lake basins). Currently available databases 6 could be

usedtoidentifymoderntaxawithgeographicrangesindicatinglowfossilizationpotentialandthenextractthemfro
mthecurrent-extinctionequat ion. Taxa available for study The fossil record usually includes only species
that possess identifiable anatomical hard parts that fossilize well. Theoretically all living spec ies could be
studied, but in practice extinction analyses often rely on the small subset of species evaluated by the
IUCN. Evaluation following IUCN procedures 34 places species in one of the following categories: extinct
(EX), extinct in the wild (EW), critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN),
vulnerable(VU),nearthreatened(NT),leastconcern(LC),ordatadeficient(DD,informationinsufficienttoreliablyde
termineextinctionrisk) .Species in the EX and EW categories are typically counted as functionally extinct.
Those in the CR plus EN plus VU categories are counted as threatened.
AssignmenttoCR,ENorVUisbasedonhowhightheriskofextinctionisdeterminedtobeusingfivecriteria 34
(roughly,CRprobabilityofextinction
exceeds0.50intenyearsorthreegenerations;ENprobabilityofextinctionexceeds0.20in20yearsorfivegeneration
s;VUprobabilityofextinction exceeds 0.10 over a century 24 ). A possible comparative technique could be to
use taxa best known in both fossil and modern records: near-shore marine species with shells, lowland
terrestrial vertebrates (especially mammals), and some pla nts. This would require improved assessments
of modern bivalves and gastropods. Statistical techniques could be used to clarify how a subsam ple of
well-assessed taxa extrapola tes to undersampled and/or poorly assessed taxa 25 . Taxonomy
Analysesoffossilsareoftendoneatthelevelofgenusratherthanspecies.Whenspeciesareidentifiedtheyareusually
basedonamorphological species concept. This can result in lumping species together that are distinct, or, if
incomplete fossil material is used, over-splitting species. For modern taxa, analyses are usually done at the
level of species, often using a phylogenetic species concept, which probably increases species counts
relative to morphospecies. A possible comparative technique would be to aggregate modern phyloge netic
species into morphospecies or genera before comparing with the fossil record. Assessing extinction
Fossilextinctionisrecordedwhenataxonpermanentlydisappearsfromth
efossilrecordandunderestimatestheactualnumberofextinctions(and
numberofspecies)becausemosttaxahavenofossilrecord.Theactualtimeo
fextinctionalmostalwayspostdatesthelastfossiloccurrence.Modern extinction is recorded when no further
individuals of a species are sighted after appropriate efforts. In the pas t few decades designation as
extinc t usually follows IUCN criteria, which are conservative and likely to underestimate functionally

Modern extinction is also underestimated because many

species are unevaluated or undescribed.
extinct species 34 .

Apossiblecomparativetechniquecouldbetostandardizeextinctioncountsbynumberofspeciesknownpertimeint
ervalofinterest(proportional
extinction).However,fossildatademonstratethatbackgroundratescanvarywidelyfromonetaxontothenext
35,86,87 ,sofossil-to-modernextinction rate comparisons are most reliably done on a taxon-by-taxon basis,
using well-known extant clades that also have a good fossil record. Time Inthefossilrecordsparsesamples
ofspeciesarediscontinuouslydistributed throughvasttimespans,from10 3 to10 8 years.Inmoderntimeswe
have relatively dense samples of species over very short time spans of yea rs, decades and centuries.

Holocene fossils are becoming increasingly available and valuable in linking

the present with the 48,90 . A possible comparative technique would be to scale proportional extin
ction relative to the time interval over which extinction is measured. E/MSY (extinctions per million
species-years, as defined in refs 15 and 27). In this approach, background rates are estimated from fossil

the proportion of
species extinct in a comparatively very short time (one to a few centuries) is
extrapolated to predict what the rate would be over a million years . However,
extinctions that took place in million-year-or-more time bins. For cur- rent rates,

both theory and empirical data indicate that extinction rates vary markedly depending on the length of
time over which they are measured 28,29 . Extrapolating a rate computed over a short time, therefore, will
probably yield a rate that is either much faster or much slower than the average million-year rate, so
current rates that seem to be elevated need to be interpreted in this light. Only recently has it become
possible to do this by using palaeontology databases 30,31 combined with lists of recently extinct species.
The most complete data set of this kind is for mammals, which verifies the efficacy ofE/MSYbysettingshortintervalandlong-intervalratesinacomparative context (Fig. 1). A data gap remains between about one
million and about 50 thousand years because it is not yet possible to date extinctions in that time range
with adequate precision. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is as expected: the maximum E/MSY and its
variance increase as measurement intervals become shorter. The highest rates are rare but low rates are
common; in fact, at time intervals of less than a thousand years, the most common E/MSY is 0. Three
conclusions emerge. (1) The maximum observedrates since a thousandyearsago (E/MSY < 24in1,000-year
bins toE/MSY < 693 in 1-year bins) are clearly farabove the averagefossilrate (about E/MSY < 1.8), and
even above those of the widely recognized late- Pleistocene megafaunal diversity crash 32,33 (maximum
E/MSY < 9, red data points in Fig. 1). (2) Recent average rates are also too high compared to pre-

anthropogenic averages: E/MSY increases to over 5 (and rises to 23) in less-than-50-year time bins. (3) In
the scenario where currently threatened species 34 would ultimately go extinct even in as much as a
thousand years, the resulting rates would far exceed any reasonable estimation of the upper boundary for
variation related to interval length. The same applies if the extinction scenario is restricted to only
critically endangered species 34 . This does not imply that we consider all species in these categories to
be inevitably destined for extinctionsimply that in a worstcasescenariowherethatoccurred,theextinctionrateformammals would far exceed normal background rates.

Because our computational method maximizes the fossil background rates

and minimizes the current rates (see Fig.1 caption), our observation that
modern rates are elevated is likely to be particularly robust . Moreover, for reasons
argued by others 27 , themodernrateswe computedprobablyseriouslyunderestimate current E/MSY values.

Another approach is simply to ask whether it is likely that extinction rates

could have been as high in many past 500-year intervals as they have been
in the most recent 500 years. Where adequate data exist, as is the case for
our mammal example, the answer is clearly no. The mean per-million-year fossil rate for
mammals we determined (Fig. 1) is about 1.8 E/MSY. To maintain that million-year average, there could be
no more than 6.3% of 500-year bins per million years (126 out of a possible 2,000) with an extinction rate
as high as that observed over the past 500 years (80 extinct of 5,570 species living in 500 years). Millionyear extinction rates calculated by others, using different techniques, are slower: 0.4 extinctions per
lineage per million years (a lineage in this context is roughly equivalent to a species) 35 . To maintain that
slower million-year average, there could be no more than 1.4% (28 intervals) of the 500-year intervals per
million years having an extinction rate as high as the current 500-year rate. Rates computed for shorter
time intervals would be even less likely to fall within background levels, for reasons noted by ref. 27.
Magnitude Comparisons of percentage loss of species in historical times 6,36 to the percentage loss that
characterized each of the Big Five (Fig. 2) need to

Seldom
taken into account is the effect of using different species concepts (Box 1),
which potentially inflates the numbers of modern species relative to fossil
species 39,40 . A second, related caveat is that most assessments of fossil diversity
are at the level of genus, not species 2,3,37,38,41
berefinedbycompensatingformanydifferencesbetweenthemodernand the fossil records 2,3739 .

.Fossilspeciesestimatesarefrequentlyobtainedbycalculat- ing the species-to-genus ratio determined for

well-known groups, then extrapolating that ratio to groups for which only genus-level counts exist. The
over-75% benchmark for mass extinction is obtained in this way 2 . Table 2 | Methods of comparing present
and past extinctions General method Variations and representative studies References Compare currently
measured extinction rates to background rates assessed from fossil record E/MSY * { 7, 10, 15, 27, 62
Comparative species duration (estimates species durations to derive an estimate of extinction rate) * { 14
Fuzzy Math * { 44, 80 Interval-rate standardization (empirical derivation of relationship between rate and
interval length over which extinction is measured provides context for interpreting short-term rates) { This
paper Use various modelling techniques, including species-area relationships, to assess loss of species
Compare rate of expected near-term future losses to estimated background extinction rates * { { 7, 10, 14,
15 Assess magnitude of past species losses { { 42, 45 Predict magnitude of future losses. Ref. 7 explores
several models and provides a range of possible outcomes using different impact storylines { { 7, 14, 15,
27, 36, 62, 8184 Compare currently measured extinction rates to mass-extinction rates Use geological
data and hypothetical scenarios to bracket the range of rates that could have produced past mass
extinctions, and compare with current extinction rates (assumes Big Five mass extinctions were sudden,
occurring within 500years, producing a worst-case scenario for high rates, but with the possible exception
of the Cretaceous event, it is unlikely that any of the Big Five were this fast) { This paper Assess extinction
in context of long-term clade dynamics Map projected extinction trajectories onto long-term diversification/
extinction trends in well-studied clades { This paper Assess percentage loss of species Use IUCN lists to
assess magnitude or rate of actual and potential species losses in well-studied taxa { This paper and refs
6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 20, 36 and 62 Use molecular phylogenies to estimate extinction rate Calculate background
extinction rates from time-corrected molecular phylogenies of extant species, and compare to modern
rates 85 Fuzzy Math attempts to account for different biases in fossil and modern samples and uses
empirically based fossil background extinction rates as a standard for comparison: 0.25 species per million
years for marine invertebrates, determined from the kill-curve method 86 ,and 0.21species 35
to0.46species 87 per million years for North American mammals, determined from applying maximumlikelihood techniques. The molecular phylogenies method assumes that diversification rates are constant
through time and can be partitioned into originations and extinctions without evidence from the fossil
record. Recent work has demonstrated that disentanglement of diversification from extinction rates by thi

smethod is difficult, particularly in the absence of a fossil record, and that extinction rates estimated from
molecular phylogenies of extant organisms are highly unreliable when diversification rates vary among
lineages through time 46,88 . * Comparison of modern short-term rates with fossil long-term rates indicate
highly elevated modern rates, but does not take into account interval-rate effect. { Assumes that the
relationship between number and kind of species lost in study area can be scaled up to make global

It is
particularly informative in indicating that extinction-selectivity is chan- ging
into a state characterizing mass extinctions . Perfect storms? Hypotheses to
explain the general phenomenon of mass extinctions have emphasized
synergies between unusual events 5457 . Common fea- tures of the Big Five (Table 1)
suggest that key synergies may involve unusual climate dynamics, atmospheric
composition and abnormally high-intensity ecological stressors that
negatively affect many different lineages. This does not imply that random
accidents like a Cretaceous asteroid impact 58,59 would not cause
devastating extinction ontheir own, only that extinction magnitude would be
lower if synergistic stressors had not already primed the pump of extinction
projections. { Assumes that conclusions from well-studied taxa illustrate general principles.

60 . More rigorously formulating and testing synergy hypotheses may be especially important in assessing
sixth mass extinction potential, because once again the global stage is set for unusual interactions.

Existing ecosystems are the legacy of a biotic turnover initiated by the onset
of glacialinterglacial cycles that began , 2.6 million years ago, and evolved
primarily in the absence of Homo sapiens . Today, rapidly changing atmospheric
conditions andwarming above typical interglacial temperatures as CO 2 levels
continue to rise, habitat fragmentation, pol- lution, overfishing and
overhunting, invasive species and pathogens (like chytrid fungus), and
expanding human biomass 6,7,18,20 are all more extreme ecological
stressors than most living species have previously experienced. Without concerted
mitigation efforts, such stressors will accelerate in the future and thus intensify
extinction 7,20 , especially given the feedbacks between individual stressors 56 .
View to the future There is considerably more to be learned by applying new methods that
appropriatelyadjustforthedifferentkindsofdataandtimescalesinherent in the fossil records versus modern
records. Future work needs to: (1) standardize rate comparisons to adjust for rate measurements over
widely disparate time scales;(2)standardize magnitude comparisons by using the same species (or other
taxonomic rank) concepts for modern and fossil organisms; (3) standardize taxonomic and geographic
comparisons by using modern and fossil taxa that have equal fossilization potential; (4) assess the
extinction risk of modern taxa such as bivalves and gastropods that are extremely common in the fossil
record but are at present poorly assessed; (5) set current extinction observations in the context of longterm clade, species-richness, and population dynamics using the fossil record and phylogenetic
techniques; (6) further explore the relationship between extinction selectivity and extinction intensity; and
(7) develop andtestmodelsthatpositgeneralconditionsrequiredformassextinction, and how those compare
with the current state of the Earth. Our examination of existing data in these contexts raises two important
points. First, the recent loss of species is dramatic and serious but does not yet qualify as a mass
extinction in the palaeontological sense of the Big Five. In historic times we have actually lost only a few
per cent of assessed species (though we have no way of knowing how many species we have lost that had

It is encouraging that there is still much of the worlds

biodiversity left to save, but daunting that doing so will require the reversal of
many dire and escalating threats 7,20,6163 . The second point is particularly
important. Even taking into account the difficulties of comparing the fossil
and modern records, and applying conservative comparative methods that
favour minimizing the differ- ences between fossil and modern extinction
metrics, there are clear indi- cations that losing species now in the critically
endangered category would propel the world to a state of mass extinction
that has previously been seen only five times in about 540million years.
never been described).

losses of species in the endangered and vulnerable categories

could accomplish the sixth mass extinction in just a few centuries . It may be of
particular concern that this extinction trajectory would play out under conditions that
resemble the perfect storm that coincided with past mass extinc- tions:
multiple, atypical high-intensity ecological stressors, including rapid, unusual
climate change and highly elevated atmospheric CO 2 . The huge difference
between where we are now, and where we could easily be within a few
generations, reveals the urgency of relieving the pressures that are pushing
todays species towards extinction.
Additional

Overfishing causes extinction by 2048 destroys

biodiversity, food sources, and environmental safeguards.
DeNoon 06 awarded journalist (Daniel, Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen
By 2048, 11/6, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinctionseen-by-2048/)
The apocalypse has a new date: 2048. That's when the world's oceans will be
empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists.
The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat
loss, and climate change. The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie
University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden,
and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might
mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data.
Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant
surprise. "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we
suspected," Worm says in a news release. "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now,"
study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release.

the marine environment will not be able to sustain

our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont
adds. Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a
drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on
our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines.
And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and
"If biodiversity continues to decline,

increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood

The
researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine
environments. They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal
regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the
Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large
marine ecosystems. And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected
ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The
diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with
the most different kinds of life are the healthiest . But the loss of species isn't
gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and
control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.

colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the
creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower

insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. " It's

not
too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global
ocean is effectively protected right now." Worm and colleagues report their findings in the
Nov. 3 issue of Science.

Overfishing/Biodiversity loss = 6th mass extinction.

AFP 11 Agence France Presse, one of the oldest, most respected news
sources (World's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway, March 3 rd,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/mass-extinctionhumans-animals-110303.htm)
- Over the past 540 million years, there have been five mega
extinction events. - Mankind may be causing a sixth due to habitat loss, overhunting, over-fishing and the spread of germs. - Until human populations
expanded, mammal extinctions were very rare. Mankind may have unleashed
the sixth known mass extinction in Earth's history, according to a paper
released on Wednesday by the science journal Nature. Over the past 540
million years, five mega-wipeouts of species have occurred through naturallyinduced events. But the new threat is man-made, inflicted by habitation loss,
over-hunting, over-fishing, the spread of germs and viruses and introduced
species, and by climate change caused by fossil-fuel greenhouse gases, says
the study. Evidence from fossils suggests that in the "Big Five" extinctions, at least 75 percent of all
animal species were destroyed. Palaeobiologists at the University of California at
Berkeley looked at the state of biodiversity today, using the world's mammal
species as a barometer. Until mankind's big expansion some 500 years ago, mammal extinctions
were very rare: on average, just two species died out every million years. But in the last five centuries, at
least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have bitten the dust, providing a clear
warning of the peril to biodiversity. "It looks like modern extinction rates
resemble mass extinction rates, even after setting a high bar for defining
'mass extinction," said researcher Anthony Barnosky. This picture is supported by the
THE GIST

outlook for mammals in the "critically endangered" and "currently threatened" categories of the Red List of
biodiversity compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). On the assumption that

"the sixth mass

extinction could arrive within as little as three to 22 centuries ," said Barnosky.
Compared with nearly all the previous extinctions this would be fast-track. Four of the "Big Five"
events unfolded on scales estimated at hundreds of thousands to millions of
years, inflicted in the main by naturally-caused global warming or cooling. The
these species are wiped out and biodiversity loss continues unchecked,

most abrupt extinction came at the end of the Cretaceous, some 65 million years ago when a comet or
asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula, in modern-day Mexico, causing firestorms whose dust cooled
the planet. An estimated 76 percent of species were killed, including the dinosaurs. The authors admitted
to weaknesses in the study. They acknowledged that the fossil record is far from complete, that mammals
provide an imperfect benchmark of Earth's biodiversity and further work is needed to confirm their

their estimates as conservative and warned a largescale extinction would have an impact on a timescale beyond human
imagining. "Recovery of biodiversity will not occur on any timeframe
meaningful to people," said the study. "Evolution of new species typically
takes at least hundreds of thousands of years, and recovery from mass
extinction episodes probably occurs on timescales encompassing millions of
suspicions. But they described

years." Even so, they stressed, there is room for hope. "So far, only one to two percent of
all species have gone gone extinct in the groups we can look at clearly, so by
those numbers, it looks like we are not far down the road to extinction. We
still have a lot of Earth's biota to save," Barnosky said. Even so, "it's very important to
devote resources and legislation toward species conservation if we don't want to be the species whose

French biologist Gilles

Boeuf, president of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, said the question
of a new extinction was first raised in 2002. So far, scientists have identified
1.9 million species, and between 16,000 and 18,000 new ones, essentially
microscopic, are documented each year. "At this rate, it will take us a
thousand years to record all of Earth's biodiversity, which is probably
between 15 and 30 million species" said Boeuf. "But at the rate things are
going, by the end of this century, we may well have wiped out half of them,
especially in tropical forests and coral reefs."
activity caused a mass extinction." Asked for an independent comment,

Overfishing causes extinction

Oceana 7 - adapted from a briefing given on May 24, 2007 at the World
Trade Organization by Andrew Sharpless, Chief Executive Officer of Oceana
and Dr. Rashid Sumaila, Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at
the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre (STATE OF THE WORLDS
FISHERIES,
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/o/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/R
eports/SOWF_document_070907.pdf)
What Will Be the Future of the Oceans?

The oceans contain a vast diversity of life, from the

smallest micro-organisms to the largest mammals on earth, blue whales. The oceans provide food,
medicine, energy and serve as a recreational resource, but they are not as once commonly believed, an

Global overfishing and other unsustainable fishing practices

have depleted nearly all commercial fish populations and degraded the
ecosystems that support them. Since the late 1980s global fish catches have
actually declined, despite significant increases in fishing effort and
improvements in technology In May 2007, a group of 125 scientists from 27
countries issued a warning to the world about the perils of global overfishing
and the need to act: There is no longer any question we have reached a critical
state. The worlds ocean ecosystems are at a tipping point, and overfishing
represents one of the greatest threats to their productivity... There are only
decades left before the damage we have inflicted on the oceans becomes
permanent. We are at a crossroads. One road leads to a world with tremendously
diminished marine life. The other leads to one with oceans again teeming
with abundance, where the world can rely on the oceans for protein, and
enjoy its wildlife. The choices we make today will determine our path for the future. Climate
change and pollution continue to have huge impacts on the health of our
oceans, but global overfishing directly threatens the immediate viability of
the worlds fisheries and the billions of people who depend on the bounty of the seas.
inexhaustible resource.

Eliminating destructive fishing subsidies, strengthening management regimes, and controlling illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing are some of the key actions that need to be taken to restore the
oceans biodiversity and productivity. Alarmingly,

the once unthinkable possibility that

there will be no fish is quickly becoming a real threat. We need to avert

disaster now. While life depends in large part on the health of the oceans, the
health of the oceans depends on us. What Will Be Left in the Sea? The worlds fisheries are
facing an unprecedented crisis. Fisheries are already severely depleted or in sharp
decline in nearly every part of the world. A new study by an international team of scientists
found that 29 percent of the worlds fish species are currently in collapse . A
species is considered to be in collapse when its catch falls below 10 percent
of the recorded maximum. Most alarming, the study projects that all major
commercial fisheries will collapse within the next 50 years if current trends
are not reversed. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 75
percent of the world commercial fish populations are depleted, recovering,
fully exploited, or overexploited. Of the top ten species that account for about 30 percent of
the world capture fisheries production in terms of quantity, seven are fully exploited or overexploited and
cannot be expected to produce major increases in catches. This includes the anchoveta in the Southeast
Pacific; the Alaska Pollock in the North Pacific; the blue whiting in the Northeast Atlantic; and the Atlantic

90 percent of all the big

fish tuna, marlin, and swordfish are gone. The scientists found that the
near total depletion of these fish populations occurred in only a few decades,
coinciding with the introduction of industrialized fishing. Still, global fleets
continue to increase fishing of major tuna species despite the fact that most
populations are in need of reduced fishing pressure in order to recover. These
herring. A study published in the scientific journal Nature concluded that

trends are occurring in all the worlds oceans. A major factor in the decline in fishery resources is the
impact of distant water fleets, which travel far from their home ports to exploit fisheries in the high seas

staggering
reduction of the abundance of the worlds fish also has serious effects on the
throughout the oceans. As the exploitation of fisheries increase, the recovery
potential of fish populations, the stability of marine ecosystems, and water
quality all decrease exponentially.
and in some cases the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other countries. The

China Relations
Allowing China a productive role in the arctic builds a
framework of trust and diplomacyPan, 16. Min, author and contributor to Marine Policy and Center for Polar
and Oceanic Studies, Tong Ji University, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China,
January edition. A precautionary approach to fisheries in the Central Arctic
Ocean: Policy, science, and China.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002997
At the intersection of China's interest in fi sheries and its in- terest in the
Arctic is its role in a CAO fi sheries agreement

. Ob- server status at the Arctic Council is recognition of China's con- tributions to Arctic

research and Arctic affairs more generally, but observers play no role in the decisions that are made there. While the fi ve Arctic Ocean coastal states have so far limited participation in CAO fi sheries discussions,

While China's role in

developing Arctic resources causes concern in some areas, China's
participation in a cooperative agreement to safe- guard the CAO ecosystem
and its fi sh stocks offers another path- way for China. And China brings its
research and ice-breaking capacity to the discussion. China could play an
important role in investigating the marine living resources in the CAO
By strengthening
research in the region, China could demonstrate the importance it attaches to
Arctic fi sheries i
and could push to establish appropriate research institutions that
bring together the expertise, capacity, and funds of the Arctic and non-arctic
states. The government of China is further strengthening diplomatic relations
with Arctic states through scienti fi c research. Science diplomacy can help
build trust and foster intercultural under- standing
the recent declaration is the start of wider engagement, including perhaps a more substantive role for China and others than they enjoy at the Arctic Council.

. Scientists agree that

there is little information about the CAO ecosystem, especially in the deep area [27] . Much information will be needed to manage sustainable fi sheries in the CAO.

ssues and to the Arctic in general, and its willingness to act cooperatively with Arctic states and others. For example, China could help to promote scienti fi c cooperation

agreements for the CAO

. Science diplomacy is not new [28] . A prominent example is the

governance of Antarctica, where the soft power of science has helped strike a balance between national and common inter- ests [28] . In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty was signed and came into force in 1961 [29] . The
most important common interest articu- lated in the Treaty is the freedom of scienti fi c research, including the exchange of data and people. This is crucial for informing management strategies to protect the
Antarctic environment and ensure the sustainable use of its resources [28] . During the Cold War, the Antarctic Treaty kept the region peaceful and fostered scienti fi c cooperation, despite tensions and battles
elsewhere in the world [29] . In the near future, China might take several steps further to- wards the governance of Arctic fi sheries. First, China must attach great importance to the Arctic fi sheries issues and
strengthen the scienti fi c research on the Arctic marine living resources. Second, as a stakeholder in Arctic fi sheries, China needs to strengthen inter- national cooperation with the Arctic countries, individually and
collectively. Some journalists in China argue that the sooner China participates in the Arctic fi sheries issues, the better it can act in its own interests for this and other Arctic matters [30] . 5. Conclusions CAO

fi

sheries is more than a fi shing issue, it opens a new path for Arctic
governance and for international cooperation in general.

The policy- fi rst approach to CAO fi sheries is an

innovative way to address potential problems before they become real problems, following the precautionary principle and avoiding the exploit- fi rst, manage-second disasters seen in many fi sheries around the

Doing so allows all participating states to act co- operatively from the
beginning, rather than separating into competing sides
world [31] .

and judgments about which are the good actors and which

the bad. The alternative could lead to power struggles and missed opportunities for good governance. China is trying hard to strengthen the connection between China and the Arctic and to participate in Arctic
affairs. An over- emphasis on resource development may alienate Arctic states or at least some constituencies in those states. Contributing to the re- search of Arctic marine living resources and the protection of the
Arctic environment, however, is likely to be seen as a more benign role. The CAO fi sheries negotiations may thus provide an oppor- tunity for China to be involved in Arctic affairs in a new and non- threatening way,
perhaps reducing concerns among Arctic states about China's intentions and thereby creating new opportunities for collaboration based on better relations and better mutual understanding. The management of
CAO fi sheries is at the intersection of geopolitics, policy, diplomacy, and science. The countries in- dividual interests can only be achieved through effective man- agement of the CAO fi sheries, which can only be
achieved co- operatively. In this case, cooperation also means the involvement of non-Arctic states such as China. The recognition of the re- spective roles of policy and science may be an effective way of putting
the precautionary principle into practice and harnessing the mutual interests and abilities of the various states that have Arctic interests. Such a precedent would be a valuable contribution to effective governance
of international waters in the Arctic and could provide a useful model for other regions as well. .

Incorporating China into its national strategy key to

overcome existing tensionsDingding, 16. Chen, IR scholar for the Diplomat, 3/10.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/cooperation-is-the-only-way-ahead-for-uschina-relations/
Amid a flurry of pessimistic analyses and predictions about the future of U.S.-China relations, one prominent Chinese

Professor Niu Jun at Peking University, is calling for a new

Chinese approach to the United States. Specifically, per Niu, on the whole China
international relations scholar,

should maintain a cooperative relationship with the United States and this
should be part of its national strategy not a policy of convenience. Indeed, Nius
new essay sheds some light on U.S.-China relations from a Chinese perspective. It is particularly timely given that both
countries are increasingly suspicious of each others intentions in East Asia and beyond.

The United States is

suspicious of a rising China that tries to push U.S. influence out of Asia and, in the process, becomes a
regional hegemon. China, on the other hand, suspects that the United States wants
to block its rise for fear of losing its hegemonic status in world politics. Such a
deep level of distrust was already evident as early as 2012, when Chinas Wang Jisi and Kenneth Lieberthal in the United
States co-wrote a report on strategic distrust between the two powers. Unfortunately,

tensions between the

two powers have only increased due to disputes in cybersecurity, the South China Sea issue, and trade
competition. Niu, however, believes that the best term to characterize U.S.-China relations is
competitive interdependence, meaning that the two countries are
competing in Asia, but also are constrained by their economically
interdependent relationship. Furthermore, he points out that the deterioration of U.S.-China relations in the
last few years should not be blamed on the U.S. side alone, as some in China would suggest. Many favor a U.S.
conspiracy theory, but such a view is not only intellectually lazy, but also unsupported by empirical facts .

The U.S.
side certainly has its own share of the blame, but perhaps more important is
what has changed within China. That change, according to Niu, is more fundamental
to explaining Chinas new foreign policy approach . Questions that we should
be asking ourselves include: 1) Is Chinas central foreign policy changing? 2)
How does Chinas leadership define the nature of U.S.-China relations ? 3) Is
Chinese public opinion moving to the left? All these questions are very important if our goal is
to stabilize and improve U.S.-China relations in the future. Unfortunately again, we have
not seen many good-quality studies addressing these questions in either the Chinese and English academic literatures.
Niu also puts emphasis on the strategic nature of a cooperative U.S.-China relationship. This is especially important
because Niu is referring to long term strategy. This refutes the view that a cooperative U.S.-China relationship is only for
purpose of convenience, paving the way for China to replace the United States in the future. Undoubtedly, Nius views in
China will be hotly debated. Some might disagree with him on the issue of U.S. intentions and others might agree with him
on the changes occurring within China. Either way, it is fortunate that we have prominent scholars like Niu Jun in China

a good and stable relationship between

the United States and China benefits both tremendously. This is very
important as the two major powers head into a new era of competition in East
Asia. The key for the U.S.-China relationship going forward will be to let
interdependence put constraints on their competition in a healthy way.
who remind us, again, from a historical perspective, that

Russia
US Arctic leadership generates allied cooperation
sufficient to check Russia
Slayton and Rosen 3-14-14 -- research fellow at the Hoover Institution and
co-chair of the Hoover Institution's Arctic Security Initiative AND an
international and national security lawyer by training, is a senior legal adviser
at CNA Corporation (David M.* and Mark E.**, Another region where the
Russian military threatens to dominate the U.S., CNN,
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/14/opinion/slayton-rosen-russia-u-s-arctic/)

(CNN) -- While much of the world is focused on the Russian incursion into the
Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine, another long-term move may allow the former
Soviet navy to dominate U.S. interests to the north: the Arctic.
The rapid melting of the Arctic Ocean is quickly creating a new variety of
challenges that have the potential to cause significant global damage if they
remain unaddressed.
The Obama administration's policy correctly recognizes that the United States
has profoundly important economic and cultural interests in the Arctic but
regrettably reveals very little about what the federal government will be
doing outside of the science field.
While recent U.S. policies either dance around the core issues, or worse, do
not acknowledge that they exist, the Russians are taking the lead on Arctic
policy. After all, the Arctic is in their backyard, too.
Russia -- as if to highlight the value they place on their navy and renaissance as a maritime
nation -- took control of the strategic Crimean Peninsula, assuring and securing
warm water Russian Navy access to the global commons.
Moreover,

it would be wise for Washington to seriously consider

the economic potential and security vulnerabilities that exist on or near the
U.S. Arctic coastline.
In light of these recent events,

the U.S. Arctic policy debate echoes past concerns of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Consequently, many in the policy community are
pushing a heavy science and no-development agenda to preserve the pristine
character of the region.
Overwhelmingly,

The recently issued Department of Defense Arctic Strategy is a case in point:

It talks extensively about the DOD scientific mission and uses the terms
"sustainable development" and preservation of the unspoiled area as
important national goals.

Arctic mineral and oil and gas

resources will help assure the United States is able , over time, to achieve and
then maintain its energy independence .
But just saying "no" ignores the fact that the precious

Science is incredibly important, as is safe and responsible development of the

Arctic, but our agencies and scientists need to approach these issues with a
greater sense of urgency. Arguably, the science needs to be a component of a
detailed national action, but that's only a fraction of good U.S. policy.
U.S. Arctic policy should prioritize four things:
leadership in the Arctic and develop a strategy and policy to match. The U.S.
has no leadership in the high north and Russia does, which is a great concern
for our allies.
One: Demonstrate

Invest in infrastructure, Navy and Coast Guard to support U.S. security and
commercial interests in the Arctic. The key here is to develop the policy that
drives those requirements so we are not "late to need."
Two:

Three: Demonstrate leadership in the maritime domain worldwide -- and not retreat as we are doing by
default in the Arctic.

Facilitate and further develop offshore natural resources in the high

north/Alaska and the national, international, maritime and geopolitical
governance structures that will underpin those enterprises. Washington , in less
than two years, will assume a leadership role when it becomes Chair for the Arctic
Council. Unfortunately, the DOD policy and U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014
do not articulate what the U.S. Arctic leadership agenda will entail.
Four:

The reality is ignoring the issues and choosing not to participate in the Arctic will not make the issues go
away.

budgets are challenging, but the Arctic is no different from any other
international frontier or global common where the U.S. has interests. We need to protect it
and demonstrate leadership in the maritime domain -- not retreat.
Yes,

So, too, our policy makers need to be looking beyond our shores to Moscow,
Ottawa, Oslo, Copenhagen, the Arctic Council, international oil companies
and Lloyds of London for help in solving this governance challenge. The last
thing that any of the Arctic states can afford is to back into a Russiangenerated crisis with no resources or a plan.
The time is now for more U.S. leadership to ensure the Arctic becomes a safe,
secure and prosperous region in which to live and work.

The perception of arctic counterbalancing induces Russian

cooperation
Dowd 11 Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute and Senior Editor of Fraser
Insight. In addition to conducting research into defence and security, he has
contributed to the Institutes Economic Freedom of North America Annual

Report. Dowd is an adjunct professor at Butler University; was as a founding

member of the Sagamore Institute leadership team, where he continues to
hold a senior fellow post; and was director of Hudson Institutes corporate
headquarters (Alan, The Big Chill: Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the
Arctic, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?
id=2147483979)

The United States devotes much of its diplomatic and military energies to the
Middle East today for a very simple reason: The Middle East is the source of
much of the worlds energy, and not coincidentally, much of the worlds
tensions.
Tomorrows source of energy reserves and geopolitical tensions may not be
the deserts and densely populated urban areas of the Middle East, but rather
the icy waters and desolate tundra of the Arctic. Supply and Demand
Before we get to the simmering tensions in the Arctic, its important to
discuss why the United States, Canada, Russia, Europe and others are so
interested in the region.
First, there is the matter of supply. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that
the Arctic may hold 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 90 billion
barrels of oil30 percent of the worlds undiscovered gas and 13 percent of
undiscovered oil (USGS). About a third of the oil is in Alaskan territory
(Carroll).
These oil and gas deposits were always there, of course, but today the cost of
extracting them is increasingly justifiable due to market realities. Growing
demand, along with decreasing and undependable supplies in the Middle
East, are conspiring to push energy prices upwards, which is encouraging
exploration in the Arctic. The Energy Information Agency forecasts a 20percent increase in daily world oil consumption by 2030, owing largely to
demand in China and India (EIA).
Another important factor in the Arctic energy rush relates to shipping. The
fabled Northwest Passage, once frozen throughout most of the year, is
thawing.
Opening up the Northwest Passage cuts 4,000 nautical miles off the trip from
Europe to Asia, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen observes.
You can bet a lot of companies have done that math.
Zone of Peace?
Given the Arctics vast supply of energy resources and the worlds growing
energy demands, its neither surprising nor alarming that Arctic nations are
beginning to stake their respective claims. What is alarming is how one Arctic
nation is going about this.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressed his desire in 2010 to keep
the Arctic as a zone of peace and cooperation (Carbonnel). But actions speak
louder than words:

In 2011, Russia announced plans to deploy two army brigades10,000

troopsto defend its Arctic claims (AP).
U.S. and Canadian fighters intercepted Russian bombers 45 times
between 2007 and 2010, up from just eight between 1999 and 2006
(Elliott).
In 2009, Moscow announced plans to build a string of military bases
along Russias northern tier (UPI).
In 2008, a Russian general revealed plans to train troops that could be
engaged in Arctic combat missions, ominously adding, Wars these
days are won and lost well before they are launched (AFP).
During a 2007 expedition, after Russia provocatively planted its flag
under the North Pole, the lead explorer declared, The Arctic is ours.
In fact, Russia brazenly claimed almost half the Arctic Circle and all of
the North Pole in 2001 (Clover and Idov).
It seems Putin is far closer to that view today than he is to his 2010 zone of
peace promises. Russia intends without a doubt to expand its presence in
the Arctic, he recently boasted. We are open to dialoguebut naturally, the
defense of our geopolitical interests will be hard and consistent
(Shuster).
In short, Moscow is signaling its seriousness about claiming most of the Arctic
as its own.
Fundamental Interests
All of this is getting the attention of the United States and its Arctic allies. At
the end of the Bush administration, the U.S. issued a new Arctic Region
Policy, declaring that The United States has broad and fundamental national
security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either
independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these
interests (White House).
Similarly, the Obama administration has emphasized that The United States
has an inherent national interest in knowing, and declaring to others with
specificity, the extent of our sovereign rights with regard to the U.S. extended
continental shelf (U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project).
Together, the U.S. and Canada are conducting missions to map the
continental shelf. Demarcating the shelf is vital to determining how the Arctic
pie is divided. As my Fraser Institute colleague Alex Moens and I have written
elsewhere, Russias outsized Arctic claims rest on a dubious interpretation of
an underwater ridge linking to the Russian landmass. Russia argues that this
ridge is an extension of its own continental shelf.

Some observers contend that joining the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) will help America secure its Arctic claimsand limit Russias.
Unlike its Arctic neighbors, the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, even though the
treaty has support in the military and among leaders from both parties.
The Arctic is changing, observes Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval
operations from 2007 to 2011. The most important thing is to become party
to the Convention of the Law of the Sea. If we are not party to that treaty, we
will not have a seat at the table as this unfolds (Cavas).
Vice President Joseph Biden has argued that UNCLOS allows us to secure and
extend our sovereign rights (Abrams). The Bush administrations Arctic
policy called on the Senate to pass the treaty promptly.
Critics, however, worry that the treaty could limit U.S. sovereignty and
freedom of action.
Zone of Conflict?
With or without the treaty, its only prudent for the U.S. and its Arctic allies to
develop some sort of security component to the Arctic puzzle. We cant wish
away the security implications, Rasmussen observes. An entire side of
North America will be much more exposed.
The United States already maintains some 20,000 active-duty forces in Alaska
and holds routine exercises in the region. Northern Edge exercises, for
example, have featured airborne drops, close-air support, port security,
harbor defense, supply-route protection and critical-infrastructure protection
just the sort of operations that might be necessary to keep the Arctic and
its waterways open (Elmendorf AFB).
The U.S. is not alone.

Spurred by Russian adventurism, Canadian Defense Minister Peter

MacKay talks about enlarging the footprint and the permanent
presence we have in the North (Cummins). Toward that end, Canada is
building new bases and conducting annual maneuvers to defend its
Arctic territories. Our government is committed to protecting and
asserting Canadas presence throughout our Arctic, Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper declared in 2010 (Comte). Assets from the
U.S. 2nd Fleet, U.S. Coast Guard and Danish navy have joined the
Canadian military for Arctic maneuvers (Comte). In 2009, Norway led
Arctic maneuvers enfolding 13 nations. The scenario: Repel an attack
on oil rigs by the fictional country of Northland, a thinly disguised
euphemism for Russia (Weber).
Sweden followed with its own Arctic war games, featuring 12,000
troops.
Norway, Sweden and Finland are developing what The Economist
magazine calls a Nordic security partnership as a hedge against
Russian activity in the Arctic.

Denmark is standing up an Arctic military command and beefing up its

military presence in Greenland.
In response to Russias Arctic claims, made in a blatant military
context, NATO officials envision a military presence in the Arctic and
have pointedly declared the Arctic a region of strategic interest to the
alliance (de Hoop Scheffer).
One reason a military presence will be necessary is the possibility of
accidents caused by drilling and shipping. In addition, competition for Arctic
resources could lead to confrontation. Adm. James Stavridis, who serves as
NATOs military commander, concedes that the Arctic could become a zone
of conflict (UPI).
To brace for that possibility and thwart Russias Arctic fait accompli, the
United States, Canada, Denmark and Norwayall NATO members and Arctic
nationsshould follow the Cold War playbook: build up the assets needed to
defend their interests, use those assets to deter aggression, and deal with
Moscow from a posture of strength and unity.
The challenge is to remain open to cooperation while bracing for worstcase scenarios. After all, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Even as Putin and
his puppets make mischief, Moscow is open to making deals. Russia and
Norway, for instance, recently resolved a long-running boundary dispute,
paving the way for development in 67,000 square-miles of the Arctic.
Moreover, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have agreed on
Arctic search-and-rescue responsibilities (Cummins). In a world of increasingly
integrated markets, we know there is much to gain from Arctic cooperation
and much to lose from protracted military standoff. But we also know that
dealing naively with Moscow carries a heavy costand that integration is a
two-way street.
Russian leaders today yearn not for integration, the Brookings Institutions
Robert Kagan concludes, but for a return to a special Russian greatness.
In short, Russia is more interested in recreating the autarky of some bygone
era than in the shared benefits of globalization.
Framework for Partnership
Dealing with Russia is about power. As Churchill once said of his Russian
counterparts, There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is
nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness.
When the message is clearor hard and consistent, to use Putins
languageRussia will take a cooperative posture. When the message is
unclear, Russia will take what it can get.
Just consider Russias contrasting treatment of its neighbors: Moscow blusters
about Poland and the Baltic states but keeps its hands off, largely because
they are protected by the U.S.-NATO umbrella. Conversely, Russia bullies
Ukraine, garrisons its troopsuninvitedin Moldova, and occupies Georgian

territory. The common denominator of these unfortunate countries:

They have no U.S. security guarantee.
Russia should be given an opportunity to participate as a responsible partner
in Arctic development. But if Russia continues to take Putins hard line, the
U.S. and its allies are left with few other options than standing together or
allowing Russia to divide and conquer.
To avoid that, the allies may need to agree among themselves on lines of
demarcation, transit routes and exploration rightsand then pool their
resources to protect their shared interests.
This will require investment in Arctic capabilities. For instance, the U.S. has
only three polar icebreakers, two of which have exceeded their projected
30-year lifespan (ORourke). Russia can deploy 20 icebreakers. We have
extremely limited Arctic response capabilities, explains Adm. Robert Papp,
USCG commandant. Noting that the Coast Guard has the lead role in
ensuring Arctic maritime safety, security and stewardship, Papp urges
Congress to start building infrastructure up there (Joling and Papp).

Trade
US and china corporation in the artic helps US trade
Reuters Editorial, 4-20-2016, "China wants ships to use faster Arctic route
opened by global warming," Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chinaarctic-idUSKCN0XH08U
China will encourage ships flying its flag to take the Northwest Passage via
the Arctic Ocean, a route opened up by global warming, to cut travel times
between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a state-run newspaper said on
Wednesday. China is increasingly active in the polar region, becoming one of
the biggest mining investors in Greenland and agreeing to a free trade deal
with Iceland. Shorter shipping routes across the Arctic Ocean would save
Chinese companies time and money. For example, the journey from Shanghai
to Hamburg via the Arctic route is 2,800 nautical miles shorter than going by
the Suez Canal. China's Maritime Safety Administration this month released a
guide offering detailed route guidance from the northern coast of North
America to the northern Pacific, the China Daily said. "Once this route is
commonly used, it will directly change global maritime transport and have a
profound influence on international trade, the world economy, capital flow
and resource exploitation," ministry spokesman Liu Pengfei was quoted as
saying. Chinese ships will sail through the Northwest Passage "in the future",
Liu added, without giving a time frame. Most of the Northwest Passage lies in
waters that Canada claims as its own. Asked if China considered the passage
an international waterway or Canadian waters, Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China noted Canada considered that the
route crosses its waters, although some countries believed it was open to
international navigation. In Ottawa, a spokesman for Foreign Minister
Stephane Dion said no automatic right of transit passage existed in the
waterways of the Northwest Passage. "We welcome navigation that complies
with our rules and regulations. Canada has an unfettered right to regulate
internal waters," Joseph Pickerill said by email. Maritime experts say shipping
companies would most likely be deterred by the unpredictable nature of
Arctic ice, the total absence of infrastructure in the region, relatively shallow
waters, a lack of modern mapping and increased insurance costs. The route
would also be strategically important to China, another maritime official, Wu
Yuxiao, told the China Daily. Melting sea ice has spurred more commercial
traffic, and China wants to become more active in the Arctic, where it
says it has important interests. Chinese ships, even merchant vessels, using
the Northwest Passage could raise eyebrows in Washington. In September,
five Chinese Navy ships sailed in international waters in the Bering Sea off
Alaska, in an apparent first for China's military.

Warming

2ac
We must act now- the Arctic is warming twice as fast as
the rest of the planetChristopher Joyce 12/18/14 Christopher Joyce is a correspondent on the science

desk at NPR For several years, Joyce was an editor and correspondent for NPR's Radio
Expeditions, a documentary program Arctic Is Warming Twice As Fast As World Average
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-world-average

The latest word from scientists studying the Arctic is that the polar region is
warming twice as fast as the average rise on the rest of the planet. And
researchers say the trend isn't letting up. That's the latest from the 2014
Arctic Report Card a compilation of recent research from more than 60
scientists in 13 countries. The report was released Wednesday by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Jackie Richter-Menge, a
polar scientist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who collaborated with
NOAA on the analysis, says the findings demonstrate the "power of
persistence" in the Arctic "persistence in the warming air temperatures
and the impact that is having on this icy environment." That's largely
because of arctic amplification. Here's how it works:

Normally, snow and ice cool the surface by reflecting a lot of the sun's energy back up into the

atmosphere. But warming air temperatures melt snow and ice. "And when they melt," says Richter-Menge, "they expose darker regions." Darker regions, once covered in snow and ice, now absorb more heat, like a dark shirt does on a hot, sunny day. The same thing happens when sea
ice melts the exposed water is darker and warms up. Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013. Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013. Joe Raedle/Getty Images Calved
icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013. So what happens as a result of this amplification? Well, warmer water affects what lives in it. Apparently, plankton like the warmer conditions; they're thriving. Scientists say they don't know
whether that's good or bad for the rest of us. But unlike plankton, polar bears don't like the warmer water and having less sea ice around. "There's a strong connection between what's going on with the sea and polar bears," says Richter-Menge. In regions where the sea ice is holding
steady, bears are doing OK, according to the report card. Where the ice is gone, bear numbers are down. Environment Nations Agree To Deal To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environment Shrinking Sea Ice Could Put Polar Bears In Grave Peril By 2100 Then there's Greenland. The giant
land mass is covered in ice that's a mile thick. Geophysicist Beata Csatho at the University at Buffalo has just completed the most comprehensive satellite survey of that ice cover. "There are some places," she says, "where in the last 20 years the ice surface is just lowering, lowering,
lowering very uniformly." Csatho, whose research appears separately in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, says she has noticed something else about Greenland's blanket of ice: Because the ice melts from the top down, the surface elevation gets lower

"because you get the ice into lower

and lower elevations." The research shows some exceptions to the warming
trend places where ice is building back up or temperatures are cooling. But
overall, warming is winning in the Arctic.
over time. And at lower elevations, the air generally is warmer. "As Greenland is losing ice, it gets more and more irreversible," Csatho explains,

Cooperation with China is the only way to solve global

warmingtop two emitters in the world.
Brookings 9 (Brookings Institute, A FOREIGN POLICY AND JOHN L.
THORNTON CHINA CENTER EVENT, U.S.-China Climate Change Cooperation:
Overcoming Obstacles,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0205_climate_change.aspx//sb)
Any solution to global warming will require substantial activity in the United
States and China, the worlds top two emitters of greenhouse gases. Working
together, the two countries could make important progress in addressing this
challenge. Recent developmentsincluding new leadership in the U.S., dire
scientific warnings and an aggressive international negotiating scheduleare
dramatically raising the profile of this issue on the U.S.-China bilateral
agenda. Yet different histories, cultures and national circumstances create substantial barriers to large-scale
cooperation.

Thats fosters dialogue and information exchangekey to

mitigating global warming.
Davidson 10 (Michael, Michael Davidson is a visiting fellow at Asia Policy
Point., US, China: A green security blanket?,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE14Ad01.html/

To meet the new transnational threat of climate change, the QDR calls for
collaborations with "both traditional allies and new partners". The US and
China are natural new partners. Neither can confront alone the human dislocation and
resource competition caused by environmental degradation. Furthermore, of all the governmental
agencies examining climate change, only militaries have the necessary logistical structures to react cooperatively and
quickly. A

new US-China security partnership would complement the 2009 intergovernmental memorandum of understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change,
Energy and the Environment that established a regular policy dialogue on these topics. It could also build on the Strategic
and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). The S&ED was designed to address a large range of shared concerns, including
regional security and global issues such as climate change. A

new track on climate security

cooperation can strengthen ties in both dialogues . Cooperation has already begun. For
example, last May, China and the US participated multilaterally in the ASEAN Regional Forum's First Voluntary
Demonstration of Response on Disaster Relief. The

US and China should go the next step to

initiate a joint exercise focusing specifically on climate change-induced
disasters. In addition, climate security extends beyond traditional disaster preparedness, into
climate change mitigation and scientific research . The Office of Naval Research wants to
establish scientific exchanges with the Chinese on alternative energy and other basic science through its proposed joint
forces Hong Kong office. The Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the US Army
Research, Development and Engineering Command already support basic science research projects with other Asian
countries on superconductors and biofuels. By focusing on scientific research and disaster preparedness, the

US
and China can reframe existing military exchanges to focus on areas of
critical cooperation: energy security concerns as well as human security
needs such as cheap energy, food shortages and refugee relief . Instead of bickering
over borders and air space, it is first better to establish a working day-to-day relationship over matters of mutual concern
and interests. A

US-China climate security partnership can draw on the best

instincts and science of both countries, both of which are firm ground to build
trust and understanding.

And changing our Arctic policy key to preventing

warmingRockstrom 15, Arctic Tipping Points can Ripple around the World Johan
RockstrmDirector of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm
University. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johan-rockstrom/arctic-tippingpoints-can-ripple-around-the-world_b_8130968.html
The Arctic is one of the last remaining wildernesses. The unforgiving conditions ensure it remains sparsely populated. As a result, some of the
most dramatic changes on the planet are occurring far from view. Here communities, from the Alaskan Yupik to the Greenland Inuit native
tribes, have developed and adapted resilient societies for millennia. But now the Arctic is changing faster than ever before in modern history,

, we are seeing the first

signs that the Arctic is approaching tipping points that, like toppling dominos,
are likely to lead to a cascade of events that will affect us all. Without dramatic reductions
as a result of human-caused climate change and ecosystem degradation. More worryingly

in greenhouse gases, by the end of the century much of the Arctic is predicted to be more than five degrees warmer than today, and in places
nine or 10 degrees. There will be no sea ice in the summer months leading to other abrupt, potentially irreversible, ecological and physical
changes sea ice this summer has already dropped well below the long-term average. The Arctic Ocean will become more acidic, corroding
anything with a shell. The stability of the Greenland ice sheet which contains enough water to raise sea levels globally by at least six meters
will be in doubt. The so-called Atlantic thermohaline circulation, including the Gulf Stream and its warm waters that ensure a mild northern-

the melting permafrost is already buckling buildings,

roads and pipelines and may lead to a large release of methane, a gas more
than 20 times as potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. In fact, the
Stockholm Resilience Centre has identified 16 potential regime shifts or
tipping points in the Arctic, ranging from collapse of salmon stocks to a
complete transition of the Inuit way of life. Twelve of these regime shifts will be difficult to reverse in a
European climate, is in jeopardy. And

human lifetime. The reason is that feedbacks change, which causes systems to self-reinforce warming. In the case of Greenland, for example,
when ice melts, the surface changes color from white, which reflects almost all incoming solar heat back to space, to a darker water surface,

which absorbs heat. These changes indicate the importance of understanding resilience in vast ecosystems like the Arctic and how to create
societies that can cope with inevitable shocks. Resilience is the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals, which will be launched at the end
of the month at the UN General Assembly in New York. Goal 9 focuses specifically on resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization and

A resilient
system, be it a city or planet, is where diversity is encouraged, connectivity is
managed and new information is absorbed and used . This renewal and capacity to live with change
innovation. But resilience is often misunderstood. It is not only about rolling with the punches and recovering from shocks.

is the foundation to weather the storm and bounce back stronger and more flexible than before. We now know our globally connected society

a small change in the

ecology of the Arctic or the economics of the U.S. subprime housing market
can ripple around the world. In a matter of decades, we have become a big world on a small planet. We now have
can expect faster changes and more shocks cascading through ecosystems and economies, where

enough scientific knowledge to show that the stable, healthy biosphere that we have taken for granted for more than 10,000 years has
reached a tipping point, where humans now dominate and its future state is, ironically, less predictable. We will need resilient infrastructure in
the Arctic to weather the expected changes. But in the lifetime of the goals, we also need to monitor closely this fragile ecosystem. This is a

We need to reduce the combined pressure of warming, ocean

acidification, pollution and overfishing. As myself and colleagues argue in the Earth Statement, the priority is
critical period of transition.

to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to zero by 2050 and halt biodiversity loss. However, this means the race to find oil in the Arctic is a dead
end. Recent research analyzing remaining fossil-fuel reserves concluded Development of resources in the Arctic...[is] ...incommensurate with
efforts to limit average global warming to 2 C. The Arctic will warm further and we can expect more dramatic changes in the north
emphasizing why the new global goals are universal wealthy northern nations will be hit hard by environmental change. Investment in

we also need to focus our best minds on

innovations both social and technological to provide solutions that are
cognizant of the complex interconnections and cascading global effects that
must somehow be managed.
resilient infrastructure will be necessary to adapt. But

Cooperative, international action is necessary to avert 4

degrees of warming
Schellnhuber 12 PhD in theoretical physics, advisor to the President of
the EU Commission, Lead analyst at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research and Climate Analytics
(Joachim, et al, Contributors to the World Bank report: Turn Down the Heat:
Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided, International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development)
A 4C world will pose unprecedented challenges to humanity. It
is clear that large regional as well as global scale damages and risks are
very likely to occur well before this level of warming is reached. This
report has attempted to identify the scope of these challenges driven by
responses of the Earth system and various human and natural systems.
Although no quantification of the full scale of human damage is yet
possible, the picture that emerges challenges an often-implicit
assumption that climate change will not significantly undermine
economic growth.15 It seems clear that climate change in a 4C world
could seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions.
This is supported by past observations of the negative effects of climate
change on economic growth in developing countries. While developed
countries have been and are projected to be adversely affected by
impacts resulting from climate change, adaptive capacities in
developing regions are weaker. The burden of climate change in the
future will very likely be borne differentially by those in regions already
highly vulnerable to climate change and variability. Given that it

remains uncertain whether adaptation and further progress

toward devel- opment goals will be possible at this level of
climate change, the projected 4C warming simply must not be
allowed to occurthe heat must be turned down. Only early ,
cooperative , international actions can make that happen.

Thats a critical threshold4 degree projections trigger a

laundry list of extinction scenarios
Roberts 13citing the World Bank Reviews compilation of
climate studies
- 4 degree projected warming, cant adapt
- heat wave related deaths, forest fires, crop production, water wars, ocean
acidity, sea level rise, climate migrants, biodiversity loss
David, If you arent alarmed about climate, you arent paying attention
[http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/] January
10 //mtc
We know weve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees
C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict
catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are
currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4
degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4
degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us.
First, itll get hot: Projections for a 4C world show a dramatic
increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature
extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are
likely to become the new normal summer in a 4C world. Tropical
South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the
Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of
unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new hightemperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be
substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th
century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle
East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be
warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For
example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9C
warmer than todays warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent
years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths,
forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat
waves projected for a 4C world have not been evaluated, but they
could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences
experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive
capacities of many societies and natural systems. [my emphasis]

Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to an increase of about

150 percent in acidity of the ocean, leading to levels of acidity
unparalleled in Earths history. Thats bad news for, say, coral
reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean
acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs
even at 1.5C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral
reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4C is reached, would
have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the
people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline
protection. It will also likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1
meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be
realized in the coming centuries. That rise wont be spread evenly,
even within regions and countries regions close to the equator will
see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would
significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many
regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East,
and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly
confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population
growth. Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will
be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as
forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use
and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as
double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5C to 2C above
preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe
in a 4C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services:
In a 4C world, climate change seems likely to become the
dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat
destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent
research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely
to occur in a 4C world, with climate change and high CO2
concentration driving a transition of the Earths ecosystems into
a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would
be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services
on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of
coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also
indicates a rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the
world warms. So food will be tough. All this will add up to largescale displacement of populations and have adverse
consequences for human security and economic and trade
systems. Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, there
is no certainty that adaptation to a 4C world is possible .
Theres a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization
breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios
show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a level of
devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive.

Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we dont
know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will
be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible
for centuries to come. That would mean handing our
grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic,
denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable
with every passing decade.

Warming is anthropogenic massive scientific consensus

with methodologically sound studies prove it
Plait 13
(Phil; New study; Climate scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming is
Real and Our Fault; May 17;
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_clima
te_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html)
has just come out that looked at nearly 12,000 professional
scientific journal papers about global warming, and found thatof the papers
expressing a stance on global warming97 percent endorse both the reality
of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it. Ninety-seven
percent. Thats what we call a consensus, folks. The study was clever.
They found the papers by searching on the terms global warming and
global climate change. Once they compiled the list of papers, they looked
at the abstracts (a short summary of the results scientists put at the top of
their papers) to see if the paper itself talked about the causes of global
warming. About 4000 of the papers did so. That may seem like a smallish
fraction, but most papers analyze measurements and climate effects, not the
cause of global warming (like most astronomical papers on, say, galaxies
dont discuss how galaxies form, but focus on their structure, content, and so
onalso, because there is such a strong consensus on warming, scientists
don't generally feel the need to state the obvious in their abstracts).
Examining those 4000 papers, the study authors determined that 97.1
percent of them endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global
warming. And heres where they did the clever bit: They contacted 8500
authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers.
They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same
criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the
consensus. Thats a remarkable agreement! And its no surprise. There have
been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one
is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that its so
robust. So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct
climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say
humans are the cause of global warming. There is essentially no controversy
among actual climate scientists about this. Of course, if you read the Wall
Street Journal or the contrarian blogs, you might think the controversy among
scientists is bigger. But youll find that the vast majority of people writing
A new study

those articles, or who are quoted in them, are not climatologists. Youll also
find many, including politicians so vocally denying global warming, are
heavily funded by fossil fuel interests, or lead institutes funded that way.
Because deniers tend to go to the OpEd pages and TV, rather than science
journals, the public perception is skewed in their favor; people think this is a
bigger controversy than it is. The only controversy here is a manufactured
one; made up by people who are basing it on ideology, not facts, evidence,
and science. Thats not just my opinion; that statement itself is backed up
byfacts, evidence, and science. Global warming is real. Climate change is
happening. Carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, and is at a higher level
than it has been for the past three million years. That carbon dioxide is
increasingly heating us up: we are warming at a rate faster than in
the past 11,000 years, and most likely far longer than that. And its our
fault. Its well past time we do something about it, and we need to get past
this false controversy. For more information, go to The Consensus Project, and
see what we can do about it.

US Key
Establishing Arctic policies reinforces multilateral
institutions.
Higginbotham et al 12 senior distinguished fellow at Carleton
University
(John, Andrea Charron, is assistant professor in political studies at the
University of Manitoba. She is also a research associate at Carleton
Universitys Centre for Security and Defence Studies at the Norman
Paterson School of International Affairs (NPSIA), where she was a
postdoctoral fellow. and James Manicom, a research fellow at The Centre for
International Governance Innovation (CIGI), contributing to the
development of the global security program. Previously, he held fellowships
at the Ocean Policy Research Foundation in Tokyo and the Balsillie School
of International Affairs, Canada-US Arctic Marine Corridors and Resource
Development, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Policy Brief,
No. 24, November 2012,
https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no24v4.pdf)
As the Arctic Oceans sea ice continues to melt, developing the North
American Arctics marine, resource and community potential is a clear
imperative for both Canada and the United States. Such development will
require an intense and focused effort in multi-level domestic and binational
governance. At the same time, a dramatic gap in leadership and
infrastructure is emerging between North America on one side, and Russia
and Scandinavia on the other, in maritime transport facilitation, search and
rescue facilities, port infrastructure and resource development priority in
the Arctic Ocean. The lack of progress in developing public-private
infrastructure in the North American Arctic is the product of a well-intended
but complex and incoherent governance structure in the North American
Arctic. The organizational structure of the two North American governments
means that national responsibility for the Arctic is fragmented among
numerous federal agencies and departments, all of which face budget
pressures and are mostly preoccupied with southernbased issues. The
economic development potential of the Canadian territories and Alaska is
not yet fully understood by Ottawa and Washington. New business
opportunities in the Canadian and American Arctic regions could contribute
directly to local, regional and national economic growth. Leaders in both
Alaska and the Canadian territories have expressed frustration with the lack
of national strategic vision, resources and divided accountability in
southern capitals. While northern governments have local knowledge and
public trust, and are working to strengthen their capacities in the maritime
field, they have limited authority and face complex jurisdictional issues.
Given their budgetary and capability constraints, northern municipal
governments, including Aboriginal communities, are struggling to provide
adequate services to their people and need the solid economic development

that comes with better public infrastructure, private investment and

economic activity. A coherent, multi-layered, binational Arctic governance
strategy would not only accelerate resource and transportation
development in the Arctic of each country, but would give greater substance
to the work of international governance institutions such as the Arctic
Council. Valuable work is already underway at several multilateral
organizations: the Arctic Council, which Canada and the United States will
sequentially chair beginning in 2013; the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which
the Canadian chapter will chair beginning in 2014; and the United Nations
International Maritime Organization. But multilateral diplomacy is complex:
the players and interests are many, and progress is often slow.

Thats key to combatting climate changeSahlin, 14. Mona, Arctic Journal, July 23.
http://arcticjournal.com/opinion/822/melting-arctic-problem-all-us
The Arctic is melting. The world would have been struck by panic long time
ago if the thickness and extent of sea ice were economic indicators. The
seven summers with the lowest levels of Arctic sea ice have all occurred in
the past seven years. As much as 75 percent of the Arctic ice volume has
disappeared in just one generation. The effects of climate change in the
Arctic can be seen far from the pole. Flood prone coastal cities have already
some of the consequences of rising sea levels. Many small island states are in
danger of disappearing all together. The Arctic countries have a
responsibility and a real opportunity to protect the environment and influence
the future of billions of people across the world. The Arctic plays a central role
in the ongoing climatic changes, changes that to a large extent is caused by
burning of fossil fuels. The cold Arctic impacts the climate on the rest of the
planet. Sea ice cools the earth by reflecting the energy from the sun.
Permafrost keeps vast amounts of the potent greenhouse gas methane
locked in the ground. The Greenlandic ice sheets store water that otherwise
would increase sea levels. A warmer Arctic would change all this and more.
Warmer oceans also fuel more powerful weather events across the globe. It
impacts fish stocks and alter marine ecosystems. The distribution of the
important cod and mackerel fisheries in the north Atlantic have already
changed. These fisheries are already some of the best regulated in the world,
but will be subject to increased pressures as temperatures rise. We therefore
urge the Arctic states and international community to better protect these
valuable fisheries, especially in previously untouched Arctic waters. The
Arctic is the least protected region on earth, despite its importance and
vulnerability. There is no organised network of protected areas and less than
1 percent of the ice covered northern ocean is protected. It is possible to sail
an old, rusty oil tanker through the sea ice or drill for oil in Arctic waters. That
is not acceptable in such a unique and vulnerable environment.

Internals
Arctic warming will lead to more warming throughout the
world
NEAQ 08, Climate change and the oceans
http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_cha
nge_and_the_oceans.php
climate change in the Polar
region is expected to be some of the largest and most rapid, and will cause
major physical, ecological, sociological, and economic impacts , especially in the
Arctic, Antarctic Peninsula, and Southern Ocean. In the Arctic, warming is occurring faster
than the global mean. From 1978 to 2004, perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic declined by 7.8
According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report (2005),

percent each decade. If these trends continue, late-summer sea ice could disappear from the Arctic as

Due to its light color, Arctic sea ice reflects most of the
sunlight that reaches it back into space. In contrast, dark ocean water
absorbs most of the sunlight. As sea ice continues melting, it can cause
further warming, leading to more ice melt and reinforcing the melting cycle . As
early as early as 2030.

summer melt increases, wintertime recovery becomes more difficult.

Arctic protection is key to solve warming

Brende, 14 http://www.grida.no/publications/et/pt/page/2573.aspx,
The Arctic is a vulnerable region in an ecological respect and has become increasingly exposed
to the effects of industrial and agricultural activities worldwide. Wind, precipitation and

protecting the environment of

the Arctic is an international obligation. By Brge Brende Already, emissions of
currents carry pollution to the Arctic region. Thus,

mercury from coal burning in other parts of the world affect flora and fauna in the Arctic. Specifically,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), a mixture of industrial chemicals, are thought to have severe impact on
the animals immune and hormone systems and their reproductive abilities. In the Norwegian Arctic, polar
bears with genital characteristics resembling both sexes have been found. We also see negative effects
from other contaminants on seals, seabirds and white whales .

The Arctic is of special interest

as indications suggest that the effects of climate change will appear here
first. Due to the fragility of the Arctic ecosystem, climate change may lead to
profound negative consequences for the biological diversity. Many scientists
warn that climate warming in the Arctic will have effects which extend far
beyond the region, as changes in ice cover and deep water circulation will
affect global climate patterns. The Arctic may serve as a window for future
climate changes, as well as forewarning of possible regional and global
consequences of these changes. Although large parts of the Arctic environment are relatively
undisturbed, the threat it faces are intensifying and spreading within the area itself. Economic and other
demands on the Arctic and its resources are increasing. Petroleum and mineral development, tourism,
shipping, hydroelectric dams and commercial fishing are among the activities with large potential and
actual impact. The Arctic can easily become a waste bucket, if we dont take action to counteract negative
trends. What can we do to save the Arctic? First we need to monitor and understand the environmental
changes that are taking place over time in the region. The precautionary principle must be the guiding
principle. The global nature of these challenges calls for the widest possible co-operation by all countries.
The Kyoto Protocol is an important first step to address climate change, but ultimately we need a broader
global and political response to combat the challenges of climate change. There is also a need to increase
our understanding of the potential impacts of climate change in the Arctic. In this respect, Norway

participates actively in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Cooperation (ACIA), which was started by the
Arctic Council in 2000 and will present its findings in 2004. According to the Director of NASA, Mr Sean
OKeefe, Svalbard has become the worlds most important monitoring and research station with regard to

to the fact is that early effects on the global

eco-system can be detected at these islands, and in the Arctic. Norway has a specific
the environment. This assertation is due

obligation related to the Svalbard Treaty. Through tight regulations of the islands wild and unspoiled
nature, we try to keep this part of the Arctic as a window to better understanding of the global
environment.

The arctic has direct correlation with global warming

Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment 04 , GreenFacts 2004. Arctic Climate Change
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arctic-climate-change/l-3/3-sea-level-rise.htm

The Arctic exerts a special influence over global climate.

Integrated over the year, incoming energy

from the sun is greatest near the equator and smallest near the poles. Further, because much of the Arctic is covered with snow and ice, a larger fraction of the incoming
solar energy is reflected back to space than at lower latitudes, which absorb most of this energy. If not for the atmosphere and oceans moving energy from the tropics to

. In the Northern Hemisphere, the

Atlantic Ocean is the major carrier of the oceanic component of this energy
transfer, and as explained below, arctic processes have the potential to have
major impacts on the strength of the Atlantic Ocean's circulation.There are three major
mechanisms, or so-called feedbacks, by which arctic processes can cause additional climate
change for the planet. One involves changes in the reflectivity of the surface
as snow and ice melt and vegetation cover changes, the second involves
changes to ocean circulation as arctic ice melts, adding freshwater to the
oceans, and the third involves changes in the amounts of greenhouse
gases emitted to theatmosphere from the land as warming progresses.
the poles, the tropics would overheat and the polar regions would be much colder than they are

Arctic warming leads to irreversible impacts; protection is

key
Miller, 13 http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/, NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory

In early May 2013, sensors atop a research facility perched on Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa recorded a

The average daily level of carbon dioxide in the air had reached
a concentration above 400 parts per milliona level that hasnt been seen
since around 3 to 5 million years ago, well before humans roamed the Earth. Human burning
sobering statistic.

of fossil fuels continues to increase the amount of carbon, a potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas, in our

our planet is warming, and that warming is pushing Earth

systems past critical points. This is especially true within the icy realm of the
Arctic, in the northernmost polar region of the planet, where the effects of
climate change are expected to be most exaggerated [1] and have the
biggest impact (see sidebar). NASA scientists and others around the world are tracking these
profound changes and trying to understand what the future may hold. In some cases , Arctic systems
may be reaching tipping points [2]critical moments in time where a small
change has large, potentially irreversible impacts (see sidebar). Examples of tipping
atmosphere. As a result,

points include the melting of permafrost in the Alaskan tundra and the
acidification of the oceans. In other cases, where it may be difficult to quantify a particular
tipping point, whole systems are racing toward dramatic transformations, such as the melting of sea ice
and the decay of the Greenland ice sheet. The changes are dramatic, said Ron Kwok, a senior research
scientist at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It is indisputable that sea level rise, disappearing sea ice,
melting ice sheets and other changes are happening. Its a call to action in terms of understanding and

Eighty-one percent of Greenland, which is located mostly inside the

Arctic Circle and is the worlds largest island, is covered by ice . Today, that ice
is melting. The rate at which Greenland is dumping ice and water into the ocean is not just
mitigation.

surprisingly high, it keeps getting higher, said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Earth Science &
Observation Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Chief Scientist at NASA from 2011 to

This melting could have significant planetary consequences: Greenland

holds so much ice that if it were all to melt, sea level would rise an
astounding 23 feet (7 meters). Nobody really thinks it is all going to go away in the next few
2012.

centuries, but the question is, how much of that 23 feet will spill into ocean? Will it be five feet or just six
inches? Abdalati said. This answer

has serious implications for society all over the

world. Indeed, some scientists think the lower limit of five feet of sea level rise is too conservative.
About one in 10 people (more than 600 million people) live in low-lying coastal areas
that are less than 30 feet (9 meters) above sea level [3]. Two thirds of the worlds
largest cities are located at least partly in these low-lying regions. So sea level rise has the
capacity to affect huge swathes of people, most likely in poorer and
developing nations.

Arctic ice melt leads to accelerated warming, data proves

Wunderground, 16 https://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp?
MR=1
In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the
globe, and could increase by another 8C (14F) by the end of this century.
The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is
causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate12% per decadethat
suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice
cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced
global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.
The primary role that sea ice plays in global climate its ability to efficiently
reflect the Sun's radiation. This property is called "albedo," the measure of
the reflecting power of a surface. The albedo of snow-covered sea ice is 0.90,
meaning it reflects 90% of the Sun's radiation. Just like wearing a white
shirt will keep you cool when you're out in the Sun, the sea ice covering the
Arctic keeps the thermostat low. The ocean surface, however, is almost black,
and it only reflects 10%, meaning it absorbs 90%. After something absorbs
sunlight, it emits heat. Less sea ice and more ocean surface will lead to a
warmer Arctic, and a warmer climate

Climate change in the Arctic will have effects across the

planet
ACIA 04 Impacts of a Warming Arctic http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arcticclimate-change/l-3/3-sea-level-rise.htm#5p0
Climate-related changes in arctic ecosystems will not just have

consequences for local

people and other living things that depend on these systems for food, habitat, and other goods and

have impacts at the global level because of the many linkages

between the Arctic and regions further south . Many species from around the world depend
services, but will

on summer breeding and feeding grounds in the Arctic, and climate changewill alter some of these
habitats significantly.

For example, several hundred million birds migrate to the Arctic each summer
and their success in the Arctic determines their populations at lower
latitudes. Important breeding and nesting areas are projected to decrease
sharply as treeline advances northward, encroaching on tundra, and because
the timing of bird arrival in the Arctic might no longer coincide with the
availability of their insect food sources. At the same time, sea-level rise will
erode tundra extent from the north in many areas, further shrinking
important habitatfor many living things. A number of bird species, including
several globally endangered seabird species, are projected to lose more than
50% of their breeding area during this century.

Impact
Global warming leads to extinction
Oliver Tickell, Climate Researcher, 8/11/2008, On a planet 4C hotter, all
we can prepare for is extinction, The Guardian, Proquest
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and
dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that
Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of
our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level

rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport
and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography
would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the
Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent
and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions
would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King,
who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a
remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the

summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea,
and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane
a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting
permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about
5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical
forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered
other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming

caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Solvency

Generics
A sustained commitment of US leadership is key to
spearhead prevention, containment, and accident
response measures in the ArcticEbinger et al 14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute,
Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S.,
March 24, 2014,
Climate change is contributing to unprecedented changes in the Arctic. As
the ice melts further and hydrocarbon exploration and development move
into more ice-infested waters, new regulatory approaches will be needed,
including the adoption of Arctic-specific standards and the implementation of
systems, infrastructure, and resource sharing arrangements to strengthen oil
spill prevention, containment, and response. Despite much debate over how
this is best accomplished, there is broad consensus that the prospect of
much of the Arctic opening up for commercial development on a scale
scarcely recognized a few decades ago poses major challenges.
Environmental challenges on the local, regional, and international levels and
associated risks, especially to indigenous communities, must be managed
through strengthening the existing offshore governance regime. This policy
brief is designed to inform the legislative and executive branches of the U.S.
government of the current state of offshore oil and gas governance in the
Arctic, the need to strengthen this governance, possible avenues for doing
so, and the leadership opportunities available in its chairmanship of the
Arctic Council. The brief is intended to highlight that the responsibilities and
challenges the U.S. will assume in this role cannot be met with current
policies. Rather, proper leadership will require a sustained commitment of
financial and institutional resources to move forward efforts to improve the
prevention, containment, and response to accidents in the Arctic. Congress
has the responsibility to understand the importance of establishing strong
offshore governance in this region as a national security priority. Even if
offshore oil and gas activities in the region take decades to come online at
commercial scale, tourism, fishing, and transportation will continue to drive
economic development in the Arctic. Hydrocarbon activity is sure to follow
this path once paved. When it does, it is critical that proper oil spill
prevention, response, and management regimes are in place to avoid
environmental devastation. In preparing for its chairmanship of the Arctic
Council, the U.S. government must not only recognize the opportunity it has
to spearhead these efforts but also to embrace them, pushing forward on
initiatives such as those recommended in this policy brief.

Only the US can establish high standards and collaborate

to implement them with the necessary information
sharing and technology to sustain the Arctic.
Ebinger et al 14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute,
Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S.,
March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshoreoil-gas-governance-arctic
There is considerable room for better communication, coordination, and
information sharing amongst a wide array of institutions, conventions, and
treaties relevant to Arctic oil and gas. Networks, exchanges and other peerto-peer mechanisms on a multilateral and bilateral basis, as well as industry
collaborative efforts, have been in place for many years throughout the
Arctic, and they work. Moreover, there are precedents in other regions and
sectors that provide workable models for how to implement networks that
enhance the regulation of offshore activity in the Arctic (for example, in
fisheries and law enforcement). One clear benefit of the networking
approach is that it helps fill gaps in knowledge by sharing lessons and
experience. There is also widespread consensus on the value of and need
for expanding this concept. The networking approach also allows more
entrees for the private sector into the processa pressing need that we
heard in a number of our research discussions. The U.S. government must
decide if it is an Arctic nation or not and what our vital interests in the
region are.4 Based on our analysis and conclusions, we believe that it is in
the U.S. national interest to lead in strengthening the Arctic offshore oil and
gas governance regime. The cornerstone of U.S. leadership should be
enhancing oil spill prevention, control and response through the
development of Arctic-specific standards and resource sharing arrangements
to ensure adequate standards, procedures, financial resources, equipment,
and infrastructure are in place and available. This policy approach supports
important objectives of the U.S. National Arctic Strategy to strengthen
international cooperation and promote Arctic oil pollution preparedness,
prevention and response. It also addresses U.S. obligations to meet the
Arctic Councils Kiruna Declaration to develop effective ways to implement
the Arctic Oil Pollution Agreementnamely, to encourage future national,
bi-national, and multinational contingency plans, training and exercises, and
to develop effective response measures.

Plan creates a new political discourse necessary for Arctic

developmentYoung, Research Professor of Environmental Policy and Institutions at the
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, 13

[Oran R., 1/7/2013, Ethics and International Affairs, Arctic Stewardship:

Maintaining Regional Resilience in an Era of Global Change [Full Text],
http://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2013/arctic-stewardshipmaintaining-regional-resilience-in-an-era-of-global-change/.
Climate change, globalization, and the actions of multinational corporations
are major determinants of both social welfare and the status of ecosystems in
the Arctic. But this does not mean that the region is fated to be a helpless
victim of these forces. There is much to be said for developing a discourse of
Arctic stewardship in response to this situation, a way of thinking that
emphasizes the identification of actionable harms and appropriate
respondents, the development of realistic remedies, and the establishment of
mechanisms designed to administer these remedies in a manner that Arctic
residents regard as legitimate. Among the measures that seem particularly
timely are the development of improved systems for monitoring, reporting,
and verification needed to provide documentation regarding actionable
harms, and enhanced procedures for prevention, preparedness, and response
to minimize the dangers of such undesirable occurrences as oil spills.
Succinctly, what we need are safeguards capable of minimizing the threats to
socio-ecological systems in the Arctic, providing early warning when things do
start to go wrong, and establishing rapid response capabilities to address the
resultant harms. It is in this middle ground between unregulated
development on the one hand and the more restrictive precepts of biocentric
preservationism on the other that the discourse of Arctic stewardship can
flourish.

Only the plan can coalition build and set the highest
Arctic standardsSullivan 12 Commissioner of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources
& Fmr. St. Atty. General
It's time to develop our Arctic resources, Dan Sullivan, Special to CNN, Fri July
20, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/sullivan-arctic-drilling/index.html
(CNN) -- The United States is on the verge of an energy renaissance. We need to
recognize and seize the opportunity. This renaissance involves domestic production of natural resources
ranging from clean renewables to hydrocarbons. In particular, domestic hydrocarbon production -- both oil and gas -- is increasing
dramatically, with some experts predicting that the United States could become the largest hydrocarbon producer in the word -- outstripping
Saudi Arabia and Russia -- by 2020. Increased domestic production of hydrocarbons is driven by two trends. First, new technology is
unlocking unconventional resources such as shale-derived oil and gas. And second, investors and policy makers are recognizing that the U.S.
still has an enormous resource base of conventional oil and gas, particularly in Alaska. Federal agencies estimate that Alaska's North Slope
and federal waters off Alaska's northern coast contain approximately 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and more than 200 trillion
cubic feet of conventional gas. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this region contains more oil than any comparable region located in
the Arctic, including northern Russia. However, the United States is lagging behind its Arctic neighbors in developing these resources. This is

we should be setting the

bar for Arctic development. Developing our Arctic resources will promote our nation's interests in many ways:
unfortunate, because we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world and

securing a politically stable, long-term supply of domestic energy; boosting U.S. economic growth and jobs; reducing the federal trade deficit;
and strengthening our global leadership on energy issues. Leading academic researchers and economists in Alaska have estimated that oil
production from Alaska's outer continental shelf will bring federal revenues of approximately $167 billion over 50 years, and create 55,000
jobs throughout the country. Developing U.S. resources in the Arctic has the added benefit of enhancing global environmental protection.
One of the arguments used by Arctic drilling opponents is that "we aren't ready," but it is obvious that no matter what preparations are made,
they will argue that it isn't enough. Shell, for example, has spent billions to prepare for drilling in the Arctic this summer, incorporating the
lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, state-of-the-art equipment and extensive scientific research. Recently,

The U.S. has created some of

the highest standards in the world for environmental protection. When we delay or disallow
the Obama administration has publically expressed its confidence in the company's drilling plans.

responsible resource development, the end result is not to protect the environment, but to drive hydrocarbon investment and production to
countries with much lower environmental standards and enforcement capacity. Last year, it was reported that between 5 million and 20
million tons of oil leak in Russia per year. This is equivalent to a Deepwater Horizon blowout about every two months. Russia had an estimated
18,000 oil pipeline ruptures in 2010 -- the figure for the U.S. that year was 341. If we do not pursue responsible development in the Arctic,
countries such as Russia -- perhaps even China, which is interested in securing access to Arctic hydrocarbon resources -- will dominate energy

By embracing the opportunities in

the Arctic, the United States will show the world that it can be a strong leader in
responsible energy development.
production from the Arctic. Such a scenario does not bode well for the global environment.

Says Yes
same time, Kerry sought to highlight how stronger ties with China allowed the two sides to move past areas of dispute. We do have some
differences but what we did over the last two days was professionally, respectfully, I think thoughtfully articulate those differences and agreed
on ways in which we can try to find progress, Kerry said.

China says yes wants to be known as an environmental

partner in the ArcticMcDonald, 16. Adam, Independent researcher and contributor to the
East Asian Forum, March 16. Is Chinas Arctic strategy really that chilling?
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/03/16/is-chinas-arctic-strategy-really-thatchilling/
As climatic and environmental changes increase the accessibility of the Arctic ,
opening up the possibility of shorter shipping lanes and the ability to tap into large natural resource deposits, states within the region and beyond are
beginning to look north. A Chinese paramilitary police officer stands guard as the Xue Long (Snow Dragon) icebreaker carrying Chinese
scientists during their thirtieth Antarctic expedition leaves the polar expedition base dock in Shanghai, China, 7 November 2013. (Photo: AAP). In this context, the Arctic is
often portrayed as destined to become consumed by a resource war, as the entrance of outside players including China and India upends regional peace and
stability. In their scramble for resources, the argument goes, Asian giants will contest the legitimacy and authority of the Arctic states to play the pre-eminent role in

China is the most vocal of all

external actors in justifying the involvement of non-Arctic states in the region. This is based in Chinas
assessment that the region is linked into a number of important global
political, economic and environmental issues that affect the international
system beyond the Arctic arena. Beijing also sees itself as a Near Arctic State with a legitimate role to play in the region. And it possesses
both the resources and the will to invest significantly across scientific,
economic and political fields. China does not have an official Arctic policy, as the region is still of low importance within their broader
foreign policy strategy. But the Arctic is an area of long-term interest to China , and Chinese leaders have begun
governing the region. So, looking ahead, what role can we expect China to play in the Arctic?

to formulate a regional strategy. Chinese academia, media and the military have also become more vocal and engaged in this debate. As Beijing slowly but noticeably
begins to strengthen its relationship with the region, there is a growing narrative that China is playing the long game. In this view, China is seeking to emphasise its
legitimacy as a stakeholder to establish a foothold in regional governance arrangements in order to eventually challenge the pre-eminent role of the Arctic states and their
sovereign rights. Chinas desire to secure access to regional shipping lanes and resources is currently manifested through political and economic manoeuvring. But some
commentators believe that China may become more brazen in its endeavours in the future, including possible military deployments in the North. Much of these
commentaries are speculative at best. They largely ignore the pathways and processes through which Chinas Arctic endeavours have evolved. These arguments do not
specify how and why China constitutes a threat to the region. They instead derive from the overly simplistic assertive China narratives that have become dominant in
Western analyses of Chinese foreign policy. Clearly China is actively trying to alter the power dynamics in East Asia. But it is premature to talk of a revisionist challenge to
the international system writ large guiding the entirety of Beijings foreign engagements across the globe, including the Arctic. Despite the absence of a formal policy,
there are three lines of engagement scientific research, bilateral economic relations and participation in regional governance which form the basis of Beijings Arctic

Chinas Arctic engagements

originate from and are still dominated by scientific research projects aimed at
building partnerships with many Arctic countries to further climatic and
environmental research. Some commentators are quick to dismiss Beijings scientific endeavours as camouflaging other political goals. But the
interactions. These help provide insights into Chinas underlying aspirations in the region.

massive environmental and climate change challenges China confronts should not be dismissed. These challenges motivate much of their scientific and climate work
internationally. While Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa remain priority regions for Chinas resource acquisition, the Arctic states particularly the Nordic countries
are developing more robust resource development projects with China. Although, these projects have not been without their challenges. In Greenland, for example, there
have been local anxieties over possible Chinese dominance in the economy. China has also made inroads into both the Canadian and Russian energy markets, particularly
the latter as Moscow has been left short of capital and partners for Arctic resource development following their annexation of Crimea. Despite some concerns, Chinas
ability and willingness to invest significantly in the region, despite the possibility that it will be decades before development generates profitable returns, is perhaps the
most important factor motivating Arctic stakeholders to engage with Beijing.

China says yes to scientific cooperation- empirics prove.

Pan, 16. Min, author and contributor to Marine Policy and Center for Polar
and Oceanic Studies, Tong Ji University, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China,
January edition. A precautionary approach to fisheries in the Central Arctic
Ocean: Policy, science, and China.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002997
China is a near-Arctic nation [12] ; what happens in the Arctic increasingly
has great impacts on China, and vice versa . Climate change in the Arctic can affect China's weather, which in turn may
have great impacts on China's agricultural production and living conditions [13] . The opening and commercial use of Arctic ship- ping routes also have great potential
impacts on China's economic development and trade [13] . The development of Arctic mineral and petroleum resources is of great interest to China, as a major consumer
of raw materials and producer of manufactured goods [14] .

China has a long history of participation in the

Arctic. China signed the Svalbard Treaty in 1925, and opened the Huang He research station there in Ny-lesund in 2004 [15] , an icon of what Chinese scholar Kai
Sun has called China's substantive presence in the Arctic. China has conducted six scienti fi c expeditions in
the Arctic since 1999, and in 2012 committed to making these voyages every two years. In August 2012, Chinese scientists aboard the icebreaker Xuelong
(Snow Dragon) completed the country's fi rst trans-Arctic voyage from Shanghai to Iceland [16] . The goals of China's scienti fi c expeditions to the Arctic include

scientists have also contributed to

Arctic research through various conferences and collaborations, such as the
Sino-Russia Arctic Forum (established in 2012), China-Nordic Arctic Coopera- tion Symposium (2013), and Sino-U.S. Arctic Social
Science Forum (2015). China has realized from the beginning that
cooperation with the Arctic states is the preferred path for China's
participation in Arctic matters [17] . In 2012, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao
visited Iceland and signed deals with Iceland for Arctic and marine sci- enti fi
c cooperation, and also agreements on trade, joint business ventures, and so
on [18] . The same year, President Hu Jintao visited Denmark to consolidate
and strengthen friendly cooperation be- tween the two countries, including in
the Arctic [19] . Those all paved the way for China's acceptance in the Arctic
Council (a re- gional intergovernmental organization) as an observer in 2013,
which it had sought since 2008 [15] . China has also been investing in Arctic
areas. For example, in March 2015 China provided US$15 billion to contribute to the fi - nancing of a US$27-billion lique fi ed natural gas (LNG) plant on Russia's
environmental concerns, aurora observations, and marine biological research. Social

Yamal Peninsula, in cooperation with the Russian natural gas producer Novatek [20] . A Chinese company attempted a co- operative project with UK-based London Mining
to develop the Isua iron ore mine in Greenland, but this failed when London Mining went bankrupt after iron ore prices plunged in 2014. However, the Chinese company
retains the exploration rights for Isua as it acquired London Mining's subsidiary in Greenland. In 2015, General Nice Group, a Chinese private trading company, took over a
large iron ore mine in Greenland, which was reported to be worth around US$2 billion [21] . Chinese companies are also in- terested in investing in local infrastructure in
the Arctic [22]

China says yes- wants cooperative role in the Arctic.

Hoff, 16. Rachel, Director of Defense analysis for the American Action
Forum, Jan 5. A Weak Arctic Posture Threatens Americas Ability to Lead.
http://www.americanactionforum.org/research/a-weak-arctic-posturethreatens-americas-ability-to-lead/
China sees the Arctic as a critical source
the country advocates for
peaceful cooperation with Arctic nations
in
order to advance its cooperative agenda
It also works with international partners
As a rising geopolitical power and the worlds largest energy consumer,

for gaining access to natural

resources and economical shipping routes. Having previously taken a more aggressive tone against notions of Arctic sovereignty,

now

. China is currently conducting a five-year assessment of polar resources and governance

. Through its Arctic Research Center in Shanghai, China collaborates with Nordic nations on scientific

research.

at the Chinese Arctic Yellow River Station in Norway. China further cooperates with Arctic

nations by participating in both bilateral and multilateral scientific missions. It currently operates the Xuelong (Snow Dragon) light research icebreaker, which conducted a trans-Arctic voyage from Shanghai to

and is building
China is also a member or observer of numerous Arctic-related
regional associations and multilateral organizations. Most recently, it was
admitted to the Arctic Council
as an observer nation
Iceland in August 2012,

a second, more advanced research icebreaker that is expected to enter into service in 2016. China claims these assets will primarily be used for

Arctic scientific research.

(which the United States currently chairs)

. The Chinese are expected

to continue advocating for their status as a self-described near-Arctic nation in these multilateral forums, despite being nearly 1,000 miles away from the Arctic Circle at its closest border.

Says yes- wants a constructive Arctic role.

Xinhua News, 11.2.14 China seeks pragmatic cooperation with Arctic
countries.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-11/02/c_133759443.htm
China is exploring the best ways and areas to participate and play a
constructive role in Arctic affairs
still

, said a Chinese official here Saturday. Addressing a report session of the current Arctic Circle Assembly, Jia Guide, Deputy

Director General of Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said China's engagement in the Arctic is still in its early stage, and it is still exploring the best ways and areas to participate and
play a constructive role in Arctic affairs. Describing it as an ice-breaking journey, Jia said that

China is ready to have pragmatic

cooperation with Arctic countries

in a multi-level and wide-ranging manner

. Referring to China-Nordic Arctic cooperation, Jia said China's engagement in the Arctic is closely related to those of the

Nordic countries. In recent years, China-Nordic Arctic cooperation has advanced

, he said. China has

close communication and coordination with Nordic countries in the Arctic Council in terms of political cooperation, he said, noting frequent interactions and close cooperation between the research institutes and
experts of both sides have brought forth a number of important achievements in terms of scientific cooperation. Recently, he said, China-Nordic Arctic cooperation is increasingly expanding from research areas to
shipbuilding, shipping and resource development. As a near Arctic state, he said China is affected in a major way by the natural changes, economic developments and social changes in the Arctic, as reflected in
China's climate, ecological environment, agricultural production as well as social and economic development. Therefore, China has growing interest in Arctic affairs in recent years. "With the accelerated melting of

China is
ready to further strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation with all Arctic
countries in relevant fields
promoting sustainable
development
ice and snow in the Arctic," he said, China begins to pay attention to the potential profound impact that may be brought by opening Arctic shipping lanes and developing the Arctic.

, and contribute to tackling the trans-regional challenge in the Arctic and

of the Arctic. China-Nordic Arctic cooperation is part of this exploration and an example, he said, when the cooperation deepens with time, fact will speak for itself that, in Arctic,

"we come in peace, we come with goodwill, and we come for cooperation."

China's participation in Arctic affairs on basis of respect,

cooperation
Xinhua, Chinese News Agency 15
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-10/17/c_134721678.htm
REYKJAVIK, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) -- China's

participation in Arctic affairs has always been guided by

three principles: respect, cooperation and win-win, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Friday.
Addressing the opening of the three-day Arctic Circle Assembly in a video message, Wang said China was an important stakeholder in
the Arctic. A high-level

Chinese delegation, headed by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang

Ming, attended the assembly and hosted a country session themed "China's contribution". Describing China as a
"near-Arctic state," Zhang said the changing natural environment and resources
exploration of the Arctic have a direct impact on China's climate, environment,
agriculture, shipping, trade as well as social and economic development. "Therefore,
China is a major stakeholder in the Arctic," Zhang said. China started to turn its eyes to
the Arctic as early as 90 years ago. In 1925, it acceded to the Svalbard Treaty, which marked the beginning of China's
participation in Arctic affairs. Since the 1990s, China's involvement in Arctic activities has been
expanding both in depth and breadth. Elaborating on China's Arctic activities and specific policies regarding Arctic
issues, Zhang said: "What has happened shows that China is a constructive participant in and
partner of cooperation in Arctic affairs." "Going forward, China is willing and able to
make even greater contribution to the sustainable development of the Arctic." The
Chinese delegation presented China's practices in scientific research, shipping, oil and
gas exploration as well as research on climate change in the Arctic during the country
session. A photo exhibition named "China and the Arctic" was launched at the Assembly. The Arctic Circle Assembly was founded
in 2013 at the initiative of President of Iceland Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, former prime minister of Greenland Kuupik Kleist, and
Alaska Dispatch Publisher Alice Rogoff. The annual event is regarded as one of the largest international gatherings concerning the
Arctic, drawing 1,500 participants from more than 50 countries and regions this year.

Chinas intentions in the arctic region are peaceful and

China is adhering to the arctic governance
Adam Macdonald March 24, 2016
Adam Macdonald is an independent scholar on Canadian Foreign Policy and
Asia-Pacific Security
http://cimsec.org/chinas-arctic-engagements-differentiating-realityapprehension/23521
Chinas increasing Arctic engagements overall have been welcomed by the
regions stakeholders. There are, however, arguments in the media and some
academic quarters that Chinas growing involvement threatens to destabilize

the region. Beijing, despite the absence of Arctic territory, is unilaterally asserting itself into the regional institutional architecture, challenging the preeminent role of the Arctic states and their sovereign rights, while their Arctic envy to secure regional shipping lanes and resources currently is manifested through

Much
of these commentaries are imprecise and speculating at best, largely ignoring
the pathways and processes Chinas Arctic endeavours have evolved. Lack of specifics
political and economic manoeuvring. In the future China may become more forceful in these endeavours, including possible military deployments in the North.

on how and why China constitutes a threat to the region, also, demonstrate these arguments derive from the more generalized (yet still problematic) Assertive China
narratives which have become dominate in Western analyses of Chinese foreign policy. Clearly, China is actively trying to alter the power dynamics in its immediate
environment of East Asia. But it is premature to talk of a revisionist challenge to the international system writ large guiding the entirety of Beijings foreign engagements.
Before assigning Chinas Arctic activities to an underlying revisionist agenda, therefore, it is important to further analyze the lines of engagement Beijing is actually
pursuing. China does not have an official Arctic Policy due to the low importance of the region within their broader foreign policy strategy, which is focused on immediate
access to resources. The Arctic, though, is an area of long-term interest motivating Chinese leaders to begin a nascent stage of formulation in terms of constructing a

Chinas Arctic
engagements originate from and are still dominated by scientific research
projects, specifically pertaining to climatic and regional weather
phenomenon. These endeavours have increased significantly over the past
decade including the 2004 establishment of the Yellow River Station in
Spitsbergen, Norway; the creation of the China- Nordic Research Center in
Shanghai in 2013; and the construction of an Aurora Station in Iceland. China,
as well, is looking to establish an Arctic research centre in Canada and is
building a second scientific icebreaker in conjunction with Finland. Some
commentators are quick to dismiss Beijings scientific endeavours as
camouflaging other more malign political goals, but one should not dismiss
the fact that China faces massive environmental and climate change
challenges, which motivates much of their scientific and climate work
internationally. Bilateral economic relations is the second line of Chinas Arctic engagements. Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa remain Beijing
regional strategy. Chinese academia, media and the military, also, have become more vocal and engaged in this process.

prioritized regions for resource acquisition but the Arctic states, particularly the Nordic countries, have developed robust resource development projects with China. The

strongest of these relationships is with Iceland, where China signed a Free Trade
Agreement in 2013 and was awarded its first exploration license in the region
for oil in the Dreki area. Chinese companies, as well, have invested billions into mineralrich Greenland, a protectorate of Denmark. These relations, however, have not been entirely unproblematic. Icelands parliament blocked a landpurchase deal of a Chinese developer due to concerns over what the land would be used for and investments in Greenland have caused local anxieties over Chinese
dominance in the economy, including the possible (but overhyped) importation of thousands of Chinese workers. China has also made inroads into the Canadian and
particularly Russian energy markets, the latter following the post-Crimea sanctions rgime that left Moscow short of capital and partners for Arctic resource development.
But Ottawa and Moscow, more so than the Nordic states, are wary of the consequences of Chinese economic activities in the North. Chinas ability and willingness,
however, to invest significantly in these remote areas (particularly Greenland), requiring possibly decades of development before profitable returns are generated,
motivates many Arctic stakeholders to engage Chinese companies despite concerns about their government ties and overall environmental and labour standards.

China, finally, has been energetic in gaining entry into the Arctic governance
structure and acceptance as a legitimate and non- threatening stakeholder. After
two failed attempts, in 2013 China (along with a host of other Asian countries) were accepted by the Arctic Council, the pre- eminent regional organization, as Permanent
Observers. Despite having no voting rights, Permanent Observers are allowed to take part in seminar discussions and participate in the organizations working groups. One

China (and other applicants) had to meet was acceptance of the Nuuk Criteria which includes
acknowledging the pre-eminent role and responsibility of Arctic states in
regional affairs; their sovereignty and sovereign rights; and recognizing the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the legal rgime
governing the Arctic. This measure alleviated concerns associated with a
more active China by showing their willingness to abide by the rules and
conditions of the regional rgime. Chinese leaders, nevertheless, do assert that the Arctic possess certain trans-regional
of the major conditions

characteristics which necessitate the involvement of non-Arctic states (a position held by a number of other Asian states) and as a Near Arctic State has a legitimate role
to play. Despite some frictions, including over issues of extended maritime zoning claims by the Arctic coastal states which China sees a possibly marginalizing non- Arctic
states access to the North, Beijing has decided to become part of the regional structure and not attempt to create parallel organizations and mechanisms to pursue its

Contrary to portrayals of China as an assertive and bellicose outsider,

Beijings actions have been conducted through legal and accepted channels,
including participating at a low and non- intrusive level in the regional political
architecture. Acknowledging the differences between Beijing and some Arctic actors over issues of maritime rights and the role of non-Arctic states in
interests.

regional governance, there is very little evidence of China becoming more aggressive in these pursuits. The Arctic, furthermore, is a stable region characterized by an ever
evolving rule-bound rgime populated by developed states, including the worlds two nuclear superpowers, and the absence of war and failed states: conditions which

Chinas interests in the Arctic,

furthermore, align with their broader foreign policy goals of diversifying
heavily influence the pathways and processes China is and will pursue their interests in the future.

energy and resources suppliers, securing trade routes and becoming more
active in global and regional governance instruments commensurate with
their growing great power status and role. Speculations of Chinas
aggressive posturing in the Arctic, however, will undoubtedly continue to
inaccurately colour any discussion of the rising powers actions in the Arctic;
far more than any other Non-Arctic, and particularly Asian, state involved in
the region.

China desires a stronger role in relation with the Arctic

Economy 14 Elizabeth, Director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Forbes April 4. The Four Drivers Of Beijings Emerging Arctic Play
And What The World Needs To Do
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/04/04/the-four-driversof-beijings-emerging-arctic-play-and-what-the-world-needs-todo/#471def4370d8
Over the past several years, China has begun to stake out its claim to the Arctic. No part of China actually touches the Arctic, but as a recent International Institute for Strategic Studies commentary points out, Chinese
scholars routinely describe their country as a near-Arctic state, and Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo has argued that the Arctic belongs to all the people around the world, as no nation has sovereignty over it China must play an
indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the worlds population. This is a signal of Chinese intent.There are a number of reasons for Chinas interest in the region, but four stand out in
particular. First, of course, the region is rich in resources: oil and gas, fish and minerals among them. According to one estimate, the region holds one-third of the worlds natural gas reserves, and resource-hungry China has
recognized the regions potential. China is in talks with Denmark to take stakes in a copper mine in Greenland; China National Offshore Oil Corporation has partnered with Icelands Eykon Energy for oil exploration;
and Chinas Sichuan Xinye Mining Investment Company will be working with London Mining to exploit the countrys iron ore reserves. Uranium and rare earths are additional potential targets for Chinese investment:
Greenland has enormous reserves of both, including the capacity to meet 25% of world demand for rare earths.China is also interested in the Arctic for trade reasons. As the climate changes and the Arctic ice melts, three
new trade routes may open up that will dramatically reduce cargo transport time and help avoid the security challenges of traditional routes such as the Strait of Malacca. Already, Denmark and China are discussing

In addition, Chinese scholars have made clear their desire to

play a significant role in mapping out the climatic changes in the Arcticas
well as understanding the resources the region possesses. Climate change is
having a profound impact on China, and Beijing has established a polar
research center and has plans to launch three research expeditions to the
Arctic in 2015.
At the same
time, Chinas arctic play is part of its broader global diplomacy and desire to
engage in a wide range of regional organizations to advance its strategic and
trade interests. That means that China wants a seat at the table. In 2013, China and India both
attained permanent observer status in the Arctic Council, the regions
governing body that consists of those states that actually border the arctic:
Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden, as well as six international organizations representing indigenous
peoples. It is doubtful that China will remain a quiet observer
. As Chinese
scholar Tang Guoqiang hints, China could serve as the voice of the non-Arctic states ,
representing their views and interests in discussions with the Arctic Council.
cooperation to explore these new routes.

Smaller Arctic countries such as Iceland are excited to partner with China given Beijings significant financial and research capacity.

, however

China cooperates- views science diplomacy as key arctic

policy
Huntington 15 ( Ph.D in environmental studies, written
multiple pieces concerning human interaction with the
environment, A Precautionary Approach to Fisheries in
the Central Arctic Ocean :Policy, Science and China
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597
X15002997)

In recent years, up to 40% of the central Arctic Ocean has

been ice-free in summer. This open water makes access possible for

ordinary vessels, including fishing boats.

The five Arctic Ocean coastal states (Canada,

Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States) have agreed to develop an international agreement to prohibit unregulated
fishing in international waters of the central Arctic Ocean. Non-Arctic countries, including China, and regional organizations such as the
European Union will be invited to join the ensuing negotiations. Participation would strengthen China's interest in Arctic affairs in a cooperative
fashion, in contrast to a perception that China is interested solely in extracting Arctic resources and is thus a competitor with Arctic states.

China's scientific capacity, including the

icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon), provides it with an
opportunity to practice marine and polar science diplomacy
and to contribute further to Arctic cooperation and
collaborative understanding. The precautionary approach of
managing resources before extraction begins may make
cooperative actions easier, as no one yet has a stake in the
resource, and could provide a model for other regions that
are developing international mechanisms for governance of
international waters.

Framing
No great power war---deterrence, economic
interdependence, political and business elites and social
changes
John Aziz 14, former economics and business editor at TheWeek.com, Don't
worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen, March 6,
http://theweek.com/article/index/257517/dont-worry-world-war-iii-will-almostcertainly-never-happen
Next year will be the seventieth anniversary of the end of the last global
conflict. There have been points on that timeline such as the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and a Soviet
computer malfunction in 1983 that erroneously suggested that the U.S. had attacked, and perhaps even the Kosovo War in 1999 when a global
conflict was a real possibility. Yet today in the shadow of a flare up which
some are calling a new Cold War between Russia and the U. S. I believe the threat
of World War III has almost faded into nothingness . That is, the probability of a
world war is the lowest it has been in decades, and perhaps the lowest it has
ever been since the dawn of modernity. This is certainly a view that current
data supports. Steven Pinker's studies into the decline of violence reveal that
deaths from war have fallen and fallen since World War II. But we should not just assume that the past
is an accurate guide to the future. Instead, we must look at the factors which have led to the reduction in war and try to conclude whether the decrease in war is

So what's changed? Well, the first big change after the last world war was the arrival of mutually
assured destruction. It's no coincidence that the end of the last global war coincided with the invention of atomic weapons. The
possibility of complete annihilation provided a huge disincentive to launching
and expanding total wars. Instead, the great powers now fight proxy wars like
Vietnam and Afghanistan (the 1980 version, that is), rather than letting their
rivalries expand into full-on, globe-spanning struggles against each other . Sure,
accidents could happen, but the possibility is incredibly remote . More importantly,
nobody in power wants to be the cause of Armageddon. But what about a
non-nuclear global war? Other changes economic and social in nature
have made that highly unlikely too . The world has become much more
economically interconnected since the last global war. Economic cooperation
treaties and free trade agreements have intertwined the economies of
countries around the world. This has meant there has been a huge rise in the volume of global trade since World War II, and especially
since the 1980s. Today consumer goods like smartphones, laptops, cars, jewelery, food, cosmetics, and medicine are produced
on a global level, with supply-chains criss-crossing the planet . An example: The laptop I am typing
sustainable.

this on is the cumulative culmination of thousands of hours of work, as well as resources and manufacturing processes across the globe. It incorporates metals like
tellurium, indium, cobalt, gallium, and manganese mined in Africa. Neodymium mined in China. Plastics forged out of oil, perhaps from Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or
Venezuela. Aluminum from bauxite, perhaps mined in Brazil. Iron, perhaps mined in Australia. These raw materials are turned into components memory manufactured in
Korea, semiconductors forged in Germany, glass made in the United States. And it takes gallons and gallons of oil to ship all the resources and components back and forth
around the world, until they are finally assembled in China, and shipped once again around the world to the consumer.

In a global war, global

trade becomes a nightmare. Shipping becomes more expensive due to higher insurance costs, and riskier because it's subject to seizures,
blockades, ship sinkings. Many goods, intermediate components or resources including energy supplies like coal and oil, components for military hardware, etc, may
become temporarily unavailable in certain areas. Sometimes such as occurred in the Siege of Leningrad during World War II the supply of food can be cut off. This is
why countries hold strategic reserves of things like helium, pork, rare earth metals and oil, coal, and gas. These kinds of breakdowns were troublesome enough in the
economic landscape of the early and mid-20th century, when the last global wars occurred. But in today's ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of
economic adaptation even for large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources required to adapt to a world war would be
crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods would be wiped out. In other words,

global trade interdependency has

become, to borrow a phrase from finance, too big to fail . It is easy to complain about the reality of big business influencing or controlling
politicians. But big business has just about the most to lose from breakdowns in global

trade. A practical example : If Russian oligarchs make their money from selling
gas and natural resources to Western Europe, and send their children to
schools in Britain and Germany, and lend and borrow money from the West's
financial centers, are they going to be willing to tolerate Vladimir Putin starting a
regional war in Eastern Europe (let alone a world war)? Would the Chinese financial industry be
happy to see their multi-trillion dollar investments in dollars and U.S. treasury
debt go up in smoke? Of course, world wars have been waged despite
international business interests, but the world today is far more globalized
than ever before and well-connected domestic interests are more dependent
on access to global markets , components and resources, or the repayment of
foreign debts. These are huge disincentives to global war . But what of the military-industrial
complex? While other businesses might be hurt due to a breakdown in trade, surely military contractors and weapons manufacturers are happy with war? Not necessarily.
As the last seventy years illustrates, it is perfectly possible for weapons contractors to enjoy the profits from huge military spending without a global war. And the
uncertainty of a breakdown in global trade could hurt weapons contractors just as much as other industries in terms of losing access to global markets. That means

Other changes have been

social in nature. Obviously, democratic countries do not tend to go to war with each other, and the spread of liberal democracy is correlated against the
decrease in war around the world. But the spread of internet technology and social media has
brought the world much closer together, too. As late as the last world war,
populations were separated from each other by physical distance, by language barriers, and by lack of
mass communication tools. This means that it was easy for war-mongering
politicians to sell a population on the idea that the enemy is evil. It's hard to empathize with
people who you only see in slanted government propaganda reels. Today, people from enemy countries can come
together in cyberspace and find out that the "enemy" is not so different, as
occurred in the Iran-Israel solidarity movement of 2012. More importantly, violent incidents and deaths
can be broadcast to the world much more easily. Public shock and disgust at the brutal reality of war
broadcast over YouTube and Facebook makes it much more difficult for governments to carry out
large scale military aggressions. For example, the Kremlin's own pollster today
released a survey showing that 73 percent of Russians disapprove of Putin's
handling of the Ukraine crisis, with only 15 percent of the nation supporting a response to the overthrow of the government in Kiev.
weapons manufacturers may be just as uneasy about the prospects for large-scale war as other businesses.

There are, of course, a few countries like North Korea that deny their citizens access to information that might contradict the government's propaganda line. And

sometimes countries ignore mass anti-war protests as occurred prior to the

Iraq invasion of 2003 but generally a more connected, open, empathetic
and democratic world has made it much harder for war-mongers to go to war .
The greatest trend, though, may be that the world as a whole is getting
richer. Fundamentally, wars arise out of one group of people deciding that they want
whatever another group has land, tools, resources, money, friends, sexual partners, empire, prestige and deciding to take it by
force. Or they arise as a result of grudges or hatreds from previous wars of the
first kind. We don't quite live in a superabundant world yet, but the long
march of human ingenuity is making basic human wants like clothing, water, food, shelter, warmth,
entertainment, recreation, and medicine more ubiquitous throughout the world. This means that
countries are less desperate to go to war to seize other people's stuff .

No nuclear retaliation will ever occur governments

would resort to quiet assassinations before nuke war
Walsh 85 (Edward, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force,
Nuclear War Opposing Viewpoints, p. 51)

No president or dictator, madman or otherwise would take it upon himself [sic] to launch an all out nuclear
attack without due consultation with his [sic] staff. It is a natural human phenomenon that there would
be certain members of this staff with an invincible sense of survival who would resort to assassination
before allowing themselves and their nation to be subjected to a retaliatory
holocaust.

No escalation of war ever counter-forcing solves it

Mueller 09 Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and Professor
of Political Science at Ohio State University (John, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear
Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda p. 8, Google Books)
To begin to approach a condition that can credibly justify applying such extreme characterizations as societal annihilation, a full-out attack with hundreds, probably thousands, of thermonuclear bombs would be

Even in extreme cases, the area actually devastated

would be limited: 2,000 explosions
would
demolish less
than 5 percent of the territory of the United States
studies were
conducted to estimate the consequences of massive thermonuclear attacks
The likely scenario
was
a "counterforce" strike in which
weapons would be targeted at
silos
airfields and
submarine bases
to destroy the countrys
ability to retaliate. Since the attack would not directly target population
centers
deaths would be from
fallout
2 to 20 million,
depending on
sheltering, would perish
required.

such

by the bombs' blast and thermal pulse effective

1-MT

with a destructive radius of 5 miles each

directly

, for example. Obviously, if major population centers were targeted, this

sort of attack could inflict massive casualties. Back in cold war days, when such devastating events sometimes seemed uncomfortably likely, a number of

. One

of the most prominent of these considered several probabilities.

most

--one that could be perhaps considered at least to begin to approach the rational--

well over 1,000 thermonuclear

ballistic missile

, strategic

nuclear

America's

in an effort

strategic

, most of the ensuing

mostly

radioactive

wind, weather, and

, and the study estimates that from

during the first month.15

The goal of policy-making should be to maximize benefit

and minimize costs---that requires analysis of
consequences, not adherence to moral absolutes
Fettweis 13 Professor of IR @ Tulane
(Chris, The Pathologies of Power, p. 242-243)
Classical realists have long considered prudence, in Hans Morgenthau's words, " the

supreme

virtue in politics."47 Their conception of the term, and how it has traditionally been used in U.S.
foreign policy, is similar to the dictionary definition: wisdom, caution, circumspection, and "provident care
would aim above all to
minimize cost and maximize benefits .49 It would strive to be rational,
careful, and restrained, and it would not waste national resources pursuing low-priority goals or
addressing minor threats. Prudence is essentially the ability to weigh potential
consequences of alternative political actions. It demands that the main
criteria for any decision be a cost-benefit analysis, or an honest attempt to
assess the implications for the national interest. Although such calculations are by necessity
in the management of resources."48 Simply put, a prudent foreign policy

uncertain in a world where rationality is bounded and values unquantifiable, if policy makers were to value

would by force of habit explain and justify their decisions using

a rational framework, with reference to reason and evidence rather than emotion.
Were prudence the defining virtue in policy debates, the ideal for which policy makers strive, it
would quickly silence the voices of fear, honor, glory, and hubris. The process of
evaluation can never be foolproof, but by insisting that it be at the center of
decision making at the very least prudence can make assumptions clear and offer a basis
prudence above all other virtues they

for evaluation absent in those decisions driven by pathology . The evaluation

of policy cannot be done without recognition of cost. Simply achieving a goal or winning - does not justify action. To be considered rational, the other side of the
ledger must be considered as well . This may sound obvious, but a
surprising number of scholars and analysts judge foreign policies based solely
on whether or not objectives are fulfilled.50 Neoconservatives in particular tend to
ignore costs, assuming that the United States is capable of paying virtually any price in the fight
against evil. The war in Iraq, that exemplar of imprudence, was not preceded
by extensive projections of the likely price tag. When pressed, Bush administration officials
repeatedly deferred such discussions by denying such estimates were possible.5' At best, they
were of secondary relevance. In the war's aftermath, the same officials stress how much better the world is
without Saddam rather than how much worse it is without those who gave their lives in removing him.

prudence is hardly amoral. It merely demands a focus on the

morality of outcomes , not intentions . Actions that produce bad results are
imprudent, no matter how good the intent . On this, Morgenthau quotes Lincoln: I do
Like realism itself,

the very best I know, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me
out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels
swearing I was right would make no difference.2 Although the central criteria for prudent cost-benefit
analyses must be the national interest, no abnegation of national ideals or international responsibility need
follow. Foreign humanitarian assistance is cheap, relatively speaking, and often carries benefits for donor
and recipient alike. The entire operation in Somalia, during which as many as a quarter million lives were
saved, cost U.S. taxpayers less than two billion dollars.53 More was spent every week at the height of the

A focus on the outcome makes it clear that

the Iraq war was a blunder of the first order. Even if the intentions of the Bush
administration were indeed good, it is hard to see how the outcome can be said to
be worth the cost. Thomas Ricks quotes a senior intelligence official in Iraq as saying that the longIraq war. Qaddafi was removed for half that.

term American goal after the surge is "a stable Iraq that is unified, at peace with its neighbors, and is able
to police its inter-nal affairs, so it isn't a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Preferably a friend to us, but it doesn't
have to be."54 Presumably one could add the absence of weapons of mass destruction to this rather
scaled-back list of goals, and perhaps the continuation of the uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf. In
other words, if all goes well over the course of the next few years -and there is obviously no guarantee it
will - Iraq might look quite a bit like it did in 2003, only with a marginally more friendly dictator in charge.

The cost of this restoration of the virtual status quo ante will be at least forty-five hundred
American dead and some thirty thousand wounded, at least a hundred
thousand Iraqis killed and millions more displaced , and up to as many as three trillion
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent.55 The war inspired many young Arabs, such as Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, to join
the ranks ofjihadi terrorists, swelling the ranks of America's true enemies. Al-Asiri is currently the main
bomb maker for "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," the group that operates out of Yemen and continues
to try to take down Western airliners, and he is considered the "most dangerous man in the world"

The decision to invade Iraq may

well turn out to be the most imprudent action this country has ever taken .
according to many people who maintain such rankings.56

Another operation from the same year might serve as a counterexample to Iraq, a prudent foreign policy
adventure where the benefits outweighed the costs. The July 2003 intervention in Liberia may be little
remembered, but that is partially because it was such a success. The United States deployed around two
thousand Marines to Monrovia and ended a siege during a particularly brutal civil war. Security returned to
the capital and an unknowable number of lives were saved. Unlike in Somalia, die mission did not creep
into nation building, proving that intervention need not be tainted by hubris. By October the civil war had
effectively ended and the Marines withdrew, having suffered no casualties and incurring little cost to the
U.S. taxpayer. In the years since, Charles Taylor, the paragon of the West African kleptocradc despot, was
put on trial at The Hague and the security situation in Liberia has improved markedly. The Marines have

No assessment of costs and benefits can guarantee good

decisions, of course. But by making assumptions clear, by inculcating and
rewarding a systematic evaluation of alternatives, expectations can be
not returned.

assessed more rationally and decisions rescued from emotion. If leaders work
actively to minimize pathologies and replace them with rational, fact-based
beliefs, the odds of arriving at rational conclusions rise . If prudence is the goal,
therefore, the following should form the core of the foreign policy conventional wisdom: The world is
more peaceful than ever before. While no country is ever completely safe, the United States has few - if
any - serious security threats.

Extinction first its key to value to life and potential for

future life prereq to social progress
Cerutti 14 (Furio, Professor of Political Philosophy emeritus at the
University of Florence and Adjunct Professor at the Scuola superiore
SantAnna, Pisa. In the last fifteen years, Cerutti has been aVisiting Professor
at Harvard, the Universite de Paris 8, the Humboldt Universit at zu Berlin,
the London School of Economics and Political Science,(China Foreign Affairs
University), Beijing, and Stanford University in Florence. Beyond the
publications quoted in this article, Cerutti has written widely on the political
identity of the Europeans and the legitimacy of the European Union (last
publication: Debating Political Identity and Legitimacy in the European Union,
ed. with S. Lucarelli and V. Schmidt, Routledge: London 2011), Humankinds
First Fundamental Right: Survival, Constellations, 2014)
given the existence of
global threats
which
endanger the life of humankind as a civ- ilized species right to survive
should be asserted as its first
fundamental right.
this
is not
just philosophical but legal as well

This articles main thesis1 is that,

at least two

, nuclear weapons and climate change,

, its

human or rather
.

The sense of

To substantiate this thesis, I shall go through six argumentative steps:

assertion

1. Why begin with global threats.

2. Why

survival is the leading category in this field, and how it interplays with justice. 3. What interest humankind has in its survival, and why it should be protected as a right. 4. Why regard humankind rather
than all indi- viduals as a possible actor. 5. Why speak of a fundamental rather than human right, and how to constitutionalize this right. 6. How two developments in international law after 1945 can
contribute to support the argument I have been sketching. ** 1. If philosophical thinking starts with being amazed at something in the world (Platos ), my in- terest in the present matter2 was first
stimulated by the pre-philosophical amazement I always felt in seeing that in the now enormous human rights discourse (both in politics and academia) so much care is dedicated to the single individuals, and so

nobody seems to take note that the life of all

present and future individuals could be annihilated
It is like insisting on first debating the rights of a ships
passengers
instead of taking action in the light of the fact that the ship is already taking
in seawater from a leak

These
dangers are philosophically significant because they tell something about
human beings
wide-ranging designs of a cos- mopolis to come are based on their rights. Yet

by a nuclear war or up- set by catastrophic developments of climate

change.

third- class

(climate change is already happening) and also risks to hit a mine that is floating around and would send it along with all passengers and crew

straight to the ocean depths (by thinking and acting timely, leaks can be filled, mines detected and swept away, all ac- tions that would put the care for third-class passengers

on a firmer ground).

, the only ones who have become able to destroy their own race, as well as about modernity: the possibil- ity of self-destruction sets an end to this era, opens a new one, which

can only vaguely be termed post-modern,4 and requires an updated rewriting of the Dialectics of the Enlightenment. It is also politically significant as it challenges present politics to restructure itself by ex- tending

challenges
and climate change
everybody on earth and
they would destroy

its attention to the far future, something which is not possible within the boundaries of modern politics because of its narrow time structure.5 In a more precise language, I term

like nuclear weapons

can hit

(con- sidered in themselves, while nuclear proliferation is but a subphenomenon)

specific sense) because they are lethal and planet-wide,

approximately

global (in a very

can be reasonably addressed only by the near totality of

coun- tries and peoples. They would not wipe out biologically humankind, although this cannot be excluded in case of an all-out nuclear war; but

human civilization

:6 not a set of values, but the set of material and cultural tools (agriculture, communications, trans- portation and trade) that allow unspecialized animals like the

humans to survive and to thrive. It is clear that my thesis presupposes a revised scale of relevance among the issues requiring and stimulat- ing theoretical investigations: in my philosophical view global threats
have a greater relevance and are intellec- tually more challenging than the issues suggested by the medias headlines (present wars, terrorism, group and minority rights in the US, multiculturalism in Canada or
Australia, immigrants in Europe, or, more recently, the crisis of the global economic system). As a reflection upon the deeper longue dure e determinants of human- itys fate, political philosophy should not
necessarily espouse the agenda suggested by current politics and journalism and, instead, seek its own independent as- sessment of the state of the world as part of its business; this is a critical attitude that cannot

the shifting of
Theory to
pure normativity has favored
an exclusive
attention on intersubjectivity
as if challenges to politics and civilization
caused by systemic imperatives such as the nuclear threat and climate
change) were beyond the grasp of critical inquiry
the self- centered normative approach
should be
be implemented without a philosophical view on history (not to be con- fused with a revival of the grand narratives). Besides,

most of Critical

the emergence not just of worldviews based on the predominance of Sollen, but also of

and its troubles;

(

. What I am attempting in this article is to address an issue such as human

rights that is typical of

mentioned and to show how it

restructured to address the challenges for humankinds survival

.

In this attempt I am driven by the

intent to debunk the layer of denial (or repression in pshychoanalyti- cal sense) that, more intensely after the end of the Cold War, has removed the nuclear threat from the philosoph- ical reflection on modernity
and has later prevented cli- mate change from entering the main agenda of Critical Theory. There is also an epistemological aspect in this: a critical Zeitdiagnose, or an informed assessment of where history has

critical
theorists seem to be reluctant to address the philosophical issues raised by
global challenges, not to mention their complete denial
of the meaning of nuclear weapons. It is as if Critical
Theory
had accepted a tacit division of labor in which
its competence is restricted to social justice
and the damaged subjectivity

starting from problems and threats that

come up as physical events and are accounted for by hard science has the
advantage that philosophy can work on them without first engaging in a
complicate and doubt- ful theorizing about how the world should be reshaped
taken us to in our post-modern times is not possible without first taking what hard science has to say about the threats for humankind very seriously.7 With rare exceptions,

beginning with Horkheimer and Adorno in the Fifties and

Sixties (when Mutual Assured Destruction became a real possibility)

, despite its claim to be a gen- eral assessment of our civilization,

(in continuation of its original being rooted in the Marxian critique of political economy)

such as Karl Jaspers or Gu nther Anders.

. The rest of the real world is left to a purely Hobbesian (and later Luhmannian) reading, or to the perception of side-figures

A last epistemological remark:

, however socially generated,

according to a general normative theory. This ad hoc theorizing shows the ability or inability of a philosoph- ical view to come to terms with problems that are of paramount importance to everybody, not just to the
prac- titioners of Schulphilosophie. 2. I have explained elsewhere9why survival rather than justice is the leading category of a philosophy of global threats.

The

now thriving

literature
we

on justice and climate change misses the point

have to motivate our interest in existence
we should assume responsibility for
future generations

that before we look for ways to establish justice between generations,

their

and wellbeing, or rather in the existence and wellbeing of humankind.10 While survival of

humankind is what best defines our problematic situation, when it comes to the normative aspect I believe that

rather than do justice to them; talking responsibility I move from its most elementary

manifestation, the responsibility parents take on for their children. Justice

as fairness comes in when we have to fight back generational nepotism: it is wrong for any generation to spoil the environment without regard to the consequences in the future, far that it may be, that is not just
out of respect for those that may harm our children and childrens children. Out of elementary fairness, as expressed in the Golden Rule, we cannot deny parents of the, say, twenty-fifth century the chance to bear
and educate their children in decent conditions. Now, survival is a Hobbesian category, as such it sounds like an anathema to critical thinking, just as most categories stemming from the tradition of politi- cal
realism do. Since under global threats present and future humankind is really endangered in its survival, it is however hard to see the rationale of denying the fact because the name comes from the enemys
vocabu- lary. More importantly, there is an essential difference: Hobbes survival regards the individual and is there- fore self-centered and adversarial (in common parlance, mors tua vita mea), while humankinds
survival as a moral and political goal is by its own definition an uni- versalistic feature. More on this later. A much talked-about issue in this context is the so- called identity problem, which I am however inclined to
dismiss. If it means the doubtfulness of any engagement in favor of future generations because we do not know if they will exist (we could decide to stop procreating), the problem is surrounded by an air of futility:
there is no imaginable decision process that could effectively lead to a total procreation stop. On the other hand, if only a few humans were alive in the far future, this would be enough of a reason for our
engagement. Of course future humanity could never be born because meanwhile the planet may have been burnt out by an asteroid (natural precariousness of human life) or an all-out nuclear war (man-made
precariousness). Neither type of precarious- ness can however be a reason not to endorse the interest of future generations in survival, because reducing that precariousness is exactly the engagements telos. The
other aspect of the identity problem the non-identity of posteritys values and preferences with our own, or their indeterminacy is not relevant to our case, be- cause the goal for whose attainment we are called
to save or sacrifice something for their survival has to do with their sheer survival (in an indispensably civilized framework, as explained above) rather than with our own and the posteritys moral configuration; in
other words, there is no paternalistic attitude in it. In a fairly different meaning, closer to social rather than moral (analytical) theory, identity comes up in an- other sense. Assuming responsibility for (or, for that
matter, being fair to) future generations is not just an altruistic attitude. Not in the sense that we can do as well do so by acting on egoistic grounds: were this the main reason to take action, we were justified to
limit our effort to the less costly adaptation policies instead of funding the restructuring of the economy necessary for mitigation, the only way-out from global warming for generations of the far future. To be true,
addressing the limitation of global warming or the neutralization of nuclear weapons requires wide-ranging undertakings that can be justified only on grounds of a moral attitude towards future generations rather

doing what we can for the survival of humankind can give

ourselves reassurance that our individual life
is meaningful
because doing so helps us shed our isolation as single
individuals or single generation and become partners in a wider
transgenerational covenant of solidarity
than of our enlight- ened self-interest. But

(also seen in the context of our gen- erations)

beyond the limits of our own existence on earth,

3. That the interest to live and to raise children in de- cent conditions we attribute to future

generations ought to be translated into a right is not self-evident. It is not simply that we should abstain from transforming every reasonable claim into a right, and instead reserve this category for the essentials
that make the associated life of individuals in the polity possible and acceptable ac- cording to each evolutionary stage.11 More importantly, doubts may also arise as to whether it is wise to translate any goal of
social and political struggles into a right, that is to juridify it instead of focusing on the underlying conflict dynamics and the participation of the conflict- ing parties. In general I share this preoccupation, and have
misgivings at any inflationary expansion of the hu- man rights catalogue. On the other hand, moral rights that do not translate into legal rights12 are politically pointless or at least much less significant than the
rights enshrined in a legal order. Also, our case is different, and the issues we are confronted with are more radi- cal than the worries with juridification; this is all the truer, since the establishment of a right to
survival for humankind would require a long and fierce political and intellectual battle in the first place. First of all, does the right of humanity to survival qualify as a (basic or human) right? Before we proceed, let
us note that humankinds survival is not a good like civil liberties, which is completely at the disposal of human beings; instead, it can depend on the orbits of asteroids and other NEOs.13 The right of humankind to
survival should therefore be read as a short for the right of humankind, including future people, to have all previous generations doing their best to ensure their sur- vival and protect them from man-made
threats. In this version, we are clearly afar from the confusion between rights and goals criticized by Dworkin14 (3.1 in the chapter on Difficult cases), the causation of the good at stake (survival) being elusive, or
not completely nor (in the case of climate change) undoubtedly human; also the content of the right is not a physical state, but rather the behavior influencing it. In a manifest way, this also identifies the rights
indispensable correlate, that is the duty of the relevant actors (individuals and institutions) to refrain from behaviors that are likely to cause harm to that good. Whether or not this claim can translate into a right
should be investigated from two points of view, those of its structure (a) and its bearer (b). a. As for structure, three of Feinbergs15 four crite- ria for being a right are already met (to have a content, a holder and
an addressee). The fourth, the source of validation, gradually emerges from the argument I am unfolding. Frydman and Haarscher also list four condi- tions, of which three are already present (titulaire, objet,
opposabilite ) even if more remains to be said about the first one; while the fourth condition (sanction) shall be discussed below in the framework of the constitu- tionalization problem.16 Finally, let us look at the
stan- dard distinction of negative and positive rights, which Shue rightly believes to be substantially untenable. This is also true in our case, because the behavior of in- dividuals and institutions, which humanity is
entitled to expect, according to the new right, can be imple- mented either by abstaining in single cases from using or possessing nuclear weapons and emitting excessive GHGs or by establishing new institutions (a
global En- vironmental Protection Agency, say) and strategies (for example, technology transfer from advanced to develop- ing countries to help the latter rein in global warming). What would be acknowledged
would be the right, not the policies that according to time and circumstances are devised for its realization. Does this new right share with the other fundamental or human rights the need to be founded in a
conception of the human, such as those focused by Donnelly on dignity, by Meyers on moral agency and by Frydman and Haarscher on autonomy?17 Not properly, or not di- rectly. Humanitys right to survival is a
meta-right rather than being the first right and sharing the same founda- tion with the others.18 Therefore, its foundation is for- mal rather than rooted in a substantive view of what is human:

acknowledging this right is the pre-condition for making all other rights
possible
human rights can only
apply to a living humankind, but not to a republic of insects and grass
The meta-right as a pre-condition has to be understood in the moral sense: no foundation of morality
makes sense if it cannot rely on the respect of the fundamental right s of
those

harmed by our acts and

omissions
global challenges,
which have received so little attention in the mainstream philosophy of the
. It is their Bedingung der Mo glichkeit, to put it as Kant might have done. Not only in the trivial but sturdy physical sense that

(Jonathan Schell

on the state of the earth after a large nuclear war19).

rather

or legality (except in a totally positivistic view of the latter)

(poor populations al- ready affected by global warming, future generations

as victims of nuclear war or extreme climate change)

. Here I mean moral- ity at large, regardless of its being based on a conception of the right or the good. In other words, the two

last decades, have indeed philosophical implications capable of undermining

the
usual attitude in moral and political theory
business-as-

; I mean the attitude to think of the foundations of moral- ity and polity as if

the man-made (modern) world in which they operate had not been substantially altered by humankinds newly achieved capability to destroy itself and/or the planet. Let us make a further step on the road that
leads to uncouple, as far as it goes, the foundation of a new right of paramount importance from a substantive conception of the human an effort aimed at protecting it from the uncertain or frail fate of such
conceptions. On the one hand, as a meta-right to individual-only human rights, the right to survival does not imply a choice among substantive values; this right does not refer to a partic- ular conception of what is
good for future generations, as it only wants to ensure for them existential condi- tions that are an indispensable basis for their members to pursue whatever idea of the good, of liberty and self- realization they may
choose. On the other hand, survival is indeed referred not to the mere biological fact, but to the survival of humankind in decent, civilized condi- tions, taking civilization in the meaning explained in 1. Alone, as I
explained above, this qualification is not an added axiological component (civilization as a sys- tem of values), as it rather relies on the analytical view that some technical and cultural features of civilization are
essential to the life of the human species. There is a last aspect to be examined with regard to the structure or nature of this right: its emergence not from a shift in the doctrine of human rights, but as a response
to a new situation in world history, in which survival goods (a livable atmosphere in the first place) that were so far tacitly taken for granted turn out to be no longer guaranteed, but more and more endangered. As
such, this new right reconnects to what we know about individual human rights, that is that they come up as a response to perceived threats and build an evolving whole.20 b. Let us now come to the question
of the rights bearer. It is humankind, defined as the generality of the living individuals along with those who will be born. There are three possible objections to this proposition. First, it seems to be self-evident
that the notion of a human right for the so defined humankind cannot be subject to the classical liberal objection that bearers of such rights are individuals, not groups.21 Humankind is not an exclusive and selfcontained group opposed to others (at least until we do not have our first contact with dwellers of other regions of the universe), nor is it meant here to represent particular sets of values. Between the two
meanings of humanity as species (Artbegriff) and as regulative notion of a community cemented by shared values and goals (Zielbegriff)22 I am referring to the first one; it is now becoming philosophically
sig- nificant because not even its biological existence can be taken for granted under man-made threats. Humankind is not a hypostasis detached from the individuals, as in the case of the community or das Volk,
as it rather means the totality of the living individuals of any given generation including (a) their potential to generate fur- ther human beings and generations and (b) their knowl- edge that the latter will exist and
probably suffer. This reflexive notion of humankind raises a problem, but remains open to different ethical choices: indifference towards future generations, responsibility for them, and obligations assumed in their
favor. 4. A second question is: why should we speak of humankind instead of limiting ourselves to the more sober expression all present and future individuals? There is first a lexicological advantage, in as much
as we thus use one word instead of connecting two by an and. This better conveys the sense that the bond of solidarity based on the responsibility for the elementary living conditions of posterity makes present
and future individuals one community in this sole, thin sense in- deed, which does not try to conceal the deep fractures existing between contemporaries within the present and the successive generations of this
community. The very inclusion of future people into humankind is not an act of inclusive kindness towards them, but is rather made compelling by the lethal threats that past and present people have projected into
the life of posterity, in an amount unprecedented in history. Lastly, introducing humankind as a bearer of rights highlights that the right of the individuals to be alive and free can be enjoyed only in the middle of a
larger community, which makes the claim of human rights possible and helps to im- plement them. In times of economic globalization and global threats, we have come to know that this com- munity is the whole
humankind, not just nations. All this however does not alter the truth that who is entitled to vindicate the right to survival is not humanity as a hypostasis, but every individual either living or not yet born very
much like what happens with individual human rights, whose constitutional formulation makes them enjoyable for every citizen who will in the future be born under the same Constitution. Third comes the
standard objection: it does not make sense to endorse obligation towards future people, since, if men and women agree to stop reproduction, those people might never be born. I have already dismissed this as a
futile mental experiment. It could further be argued, though, that future generations might turn out to have moral standards totally different from ours. Yet, the possibility that posterity will be not amenable to our
moral world is not huge enough to release us from any responsibility towards them. We can still under- stand, and to an extent share, the moral problems raised by the Bible or the Greek classical tragedy of millennia ago and should not easily assume that our fellow humans of the year 3000, dwellers of a planet spoiled by global warming, will be morally so hugely different from us. Finally, let me anticipate here one of the
legal con- siderations that will be developed later on. Any right- establishing text (but I am now referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR 1948) works with the basic formula everyone has the
right to etc.23 The validity of the claims is limited only by the spatial ex- tension of the law: a right established by the French Constitution may be thought to be valid universally, but is legally protected only on
French territory, while the rights mentioned in the UDHR apply by definition to the entire world where humans live. This can be dubbed spa- tial universalism, while establishing a right of present and future humanity
to survive is tantamount to adding a time universalism. In other words, this makes explicit that the right of everyone to a just international order (UDHR 1948, Art. 28; more below) also holds for the everyones of
the year 3000. This may have always been tacitly intended by the law, the only time limit ly- ing in the possibility that the law is at some point in the future dismissed by another law canceling or expand- ing those
rights. In a present like ours, in which it has become known that the future is no longer guaranteed to be essentially homogeneous (with no radical change in the physical and anthropological life conditions) to the
present and the past, it has become necessary to openly establish a linkage between our obligations and the rights of future generations, as far as existential issues are concerned; a link that will likewise apply to
them as soon as they become the present generation. So far, I have clarified the moral and, to a lesser extent, legal reasons for introducing the notion of hu- mankind as right bearer. I will now stress that the humankind discourse in this article remains political rather than moral. It is not necessary here to rerun the history of the humankind/humanity notion; it is enough to remember that its denial has been a stronghold
in the battle of value nihilists (Nietzsche) and realist thinkers (Oswald Spen- gler, who dismissed it as a zoological notion, and more extensively Carl Schmitt in Schmitt 1976, particularly 6). As self-contained units
(such as the Westphalian system states) were deemed to be the only sustainable and legitimate polities, any reference to humanity was seen as toothless or manipulative, as a noble universalis- tic alibi for
particularistic interests.24 Setting aside this sort of criticism, which mistakes the ideological use of the term for its very substance, we know that humanity, as a good-will aspiration of philosophers, poets and religious men, could not be regarded as a political notion because only non-voluntaristic communities can be re- garded as political. They alone allow for binding and effective decisions, whereas any partner can at

planetary
lethal threats such as nuclear war or disastrous climate change have the
potential strength to forge all relevant political actors into one community
who received the push to unite from the threats to their life and limbs
because they are all put in danger, and
because they have to act jointly
This is a possibility, not an
inevitable process
any time and according to its convenience withdraw from mem- bership in humanity or other large associations based on just good will. This can now be expected to change, because

, not unlike

Hobbes individuals,

first

second

they really want to fight back those dangers.

actual and

if

, as there are enough counter-

forces that impede those Hobbesian threats to fully make hu- mankind one political community: fear, the protecting passion, does no longer work as smoothly as in Hobbes model of Leviathan.25 Nor is the
potential contained in global challenges supposed to generate a world state as its only outcome: practicing survival policies, who- ever the actors may be, is more important than a uni- fied state-like structure in
charge of doing so. Nonethe- less

all this is enough to use humankind in a political sense

, as something that is a

potential constituency rather than a fragmented multiplicity of individuals and states. 5. Why a fundamental rather than a human right? The distinction between human and fundamental is not univocally worked
out in the literature.26 In the vocab- ulary I am using here, human rights are seen as a philo- sophical concept and a moral (deontological) precept, while fundamental rights are those positively acknowl- edged in a
legal order, entrusted to political and institu- tional processes for their implementation, and claimable in courts this last feature being more problematic. Putting on humankinds survival the label of a fundamental right avoids leaving it in a philosophical limbo as a regulative idea,27 and gives it a better defined political and legal nature; this is more adequate to the character- istic of survival as something endangered
by political decisions (or the lack thereof) and requesting a political solution by a given deadline (the next few years if we want to try to keep the temperature increase expected by 2100 under two degrees). If
humankinds survival is acknowledged as a funda- mental right, it follows that it should be constitutional- ized, that is inserted in new and old (and aptly modified) Constitutions as well as in a new version of the
Univer- sal Declaration of Human Rights; as such, it could be referred to as highest guidance in international treaties aimed at implementing it rather than being enshrined in a specific survival treaty. In
constitutional law, a development in this sense is already taking place, in as much as either the rights of future generations to a safe environment or our responsibility towards them in this regard or the imperative
to preserve the environ- ment (without mention of the future generations, but implicitly to their benefit) have been affirmed in consti- tutional amendments of the last two decades in countries such as Germany,
France, Switzerland, but also Burkina Faso and Burundi. Having rights or being protected by the legally defined responsibility of the previous gener- ations is however not the same thing, and with regard to
humankinds survival I would point at its stronger formulation as a right: it is more binding, while the ob- jections against endowing future generations with rights can be easily argued against. Just because it is
conceived in favor of those who cannot yet uphold their interest, this right should be protected against cancellation by a sort of Ewigkeitsklausel as in Art. 79.3 of the German Grundgesetz.28 A right to survival is
more specific and more stringent than the right to a safe environment be- cause it derives from lethal and global challenges that affect the very core of the polity, protection, rather than from a generic care for a
balanced relationship to na- ture or from a diffuse feeling of benevolence for the posterity. In national or regional Constitutions, the acknowl- edgment of this right could be accompanied by the establishment of
corresponding institutions, promoting the implementation of the new right; it could be for example an ombudsman29 for future generation as a (countermajoritarian)30 authority protecting their inter- ests against
damages resulting from new legislation, and endowed with the power to send it back to the legislative rather than to veto it straight away.31 Not to be underes- timated are the difficulties that would arise in striking
a very delicate balance on two levels: in general between the interests of present and future generations,32 but also between parliaments or executives, which act under the pressure of their constituencies, and the
members of the ombudsman authority, who remain nonetheless contem- poraries of the former rather than being appointed by the latter for all too natural reasons. The same difficulty would affect the national
courts in which the new fundamental right, as jus cogens principle, should be made claimable at the initiative of institutions such as the ombudsman or of advocacy groups representing a significative number of
citizens in a referendum-like counting procedure. In international courts,33 the interest of future generations should be represented by an ombudsman to be established at the UN as well as at regional associations
of states such as the EU or Mercosur. A point however that remains open to further discussion has been raised in the de- bate on socio-economic or solidarity rights, which may have some affinity with the right to
survival: theoreti- cally, Frank Michelman has made clear that the status of a norm as constitutional law ought not to be con- flated with the question of its availability for judicial enforcement.34 In practice, conflicts
are easily possi- ble between the courts sentencing on the states failure to implement those rights and the vain or overbearing nature of these sentences on a matter that is political rather than judicial. 35 This is
true in our case as well: the attainment of a new international order without national possession of nuclear arms or a carbon-free reordering of the world economy are goals for policy-making, not something that can
be attained in courts. In this frame- work, however, courts are not jobless: sentencing the nuclear-armed states for their failure in implementing art.VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),36 or the US of the
Bush years for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and failing to cut emissions is a typical judicial matter, as the two cases would regard the break of treaty obligations or the failure to cease doing some- thing
harmful, not to bring about something good.37 Finally, two more fundamental objections could be raised against the idea of a legal protection of the inter- est of future generations. It could be argued that what
would be represented (in a time-universalistic mode) is not the interest of future generations, but rather the interest of a particular fraction of the present ones, dis- guising itself as standard bearer of those people
to come. On the one hand this should be taken into account as critical point of view in the public debate on those inter- ests. On the other hand, this criticism, strictly speaking, would also delegitimize such an
ancient principle of Roman and Western law as the protection of the child. In morality it would affirm a radical skepticism that denies the possibility of slipping into another persons clothes and acting from a nonegoistic stance. This can be obviously upheld, but at the price of the disappear- ance of morality as well as of the polity, which is in any case and among other things a solidaristic association. A second
problem, which is more difficult to deal with, is that we do not know as a general piece of knowl- edge what the interest of future generations is; whereas in the case of legal protection of the child we share a
generally accepted knowledge of his or her future in- terest (to remain healthy, to get sufficient education, to be free to make the best of him/herself). What the real life conditions and the presumable vital interests
of fu- ture generations will be can only be tentatively argued from what the several branches of natural and economic (e.g. demography) science are able to tell us about what is likely to remain constant in physical
and cultural anthropology and what is likely to be most endangered. As such, it is important that moral and political theory renew their relationship to the natural sciences after a time of reciprocal disdain between
the two. While sci- ence cannot by itself draw an encompassing picture of future life under global threats, philosophy should learn from science what those future problems are likely to be and elaborate on them,
instead of reflecting on the future of humanity by just moving from the doctrines of past philosophers or relying on the hearsay about it based on media reports or the philosophers personal divinations. 6. My
philosophical proposal to fill a hole in human rights discourse and legislation by introducing a first or meta-fundamental right of humankind to survival and positivizing it in national, international and world law38
resonates with two legal developments. The first related to humanity, the second to human rights. The latter resonates with the novelties in constitutional law men- tioned in 5. The first one began in 1970 as
the UN General As- sembly adopted Resolution 2749, the Declaration of Principles Governing the Seabed and Ocean Floor, con- taining the notion of a common heritage of mankind; it was originally introduced to
protect the seabed and ocean floor and later the moon and other celestial bod- ies from exploitation by powerful countries against the interest of the developing ones.39 In the 1990s, the competing and thinner
concept of common concern of mankind emerged, as in the Convention on Bio- diversity of 1992; nonetheless it can be said that hu- mankind has become a notion contained in binding in- ternational law and
referred to indivisible (climate) and divisible (seabed, ocean floor, moon) objects, and that this has happened as an answer to problems and chances generated by huge technological advancement. In another
corner of legal development, it could be argued that the logical structure, so to speak the norma- tive algorithm of the UDHR norms the aforemen- tioned everyone has the right . . . implies that hu- mankind,
not just single individuals, is to be the bearer of those rights, even if the collective singular is not used. Turning to a more substantive level, we could go as far as to say that the legal protection of humankinds
survival was implicitly enshrined as early as 1948 in the UDHR and later in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the In- ternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), both of 1966. Art. 28 UDHR (ev- eryone has the right to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Decla- ration can be fully realized) could be rethought in
the direction of institutions bound to implement for every- one, now and in the future, the right to life (Art.3 UDHR, Art. 6 ICCPR), the right to an adequate standard of liv- ing incl. adequate food (Art.11 ICESRC)40 as
well as the right of the family to be protected (Art.10 ICESRC), a right that would be denied to families of the posterity bound to live under insufferable environmental condi- tions (cf. above the notion of a

cannot be
ignored
they
create an appropriate and stable environment for what can really bring about
a change, that is educational and political struggles,

hu)mankind has thus ceased to be just a concept used by philosophers

transgenerational chain of parents). While the different binding strength of the several

legal formulations

(treaty, covenant, convention, declaration)

, it remains clear that le- gal documents do not advance by themselves the cause of humankinds survival, except if they can be effec- tively referred to in a court of justice; but

the former aiming at a change in the political culture.

To sum up,

and theologians,

whose presence in international law was merely philo- sophical, if not rhetorical, as in the Preamble to the UN Charter of 1945. Though not explicitly endowed with rights in the documents quoted above, the
humankind of the common heritage doctrine is an important prece- dent in the direction, suggested by this article, of in- troducing this new legal actor. When looking at the implementation of the rights that can
be attributed to it, the other legal novelty of the common but dif- ferentiated responsibility41 of individual actors, such as countries, should also be brought to bear. This is important when it comes to distributing
the burden of the duties corresponding to those rights which is in- deed one of the major issues in the debate following the Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change of 2009. In any case, the legal acknowledgment
of a common responsibility for the global commons is a further step in designing humankind as a juridical notion. This article is policy-oriented in the peculiar sense of a constitutional policy that will require
decades, if ever, to become the subject of debate and even longer to be legally implemented. Impulses in this direction are cer- tainly not be expected from the world of politics, but rather from the scientific
community (provided a now utopian sounding collaboration of physics, philosophy and legal theory materializes) or from scattered sen- tences of national and international courts, particularly in environmental
matter.42

Support from civil society would help

.

Finally, the authors suggestion as to how to read this proposal: it has a clearly cosmopolitan (or

better: cosmopolitical) character, not however in the sense of cosmopolitanism as a general doctrine of government/ governance. It is rather generated by tools coming from realist thought: new threats as source of
new rights, and lethal and planetary threats to the survival of hu- mankinds civilization as drivers towards a new level

Discussion of war does not displace focus on structural

violence it allows an injection of complexity that is not
hierarchical
Barkawi 12 Professor Politics at the New School for Social Research
(Tarak, Of Camps and Critiques: A Reply to 'Security, War, Violence'
Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol 41 No 1, p 124-130,
SagePub)
A final totalising move in Security, War, Violence is the idea that the study of war should be subsumed under the
category of violence. The reasons offered for this are: violence does not entail a hierarchy in which war is privileged; a focus on
violence encourages us to see war in relational terms and makes visible other kinds of violence
besides that of war; and that the analysis of violence somehow enables the disentangling of politics from war and a proper
critique of liberal violence.22 I have no particular objection to the study of violence, and I certainly think there should be more of it in the

However, why and how this obviates or subsumes the study of war is
obscure to me. Is war not historically significant enough to justify inquiry into
it? War is a more specific category relative to violence in general , referring to reciprocal
social sciences.

organised violence between political entities. I make no claims that the study of war should be privileged over that of other forms of violence.

Both the violence of war, and that of, say, patriarchy, demand scholarly
attention, but they are also distinct if related topics requiring different forms of theorisation and inquiry. As for
relationality, the category of war is already inherently relational; one does not need the concept of violence in general to see this. What
precisely distinguishes war from many other kinds of violence , such as genocide or massacre, is
that war is a relational form of violence in which the other side shoots back.
This is ultimately the source of wars generative social powers , for it is amidst the clash of
arms that the truths which define social and political orders are brought into question. A broader focus on violence in
general risks losing this central, distinctive character of the violence of war . Is it
really more theoretically or politically adequate to start referring to the Second World War as an instance of violence? Equally, while I am all

we have
far from exhausted the subject of liberalism and war, an important area of
inquiry now dominated by the mostly self-serving nostrums of the liberal peace debates. What perhaps is most interesting about
for the analysis of liberal violence, another broad category which would include issues of structural violence, I also think

Aradaus remarks on violence is that she assumes we know what war is. So, for example, she suggests that we attend to a continuum of
violence in which war is considered alongside insurrections, revolts, revolutions, insurgencies, rebellions, seditions, disobediences, riots and
uprisings.23 Apparently, on her understanding, these other things are not war, even though most of them typically involve reciprocal,
organised violence. This is precisely to take as given the IR disciplinary view of real interstate war that underlies Correlates of War and other
mainstream work. This is the definition of war that I sought to critique in From War to Security, a critique Aradau has overlooked. I was posing
new questions and possibilities for the study of war, not proffering definitive answers about what war is and what it is not, or about where and
when it starts and ends. It is, I would suggest, Aradau who is most concerned about hierarchy and privilege, particularly in respect of perceived
slights to Critical Security Studies and her demand that any study of war be in dialogue with Critical Security Studies. In this, she overlooks the
fact that, conceived another way, with a more holistic vision of the community of relevant scholars, my article was already an engagement
with critical inquiry into security relations. Perhaps it was the opening rhetoric of my article that inspired Aradaus ire, my reference to
partygoers from Copenhagen and Aberystwyth dancing on graves, or my suggestion that contemporary wider agenda security scholars know
rather less about the composition of carrier battle groups than did their traditional predecessors.24 But does anyone seriously doubt that
wider agenda scholars are less familiar with histories and sociologies of wars and militaries than were the traditional predecessors, who even
so still managed to overlook their significance? These passages were meant to serve a very specific purpose, to denaturalise our images of the
new and old security studies, and to open up the reader to the possibility that, with respect to the study of war, these fields of study share

Neither traditional nor wider agenda

security studies are centrally interested in war. Given the significance of war
in the human past and present, and the dire state of the study of war in the
Anglo-American academy, this seems to me a serious problem for critical
thought.
more in common than is conceivable within the current terms of debate.

The world is structurally improving growth is why

Beauchamp 15
Zack Beauchamp, B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown
University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of
Economics, The world is getting better all the time, in 11 maps and charts,
July 13, 2015, http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8908397/11-charts-best-timein-history
Reading the news, it sometimes feels like the world is falling apart: that everything is going to hell in a

we're living through what is,

by objective metrics , the best time in human history . People have
never lived longer, better, safer, or richer lives than they do now. And
these 11 charts and maps which draw on centuries of data , as
well as a brand new UN report that focuses on the past 25 years
prove it. For most of human history, our lives were nasty, brutish, and pretty damn short. Only in the
handbasket and we're on the verge of a total collapse. In fact,

past 200 years or so, as this chart shows, have people started living lives that even come close to what we

In 1770, the world's average life expectancy was just

29 years old (a lot of people died really young). Today, it's 70. That staggering
jump represents the greatest accomplishment in human history: our
victory over historical killers like disease , poverty , and war . Everything
see as normal today.

else in the post is, to a certain extent, an explanation of this one extraordinary fact. For most of human

The
world's g ross d omestic p roduct has spiked in a way that's simply
unprecedented in human history. The key factors here are the Scientific Revolution, the
existence, our species was dirt poor. But that has changed rapidly since the 19th century:

Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and capitalism. These four transformations created and spread
new ideas and technologies modern medicine and electricity, for example that allowed humanity to

Economic
growth hasn't just benefited wealthy countries. Between 1990 and
2015, about 1.1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme
poverty (defined as living on $1.25 a day). That means that in just the past 25 years, a
full seventh of humanity has been saved from terrible want. A lot of that
grow rich and healthy in a way that our distant ancestors simply couldn't dream of.

came from India and especially China, huge countries that experienced rapid growth in the past several
decades. Much of sub-Saharan Africa is still mired in serious poverty. But the fact that the worldwide gains
are concentrated in a few places doesn't make them any less worthy of celebration. If what we care about
is minimizing suffering in the world, then it shouldn't matter what country the billion-plus people saved
from poverty come from. The modern world also birthed horrors specifically, industrialized killing in the

Deaths from war have

been in free fall . The percentage of the global population killed in
wars has declined tremendously , owing in large part to the fact that
major nuclear armed powers (like the US and Russia) have refrained
from going to war. War isn't over, obviously, but we've managed to contain it
safeguarding humanity's gains from economic growth and scientific
two world wars. But a wonderful thing has happened since then:

innovation. In the past 15 years, we've made serious progress in the fight
against the HIV/ AIDS epidemic. Between 2000 and 2013, documented new
cases of HIV infection fell by 40 percent, and deaths from AIDSrelated causes fell by 35 percent (from a peak in 2005). That's in large part because
there's been a concerted global effort to spread the medication
necessary to combat the plague. Programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) have done an extraordinary job of getting impoverished people the treatment and
assistance they need. HIV/AIDS isn't the only disease being beaten back. As the above chart shows,

the

global measles immunization campaign has been extraordinarily

effective saving the lives of an estimated 15.6 million people
between 2000 and 2015. Deaths from malaria declined by 58
percent globally during the same period. Tuberculosis mortality has
fallen by 43 percent since 1990. These diseases, all major killers in
the developing world, are on the retreat due to both local and
international efforts to combat them. The spread of democracy is a critical part of this
whole story. The American and French Revolutions marked the beginning of its global rise, but it wasn't
until the Cold War ended that democracy became the most popular form of government on Earth. The
ramifications of democracy's spread have been enormous: Democratic governments have never (or almost
never) gone to war with each other, and are significantly less likely to slaughter their own people.
Democracy has also put pressure on political leaders to keep their citizens happy, helping spread the gains
from economic growth and technology from the wealthy to most of the world's population. And that's to
say nothing of democracy's inherent benefits (like giving people the right to choose their own

more people can

afford food. From 1990 to 1992, 991 million people in the developing
world were undernourished meaning food-deprived by the UN's numbers. Today,
that figure is 780 million. That's a decline of more than 20 percent in
the parts of the world where, in the past centuries, people have
suffered the most from want of adequate food. Until the advent of modern
governments). One of the benefits of the world's growing wealth is that

medicine, shocking percentages of women died in pregnancy and childbirth. The spread of techniques to
address leading maternal killers, like hemorrhage and infection, has done wonders:

Since 1990,

the global rate of maternal mortality (death of a mother during pregnancy or within 42
days of its end) has gone down by a staggering 45 percent . If you were born 400
years ago, the odds of you living past age 5 were terrifyingly low. Nowadays, the incidence of
child mortality has plummeted , owing largely to improved access to
health care and food. This is one of the key reasons life expectancy is so much higher than it
used to be: The fewer deaths there are at a young age, the higher the average length of a human life from

more children are living to be old enough to

get an education, opportunities for schooling have never been
greater. Ninety-one percent of primary school-age kids worldwide
are enrolled. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with by far the
worst primary school enrollment numbers, recent improvements
have been nothing short of astonishing . In 1990, 52 percent of
school-age kids in the region were enrolled. By 2012, that number
had jumped to 80 percent.
birth will be. At the same time that

Counterplans

Arctic Council
CP is the status quo and doesnt solve the aff, Arctic
council lacks jurisdiction over ChinaHill, 15. Taylor, staff writer for Take Part, 7/17. Nations Agree to Leave
Arctic Fish Alone, but the U.S. Keeps Drilling.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/17/arctic-fish-worth-protecting-notoil
With melting sea ice opening the Arctic Ocean to a potentially huge increase in commercial fishing, the five nations that border the region
signed a declaration Thursday that will prohibit trawling in international waters. The United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway
agreed that while the frigid Arctic isnt a productive commercial fishery, climate change means it could be as the ice melts and fish migrate
north to warming waters. Advertisement So, Why Should You Care? Instead of exploiting the potential fishery in a Wild Weststyle aquatic rush,

the five nations are planning to impose a moratorium until more scientific
research can give a clearer picture on the sustainability of the region . Then
regulations will be issued to regulate commercial fishing. The deal will prevent a problem from arising ahead of time, David Balton, U.S.

The
moratorium only applies to the five signatories and does not prevent other
nations from fishing in Arctic international waters. Conservationists think the fish ban should be permanent, as the delicate
deputy assistant secretary of state for oceans and fisheries, told Reuters. Very little is known about this area of the ocean.

Arctic environment continues to cope with climate change. In 2012, about 40 percent of the central Arctican area larger than Alaska and
Texas combinedwas ice-free, a record low for sea-ice coverage. Last year, ocean surface temperatures reached their highest levels in 135
years. The agreement signed is far from enough, Greenpeace Arctic campaigner Sophie Allain said in a blog post. Its only a temporary
reprieve. It seems that they still intend to send fishing fleets northward in the long term. Still, marine researchers will have time to determine
what the worlds warming ocean temperatures mean for fish migration patterns, and whether or not the central Arctic could become a
sustainable fishery for commercially viable species such as the Arctic cod in Norway and Russia and the Pacific cod in Alaska. The Pacific cod
catch in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska currently totals $185 million annually, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. If
those fish head north, the anglers catching them for a living most likely will too. The agreement is in addition to regulations the countries
already have in their exclusive economic zones, which extend 200 miles from the shoreline out to sea. The U.S. has a ban in place in its EEZ
along Alaskas northern border, as does Norway for trawl fishing in its territorial waters. Related See How Close Oil Drilling Will Get to Arctic
Whales This Summer

The next step for this agreement is for states such as China, Spain, Japan, the U.K., and Korea to

sign on also, Alexander Shestakov of World Wildlife Funds global Arctic program said in a statement. These Arctic Council observer
states say they support the integrity of the Arctic environmentthis is a good opportunity for them to prove it. In 2009, the Obama
administration banned commercial fishing north of the Bering Strait, shutting down about 150,000 square miles of potential fishing. But last
year, Obama proposed two new leases for oil exploration above the Bering Strait, including a sign-off on Shells plan to explore six potential oil

The vultures are circling for the fish

well sites in the Chukchi Sea this summer.

and oil, Allain said. And [the
Arctic Council nations] have said nothing about threats like oil drilling. They had an opportunity to go much further, and they have balked.

Icebreakers
CP is a description of the status quo- doesnt solve the aff
ORourke 6/14
Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, Quote from July 2010 Coast Guard High
Latitude Study,Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85474/

Although Coast Guard polar icebreakers in the past have performed the
annual McMurdo break-in mission, the NSF in recent years has chartered
Russian and Swedish contractor-operated icebreakers to perform the mission
(with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker standing ready to assist if needed). The NSF has also noted that

Healy, though very capable in supporting Arctic research, operates at sea for
about 200 days a year, as opposed to about 300 days a year for foreign
contractor-operated polar icebreakers.

Alt Causes Cant build icebreakers until port are

developed
Gunnarsson 13 PhD in geochemistry from Johns Hopkins University,
Director of the Centre for High North Logistic, Faculty of Natural Research
Sciences at the University of Akureyri (Bjrn , The Future of Arctic Marine
Operations and Shipping Logistics)
http://www.chnl.no/publish_files/Ch_2_Gunnarssons_Paper.pdf
Adequte port infrastructure and support facilities for commercial shipping
such as deep water access, places of refuge, marine salvage, port reception
facilities for ship-generated waste, and towing services are rarely available
in the Arctic. In recent years, however, Russian Arctic ports in the Barents Sea
area, including the deep-water port of Murmansk, have expanded
significantly and are providing increased services due to increased ore, coal
and oil production and transport. Some other ports in satisfactory condition
are located in the Kara Sea, including the port of Dudinka on the Yenisei
River, but ports further east on the shores of the Laptev, the East Siberian,
Chukchi, and Bering seas are in very poor condition and only support the
basic needs of local settlements. Even if Russian Arctic ports did provide
better services and facilities, draft limitations make these ports and harbors
inaccessible for larger cargo ships sailing on the NSR. These ships cannot sail
into these ports for services, to load or unload cargo, or in case of trouble as
they would run aground because the harbors are too shallow. This fact should
be a reminder that future support facilities for cargo ships and the extraction
industries need to include floating units, far removed from the shallow Arctic
coastline. Loose infrastructure and mobile assets (vessels that move within
the Arctic) need to be considered. Such floating support units give added
flexibility since they can be relocated if needed. A floating LNG plant was

even considered as one option for gas from Yamal to provide tankers with
deep-water access to the plant.

Icebreakers arent sufficient

ORourke 14- specialist in naval affairs for the
Congressional Research Service (Ronald, Changes in the
Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,
Congressional Research Service,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf)
Arctic waters do not necessarily have to be ice free to be open to shipping.
Multiyear ice can be over 10 feet thick and problematic even for icebreakers,
but one-year ice is typically 3 feet thick or less. This thinner ice can be more
readily broken up by icebreakers or ice class ships (cargo ships with
reinforced hulls and other features for navigating in ice-infested waters).
However, more open water in the Arctic has resulted in another potential
obstacle to shipping: unpredictable ice flows. In the NWP, melting ice and the
opening of waters that were once covered with one-year ice has allowed
blocks of multiyear ice from farther north, or icebergs from Greenland, to flow
into potential sea lanes. The source of this multiyear ice is not predicted to
dissipate in spite of climate change. Moreover, the flow patterns of these ice
blocks are very difficult to predict, and they have floated into potential routes
for shipping. Thus, the lack of ice in potential sea lanes during the summer
months can add even greater unpredictability to Arctic shipping. This is in
addition to the extent of ice versus open water, which is also highly variable
from one year to the next and seasonally. The unpredictability of ice
conditions is a major hindrance for trans-Arctic shipping in general, but can
be more of a concern for some types of ships than it is for others. For
instance, it would be less of a concern for cruise ships, which may have the
objective of merely visiting the Arctic rather than passing through and could
change their route and itinerary depending on ice conditions. On the other
hand, unpredictability is of the utmost concern for container ships that carry
thousands of containers from hundreds of different customers, all of whom
expect to unload or load their cargo upon the ships arrival at various ports as
indicated on the ships advertised schedule. The presence of even small
blocks of ice or icebergs from a melting Greenland ice sheet requires slow
sailing and could play havoc with schedules. Ships carrying a single
commodity in bulk from one port to another for just one customer have more
flexibility in terms of delivery windows, but would not likely risk an Arctic
passage under prevailing conditions.

Takes decades to solve enough to access their presence

impact
Ebinger, 9 director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings Charles,
The geopolitics of Arctic melt International Affairs 85: 6 (2009) 12151232)

Technology is a key barrier to Arctic access in other ways. Icebreakers, many

nuclear powered, are necessary for presence and power projection in the
region year-round. The various Arctic nations have widely divergent
capabilities. For example, Russia has 20 icebreakers; Canada has 12, and is
working on budgeting for 8 more; the US has, to all intents and purposes,
just one functional icebreaker. These ships take eight to ten years to build,
and cost approximately $1 billion each. The global economic crisis has,
however, put a strain on budgets, and icebreaker fleets are unlikely to
expand rapidly in the short term. Nonetheless, even if the US started building
tomorrow it would long remain far behind other Arctic states such as Russia
and Canada, taking decades and at least $20 billion to catch up.

Impossible to speed up the timeframe

ORourke 14 Specialist in Naval Affairs
(Ronald, June 5, 2014, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background and Issues for Congress,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf
Another potential issue for Congress
concerns the time line for acquiring a new polar icebreaker, which appears to
have become less certain in the FY2015 budget submission. In the FY2013 budget
submissionthe submission that initiated the project to acquire the ship DHS stated that it
anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship within the next five
years and taking delivery on the ship within a decade .46 In the FY2014
budget submission, DHS stated that it anticipated awarding a construction
contract for the ship within the next four years .47 In the Coast Guards FY2015 budgetTime Line for Acquiring New Polar Icebreaker

justification book, the entry for the polar icebreaker program does not make a statement as to when a
construction contract for the ship might be awarded.48 At a March 26, 2014, hearing on the proposed
FY2015 budgets for the Coast Guard and maritime transportation programs before the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Admiral
Robert Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, testified that Its

going to be tough
to fit a billion dollar icebreaker in our five-year plan without displacing other
things, that I cant afford to pay for an icebreaker in a $1 billion [per year capital investment plan]
because it would just displace other things that I have a higher priority for, and that I still believe firmly,
we need to build a new one but we dont have [the] wherewithal right now, but doing the preliminary work
should inform decisions that are made three, four, five, maybe 10 years from now.49

Ptx
Plans a huge fight
Klotz, 12 senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Frank, Trouble
at the Ends of the Earth National Interest, 10/8,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/trouble-the-ends-the-earth-7561)
Needless to say, the U.S. Antarctic program would be in dire straits if the NSF
were unable to arrange for icebreaking services with overseas providers. Yet,
efforts to restore an American heavy-icebreaker capability have been beset
by bureaucratic and congressional inaction and years of chronic
underfunding.
This year, the Obama administration finally called for construction of a new
American heavy icebreaker in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2013.
Specifically, it requested $8 million to begin designing the new vessel and
projected a total of $860 million would be spent during the first five years of
the program. Even if work started right away, it would still take a decade to
actually build and deliver an operational icebreakerby which time the
refurbished Polar Star would be retired, or close to it.
While support for the U.S. interests in Antarctica is clearly important, an
equally if not more compelling rationale for building a new icebreaker may
actually lie at the other end of the Earth. Climate changes and shrinking ice
coverage during the summer months have opened up new possibilities for
commercial shipping and resource exploration in the Arctic. This in turn has
heightened concerns about protecting national interests in the higher
latitudes. Interestingly, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard justified a
new American heavy icebreaker in recent congressional testimony solely in
terms of maintaining a surface presence in the Arctic well into the future.
Whatever case is made, the ultimate fate of a new heavy icebreaker is by no
means certain. Like many new spending proposals, it has encountered the
perfect storm of the current budget-making chaos on Capitol Hill
including the looming threat of sequestrationand the need to compete with
other coast-guard priorities as the service seeks to recapitalize ageing cutters
and other boats critical to its wide-ranging mission.

Plan costs political capital

Smith, 14- investment columnist for The Motley Fool, an investment website
that analyzes political trends for investors (Rick, The Motley Fool, As Global
Warming Melts the Arctic, Who Will Build America's New Navy? 1/18,
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/18/as-global-warming-meltsthe-arctic-who-will-build.aspx)
The melting of the polar ice caps presents the U.S. Navy with a crisis. But if
the experts' numbers are accurate, there's upward of $16 billion in potential
contract revenue to be made -- and a significant opportunity for U.S. defense
contractors to help resolve this crisis.If contracts are issued for a fleet of 10

new icebreakers, Lockheed would be the logical company to turn to for

construction. Similarly, shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII ) owns the
shipyard that put USCGC Healy in the water, and likewise stands in good
position to win contracts.
Huntington is also, along with General Dynamics (NYSE: GD ) , one of the
nation's two builders of nuclear-powered submarines -- which as you can see
up above, are perfectly capable of projecting power all the way up to the
North Pole itself. (In fact, Huntington built the USS Hampton, pictured at the
beginning of this article.)
Meanwhile, the company that spun off Huntington Ingalls three years ago,
Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC ) , has already begun winning contracts to
upgrade the integrated bridge systems, navigation systems, and software on
both of America's remaining icebreakers. If efforts get under way to begin
retrofitting more than two dozen warships for polar duty, expect Northrop
Grumman to share in the revenue from this work.
Is all of this really necessary?
In an era of constrained defense spending, convincing Congress to fund
additional ships for the Navy and Coast Guard to conduct Arctic missions may
be a hard sell -- so none of this revenue is assured. But this mission is quite
simply essential to the national interest.

Past pushes failed

Dickie 11 Seattle times editorial columnist (Lance, The Coast Guard
needs new icebreakers to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic, December 8 th,
http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2016970405_lance09.html)
Dramatic climate change in the Arctic is rapidly diminishing the polar ice
cover, exposing serious environmental, economic and security issues across
the top of the world.
Ecological upheaval is producing a long coveted Northwest Passage for
shipping, with all its opportunities and complications.
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, is working to focus congressional
attention on giving the U.S. Coast Guard the ability to protect America's
interests. As the ranking member of the House Transportation subcommittee
on the Coast Guard, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee,
he is well positioned to do so.
Icebreakers are the key to "assured access to ice-covered seas independent
of ice conditions." Those words, from a 2007 National Research Council
report, are reinforced by Coast Guard studies, including "The High Latitude
Region Mission Analysis," and a comprehensive look at icebreaker issues and
options published in November by the Congressional Research Service.

All conclude the Coast Guard lacks the icebreaker capacity to represent U.S.
interests in coming years. At least two new ships are needed. In the face of
such clarity, the political jumble in Congress is a bit of a puzzle. Just to be
clear:
"Changing conditions in the Arctic are driving domestic and international
discussions and debate on boundary claims and freedom of navigation,
natural resources, scientific research, climate, homeland security, and
national defense," the Coast Guard reported to Congress in 2008.
Nonetheless, the Coast Guard chose to spend its capital budget on National
Security Cutters, a smaller, nimble ship for coastal security operations.
Money for icebreakers went into a $61 million rehab of the Polar Star, being
overhauled at Vigor Shipyards in Seattle. A second, also aged heavy-duty
icebreaker, the Polar Sea, has an unknown fate.
That leaves the Coast Guard with the 12-year-old Healy, adequate for
scientific research but not hefty enough for the thickest ice in the depth of
winter.
House Republicans want to decommission the Polar Sea and Polar Star and
lease icebreakers for the Coast Guard. Nevermind none are available. Leasing
supplemental equipment aircraft is one thing. Owning, operating and
maintaining resources fundamental to a mission is basic.
The Coast Guard said it needs three heavy-duty icebreakers and three
medium-duty icebreakers. The cost for one is put at $895 million, with
volume discounts.
Get started. These monster icebreakers take years to build, but have an
operating life of several decades. If the Chinese will not loan us the cash,
spread the cost among the Department of Defense, and other federal clients.
Do not lay it all off on the Coast Guard.
Arctic conditions, and duties in Antarctica, demand the capacity to navigate
year round. More shipping, ecotourism, resource extraction and transport,
and fights over sovereignty require protection of basic U.S. interests very
close to home.
Grab funds from Iraq and Afghanistan contingencies. Close U.S. bases in
Germany. Now it's an icebreaker gap, not the Fulda Gap. Get real about the
gravy in defense contracts, including the leasing of icebreakers.
Once again, spread costs and be honest about our thin capabilities and
options in U.S. polar operations. Spend the money; this is like arguing about
needing a fire truck.
Larsen's subcommittee recently heard temporary options from an executive
with Vigor Shipping who estimated the Polar Sea could be operational with
engine work for $11 million. A retired commander of the Polar Sea told the
same Dec. 1 hearing the icebreaker was otherwise in decent shape.

The Navy has new combat ships designed to work close to shore around the
world. Give the Coast Guard the capacity to serve and protect in all U.S.
territorial waters.

Environ Turns
Icebreaking accelerates the loss of ice sheets
independently triggers climate tipping events
Leitzell 12 science writer and press officer of communications for the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (April 2012, Katherine,
Are icebreakers changing the climate? National Snow & Ice Data Center,
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/04/12/are-icebreakers-changing-the-climate/)

In summer months, icebreaking ships head north into the Arctic Ocean,
tearing through the sea ice and leaving trails of open water in their wakes.
Readers occasionally write in to ask us whether the trails left by these ships
contribute to the melting of sea ice.
Breaking trail
Arctic sea ice reflects most of the suns rays, helping to keep the Arctic and
the whole Northern Hemisphere cool. Open water has a lower albedo or
reflectivitythan sea ice, and so it absorbs more heat from the sun.
Researchers have found that as Arctic sea ice melts in summer, leaving more
areas of open water, the open water absorbs more of the suns energy,
warming the water and melting more ice. This is one of the positive feedback
loops that scientists say could lead to increased warming and sea ice loss in
the Arctic. NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said, Even in the summer, when the
ice is melting, sea ice reflects at least 50 percent of the suns energy. The
ocean only reflects about 10 percent of the suns energy, and 90 percent is
absorbed, warming the ocean and the atmosphere.
It makes sense that a strip of open water left by an icebreaker would absorb
more heat from the sun, and melt away the sea ice along that trail. Meier
said, Its certainly true locally, that the open water in the wake of an
icebreaker absorbs more of the suns energy than the ice around it. But what
is the effect on the ice cover as a whole?
How much ice does an icebreaker break?
Meier decided to crunch some numbers and find out. While his numbers are
an estimate, he said, they provide a helpful comparison of just how much
icebreakers might contribute to summer ice loss.
Meier said, In late June, when the suns energy is strongest, the total sea ice
extent is around 10 million square kilometers or 3.9 million square miles. An
icebreaker cruising through the ice for 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and
leaving an ice-free wake of 10 meters (33 feet) would open an area of water
10 square kilometers (3.9 square miles) over the entire cruise.

Noise from ice-breakers kills marine species

Tedsen et al 14 - Coordinator of Ecologic Institute's Arctic program
(Elizabeth, Arctic Marine Governance Opportunities for Transatlantic
Cooperation) Springer.

http://download.springer.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/static/pdf/966/bok
%253A978-3-642-38595-7.pdf?
auth66=1405449251_9b59954d64eefdf63ad4878c6c347b7c&ext=.pdf
The use of ice-breakers can affect ice habitats and also create considerable
noise, as can air traffic noise that may occur during transport of logistics
supplies to the offshore installations and can frighten animals, causing
displacement and disrupting feeding schedules. Large increases in ocean
vessel traffic to support hydrocarbon development will raise the number of
bird and animal strikes and disturb wildlife (Wolf 2007). Fish and marine
mammals both are affected by noise, the effects of which can extend tens of
kilometres from the source, particularly by sounds generated from seismic
exploration (NRC 2003). For instance, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, bowhead
whales have been observed to change swimming direction in response to
noise sources up to 30 kilometres away. Whale hunters in northern Alaska
report that they must travel farther offshore to find whales, a change
attributed to the displacement of whales from near-shore areas by industrial
noise (AMAP 2007). Species such as whales, walruses, and seals are sensitive
to man-made sounds and research shows they move away from industrial
noises (AMAP 2007), even though such avoidance behaviour is often
temporary. Further, since marine mammals rely on hearing to locate prey,
seismic activities could drive animals away from important feeding sites
Hydrocarbon-related transportation and other activities create pressures for
improving infrastructure, which may cause fragmentation of both maritime
and terrestrial habitats. Many animals have dense seasonal aggregations on
breeding grounds, along migratory pathways, or along the ice edges and in
open water polynyas in the sea ice, making them temporarily vulnerable to
even localised incidents. Rigs, drill ships, and offshore pipelines also tend to
impair migration routes. Even without pollution or accidents, oil and gas
activities can reduce the wilderness character of a region.

Increased Coast Guard presence cant solve the

environment empirics
Smith 14 writer for Alaskan Media(Matthew, Coast Guard Says Its
Increased Arctic Presence Will Have No Significant Environmental Impact
May 7th, http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/05/07/coast-guard-says-itsincreased-arctic-presence-will-have-no-significant-environmental-impact/
The U.S. Coast Guard has operated in the Arctic for more than a century, but
as the maritime agency plans for an increased presence in the region, its
taking stock of what its environmental impact will be in the Arctic in the years
to come.
Mike Dombkowski is on the team drafting the Coast Guards new
environmental assessment for Alaskas District 17, which was released
Tuesday. The document looks at what increased training and patrols in the
Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas will mean for arctic ecosystems.

What you might call day-to-day Coast Guard operations, doing patrols,
search and rescue, aides to navigation, the other types of missions that we
perform, heres what we see ourselves doing and heres what we think the
environmental impact of those things are.
The assessment looks at the Coast Guards plans for a broader arctic
presence from mid-March through mid-November. Beyond summer training
exercises in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seasexercises the service
has already conducted for several years runningthe increased arctic
operations call for establishing safety zones around vessels exploring for oil,
enforcing laws protecting endangered species and marine mammals, and
poaching prevention of fish stocks and mineral deposits. The plan also calls
for routine patrols of arctic waters with the nations two active icebreakers.
The assessment claims the impact will be minimal, and finds an increased
Coast Guard presence will have no significant adverse impacts on
water quality, arctic biology, cultural resources, and public safety.
Its supported by a companion document, a biological evaluation endorsed by
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
that affirms the Coast Guards increased arctic presence is not likely to
adversely affect protected bird, fish, and marine mammal species.
Even if their arctic commitments increase, the bigger question for the Coast
Guard may be one of resources.
Andrew Hartsig directs the arctic program at the Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit oceans advocacy group in Anchorage. He says an increased Coast
Guard presence above the Arctic Circle is, on the whole, a good thing, but he
questioned if the agency has what it needs to carry out its goals.
The limiting factor is clearly funding, and until the Coast Guard gets more
funding, specifically to engage in arctic work, they are going to be resourcelimited in terms of the personnel and the assets they can bring to bear.
Despite continued calls from residents and organizations in the arctic for
plans and preparation for maritime disasters like an oil spill in arctic waters,
Dombkowski said those are all questions for a different assessment to tackle.
Oil spill response is such a huge, big enough thing that it really deserves its
own document, he said, and that document and supporting stuff is being
done right now.
For now, the Coast Guard plans to tour its new environmental assessment
statewide, with plans to visit Anchorage, Kotzebue, Nome, and Barrow next
week for public meetings.
A delegation from the agency will be in Nome Monday, May 12 at the
Northwest campus, delivering at the campus conference room from 3 p.m. to
7 p.m.

LOST
Republicans hate LOSTCover, CNS News Correspondant, 12 (Matt, 07/16/12, CNS News, GOP
Senators Sink Law of the Sea Treaty; 'This Threat to Sovereignty',
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-senators-sink-law-sea-treaty-threatsovereignty, 06/27/14, ES)
Thirty-four Republican senators have now signed on to a letter circulated by
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) declaring that they will not support ratification of the
Law of the Sea Treaty. Ratification would have required a two-thirds vote in
the Senate to pass, meaning that 67 Senators would have needed to vote for
the treaty in order for the U.S. to formally agree to it. Now that 34 senators
have pledged to vote against ratification, there are not enough votes to ratify
the treaty. President Obama and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were
trying to ram through a misguided treaty that conveys ownership of the
oceans (2/3 of the earth surface) to a United Nations agency and subjects the
U.S. to international environmental judgments, said Sen. DeMint in a
statement released today. But conservatives defeated this threat to
sovereignty by rallying together enough senators to block the Law of the Sea
Treaty (LOST).

Lost leads to more drilling leases

Hurst 13 (Isaak, Attorney with the International Maritime Group, PLLC, November 1, The Law of the
Sea and Its Effects On Offshore Mining, http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/November2013/The-Law-of-the-Sea-and-Its-Effects-On-Offshore-Mining/)
Why UNCLOS Matters Now DeMints concerns are noble, but they are misguidedaccession to UNCLOS will

the United States is entitled to

permanent seat on ISAs Council, which provides the United States with veto
power over any decisions or policies it finds objectionable. This seat at the table is a seat the
United States does not have but desperately needs. Countries like China and
Russia are now aggressively pursuing offshore mining leases within the
parameters of the Convention. As of September of 2013, China is now the only
nation authorized by the ISA to explore the deep seabed for as many as three
major types of minerals. Would the United States have allowed such a sweeping grab of minerals
rights if it were a member of the ISA Council? Likely not, but without UNCLOS membership, the
United States has no voice. Second, there is no universally recognized legal regime
governing the navigational rights of nations beyond the zones of their
respective jurisdictions. This issue is of particular concern as China continues to exploit
this international law loophole by engaging in naval operations and
fishing expeditions in the territorial waters of other nations (Malaysia, Philippines,
Taiwan, Brunei, and Vietnam). Under UNCLOS, such activities are explicitly prohibited. Indeed, to curtail
Chinas lackadaisical stance on maritime borders and resources of other
countries, the United States needs to ratify this treaty. Moving Forward The United
States is one of the last remaining countries that has not ratified UNCLOS
along with Iran, Libya, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Burundi. Embarrassing political associations aside, nonratification is curtailing offshore development as US companies are afraid
not erode US sovereignty, but solidify it. First, under UNCLOS,

of the legal risks associated with such projects due to the lack of clear legal title to
deep-sea resources. To combat this issue, Congress should look past the political
hyperbole and understand that accession will expand US sovereignty by solidifying
the worlds maritime borders and provide US entities with the legal confidence
necessary to engage in deep-sea mining projects.

That destroys bio-d

Ritzman 14 Dan Ritzman is Alaska program director for the Sierra Club,
February 17, 2014, Guest: Shell, the U.S. not prepared for risks of drilling in
Arctic Ocean,
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022914154_danritzmanopedarcticdrilli
ng18xml.html
drilling in the Arctic Ocean comes with a distinctive set of risks to
the environment and would-be drillers. History has shown that where there is drilling, there is spilling. This
year marks 25 years since the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground, and oil can still be found on Southcentral Alaska beaches. Oil spills
in the Arctic would cause irreparable damage and be impossible to clean up.
The risks extend beyond a devastating oil spill . Drilling in the Arctic Ocean could release enough carbon
The reality is that

pollution to negate efforts to fight global warming and dramatically alter our climate. The pollution from oil-drilling activities would coat Arctic
ice surfaces with black, heat-absorbing soot, further speeding the melting of ice in a place that is already warming at twice the rate of the
Lower 48 states.

Lost doesnt help arctic leadership

Farrens 10J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law (Thomas, Shrinking Ice, Growing
Problems: Why We Must Act Now to Solve Emerging Problems Posed by an Ice-Free Arctic, Citation: 19
Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 655 2010-2011, http://www.uiowa.edu/~tlcp/TLCP%20Articles/192/farrens.finalfinal.mlb.042410.pdf//

At first glance, the UNCLOS appears to be exactly what the international community needs to resolve the
problems facing the Arctic. Nevertheless, three major defects have hampered the ability of the UNCLOS to
adequately solve the regions problems. First, the United States has not ratified the treaty. Second, nations
may opt out of the dispute resolution procedures. Third, the environmental protections required by the
UNCLOS do not adequately account for the unique needs of the Arctic environment. Without the United
States participation, the treaty cannot reach its full potential. The United States is still an incredibly powerful
player on the international stage, and its absence as a signatory nation seriously weakens the treatys ability
to effectuate any kind of real change. It is somewhat surprising that the Senate has not ratified the treaty.
Both former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported ratification during their presidencies. Vice
President Joe Biden is also on the record as supporting ratification. President Obama has likewise publicly
stated that ratification of the UNCLOS will protect our economic and security interests while providing an
important international collaboration to protect the oceans and its resources. The only holdouts are the
Senate Republicans. Considering the diminished role of the Senate Republicans since the 2008 elections, it
appears that the Obama Administration and Congress may push to ratify the UNCLOS. However,

even if

the United States decides to ratify the treaty, there is still an inherent structural problem
that may prevent the UNCLOS from solving disputes of any magnitude. This structural problems is that

every Arctic nation except

Norway has chosen this method to avoid the binding language of the UNCLOS. The
treatys substance hardly matters if there is no way to enforce its provisions. There is also a
nations may opt-out of the UNCLOS dispute resolution procedures. In fact,

significant problem with the generality of environmental protections in the UNCLOS. As mentioned previously,
the treaty purports to regulate activity in all of the worlds oceans. It does not, therefore, deal explicitly with
the very unique problems facing the Arctic environment. Unless the international community recognizes the
regions special needs, its natural environment will continue to worsen and become even more difficult to
restore.

More Ev
UNCLOS wont resolve the Arctic- no credibility

Smith 10 associate with Covington & Burling L.L.P.

(Angelle C. Smith, J.D. from George Washington Law School, Frozen Assets:
Ownership of Arctic Mineral Rights Must Be Resolved to Prevent the Really
Cold War, George Washington International Law Review, Vol. 41, 2010)
There are two primary reasons why UNCLOS is not a viable tool to resolve
Arctic boundary and resource disputes. First, only some of the Arctic coastal
states have ratified the treaty . 143 Second, there is a lack of accepted
customary international law applying recommendations of the UNCLOS CLCS.
144 Given that this would be the mechanism for resolving disputes in this
area, a new regime is necessary . This new regime, as explained in greater
detail below, should incorporate current mineral resource provisions and the
common heritage of mankind principles. Without a new regime, international
cooperation in the Arctic will not be sustained as the area becomes more
accessible.

Disads

Agenda
Preventing commercial fishing has congressional supportHull, 15, http://www.adn.com/commentary/article/us-arctic-fishing-closure-modelinternational-cooperation/2015/08/14/, Dan Hull is the current chair of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council. He also participates in the Arctic Council Task Force
on Marine Cooperation.
On Aug. 31, Secretary of State John Kerry will host a meeting of foreign ministers in Anchorage to discuss
the future of the Arctic. This event will focus on issues of vital importance to all Alaskans, from climate
change to community health and economic development .

One session of particular interest to Alaska

will address the prospect of potential commercial fisheries in the international
waters of the Central Arctic Ocean, or CAO. This conference comes on the heels
of the signing of a declaration on July 16 by the five Arctic coastal nations
that says they will not authorize their vessels to fish in the CAO until there is
sufficient scientific information to determine that fishing can be conducted
sustainably. These countries, Canada, Denmark on behalf of Greenland,
Norway, Russia, and the United States are those that border the international waters of the
CAO. Under international law, especially with respect to fisheries, it is
appropriate for these countries to take the lead in setting the conservation
agenda for how and when fisheries might be conducted in the CAO, just as Alaska
and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council took the lead for the United States years earlier. In
2007, a year with dramatic loss of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean, the North Pacific council
began work on the Arctic Fishery Management Plan. The plan went into effect in 2009 closing all U.S. Arctic
waters (from 3 to 200 miles offshore), from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border, to commercial fishing.
The council based its actions on concerns about the rapidly changing Arctic environment, the lack of
scientific information to properly manage fisheries in the region, and the potential impacts of fishing on the
subsistence way of life for indigenous peoples and coastal communities in the far North. This
unprecedented action was widely praised and supported by the Alaska fishing industry, Alaska Native
organizations and coastal communities, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. It also inspired
further action on the part of the U.S., this time in the international arena. As the sea ice retreated from the
Arctic Ocean just north of Alaska, concerns began to surface that distant-water fishing fleets could move
into the area. After all, fleets from Asia and Europe travel all the way to Antarctica for krill and other fish
resources. The Arctic just north of Alaska is far closer and becoming more accessible as the ice retreats.

The prospect of large scale commercial fisheries just beyond the boundary of
our Arctic 200-mile zone brought to mind the tragedy Alaska experienced in
the so-called Bering Sea Donut Hole decades earlier . In that instance,
unregulated fleets from China, Japan, Poland, and South Korea overfished the
Aleutian Basin pollock stock in the international waters of the central Bering
Sea. These waters are completely surrounded by the 200-mile zones of Russia and the United States.
Those two nations worked together as post-Cold War partners, to engage the fishing nations to come to an
agreement to prevent overfishing. But despite the best efforts of Russia and the U.S., that agreement was
not reached until the damage had been done and the pollock stock collapsed. The pollock have not

Sen. Ted Stevens,

joined by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Congressman Don Young and members of the
Pacific Northwest congressional delegations passed legislation that called
upon the U.S. to begin negotiations to secure a binding international
agreement to close the CAO to commercial fishing until there was adequate
recovered, and that fishery remains closed to this day. With this lesson in mind,

science to ensure sustainable fishing. As the current and former chairs of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, it is our hope that such a binding agreement can be put in place before

The declaration by the five Arctic coastal nations is a good

and proper first step, but now the discussion needs to be broadened to
include countries like China, Japan, South Korea, the EU, and Iceland. While
these countries and entities do not border the Arctic Ocean, they have an
interest in its future. If such an agreement is reached, then Alaska can be proud of the role it has
fishing begins in the CAO.

taken once again to lead the way for sound and scientifically based conservation and management of
ocean resources. Dan Hull is current chair of the NPFMC. David Benton, Stephanie Madsen, and Eric Olson
are former council chairs. Together, they chaired the council from 2000 to the present. Hull also
participates in the Arctic Council Task Force on Marine Cooperation; Madsen was a member of the Alaska
Arctic Policy Commission; and Benton is a member of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

Link non-unique Obama already pushed for Arctic policy

Rosen, 5/8, http://www.adn.com/arctic/article/midway-through-uschairmanship-arctic-council-focusing-black-carbon-science/2016/05/08/
U.S. chairmanship. Gourley and others involved in
U.S. Arctic policy are trying to use the chairmanship to heighten awareness of
the Arctic across the nation. "We've spent a lot of time on what we call, in the State
Department, 'public diplomacy,' " she said. Gourley said there is evidence of success. There
has been a proliferation of Arctic-related meetings and conferences , not only in
Still, there is one parochial aspect to the

Alaska but also in the Lower 48, she said. The State Department has launched a blog called "Our Arctic

The joint U.S.-Canada

statementproduced at a widely covered March meeting between President
Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had a heavy Arctic focus .
In Alaska, there are mixed views about whether the U.S. awareness goal is being fulfilled. Evon Peter,
vice chancellor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said he believes the
Nation" intended to highlight Arctic connections to each of the 50 states.

chairmanship has helped spread the message. "I didn't expect this to be a huge economic boon. But I did
expect it to be bringing more attention to Alaska and the Arctic," he said. "I do think they've been able to

to bring not only greater U.S. attention but global attention to the
Arctic." Margaret Williams, Arctic program director of the World Wildlife Fund, said new domestic
interest is evident in the list of Alaska-related projects President Obama
announced last year and the increased funding for Arctic programs he is
seeking from Congress this year, including $400 million for climate-threatened Alaska villages.
Craig Fleener, Gov. Bill Walker's adviser on Arctic issues, said he is thankful for
the "big blowout event" in August when Obama attended the GLACIER conference in
leverage our chairmanship

Anchorage and toured other parts of Alaska.

Obama wont push the plan

Francis, 14 (David, The race for Arctic oil: Russia vs. U.S. The coldest war?
The Fiscal Times, 2/27,
http://theweek.com/article/index/256908/the-race-for-arctic-oil-russia-vs-us)
Part of the problem is costs; a new icebreaker costs $800 million, and the
Coast Guard says it doesn't need new ones. But Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark

Begich said that the Obama administration should make the Arctic more of a
priority.
"It's like they've never heard of it," Begich said in a recent interview with Fox
News. "With the Obama administration we've had to push back pretty hard to
convince them and show them why they need to invest in not only
icebreakers, but forward operating bases for the Arctic."

Elections
The US public does not care about arctic policy
Kristofer Bergh July 2012, writer for SIPRI insights on peace and security
THE ARCTIC POLICIES OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: DOMESTIC
MOTIVES AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
file:///C:/Users/Aashistha/Downloads/SIPRIInsight1201.pdf
Many features of Canadian and US societies are intimately intertwined. The two countries share the worlds longest international border; each
is the others most important trading partners; and they work together militarily, both multi laterally through the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and bilaterally through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).3 Their bilateral relationship has often
been the defining factor in their respective Arctic policies, yet despite their apparent similarities, they have adopted substantially different
approaches to the Arctic region. While the two countries different Arctic geographies account for many of the differences, other factors

The Arctic is a
relatively low priority issue for the USA among the range of international
challenges that it faces. The top levels of US leadership may pay attention to
the region, but the Arctic is not in the minds of the US public and is thus not a
politicized issue. Canada, in contrast, has made the Arctic a top national priority, closely linked to Canadian identity and
contribute to both differences and similarities. Among these, domestic factors should not be underestimated.

sovereignty. This paper explores how the domestic motives for the Arctic policies of Canada and the USA have an impact on their foreign
policies and how their bilateral interaction shapes the wider context of Arctic relations. Section II describes the Arctic foreign policies of the two
states with reference to three specific areas: security, governance and economic development. Section III outlines the complex relationship
between domestic politics and Arctic foreign policy in each country. Section IV discusses the effect of CanadianUS relations on their Arctic
policies. Section V presents conclusions. The second disagreement relates to the Northwest Passage. In Canada, the Arctic in general and the
Northwest Passage in particular are closely associated with Canadian history and national identity. To play on these nationalistic sentiments in
a domestic setting, as when Daryl Kramp, a Conservative member of the Canadian Parliament, suggested renaming the waterway the

The USA,
in contrast, has low domestic political stakes in the Arctic and interest in the
region is still relatively low among the general public. A complicating factor with the Northwest
Canadian Northwest Passage, risks raising the stakes and has an adverse effect on international cooperation in the Arctic.87

Passage is the USAs reluctance to make the strait into a precedent applicable elsewhere in the world. The US Navy and Coast Guard
emphasize the freedom of the seas and argue against accepting the passage as Canadian internal waters as this might influence
developments concerning other straits, such as the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. Today the two countries may agree to disagree on
the matter, but the issue remains a source of friction. After the US Ambassador to Canada reiterated the US position in 2006, Harper
responded by stating that It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador from the United States.88 Further US
challenges to the Canadian position, such as the 1985 Polar Sea incident, may also drive Canada closer to Russia, which holds a similar
position on the Northern Sea Route. The Arctic has become a region of great political importance in Canada. However, the Canadian

US public
and political interest remains low and the USAs capacity to operate in the
region leaves much to be desired, changes are visible in terms of US foreign and defence policy.
Governments statements about identity and sovereignty may not be conducive to international cooperation. Although

Kritik

Neolib
Alternatives to growth are worse we cant turn off the
economy
Barnhizer 6 David R. Barnhizer, Emeritus Professor at Cleveland State Universitys ClevelandMarshall College of Law, 2006 (Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream": The Decisionmaking
Realities of Business and Government, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (18 Geo. Int'l
Envtl. L. Rev. 595), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

The scale of social needs, including the need for expanded productive
activity, has grown so large that it cannot be shut off at all , and
certainly not abruptly . It cannot even be ratcheted down in any significant
fashion without producing serious harms to human societies and
hundreds of millions of people . Even if it were possible to shift back to
systems of local self-sufficiency, the consequences of the transition process
would be catastrophic for many people and even deadly to the point of
continual conflict , resource wars , increased poverty , and strife .
What are needed are concrete, workable, and pragmatic strategies that
produce effective and intelligently designed economic activity in specific
contexts and, while seeking efficiency and conservation, place economic and social justice high on a list
of priorities. n60 The imperative of economic growth applies not only to the needs
and expectations of people in economically developed societies but also to
people living in nations that are currently economically underdeveloped.
Opportunities must be created, jobs must be generated in huge numbers, and
economic resources expanded to address the tragedies of poverty and
inequality. Unfortunately, natural systems must be exploited to achieve this;
we cannot return to Eden . The question is not how to achieve a static
state but how to achieve what is needed to advance social justice while
avoiding and mitigating the most destructive consequences of our behavior .

Neolib is sustainable, inevitable and alternatives are

useless political abstraction
Arvidsson 13teaches sociology at the University of Milano
(Adam, Thinking beyond neo-liberalism: A response to Detlev Zwick, ephemera: theory & politics in
organization 13(2): 407-412, dml)

We can of course still criticize the actual

state of things. We can point to the precarious relations that prevail among creative knowledge
This makes it trickier to do critical theory.

workers; show how exploitative and unjust conditions are intensified by the very forces that drive the
globalization of communicative capitalism, like the outsourcing of design work; or lament the fact that a
triumphant neoliberal regime subsumes and appropriates aspects of subjectivity and social life that we
think should have been left alone. To produce such critiques remains useful intellectual work I have done
it in other contexts (Arvidsson et al., 2010; Arvidsson, 2007), as has Detlev Zwick (2008), and many others.
To the extent that such critiques reach a mass audience, they can become a progressive impulse to action
and reflection as in the case of Naomi Kleins work inspiring the no global movement (to use an
inadequate name coined by the mainstream press). But

such a critique without an

alternative remains unsatisfactory for at least three reasons. First, and most
superficially, since everyone else is doing it, the marginal utility of yet
another piece of critical theory rapidly diminishes, as does the
intellectual satisfaction that can be derived form producing it. Second, and more
seriously, the absence of a realistic alt ernative, or even of a historical
subject in the name of which such a critique can be pronounced,
risks rendering critical theory moralistic and rather toothless . We might
agree with Zwick when he suggests that the outsourcing of design work from Toronto to
the Philippines is somehow wrong, but it is difficult to understand exactly
why this would be the case. (Why shouldnt Philippine designers be allowed to compete with
Canadian designers? Can the creative class claim an exemption from the global economy? Perhaps the
answer is yes, but I do not know of any viable alternative vision of society that is able to substantiate that

in the absence of an alternative vision,

critical theory remains rather unconvincing to the people in the
name of whom it proposes to speak. I can assure you and Ive tried! that you
wont become an organic intellectual among social entrepreneurs or
precarious creative workers by telling them that they are exploited ,
yes.) Third, and most importantly,

that they sell out their subjectivity , or that the system in which
they operate is unjust . Pure critique is simply not attractive enough
to make the multitude of new productive subjects, fragmented by
neoliberalism, cohere into a historical subject. To do that you need
at least the myth of an alternative, as agitators from Sorel via Lenin to Subcomandante
Marcos could tell you. Dont get me wrong. I am not proposing that it is wrong to point to the precarious

knowledge work, or that we should not do this as academics and researchers. This
is still an important task. But it is not enough . Critical theory must
conditions of

do this,

but it must also do more . It must also engage with

the question of what a realistic alternative to neoliberalism could

be, and it must elaborate a realistic political vision in the name of
which a critique that is productive and progressive, and not simply
moralistic, can be articulated. By realistic, I mean that such an alternative
must be sought in the actual relations of production that
characterize the contemporary information economy. Zwicks
suggestion that we imagine a commonism of productive
consumption as collaborative sharing in the absence of private property and
combined with an inclusive model of political determination, collective sovereignty, belonging and justice

is simply unproductive to my mind. We might all agree that an

economy of commons that has done away with capitalism might be
more desirable, but the reality is that hybrid forms , like the game modders
and so on

that Zwick cites, where a an economy of commons co-exists with a capitalist value logic, in some form,

are indeed becoming the norm. At that point the interesting thing to do is
not so much to criticize the enduring capitalist nature of these
hybrid forms, but rather to investigate the new forms of politics that
they might give rise to. This in no way implies that one does away with conflict and politics.
Rather, it implies investigating and understanding the new spaces and
discourses through which such a new type of politics can be

articulated. In order to do this we must start with what the actors involved
in these processes actually think themselves. It is quite useless to
simply deploy existing philosophical perspectives, or to compare the
reality of communicative capitalism to utopian projections of the political
visions of last century. Instead we must start with the empirical metaphysics, to use Bruno
Latours term, that actually prevail among people engaged in such hybrid practices. We might all
want to do away with neoliberalism and the forms of life that it has
promoted. But at the same time, we all recognize that the neoliberal
project has been one of the most successful projects of
governmentality since, perhaps, the very project of disciplinary power that Foucault himself
described. Rebus sic stantibus we cannot simply wish it away . We need to
recognize that people have changed, that competitive individualism ,
self-branding and an entrepreneurial mentality are, by now, normal features of life. The
same thing goes for the popular political myths that prevail among advanced knowledge workers, what
Zwick calls cyber-utopianism. We need to recognize that notions like peer-to-peer production, high-tech
gift economies and the like have the power to mobilize the energies of the subjects that are most likely to
become the pioneers of a new political vision todays version of the skilled workers that have taken the
lead in most modern political movements. Even though the social theory that they produce might be
shallow and imperfect, and even though they might not have read Marx and Foucault as well as we have,
we cannot simply dismiss this vision as a mere ideology to be replaced by our theoretically more refined
ideology. Like the relations of production that are emerging in communicative capitalism and the
subjectivity of knowledge workers, these myths are part of the raw material with which the Gramscian
intellectual must engage in order to articulate new understandings of common sense that are both

In
other words, in order to articulate an alternative, we cannot simply
dismiss the reality of communicative capitalism and fall back on
what remains of the political utopias of last century. We need to
engage with the reality of neoliberal communicative capitalism and try
to push its dialectic beyond its apolitical present state. We must investigate what the
real conditions of production and imagination are and ask ourselves
where they might lead. Critical theory needs to become an
empirical , and not simply a philosophical, enterprise.
politically progressive and intuitively attractive to the people that they are supposed to mobilize.

Security
Counter securitizing methods fail in the ArcticWatson 11 (Scott, dept of poli sci @ Univ of Victoria, International Studies
Association Annual Convention 2011, "What Weve Got Here, Is Failure to
Securitise: Arctic Sovereignty and National Security inCanada",
3/16/11,http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/www/www/index.php?

cmd=www_search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_search_search_mode=publication&multi_search_p
ublication_fulltext_mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&search_module=multi_search&search
=Search&search_field=title_idx&fulltext_search=What+We%E2%80%99ve+Got+Here
%2C+Is+Failure+to+Securitise%3A+Arctic+Sovereignty+and+National+Security+in+Canada )

Onepossibleexplanationfortheapparentfailureofthese securitizing narratives isthat

theyall compete with one another, and ultimately act as counter-securitizing
narratives that undermine policy proposals consistent with the other frames.
However, the existence of counter-securitizing narratives on its own does
not resolve the problem of failed securitization.Ratherthanprovidingananswerto
whymilitary securitizationhasfailed,the existence of counter-securitizing
narratives prompts the question of why none of these narratives have been
successful in terms of producing drastic policy change in the CanadianArctic.
InthispaperIexplorehowvarious policy changes on the Arctic have been
justified on the grounds of eithermilitaryorenvironmental security.Icontendthat
assessing the success or failure of a security claim should not be based on
whetherthepolicymeasuresareconsistentwiththe logic of the securitizing claim
(environmentalsecurityclaim=environmentalprotection)but rather in exploring what
securitizing actors seek to accomplish by evoking the term security. This
can only done by focusing on proposed policy changes,andhowtheyfitintothe
securitizingnarrative.Thepaperisdividedintothreesections,thefirstexplorestheconcept
ofsecuritization,inparticularhowtoconceptualizeandexplainsuccessandfailure.Thesecond
sectionfocusesonthesuccessfulmilitarysecuritizationduringtheSecondWorldWarandearly
ColdWar,andthedemiseofthissecuritynarrativeintheearly1960s.Thethirdsectionfocuses
ontheroleoftheenvironmentalsecuritynarrativefromtheearly1960suntilthemid1980sthat
wasusedtojustifytheexpansionofCanadianterritorialclaimsintheArctic.Whatthesecases
demonstrateisthatCanadianpoliticaleliteshavesuccessfullysecuritizedtheArcticinvarious
ways,butthattounderstandsuccessorfailureoftheseclaimsrequirescloserexaminationofthe
policygoalsofthesecuritizingactors.

Topicality

CI
CI- US diplomatic engagement in the arctic is advancing
security, stewardship, and international cooperation.
Hagel, 13. Chuck, secretary of Defense, November. Department of
Defense, 13. Arctic Strategy.
http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf
The 2013 National Strategy on the Arctic Region frames the whole -of-government
approach that provides the overarching context for the Departments efforts. It lays out three main lines of
effort in the Arctic: advance U.S. security interests; pursue responsible Arctic
region stewardship; and strengthen international cooperation . The goal of the National
Strategy for the Arctic Region is an Arctic region that is stable and free of conflict, where nations act responsibly in a spirit of trust and
cooperation, and where economic and energy resources are developed in a sustainable manner that also respects the fragile environment and
the interests and cultures of indigenous peoples. The DoD Arctic Strategy outlines how the Department will support the whole -of-government

The Departments strategic

approach to the Arctic reflects the relatively low level of military threat in a region bounded by nation States that
have not only publicly committed to working within a common framework of international law and diplomatic engagement,
effort to promote security, stewardship, and international cooperation in the Arctic.

6 but have also demonstrated the ability and commitment to do so. In consideration of enduring national interests in the Arctic and existing
strategic guidance, the Departments end -state for its strategic approach to the Arctic is: a secure and stable region where U.S. national
interests ar e safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is protected, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges.

The Department will pursue comprehensive engagement with allies and partners to protect the
homeland and support civil authorities in preparing for increased human activity in the Arctic. Strategic partnerships are the center of gravity in ensuring a peaceful
opening of the Arctic and achieving the Departments desired end -state. Where possible, DoD will seek innovative, low -cost, small - footprint approaches to achieve these
objectives (e.g., by participating in multilateral exercises like the Search and Rescue Exercise (SAREX) hosted by Greenland, COLD RESPONSE hosted by Norway, and
Canadas Operation NANOOK, or through Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program -supported engagements on Arctic issues). The Department will also
evolve its infrastructure and capabilities in step with the changing physical environment in order to ensure security, support safety, promote defense cooperation, and
prepare to respond to a wide range of challenges and contingencies in the Arctic in the coming decades. The Department will accomplish its objectives

through

the following ways : Exercise sovereignty and protect the homeland; Engage public and private sector partners to improve domain awareness in the Arctic; Preserve

Arctic infrastructure and capabilities consistent with

changing conditions; Support existing agreements with allies and partners
while pursuing new ones to build confidence with key regional partners ; Provide
support to civil authorities, as directed; Partner with other departments and agencies and nations
to support human and environmental safety; and Support the development
of the Arctic Council and other international institutions that promote regional cooperation and the rule of law. 8
freedom of the seas in the Arctic; Evolve

WM- the plan directly supports environmental coop

w/China
Precision- prefer our interp its specific to the region and
is from the Department of Defense which sets the legal
context of how we diplomatically engage.

WM
WM: Arctic policy is how China conducts diplomatic and
economic engagement.
Vingoe, 15. Sandy, staff writer for NATO Association, 9/2. Chinas Polar
Ascendancy: Exploring Beijings Rising Involvement in the Arctic.
http://natoassociation.ca/chinas-polar-ascendancy-exploring-beijings-risinginvolvement-in-the-arctic/
The Arctic
geopolitical intrigue

, once an afterthought in international affairs,

has recently become a region filled with

. The rise of the Arctic to the forefront of international affairs has been fueled by the increasingly apparent fact that the effects of climate change will greatly

transform the region. As warming temperatures eat away at the polar ice fields of the north, many experts predict that the Arctic will play a crucial role in world energy and trade policy during the coming decades.

the
most interesting and potentially revolutionary development in the region has
been the recent emergence of China as a key player in the polar north.
the PRC has stepped up its
diplomatic
engagement
Already, traditional northern powers such as the US, Canada and Russia have started to increase their political and economic activity in the Arctic, each jockeying for influence in the area. But perhaps

In the past several

years,

involvement in the area, employing a strategy of corporate expansion and

. A key factor in the rising importance of the Arctic is the regions abundance of natural resources. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Arctic houses 13% of the

worlds undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered natural gas and 20% of its undiscovered natural gas liquids. With these fuels hidden away by massive glaciers and thick sheets of ice, energy companies have
struggled for years to locate and extract these valuable resources. However, the erosion of the polar ice caps will likely allow much greater access to these energy sources in the near future. As the frigid gateways
to the wealth of the Arctic begin to open, the world powers will soon be locked in fierce competition for the greatest share. China, a massive nation with an insatiable appetite for energy, has an obvious incentive to
extract and take advantage of the Arctics bounty of fuel. With consumption in China expected to surge in the coming decades and as global supplies of fossil fuels dwindle, the Arctic will no doubt soon become one
of the PRCs most important foreign policy concerns. The melting ice will also allow for new possibilities in the realm of international trade. According to climate change projections, the receding ice sheets will
provide superior access to the Northwest Passage, the northern sea route linking Asia to Europe. Currently, the Northwest Passage is not yet an economically viable route for commercial vessels since voyages
through the Arctic require accompanying icebreaking ships. However, with the thinning of the northern sea ice, the potential of the Northwest Passage as an alternative to the longer Suez Canal route from Asia to
Europe will become more and more tantalizing. For China, a nation with an economy fueled by exports, the Northwest Passage would provide huge commercial benefits. Using the Northwest Passage, a voyage from
Beijing to Hamburg, for instance, would be approximately 30% shorter than the alternative Suez Canal route. Such a difference in length would save Chinese corporations on fuel and supply expenditures and would
greatly increase Chinas export potential to the European market. Beijings recent actions suggest that the PRC leadership recognizes the great importance of the Arctic region, as Chinas state-owned energy and
mining companies have become increasingly aggressive in the area. Recently, Chinas National Offshore Oil Corporation announced a deal with the Icelandic energy firm Eykon to search for fossil fuels off Icelands
southeast coast. State-owned mining firm Sichuan Xinye Mining Investment Company has also begun financing a major mining project at Greenlands Isua iron-ore field. Another notable deal was made in 2013

Another key
aspect of Chinas Arctic policy has been the PRCs increased diplomatic
involvement with various states in the region
between the China National Petroleum Corporation and the Russian oil company Rosneft, to jointly explore three potential oil fields in the Barents and Pechora seas.

. In recent years, China has been actively forming numerous bilateral economic

relationships with Arctic states. For instance, in 2010, China provided Iceland with a $500 million currency swap to help revive the struggling Icelandic economy. The PRC continued to improve its relationship with
Iceland by signing a free trade agreement with the Arctic nation in 2013. China has also established close ties with Denmark, as the two nations signed deals worth $740 million in the areas of power, the green
economy, agriculture and food security. Through these treaties, the PRC has made key Arctic states more economically dependent on China, increasing its political influence in the region. The relationships that
Beijing established with Iceland and Denmark proved especially useful as the two countries backed Chinas successful bid for observer status on the Arctic Council in 2013. This observer status is a valuable asset to
the PRC, as Beijing now has a forum it can use to voice its opinions and pursue its interests in the area. Chinas acquisition of observer status also has a symbolic effect, as it demonstrates to the rest of the world

Through its combination of corporate and political

initiatives, China has made the Arctic a policy priority. Over the past several
years, Beijings actions have greatly expanded its diplomatic clout and
economic influence in the area, establishing the PRC as a key actor
that China has become an important player in the Arctic region.

in the polar north. Now, as

our warming climate melts the northern ice sheets, uncovering an abundance of natural resources and lucrative trade routes, more and more countries will seek an expanded presence in the Arctic. As the race for
the riches of the Arctic begins to heat up, Chinas current policies have put the country in position to assert its interests in the region for years to come.

WM- diplomatic engagement with China includes shaping

their role in multilateral institutionsEly Ratner, Elbridge Colby, Andrew Erickson, Zachary Hosford, and
Alexander Sullivan, More Willing and Able: Charting Chinas International
Security Activism (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, May
2015). More Willing and Able: Charting Chinas International Security
Activism.
U.S.-China security cooperation will continue to be limited by legal and political constraints, although there may be opportunities for
cooperation on nontraditional security challenges and possibly new areas to include counterterrorism, maritime security, and arms control.

Within existing engagements, the United States should pursue with China
more interagency interactions, at lower levels and with third countries. To shape the environment in which Chinas
international security activism occurs, the United States should seek to increase U.S. military access and presence in areas where the PLA is
most likely to operate away from Chinas shores, particularly in the Indian Ocean region. As China increasingly has both the political will and

the United States should also take measures to sustain

augment its diplomatic engagement

the military capability to serve as an important security partner,

and deepen its alliances, as well as

on China-related issues with countries
that could be strategically significant for Chinese power projection. Supporting the development of more capable and effective multilateral
institutions will also be critical to managing Chinas international security activism in a number of regions, including Southeast Asia, the Indian

the United States should consider

ways to engage and shape Chinese-led multilateral initiatives and
organizations. Maintaining a competitive military balance in the Western Pacific will be a crucial element of limiting the potentially
Ocean, Central Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Arctic. As part of these efforts,

destabilizing effects of the PLAs expanding partnerships and power projection capabilities. Failing to do so would enable China to field greater
capacity for extraregional power projection more quickly, render it able to focus more resources on deploying to a broader set of regions, and
allow it to operate more effectively and decisively across a greater set of domains.

WM: Science Diplomacy

Prefer contextual evidence- China considers fishing policy
to be diplomatic engagement
Tong Ji University, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China, 10 November 2015
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002997
In recent years, up to 40% of the central Arctic Ocean has been ice-free in
summer. This open water makes access possible for ordinary vessels,
including fishing boats. The five Arctic Ocean coastal states (Canada,
Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States) have agreed to
develop an international agreement to prohibit unregulated fishing in
international waters of the central Arctic Ocean . Non-Arctic countries, including China, and regional
Abstract

organizations such as the European Union will be invited to join the ensuing negotiations. Participation would strengthen China's interest in Arctic affairs in a cooperative fashion,
in contrast to a perception that China is interested solely in extracting Arctic resources and is thus a competitor with Arctic states. China's scientific capacity, including the
icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon), provides it with an opportunity to practice marine and polar science diplomacy and to contribute further to Arctic cooperation and
collaborative understanding. The precautionary approach of managing resources before extraction begins may make cooperative actions easier, as no one yet has a stake in the
resource, and could provide a model for other regions that are developing international mechanisms for governance of international waters. 1. Introduction The waters of the
central Arctic Ocean (Fig. 1) have been increasingly ice-free in summer for the past 15 years, particularly north of the Chukchi Sea, off the coasts of Russia and the United States
[1]. In the summer of 2012, as calculated from National Snow and Ice Data Center data, 40% of the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) had less than 15% ice
cover, thus appearing as open water in maps of sea ice extent. For the first time in human history, a new ocean is opening up [2]. And as warming continues, the likelihood of an
ice-free Arctic in the next few decades becomes greater [3]. are moving north [4], including in subarctic waters [5]. The combination of open water and north-moving fish raises
the prospect of Arctic fisheries, though it remains unclear which species might move into the waters of the CAO, in what numbers, and when [6]. The management of fisheries in
the CAO, beyond national jurisdictions, has nonetheless become a more pressing issue in Arctic marine governance. In July 2015, the five Arctic coastal states signed the
Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, including their intent to create a broader international agreement on the
same principles. But CAO fisheries governance is not only about fishing. It has many other aspects, such as cooperative governance of the Arctic, the relations among Arctic states,
and the relations between Arctic and non-Arctic states. The sequence of events surrounding CAO fisheries may provide a novel opportunity for countries such as China to become
involved cooperatively and constructively in Arctic affairs. By acting in advance of any fishing activity and any negative impacts to fish stocks, a CAO agreement creates an
unusual pathway for participation on the basis of caution rather than reaction. Such an agreement is thus a question of policy, science, and international relations. With these
themes in mind, this paper explores first the interactions of policy and science concerning the CAO, noting that in this instance policy is leading science rather than the reverse.
Then it examines China's interest in the CAO and its evolving role in Arctic affairs, including Arctic science as a form of diplomacy. It concludes with observations on the
implications of China's participation in CAO fisheries discussions as a symbol of the potential shift towards greater international involvement in the development and management
of Arctic resources. 2. Fishing, science, and policy Typically, issues are raised as societal or economic ones, which in turn generate political interest, resulting in policy planning

Fisheries in the international waters of the Bering Sea, the so-called

Donut Hole, demonstrate this pattern. International fishing fleets operated in these waters,
eventually attracting attention from American fishers who feared that unregulated
fishing could undermine management of pollock (Gadus chalcogramma) in
U.S. waters. Their economic concerns led to a U.S. policy supporting an
international agreement for the Donut Hole . The Convention on the
Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea
was signed in 1994, too late for the pollock stocks that were by then depleted
and have yet to recover to levels that would sustain a fishery [7]. Scientific efforts helped identify
and eventual policies.

management targets for the Donut Hole stock and continue to support sound management of pollock harvests in U.S. waters [8]. By contrast, the CAO fisheries issue began as a
policy matter, as the United States Senate passed a resolution in 2007, directing the U.S. government to pursue an international agreement for the CAO. The resolution was signed
into law in June 2008 and is based on the same logic that supported the U.S. Fishery Management Plan for the Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, which established a
catch quota of zero for U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas until there is sufficient information to support an economically and environmentally sustainable fishery [9].
This approach was also taken by Canada for its portion of the Beaufort Sea in 2014 under the Beaufort Sea Integrated Fisheries Management Framework, where new commercial
fisheries will only be considered after research has shown surplus and sustainable stocks [10]. Rather than being driven by scientific findings or by unsustainable or unmanaged
activities already taking place, the policy-driven approach is based in part on the lack of scientific information concerning fish stocks and ecosystem dynamics in the CAO. One
challenge in this approach is the potential lack of incentive to act before there is clearly a problem to address. Some countries and some scientists considered a CAO fisheries
agreement unnecessary or not urgent, on the grounds that there was no fishing taking place nor any evidence that such a fishery might begin in the foreseeable future [6]. There has
been little advocacy by non-governmental organizations, other than the Pew Charitable Trusts [11]. These circumstances also meant that no one has a stake in CAO fisheries at
present, so there is little or no active opposition. The lack of activities in the region also meant that states all approached the issue from a similar standpoint, with no need to justify
or protect current practices. Instead, all parties had the opportunity to engage cooperatively. This idea has important implications for the engagement of non-Arctic states such as
China, as discussed below. To date, formal diplomatic discussions have been limited to the five Arctic Ocean coastal states: Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Russia,
and the U.S. The policy meetings have been complemented by three closed scientific meetings involving the same countries, in addition to various events outside the channels of
international diplomacy (Table 1). Despite tensions between Russia and other countries concerning the Ukrainian crisis, the five countries signed the Declaration Concerning the
Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean in July 2015, a year after it was drafted in Nuuk, Greenland. The progression of events and meetings
concerning a CAO fisheries agreement is shown in Table 1. Among the key next steps is the engagement of non-Arctic actors such as the European Union, South Korea, Japan, and

China is a near-Arctic nation [12]; what happens in the Arctic

increasingly has great impacts on China, and vice versa. Climate change in
the Arctic can affect China's weather, which in turn may have great impacts
on China's agricultural production and living conditions [13]. The opening and
commercial use of Arctic shipping routes also have great potential impacts on
China 3. China and the Arctic

China's economic development and trade [13]. The development of Arctic

mineral and petroleum resources is of great interest to China, as a major
consumer of raw materials and producer of manufactured goods [14]. China has
a long history of participation in the Arctic. China signed the Svalbard Treaty
in 1925, and opened the Huang He research station there in Ny-lesund in 2004 [15], an icon of what Chinese scholar Kai Sun has called China's substantive
presence in the Arctic. China has conducted six scientific expeditions in the Arctic since 1999, and in 2012 committed to making these voyages every two years. In August 2012,
Chinese scientists aboard the icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon) completed the country's first trans-Arctic voyage from Shanghai to Iceland [16]. The goals of China's scientific
expeditions to the Arctic include environmental concerns, aurora observations, and marine biological research. Social scientists have also contributed to Arctic research through
various conferences and collaborations, such as the Sino-Russia Arctic Forum (established in 2012), China-Nordic Arctic Cooperation Symposium (2013), and Sino-U.S. Arctic

China has realized from the beginning that cooperation with the
Arctic states is the preferred path for China's participation in Arctic matters [17].
In 2012, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited Iceland and signed deals with Iceland
for Arctic and marine scientific cooperation, and also agreements on trade,
joint business ventures, and so on [18]. The same year, President Hu Jintao visited
Denmark to consolidate and strengthen friendly cooperation between the two
countries, including in the Arctic [19]. Those all paved the way for China's
acceptance in the Arctic Council (a regional intergovernmental organization)
as an observer in 2013, which it had sought since 2008 [15]. China has also been
investing in Arctic areas. For example, in March 2015 China provided US$15
billion to contribute to the financing of a US$27-billion liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plant on Russia's Yamal Peninsula, in cooperation with the Russian natural gas producer Novatek [20]. A
Chinese company attempted a cooperative project with UK-based London
Mining to develop the Isua iron ore mine in Greenland , but this failed when London Mining went bankrupt
Social Science Forum (2015).

after iron ore prices plunged in 2014. However, the Chinese company retains the exploration rights for Isua as it acquired London Mining's subsidiary in Greenland. In 2015,
General Nice Group, a Chinese private trading company, took over a large iron ore mine in Greenland, which was reported to be worth around US$2 billion [21]. Chinese

The potential for CAO fisheries, too, is of

interest to China. With the collapse of fish stocks in China's coastal seas [23] and [24]
and the rapid increase in the income of the Chinese population, China's
demand for fish has been increasing rapidly [25]. This demand has led to recent
expansion and improvement of China's distant-water fishing fleet (XG Lai,
personal communication, January 2015). Specialists in the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences proposed that the long-term priority of China's agricultural
development should be its overseas fisheries [26]. China will inevitably be
interested in fisheries throughout the world, including the CAO . 4. Science and diplomacy At the
companies are also interested in investing in local infrastructure in the Arctic [22].

intersection of China's interest in fisheries and its interest in the Arctic is its role in a CAO fisheries agreement. Observer status at the Arctic Council is recognition of China's
contributions to Arctic research and Arctic affairs more generally, but observers play no role in the decisions that are made there. While the five Arctic Ocean coastal states have so
far limited participation in CAO fisheries discussions, the recent declaration is the start of wider engagement, including perhaps a more substantive role for China and others than

China's role in developing Arctic resources causes concern in

some areas, China's participation in a cooperative agreement to safeguard
the CAO ecosystem and its fish stocks offers another pathway for China. And
China brings its research and ice-breaking capacity to the discussion . China
could play an important role in investigating the marine living resources in
the CAO. Scientists agree that there is little information about the CAO
ecosystem, especially in the deep area [27]. Much information will be needed to
manage sustainable fisheries in the CAO. By strengthening research in the
region, China could demonstrate the importance it attaches to Arctic fisheries
issues and to the Arctic in general, and its willingness to act cooperatively
with Arctic states and others. For example, China could help to promote
scientific cooperation agreements for the CAO and could push to establish
appropriate research institutions that bring together the expertise, capacity,
and funds of the Arctic and non-arctic states. The government of China is
they enjoy at the Arctic Council. While

further strengthening diplomatic relations with Arctic states through scientific

research. Science diplomacy can help build trust and foster intercultural
understanding. Science diplomacy is not new [28]. A prominent example is the
governance of Antarctica, where the soft power of science has helped strike a
balance between national and common interests [28]. In 1959, the Antarctic
Treaty was signed and came into force in 1961 [29]. The most important common interest articulated in the Treaty is
the freedom of scientific research, including the exchange of data and people. This is crucial for informing management strategies to protect the Antarctic environment and ensure
the sustainable use of its resources [28]. During the Cold War, the Antarctic Treaty kept the region peaceful and fostered scientific cooperation, despite tensions and battles

China might take several steps further towards the

governance of Arctic fisheries. First, China must attach great importance to
the Arctic fisheries issues and strengthen the scientific research on the Arctic
marine living resources. Second, as a stakeholder in Arctic fisheries, China
needs to strengthen international cooperation with the Arctic countries,
individually and collectively. Some journalists in China argue that the sooner
China participates in the Arctic fisheries issues , the better it can act in its own
interests for this and other Arctic matters [30]. 5. Conclusions CAO fisheries is more than a fishing issue, it opens a new path
elsewhere in the world [29]. In the near future,

for Arctic governance and for international cooperation in general. The policy-first approach to CAO fisheries is an innovative way to address potential problems before they
become real problems, following the precautionary principle and avoiding the exploit-first, manage-second disasters seen in many fisheries around the world [31]. Doing so allows
all participating states to act cooperatively from the beginning, rather than separating into competing sides and judgments about which are the good actors and which the bad. The
alternative could lead to power struggles and missed opportunities for good governance. China is trying hard to strengthen the connection between China and the Arctic and to
participate in Arctic affairs. An overemphasis on resource development may alienate Arctic states or at least some constituencies in those states. Contributing to the research of
Arctic marine living resources and the protection of the Arctic environment, however, is likely to be seen as a more benign role. The CAO fisheries negotiations may thus provide
an opportunity for China to be involved in Arctic affairs in a new and non-threatening way, perhaps reducing concerns among Arctic states about China's intentions and thereby
creating new opportunities for collaboration based on better relations and better mutual understanding. The management of CAO fisheries is at the intersection of geopolitics,
policy, diplomacy, and science. The countries individual interests can only be achieved through effective management of the CAO fisheries, which can only be achieved
cooperatively. In this case, cooperation also means the involvement of non-Arctic states such as China. The recognition of the respective roles of policy and science may be an
effective way of putting the precautionary principle into practice and harnessing the mutual interests and abilities of the various states that have Arctic interests. Such a precedent
would be a valuable contribution to effective governance of international waters in the Arctic and could provide a useful model for other regions as well.

China uses fishing policy to achieve diplomatic

engagementPan, 16. Min, author and contributor to Marine Policy and Center for Polar
and Oceanic Studies, Tong Ji University, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China,
January edition. A precautionary approach to fisheries in the Central Arctic
Ocean: Policy, science, and China.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002997
At the intersection of China's interest in fi sheries and its in- terest in the
Arctic is its role in a CAO fi sheries agreement

. Ob- server status at the Arctic Council is recognition of China's con- tributions to Arctic

research and Arctic affairs more generally, but observers play no role in the decisions that are made there. While the fi ve Arctic Ocean coastal states have so far limited participation in CAO fi sheries discussions,

While China's role in

developing Arctic resources causes concern in some areas, China's
participation in a cooperative agreement to safe- guard the CAO ecosystem
and its fi sh stocks offers another path- way for China. And China brings its
research and ice-breaking capacity to the discussion. China could play an
important role in investigating the marine living resources in the CAO
By strengthening
research in the region, China could demonstrate the importance it attaches to
Arctic fi sheries i
and could push to establish appropriate research institutions that
bring together the expertise, capacity, and funds of the Arctic and non-arctic
states. The government of China is further strengthening diplomatic relations
with Arctic states through scienti fi c research. Science diplomacy can help
build trust and foster intercultural under- standing
the recent declaration is the start of wider engagement, including perhaps a more substantive role for China and others than they enjoy at the Arctic Council.

. Scientists agree that

there is little information about the CAO ecosystem, especially in the deep area [27] . Much information will be needed to manage sustainable fi sheries in the CAO.

ssues and to the Arctic in general, and its willingness to act cooperatively with Arctic states and others. For example, China could help to promote scienti fi c cooperation

agreements for the CAO

. Science diplomacy is not new [28] . A prominent example is the

governance of Antarctica, where the soft power of science has helped strike a balance between national and common inter- ests [28] . In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty was signed and came into force in 1961 [29] . The

most important common interest articu- lated in the Treaty is the freedom of scienti fi c research, including the exchange of data and people. This is crucial for informing management strategies to protect the
Antarctic environment and ensure the sustainable use of its resources [28] . During the Cold War, the Antarctic Treaty kept the region peaceful and fostered scienti fi c cooperation, despite tensions and battles
elsewhere in the world [29] . In the near future, China might take several steps further to- wards the governance of Arctic fi sheries. First, China must attach great importance to the Arctic fi sheries issues and
strengthen the scienti fi c research on the Arctic marine living resources. Second, as a stakeholder in Arctic fi sheries, China needs to strengthen inter- national cooperation with the Arctic countries, individually and
collectively. Some journalists in China argue that the sooner China participates in the Arctic fi sheries issues, the better it can act in its own interests for this and other Arctic matters [30] . 5. Conclusions CAO

fi

sheries is more than a fi shing issue, it opens a new path for Arctic
governance and for international cooperation in general.

The policy- fi rst approach to CAO fi sheries is an

innovative way to address potential problems before they become real problems, following the precautionary principle and avoiding the exploit- fi rst, manage-second disasters seen in many fi sheries around the

Doing so allows all participating states to act co- operatively from the
beginning, rather than separating into competing sides
world [31] .

and judgments about which are the good actors and which

the bad. The alternative could lead to power struggles and missed opportunities for good governance. China is trying hard to strengthen the connection between China and the Arctic and to participate in Arctic
affairs. An over- emphasis on resource development may alienate Arctic states or at least some constituencies in those states. Contributing to the re- search of Arctic marine living resources and the protection of the
Arctic environment, however, is likely to be seen as a more benign role. The CAO fi sheries negotiations may thus provide an oppor- tunity for China to be involved in Arctic affairs in a new and non- threatening way,
perhaps reducing concerns among Arctic states about China's intentions and thereby creating new opportunities for collaboration based on better relations and better mutual understanding. The management of
CAO fi sheries is at the intersection of geopolitics, policy, diplomacy, and science. The countries in- dividual interests can only be achieved through effective man- agement of the CAO fi sheries, which can only be
achieved co- operatively. In this case, cooperation also means the involvement of non-Arctic states such as China. The recognition of the re- spective roles of policy and science may be an effective way of putting
the precautionary principle into practice and harnessing the mutual interests and abilities of the various states that have Arctic interests. Such a precedent would be a valuable contribution to effective governance
of international waters in the Arctic and could provide a useful model for other regions as well. .

Neg

Icebreaker CP

1N
Text: The United States federal government should
substantially expand the United States Coast Guards
heavy polar icebreaking capabilities.
Current heavy polar icebreakers are degrading it
threatens U.S. Arctic leadership
Koren 7/11 Staff Writer for National Journal (Marina, What Happened to
America's Most Important Arctic Ships?,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/what-happened-to-america-smost-important-arctic-ships-20140711) //J.N.E

The U.S. Coast Guard is facing a dilemma at the North Pole. The service's
fleet of icebreakers, ships designed to navigate and cut through ice-covered
waters in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, is getting older. The vessels
themselves are slowly deteriorating, and by 2020, naval experts say the
country's icebreaking capabilities will run out. The powerful ships, which can break
through ice up to 6 feet thick, monitor sea traffic, conduct scientific research, and carry out search-andrescue missions for other nation's ships at both ends of the world. Their presence alone allows the U.S.
defend its national security, economic, and environmental interests in the Arctic region, whose vast natural

The Coast Guard currently has four

polar icebreakers. The Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, was reactivated in late 2012, after
resources have several countries vying for more control.

spending eight years getting repairs for worn-out motors. The Polar Sea, commissioned in 1977, has been
docked in Seattle since 2011, inoperative because of engine problems. Share This Story A third icebreaker,
the 14-year-old Healy, has less ice-cutting capability; it mostly supports research. The nation's fourth and
final icebreaker is the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a small research vessel built for the National Science

the polars Star and Sea are the

most crucial vessels of the U.S. presence in the polar regions. But both are
several years beyond their intended life service of 30 years, and Coast Guard
officials are unsure how much life the Polar Star has left . A Coast Guard study in 2011
found that the military service needs at least three active, heavy-duty
icebreakers to properly carry out its North Pole duties. For the next few years,
if nothing changes, it will have only one. The timeline for getting a brand
new icebreaker appears to be less certain than ever . In its budget
submission for fiscal 2013, the Homeland Security Department said it planned to award a construction
contract for the ship within the next five years. In its submission for fiscal 2015, there's no
mention of a construction contract at all. A January 2011 report from the DHS
inspector general found that the Coast Guard "does not have the necessary
budgetary control" over its polar icebreakers, "nor does it have a sufficient
number of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the polar regions." The
Foundation in 1992. Because of their speed and strength,

budgetary control lies with Congress, which must determine how to modernize the Coast Guard's
icebreaker fleet: repair the ships, or build new ones? But the push to address the aging fleet isn't exactly
moving at breakneck speed. A House reauthorization bill for Coast Guard spending for the next two years
passed in April. A Senate version, which includes funding for reactivating the Polar Sea, remains in

Late last month, Reps. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and John Garamendi, DCalif., wrote a letter to the Coast Guard, asking the service to reactivate the
Polar Sea so the U.S. doesn't fall behind in the Arctic. Repairing and
committee.

reactivating the Polar Sea for another seven to 10 years of service would take
three years and cost about $100 million . A new icebreaker designed to last 30 years would
cost $852 million. In its latest budget proposal, the Coast Guard requested $6 million for a
preliminary plan to acquire a new icebreaker. Last year, it was granted just $2
million for the project. In March, Adm. Robert Papp, then the commandant of the Coast Guard, told
Congress, "It's going to be tough to fit a billion-dollar icebreaker in our five-year plan without displacing
other things." No country has yet laid full claim to the Arctic region, which is home to 15 percent of the

But the U.S. is about to gain a lot

more responsibility there, thanks to its turn as the chair of the
Arctic Council, a forum of polar nations, next year. A young and capable
fleet of icebreakers would certainly come in handy then.
world's oil and a third of its undiscovered natural gas.

2N
Building two new icebreakers is sufficient for the US
reclaim polar leadership
NRC 7 working arm of the United States National Academies, which
produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance
the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine (National Research
Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of US
Needs, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1) mj

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The committee finds that both

operations and maintenance of the polar icebreaker fleet have been
underfunded for many years, and the capabilities of the nations icebreaking
fleet have diminished substantially. Deferred long-term maintenance and
failure to execute a plan for replacement or refurbishment of the nations
icebreaking ships have placed national interests in the polar regions at
risk. The nation needs the capability to operate in both polar regions reliably
and at will. Specifically, the committee recommends the following:
The United States should continue to project an active and influential
presence in the Arctic to support its interests. This requires U.S. government
polar icebreaking capability to ensure year-round access throughout the
region.
The United States should maintain leadership in polar research. This
requires icebreaking capability to provide access to the deep Arctic and the
ice-covered waters of the Antarctic.
National interests in the polar regions require that the United States
immediately program, budget, design, and construct two new polar
icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard.
To provide continuity of U.S. icebreaking capabilities, the POLAR SEA should
remain mission capable and the POLAR STAR should remain available for
reactivation until the new polar icebreakers enter service.
The U.S. Coast Guard should be provided sufficient operations and
maintenance budget to support an increased, regular, and influential
presence in the Arctic. Other agencies should reimburse incremental costs
associated with directed mission tasking.

Heg
The plan would revitalize US presence in the Arctic that
spills over to international influence
NRC 7 working arm of the United States National Academies, which
produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the
pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine (National Research Council,
Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of US Needs,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1)

Economic activity is predicted to increase and move northward as a result of

sea-ice retreat. Those deploying fishing fleets, cruise ships, mining, and the
associated ore transit ships, as well as petroleum recovery and tanker ship
transport, anticipate increased operations in the region. When current orders
for ice-strengthened tankers have been filled, the worldwide fleet of these
vessels will double in number. Ice retreat increases the cost-effectiveness of
using the Northern Sea Route (primarily north of Russia) and the Northwest
Passage (primarily north of Canada) for transporting petroleum, ore, and
cargo. Both routes include U.S. Arctic waters.
The potential for increased human activity in northern latitudes will likely
increase the need for the United States to assert a more active and influential
presence in the Arctic not only to protect its territorial interests, but also to
project its presence as a world power concerned with the security,
economic, scientific, and international political issues of the region. Over the
past decades the U.S. Coast Guard has not conducted routine patrols in icecovered waters due to a lack of funding. The growing human presence and
increased economic activity in the Arctic will be best served by reinstating
patrols in U.S. coastal waters and increasing U.S. presence in international
waters of the north. To assert U.S. interests in the Arctic, the nation needs to
be able to access various sites throughout the region at various times of the
year, reliably and at will. While the southern extent of the Arctic ice pack is
thinning and becoming less extensive during the summer, there is no
question that polar icebreakers will be required for many decades for
egress to much of the Arctic Basin. Ice conditions in the U.S. Arctic are among
the most variable and occasionally challenging through the circum-Arctic.
National interests require icebreakers that can navigate the most formidable
ice conditions encountered in the Arctic.
Recommendation 1: The United States should continue to project an active
and influential presence in the Arctic to support its interests. This requires
U.S. government polar icebreaking capability to ensure year-round access
throughout the region.

Icebreakers are key to credible US diplomacy that diffuses

the risk of conflict
Borgerson 8 -- International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations (Scott G., Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications
of Global Warming, Foreign Affairs, March/April, http://www.rhumbline.com/pdf/BorgersonForeignAffairsarticle.pdf)
While the other Arctic powers are racing to carve up the region, the United
States has remained largely on the sidelines. The U.S. Senate has not ratified
the un Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos), the leading international treaty on maritime rights,
even though President George W. Bush, environmental nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. Navy and

As a
result, the United States cannot formally assert any rights to the untold
resources o Alaskas northern coast beyond its exclusive economic zone
such zones extend for only 200 nautical miles from each Arctic states shore
nor can it join the un commission that adjudicates such claims. Worse,
Washington has forfeited its ability to assert sovereignty in the Arctic by
allowing its icebreaker fleet to atrophy. The United States today funds a navy
as large as the next 17 in the world combined, yet it has just one seaworthy
oceangoing icebreakera vessel that was built more than a decade ago and
that is not optimally configured for Arctic missions. Russia, by comparison,
has a fleet of 18 icebreakers. And even China operates one icebreaker, despite its lack of Arctic
U.S. Coast Guard service chiefs, and leading voices in the private sector support the convention.

waters. Through its own neglect, the worlds sole superpowera country that borders the Bering Strait and
possesses over 1,000 miles of Arctic coastlinehas been left out in the cold.

Washington cannot afford to stand idly by. The Arctic region is not currently
governed by any comprehensive multilateral norms and regulations because
it was never expected to become a navigable waterway or a site for largescale commercial development. Decisions made by Arctic powers in the
coming years will therefore profoundly shape the future of the region for
decades. Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic solutions to
competing claims and potential conflicts, the region could erupt in an armed
mad dash for its resources.

Environ
Oil spills in the Arctic are inevitable- CP provides quick
response key to bio-d
ORourke 14 naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service of
the Library of Congress, received a Distinguished Service Award from the
Library of Congress (Ronald, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues
for Congress, June 5th, Congressional Research Service)
Oil Pollution and Pollution Response 120 Oil

Pollution Implications of Arctic Change

Climate change impacts in the Arctic, particularly the decline of sea ice and
retreating glaciers, have stimulated human activities in the region, many of
which have the potential to create oil pollution. A primary concern is the
threat of a large oil spill in the area. Although a major oil spill has not occurred in the Arctic
region, 121 recent economic activity, such as oil and gas exploration and tourism
(cruise ships), increases the risk of oil pollution (and other kinds of pollution) in the Arctic.
Significant spills in high northern latitudes (e.g., the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and
spills in the North Sea) suggest that the poten tial impacts of an Arctic spill are
likely to be severe for Arctic species and ecosystems. 122 Risk of Oil Pollution in the
Arctic A primary factor determining the risk of oil pollution in the Arctic is the level and type of human
activity being conducted in the region. Although climate changes in the Arctic are expected to increase

the region will continue to present

logistical challenges that may hinder human activity in the region. For
example (as discussed in another section of this report), 123 the
unpredictable ice conditions may discourage trans-Arctic shipping. If trans-Arctic
shipping were to occur on a frequent basis, it would represent a considerable
portion of the overall risk of oil pollution in the region . In recent decades, many of
the worlds largest oil spills have been from oil tankers, which can carry
millions of gallons of oil. 124 Although the level of trans-Arctic shipping is uncertain, many
expect oil exploration and extraction activities to intensify in the region . 125
Oil well blowouts from offshore oil extraction operations have been a source
of major oil spills, eclipsing the largest tanker spills. The largest unintentional oil spill in
access to natural resources and shipping lanes,

recent history was from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico. 126 During that
incident, the uncontrolled well released (over an 84-day period) approximately 200 million gallons of crude
oil into the Gulf. 127 The second-largest unintentional oil spill in recent historythe IXTOC I , estimated at
140 million gallonswas due to an oil well blowout in Mexican Gulf Coast waters in 1979. Until the 2010
Deepwater Horizon incident, the spill record for offshore platforms in U.S. federal waters had shown
improvement from prior years. 129 A 2003 National Research Council (NRC) study of oil and gas activities
on Alaskas North Slope stated the conclusion of these analyses is that blowouts that result in large spills
are unlikely. 130 Similar conclusions were made in federal agency documents regarding deepwater drilling
in the Gulf of Mexico before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon event. 131 Some would likely contend that the
underlying analyses behind these conclusions should be adjusted to account for the 2010 Gulf oil spill.
However, others may argue that the proposed activities in U.S. Arctic waters present less risk of an oil well
blowout than was encountered by the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, because the proposed U.S. Arctic
operations would be in shallower waters (150 feet) than the deepwater well (approximately 5,000 feet)
that was involved in the 2010 Gulf oil spill. In addition, Shell Oil has stated that the pressures in the
Chukchi Sea (the location of Shells recent interest) would be two to three times less than they were in well

even under the most

stringent control systems, some oil spills and other accidents are likely to
occur from equipment failure or human error. Potential Impacts No oil spill is
entirely benign. Even a relatively minor spill, depending on the timing and
involved in the 2010 Gulf oil spill. 132 Regardless of these differences,

location, can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire

populations. Regarding aquatic spills, marine mammals, birds, bottomdwelling and intertidal species, and organisms in early developmental stages
eggs or larvaeare especially vulnerable. However, the effects of oil spills can
vary greatly. Oil spills can cause impacts over a range of time scales, from
only a few days to several years, or even decades in some cases. Conditions
in the Arctic may have implications for toxicological effects that are not yet
understood. For example, oil spills on permafrost may persist in an ecosystem for
relatively long periods of time, potentially harming plant life through their
root systems. Moreover, little is known about the effects of oil spills on species that are unique to the
Arctic, particularly, species abilities to thrive in a cold environment and the effect temperature has on
toxicity. 133 The effects of oil spills in high latitude, cold ocean environments may last longer and cause
greater damage than expected. Some recent studies have found that oil spills in lower latitudes have
persisted for longer than initially expected, thus raising the concern that the persistence of (...continued)

population recovery may

take longer in the Arctic because many of the species have longer life spans
and reproduce at a slower rate. 134 Response and Cleanup Challenges in the Arctic Region
Effects (2003). oil in the Arctic may be understated. In terms of wildlife,

Climate changes in the Arctic are expected to increase human activities in the region, many of which

Conditions in the Arctic region

impose unique challenges for personnel charged with (1) oil spill response,
the process of getting people and equipment to the incident, and (2) cleanup
duties, either recovering the spilled oil or mitigating the contamination so
that it poses less harm to the ecosystem. These challenges may play a role in
the policy development for economic activities in the Arctic . Spill Response
Challenges Response time is a critical factor for oil spill recovery. With each hour,
spilled oil becomes more difficult to track, contain, and recover, particularly in
icy conditions, where oil can migrate under or mix with surrounding ice . 135
Most response techniques call for quick action, which may pose logistical
challenges in areas without prior staging equipment or trained response
professionals. Many stakeholders are concerned about a response gap for oil
spills in the Arctic region. 136 A response gap is a period of time in which oil
spill response activities would be unsafe or infeasible. The response gap for the
impose a risk of oil pollution, particularly from oil spills.

northern Arctic latitudes is likely to be extremely high compared to other regions. 137 According to the
former Commander of the 17 th Coast Guard District (Alaska), we

are not prepared for a major

oil spill [over 100,000 gallons] in the Arctic environment . The Coast Guard has no
offshore response capability in Northern or Western Alaska. 138 The transportation infrastructure along
Alaskas northern coast poses challenges for oil spill responders. The Coast Guard has no designated air
stations north of Kodiak, AK, which is almost 1,000 miles from the northernmost point of land along the
Alaskan coast in Point Barrow, AK. 139 Although some of the communities have airstrips capable of landing

The
nearest major port is in the Aleutian Islands, approximately 1,300 miles from
Point Barrow. A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified further logistical
cargo planes, no roads connect these communities. 140 Vessel infrastructure is also limited.

obstacles that would hinder an oil spill response in the region, including inadequate ocean and weather
information for the Arctic and technological problems with communications. 141 The history of oil spills
and response in the Aleutian Islands raises concerns for potential spills in the Arctic region: The past 20
years of data on response to spills in the Aleutians has also shown that almost no oil has been recovered
during events where attempts have been made by the responsible parties or government agencies, and
that in many cases, weather and other conditions have prevented any response at all. 142 Oil Spill Cleanup
Challenges The behavior of oil spills in cold and icy waters is not well understood. 143 Cleaning up oil spills
in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies have
yet to be developed. Natural oil seeps, which are a major source of oil in the arctic environment, may offer
opportunities for studying the behavior of oil. 144 The

Arctic conditions present several

hurdles to oil cleanup efforts. In colder water temperatures, there are fewer
organisms to break down the oil through microbial degradation. Oil
evaporates at a slower rate in colder water temperatures. Although slower
evaporation may allow for more oil to be recovered, evaporation removes the
lighter, more toxic hydrocarbons that are present in crude oil. 145 The longer
the oil remains in an ecosystem, the more opportunity there is for exposure.
Oil spills may get trapped in ice, evaporating only when the ice thaws. In
some cases, oil could remain in the ice for years. Icy conditions enhance
emulsificationthe process of forming different states of water in oil, often
described as mousse.

The plan effectively increases vessel safety while

mobilizing oil spill response
NRC 7 working arm of the United States National Academies, which
produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the
pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine (National Research Council,
Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of US Needs,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=R1)
Protecting the Arctic marine environment begins with ensuring the safety of
vessels operating in these challenging conditions, including the availability of
icebreaking assistance and comprehensive monitoring of vessel movements.
Prevention might also include a regulatory regime, limiting vessels to
geographic areas and seasonal periods appropriate to their ice capabilities.
The Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR) would
serve as an obvious example. Increases in traffic, especially from Russian or
Canadian waters, may create U.S. interest in establishing regulations;
enforcement and deterrence would necessitate an on-scene presence
capable of operating in ice. The U.S. Coast Guard would clearly have
regulatory responsibility for this type of waterways management. Responding
to a major oil spill in the Arctic is challenging, as cleanup activities for an
onshore spill near Prudhoe Bay in early 2006 attest. Oil cleanup offshore
would be even more difficult due to the dearth of infrastructure and the
possibility of ice. Where depth of water permits access, an icebreaker could
offer command-and-control capabilities, communications, berthing,
helicopters, boats, cargo space, heavyweight handling gear, tankage, and
support services to smaller craft, all of which would be of great benefit to
cleanup operations. Direct oil recovery could also be included as an
icebreaker capability: POLAR SEA successfully tested a boommounted
skimming system known as the Vessel of Opportunity Skimming System
(VOSS) (as well as other capabilities) while participating in an oil spill exercise
off Sakhalin Island in 1998. The U.S. Coast Guards new fleet of coastal buoy
tenders is equipped with VOSS, and thought should be given to the need for
new polar icebreakers to be equipped with the latest technology for oil spill
response.

Ptx
Icebreakers are politically popular
Klimas 12 staff writer (Jacqueline, Coast Guard asks to buy new Arctic
icebreaker, March 24th, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/navycoast-guard-arctic-ice-breaker-032412w/)
The Defense Department will help bolster the Coast Guard's presence in the
Arctic, the commander of U.S. Northern Command told the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
Army Gen. Charles Jacoby and Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Bob Papp
signed a white paper March 13 that addresses capability gaps in
infrastructure, communications, domain awareness and presence in the
Arctic.
"Traffic has already increased over 61 percent in the Arctic since 2008,"
Jacoby said at the March 13 hearing. "Security interests follow closely behind
economic interests, and we will be participating in a number of venues to
help lead that for the Department of Defense."
Rising global temperatures and melting sea ice are opening the Arctic as a
new frontier for research, travel and oil drilling and creating more area for
the Coast Guard to patrol. To keep up, the Coast Guard is asking for $8 million
in the fiscal 2013 budget to begin procurement of a new large icebreaker.
Such a ship could cost $1 billion.
Neither of the U.S.'s two heavy-duty Polar-class icebreakers is in service. The
Polar Star is awaiting a $57 million upgrade set to be finished in December.
Its sister ship, Polar Sea, has been docked in Seattle since 2010 with engine
issues.
The medium-duty polar icebreaker Healy is designed for research and cannot
cut through the thickest ice.
As countries like Russia and even China grow their icebreaker fleet, Sen. Mark
Begich, D-Alaska, emphasized how critical it is for the U.S. to keep up.
"We have to be a part of that," he said. "It's important that we not be underasseted, and have enough equipment to do the work," which could include oil
and gas exploration.
Simon Stephenson, the division director of Arctic sciences at the National
Science Foundation, emphasized that Arctic research is important to the
everyday life of people worldwide, not just in scientific circles. Researchers in
the Arctic are looking at melting sea ice and changes in ocean circulation
things that can affect pressure systems and the entire global weather cycle.
"By affecting pressure systems, you can affect the upper air circulation which
drives our weather in Europe, in the mid-Atlantic states, in China. All of
these areas have seen changes in their weather patterns," Stephenson said.

Access to the Arctic has received broad support in Congress. While the
purchase of a new icebreaker has been supported by both Alaska senators,
senators including Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., say
the acquisition of a new icebreaker is a national priority.
"Icebreakers are of critical importance to America's national security as well
as our economic interests in the Arctic," Cantwell said in a statement.
"According to the Coast Guard's own comprehensive analysis, we need to
invest in at least six new icebreakers to fulfill our nation's icebreaking
missions."
The Coast Guard's responsibilities in the Arctic include national security,
protection of the environment, sustainable economic development of the
area, cooperation with other nations with Arctic claims and involvement of
the indigenous communities in decisions, according to Lt. Paul Rhynard, the
service's deputy chief of media relations.
"The bottom line is that the Coast Guard has the same responsibilities in the
Arctic as it does in the Gulf of Mexico or any other U.S. maritime region, yet
the Arctic coast provides unique challenges, especially during the winter
months, due to extreme conditions of severe weather, sea ice, extended
periods of darkness and remoteness of the region," Rhynard said in a
statement.
The $8 million request is less than 1 percent of the $860 million being asked
for icebreaker acquisition in the Department of Homeland Security's five-year
budget projection. Begich pointed out that in the fiscal 2012 budget request,
it was zero, so even this amount is an improvement.
"It's a small amount. I wish it was more, but just the fact to have it down and
in their five-year plan shows their commitment to move forward," he said.

Congress loves the plan- empirically proven

Kilmas 12 (Jacqueline,-Staff Writer for The Navy Times, 3/24/2012,
Coast Guard asks to buy new Arctic icebreaker,
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/navy-coast-guard-arctic-icebreaker-032412w/
As countries like Russia and even China grow their icebreaker fleet,
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, emphasized how critical it is for the U.S. to
keep up. "We have to be a part of that," he said. "It's important that we
not be under-asseted, and have enough equipment to do the work,"
which could include oil and gas exploration. Simon Stephenson, the division director of Arctic sciences at

emphasized that Arctic research is important to

the everyday life of people worldwide, not just in scientific circles.
Researchers in the Arctic are looking at melting sea ice and changes in
ocean circulation things that can affect pressure systems and the
the National Science Foundation,

entire global weather cycle. "By affecting pressure systems, you can
affect the upper air circulation which drives our weather in Europe, in the
mid-Atlantic states, in China. All of these areas have seen changes in their weather patterns," Stephenson

Access to the Arctic has received broad support in

Congress. While the purchase of a new icebreaker has been
supported by both Alaska senators, senators including Joe Lieberman,
I-Conn., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., say the acquisition of a new icebreaker is a national priority.
said.

"Icebreakers are of critical importance to America's national security as well as our economic interests in the Arctic," Cantwell said in a
statement. "According to the Coast Guard's own comprehensive analysis, we need to invest in at least six new icebreakers to fulfill our nation's

The Coast Guard's responsibilities in the Arctic include

national security, protection of the environment, sustainable economic
development of the area, cooperation with other nations with Arctic
claims and involvement of the indigenous communities in decisions,
according to Lt. Paul Rhynard, the service's deputy chief of media
relations. "The bottom line is that the Coast Guard has the same
responsibilities in the Arctic as it does in the Gulf of Mexico or any
other U.S. maritime region, yet the Arctic coast provides unique
challenges, especially during the winter months, due to extreme conditions of severe weather, sea ice, extended periods of
icebreaking missions."

darkness and remoteness of the region," Rhynard said in a statement.

LOST CP

1N
Text: The United States federal government should ratify
the UN Law of the Sea Convention
CP solves the aff- ratifying law of the sea key internal link
to international Arctic standards
Bert 12, Melissa Bert is a captain in the U.S. Coast Guard and a military
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A Strategy to Advance the Arctic
Economy
http://www.cfr.org/arctic/strategy-advance-arctic-economy/p27258
The United States needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic .
Melting sea ice is generating an emerging Arctic economy. Nations bordering the
Arctic are drilling for oil and gas, and mining, shipping, and cruising in the region. Russia, Canada, and
Norway are growing their icebreaker fleets and shore-based infrastructure to support these enterprises. For
the United States, the economic potential from the energy and mineral resources is in the trillions of
dollarsbased upon estimates that the Alaskan Arctic is the home to 30 billion barrels of oil, more than
220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, rare earth minerals, and massive renewable wind, tidal, and
geothermal energy. However, the U.S. government is unprepared to harness the potential that the Arctic

The United States lacks the capacity to deal with potential regional
conflicts and seaborne disasters, and it has been on the sidelines when it comes to developing
offers.

new governance mechanisms for the Arctic. To advance U.S. economic and security interests and avert

the United States should ratify the UN Law

of the Sea Convention (LOSC), take the lead in developing mandatory
international standards for operating in Arctic waters, and acquire
icebreakers, aircraft, and infrastructure for Arctic operations. Regional Flashpoints
potential environmental and human disasters,

Threaten Security Like the United States, the Arctic nations of Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have
geographical claims to the Arctic. Unlike the United States, however, they have each sought to exploit
economic and strategic opportunities in the region by developing businesses, infrastructure, and cities in
the Arctic. They have also renewed military exercises of years past, and as each nation learns of the
others' activities, suspicion and competition increase. When the Russians sailed a submarine in 2007 to
plant a titanium flag on the "north pole," they were seen as provocateurs, not explorers. The continental
shelf is a particular point of contention. Russia claims that deep underwater ridges on the sea floor, over
two hundred miles from the Russian continent, are part of Russia and are legally Russia's to exploit.
Denmark and Canada also claim those ridges. Whichever state prevails in that debate will have exclusive
extraction rights to the resources, which, based on current continental shelf hydrocarbon lease sales, could
be worth billions of dollars. Debates also continue regarding freedom of navigation and sovereignty over
waters in the region. Russia claims sovereignty over the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which winds over the
top of Russia and Alaska and will be a commercially viable route through the region within the next
decade. The United States contends the NSR is an international waterway, free to any nation to transit. The
United States also has laid claim to portions of the Beaufort Sea that Canada says are Canadian, and the
United States rejects Canada's claim that its Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific is its
internal waters, as opposed to an international strait. Canada and Denmark also have a boundary dispute
in Baffin Bay. Norway and Russia disagree about fishing rights in waters around the Spitsbergen/Svalbard
Archipelago. U.S. Capacity in the Arctic Is Lacking Traffic and commercial activity are increasing in the
region. The NSR was not navigable for years because of heavy ice, but it now consists of water with
floating ice during the summer months. As the icebergs decrease in the coming years, it will become a
commercially profitable route, because it reduces the maritime journey between East Asia and Western
Europe from about thirteen thousand miles through the Suez Canal to eight thousand miles, cutting transit
time by ten to fifteen days. Russian and German oil tankers are already beginning to ply those waters in
the summer months. Approximately 150,000 tons of oil, 400,000 tons of gas condensate, and 600,000 tons
of iron ore were shipped via the NSR in 2011. Oil, gas, and mineral drilling, as well as fisheries and tourism,
are becoming more common in the high latitudes and are inherently dangerous, because icebergs and
storms can shear apart even large tankers, offshore drilling units, fishing vessels, and cruise ships. As a
result, human and environmental disasters are extremely likely. Despite the dangerous conditions,

the

Arctic has no mandatory requirements for those operating in or passing

through the region. There are no designated shipping lanes, requirements for
ice-strengthened hulls to withstand the extreme environment , ice navigation
training for ships' masters, or even production and carriage of updated navigation and ice charts. Keeping

The U.S.
government is further hindered by the lack of ships, aircraft, and
infrastructure to enforce sovereignty and criminal laws, and to protect people
and the marine environment from catastrophic incidents . In the lower forty-eight
the Arctic safe with the increased activity and lack of regulations presents a daunting task.

states, response time to an oil spill or capsized vessel is measured in hours. In Alaska, it could take days or
weeks to get the right people and resources on scene. The nearest major port is in the Aleutian Islands,
thirteen hundred miles from Point Barrow, and response aircraft are more than one thousand miles south in

The Arctic shores lack

infrastructure to launch any type of disaster response, or to support the
growing commercial development in the region . U.S. Leadership in Arctic Governance Is
Lacking Governance in the Arctic requires leadership. The United States is
uniquely positioned to provide such leadership , but it is hampered by its reliance
Kodiak, blocked by a mountain range and hazardous flying conditions.

on the eight-nation Arctic Council. However, more than 160 countries view the LSOC as the critical
instrument defining conduct at sea and maritime obligations. The convention also addresses resource
division, maritime traffic, and pollution regulation, and is relied upon for dispute resolution. The LOSC is
particularly important in the Arctic, because it stipulates that the region beyond each country's exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) be divided between bordering nations that can prove their underwater continental
shelves extend directly from their land borders. Nations will have exclusive economic rights to the oil, gas,
and mineral resources extracted from those outer continental shelves, making the convention's
determinations substantial. According to geologists, the U.S. portion is projected to be the world's largest
underwater extension of landover 3.3 million square milesbigger than the lower forty-eight states
combined. In addition to global credibility and protection of Arctic shelf claims, the convention is important
because it sets international pollution standards and requires signatories to protect the marine
environment. Critics argue that the LOSC cedes American sovereignty to the United Nations. But the failure
to ratify it has the opposite effect: it leaves the United States less able to protect its interests in the Arctic
and elsewhere. The diminished influence is particularly evident at the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), the international body that "operationalizes" the LOSC through its international port and shipping

By remaining a nonparty, the United States lacks the credibility to

promote U.S. interests in the Arctic, such as by transforming U.S.
recommendations into binding international laws . A Comprehensive U.S. Strategy for the
Arctic The United States needs a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic. The
rules.

current National/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-66 / HSPD-25) is only a broad policy

An effective Arctic strategy would address both governance and

capacity questions. To generate effective governance in the Arctic the United States should ratify
statement.

LOSC and take the lead in advocating the adoption of Arctic shipping requirements. The IMO recently
proposed a voluntary Polar Code, and the United States should work to make it mandatory. The code sets
structural classifications and standards for ships operating in the Arctic as well as specific navigation and
emergency training for those operating in or around ice-covered waters. The United States should also
support Automated Identification System (AIS) carriage for all ships transiting the Arctic. Because the
Arctic is a vast region with no ability for those on land to see the ships offshore, electronic identification
and tracking is the only way to know what ships are operating in or transiting the region. An AIS
transmitter (costing as little as $800) sends a signal that provides vessel identity and location at all times
to those in command centers around the world and is currently mandated for ships over sixteen hundred
gross tons. The United States and other Arctic nations track AIS ships and are able to respond to
emergencies based on its signals. For this reason, mandating AIS for all vessels in the Arctic is needed. The
U.S. government also needs to work with Russia to impose a traffic separation scheme in the Bering Strait,
where chances for a collision are high. Finally, the United States should push for compulsory tandem
sailing for all passenger vessels operating in the Arctic. Tandem sailing for cruise ships and smaller
excursion boats will avert another disaster likeRMS Titanic. To enhance the Arctic's economic potential, the
United States should also develop its capacity to enable commercial entities to operate safely in the
region. The U.S. government should invest in icebreakers, aircraft, and shore-based infrastructure. A tenyear plan should include the building of at least two heavy icebreakers, at a cost of approximately $1
billion apiece, and an air station in Point Barrow, Alaska, with at least three helicopters. Such an air station

would cost less than $20 million, with operating, maintenance, and personnel costs comparable to other
northern military facilities. Finally, developing a deepwater port with response presence and infrastructure
is critical. A base at Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, where ships and fishing vessels resupply and
refuel, would only cost a few million dollars per year to operate. Washington could finance the cost of its
capacity-building efforts by using offshore lease proceeds and federal taxes on the oil and gas extracted
from the Arctic region. In 2008, the United States collected $2.6 billion from offshore lease sales in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (off Alaska's north coast), and the offshore royalty tax rate in the region is 19

The United
States needs an Arctic governance and acquisition strategy to take full
advantage of all the region has to offer and to protect the people operating in
the region and the maritime environment. Neglecting the Arctic reduces the
United States' ability to reap tremendous economic benefits and could harm
U.S. national security interests.
percent, which would cover operation and maintenance of these facilities down the road.

2N
CP solves the aff and independently functions as an alt
cause- absent Law of the Sea, leadership in the Arctic is
impossibleRobert J. Papp 12, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, February 2012, The
Emerging Arctic Frontier, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/201202/emerging-arctic-frontier
a legally certain and
predictable set of rights and obligations addressing activity in the Arctic is
paramount. The United States must be part of such a legal regime to protect and advance our security
Because of these opportunities and the clamor of activities they bring,

and economic interests.

there has been a race by countries other than

the U nited S tates to file internationally recognized claims on the maritime regions and
seabeds of the Arctic. Alaska has more than 1,000 miles of coastline above the Arctic Circle on the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 7 Our territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the
coast, and the exclusive economic zone extends to 200 nautical miles from shore (just
In particular, for the past several years

as along the rest of the U.S. coastline). Thats more than 200,000 square miles of water over which the
Coast Guard has jurisdiction.
Below the surface, the United States also may assert sovereign rights over natural resources on its

with accession to the Law of the Sea

Convention, the United States has the potential to exercise additional sovereign
rights over resources on an extended outer continental shelf, which might reach as far as 600
nautical miles into the Arctic from the Alaskan coast. Last summer, the Coast Guard cutter USCGC
continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles. However,

Healy (WAGB-20) was under way in the Arctic Ocean, working with the Canadian icebreaker Louis S. StLaurent to continue efforts to map the extent of the continental shelf.

The United States is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. While this
country stands by, other nations are moving ahead in perfecting rights over
resources on an extended continental shelf . Russia, Canada, Denmark (through
Greenland), and Norwayalso Arctic nationshave filed extended continental-shelf
claims under the Law of the Sea Convention that would give them exclusive rights to oil
and gas resources on that shelf. They are making their case publicly in the media, in
construction of vessels to patrol these waters, and in infrastructure along their Arctic coastline. Even
China, which has no land-mass connectivity with the Arctic Ocean, has raised interest by conducting

The United States should accede to the Law

of the Sea Convention without delay to protect our national security interests:
sovereignty, economy, and energy.
research in the region and building icebreakers. 8

Law of the Sea key to Arctic leadershipBegich 14, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) Chairman, U.S. Senate Commerce
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. Arctic
Needs US Leadership
http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/9_Begich.php
Readers of Sea Technology may recall my frustration in previous years about the lack of progress toward
ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention and our nation's widening gap in icebreaker capability. We are still

behind the curve on both fronts, but let us take stock in what we have accomplished in Arctic policy. At the
urging of Alaska's congressional delegation, the Barack Obama administration issued a national Arctic
Strategy. This expansion of existing policy is still a work in progress but demonstrates the administration's
interest in, and commitment to, the Arctic. The Coast Guard issued its own strategy to ensure maritime
governance in the Arctic, and Operation Arctic Shield was back again this past summer, focusing on the
increasing vessel traffic through the Bering Strait. The Coast Guard's icebreaker Polar Star is back in
service, and the Alaska Region Research VesselSikuliaq was launched. NOAA has developed an Arctic

The Arctic Council has

reached legally binding agreements on search and rescue, and oil spill
prevention and response. The Council now has a permanent secretariat, and the U.S. is preparing
to assume chairmanship in 2015. Meanwhile, the ice pack continues to diminish and more
and more shippers are taking advantage of that . Vessels transiting the Northern Sea
Nautical Charting Plan to update the region's woefully inadequate charts.

Route now include LNG tankers and container ships, and you can book a cruise through Canada's
Northwest Passage. The organizers of the Sochi Olympics even arranged for the carrying of the Olympic
torch to the North Pole, aboard an icebreaker, of course. Energy development is underway in the Arctic's
open waters. Exploratory work began in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas last year, and I am confident it will
resume next summer with new and better engineered technology. Earlier this year, I told President Obama
the Arctic presents our nation with both a historic opportunity and a challenge. The Arctic offers
tremendous resources and benefits to our nation, but we have a responsibility to protect its unique and
often extreme environment. The Coast Guard will be a key player in the Arctic but we cannot expect them
to expand their operations without additional resources. We need to keep the Coast Guard's fleet

We need a forward operating base in the Arctic to

support marine and aircraft operations. We need strengthened
communications and vessel tracking systems to monitor the increasing
maritime shipping through the Bering Straits. The International Maritime Organization
needs to finalize a robust polar code to protect the Arctic. We need greater icebreaking
capacity to assert a strong, national maritime presence in the Arctic at a time
when Russia, China and now even India are building icebreakers. Finally, any discussion
of Arctic governance has to include the Law of the Sea. The treaty provides a
basic governance structure and means to resolve claims over high-seas
resources. I was disappointed by the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty last
recapitalization efforts on track.

year, but this fight is not over. I remain a strong supporter of the Law of the Sea and will continue to work
for its ratification. People have dreamed about the promise of the Arctic for more than 500 years. We have
explored the margins of the polar ice pack in ships, dogsleds and balloons. Changes over the past decade

serious challenges
remain. Our nation has a responsibility to assert leadership in the
changing Arctic. It will take significant investment of time, intelligence and
resources, but is necessary to assert the United States' role as an Arctic
nation and fulfill that Arctic promise.
have made the Arctic more accessible than few could ever imagine, but

Solvency
No coop- rhetoric cant overcome national interests in
arcticRT 14, RT Questions More April 15 Arctic Resources: The fight for the
coldest place on Earth heats up https://www.rt.com/news/arctic-reclamationresources-race-524/

Experts say the future of the world economy, to some extent, is dependent on the Arctic.
Last year, Russian energy giants, Gazprom and Rosneft, were granted rights to develop large hydrocarbon deposits recently discovered in the Pechora and Kara seas. The find could be a pot of gold for Russias

. The melting Arctic ice cap has made way for shipping routes and the exploration of
resources at the bottom of the worlds smallest ocean. The North Pole icecap has
decreased by 40 percent since 1979, opening up two shipping routes, the North Sea route and the Northwest Passage, with extremely
high economic potential. Approximately 30 percent of the worlds undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil lie in the Arctic. But the majority, 84 percent, of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 47.3
gas industry

trillion cubic meters of gas remain off shore. According to the UNs sea convention, any country has sovereign rights to resources within 200 nautical miles of its territorial waterways. There are five countries with
territories in the Arctic: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US. Over the past decades an international framework and an Artic Council has been established for offshore oil and gas activities, as well as to

When it comes to the Arctic, world powers talk of cooperation.Russia, the

The US Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel stressed that As President Obama has said, The Arctic
foster cooperation among the Arctic five.

major Arctic power, is ready for close partnership within the Arctic council, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

region is peaceful, stable, and free of conflict. Our goal is to help

assure it stays that way. Ultimately, we envision a secure and
stable Arctic, where all nations interests are safeguarded, and
where all nations work together to address problems and resolve
differences, Hagel said. But actions often speak louder than words. As the icecaps

are melting, a military race is also building up in the region.

Turn- China uses environmental policy to camouflage

national interests
Guschin, 2013
Guschin, Arthur. "Understanding China's Arctic Policies." The Diplomat. N.p.,
14 Nov. 2013.
Within the last seven years 11 countries (Poland (2006), Russia (2008), Finland (2009), France (2009), Sweden (2010), Iceland (2011), Spain (2011), Denmark
(2012), Singapore (2012), Canada (2012) and Japan (2013) have realized the need to appoint their own Arctic ambassadors. These ambassadors are used for
analysis and situational assessments in the emerging grand Arctic game, with the ultimate aim of exploiting mineral resources and using the Arctic route for

In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey released an assessment

revealing that the Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the worlds
undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent
of its undiscovered natural gas liquids. In other words, 90 billion barrels of oil,
1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of natural gas. The
shipping cargo from Europe to Asia.

potential commercial benefits of cargo transportation through the Arctic in comparison to the Suez Canal also seem
appealing. In August and September 2009

two German heavy-lift vessels, MV Beluga

Foresight andMV Beluga Fraternity carried a cargo of steel pipes from
Arkhangelsk (Russia) to Nigeria using the Northern Sea Route. The new
passage shortened the distance for 3000 nautical miles and reduced fuel
consumption by 200 tons per vessel, resulting in savings of 600 000 U.S.

dollars. A year later, the Hong Kong vessel MV Nordic Barents transported
iron ore from Kirkenes (Norway) to Shanghai using the same route and cut
expenses on $180,000. In 2012, 46 vessels carried more than 1.2 million
tonnes of cargo through the Northern Sea Route, up 53 percent compared
with 2011. In 2010, only four vessels used the route. Some researchers
predict that 30 million tones of cargo will be shipped via the Northern Sea
Route to 2020 China is the largest consumer and importer of energy resources in the world but its vast geographical distance from the Arctic limits
Beijings opportunity at least in contrast to Arctic Council members (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S.) to set the

China was the first Asian state to

show interest and it has begun efforts to become a full member of the Arctic
Council. Beijing argues that under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea the Arctic Ocean is a shipping commons, and that climate change
has negative consequences for Chinese food security, particularly with the
flooding of its coastal regions. In the meantime, China has stepped up Arctic and Antarctic research. Between 1985
agenda and form a strategy for taking advantage of new Arctic opportunities. Nevertheless,

and 2012, Beijing initiated five Arctic and 28 Antarctic expeditions. It has also built the state-owned Arctic Yellow River Station, and
entered into an agreement with Finnish company Aker Arctic Technology to construct a second ice breaker by 2014, joining the MV Xu
Lng that Beijing bought from Ukraine in 1993. Moreover, Chinese representatives take part in the Arctic Science Committee, Arctic Science
Summit Week, Ny-lesund Science Managers Committee, and the International Polar Year project. However, scientific diplomacy alone
will not seem to be helping China join the most influential and important Arctic organization ( the Arctic Council) as a permanent member
state. At present, Chinas

Arctic initiatives suggest that Beijing is eager to camouflage

its true interests in the region with environmental monitoring, Arctic life
protection and concerns about indigenous peoples. Beijings rhetoric aims at defining the Arctic as
an international zone where changes must make sense for all countries and climate change is a problem for the highest levels of diplomacy.
Alongside France and Germany, China sees an oil spill in the Arctic similar to that which occurred in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico would have
disastrous outcomes for global security. So it is spending around $60 million annually on polar research, is building aChina-Nordic Arctic
Research Center in Shanghai, and plans to increase the research staff by a factor of five, to 1000.

Squo Solves
The U.S. and Canada are already working out an
agreement to conserve and protect the Arctic
Earnest, 3-10-16. John Earnest, Office of the Press Secretary. March 10,
2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/us-canadajoint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership
President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau share a common
vision of a prosperous and sustainable North American economy, and the
opportunities afforded by advancing clean growth. They emphasize and
embrace the special relationship between the two countries and their history
of close collaboration on energy development, environmental protection, and
Arctic leadership. The two leaders regard the Paris Agreement as a turning
point in global efforts to combat climate change and anchor economic growth
in clean development. They resolve that the United States and Canada
must and will play a leadership role internationally in the low carbon
global economy over the coming decades, including through sciencebased steps to protect the Arctic and its peoples. Canada and the U.S. will
continue to respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples in all climate change decision making.
Furthermore, the leaders emphasize the importance of the U.S. and Canada continuing to cooperate
closely with Mexico on climate and energy action and commit to strengthen a comprehensive and enduring
North American climate and energy partnership.
Implementing the Paris Agreement

Canada and the U.S. will work together to implement the historic
Paris Agreement, and commit to join and sign the Agreement as
soon as feasible. As we implement our respective Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the leaders also
commit to, in 2016, completing mid-century, long-term low
greenhouse gas emission development strategies pursuant to the
Paris Agreement and encouraging this approach with members of
the G-20.
Canada and the U.S. will work with developing country partners to
assist in implementation of their INDCs and strengthening their
adaptation efforts. Both countries will strive to enhance the
effectiveness of adaptation assistance by coordinating support for
adaptation planning and action through the National Adaptation
Plans Global Network. The leaders also commit to working closely to promote the full
implementation of the enhanced transparency framework with common modalities, procedures and
guidelines under the Paris Agreement. They affirm their support for the new Capacity Building Initiative for
Transparency, designed to enhance institutional and technical capacity to meet transparency
requirements.

Recognizing the role that carbon markets can play in helping countries
achieve their climate targets while also driving low-carbon innovation, both
countries commit to work together to support robust implementation of the
carbon markets-related provisions of the Paris Agreement. The federal

governments, together and in close communication with states, provinces

and territories, will explore options for ensuring the environmental integrity of
transferred units, in particular to inform strong INDC accounting and efforts to
avoid double-counting of emission reductions. They will also encourage
sub-national governments to share lessons learned about the design of
effective carbon pricing systems and supportive policies and measures. The
countries will expand their collaboration in this area over time.
Coordinated domestic climate action
Building on a history of working together to reduce air emissions, Canada and the U.S., commit to take
action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the worlds largest industrial methane
source, in support of achieving our respective international climate change commitments. To set us on an
ambitious and achievable path, the leaders commit to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 percent below
2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, and explore new opportunities for additional methane
reductions. The leaders also invite other countries to join the target or develop their own methane
reduction goal. To achieve this target,

both countries commit to:

Regulate existing sources of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin developing regulations for methane
emissions from existing oil and gas sources immediately and will move as expeditiously as possible to
complete this process. Next month, EPA will start a formal process to require companies operating existing
methane emissions sources to provide information to assist in development of comprehensive standards to
decrease methane emissions.
Environment and Climate Change Canada will also regulate methane emissions from new and existing
oil and gas sources. Environment and Climate Change Canada will move, as expeditiously as possible, to
put in place national regulations in collaboration with provinces/territories, Indigenous Peoples and
stakeholders. Environment and Climate Change Canada intends to publish an initial phase of proposed
regulations by early 2017.
Work collaboratively on federal measures to reduce methane emissions: Building on the U.S.-Canada Air
Quality Agreement, both countries will work collaboratively on programs, policies, and strategies, and
share experiences on reducing oil and gas methane emissions as they implement their respective federal
regulations, beginning this year. Improve data collection, transparency, and R&D and share knowledge of
cost-effective methane reduction technologies and practices: To ensure our actions are based on the best
available data and technology, Canada and the U.S. will work together to improve methane data collection
and emissions quantification, and transparency of emissions reporting in North America, and share

Jointly endorse the

World Banks Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 Initiative: Reflecting their
increasing concern about the climate, environment, and energy security
impacts of oil and gas flaring, particularly in sensitive regions such as
the Arctic, the U.S. and Canada commit to jointly endorse the World Banks
Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 Initiative, and report annually on progress. Both
knowledge of cost-effective methane reduction technologies and practices.

Canada and the U.S. affirm their commitment to reduce use and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
using their respective domestic frameworks and will propose new actions in 2016. Canada and the U.S.
are both demonstrating leadership by updating their public procurement processes to transition away from
high global warming potential HFCs, whenever feasible, through government purchase of more sustainable
and greener equipment and products. Recognizing the excellent collaboration between Canada and the
U.S. to establish world-class, aligned regulations and programs to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce
greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from on-road vehicles, the leaders reaffirm their commitment
to continue this strong collaboration towards the finalization and implementation of a second phase of
aligned greenhouse gas emission standards for post-2018 model year on-road heavy-duty vehicles. The
two countries are currently implementing aligned requirements for greenhouse gas emission standards for
cars and light trucks and the leaders commit to continue close collaboration in conducting mid-term
evaluations of the applicable standards for the 2022-2025 model years to ensure further acceleration of
the improvement of vehicle efficiency and zero emission technologies Given the integrated nature of
many aspects of the U.S. and Canadian economies, alignment of analytical methods for assessing and
communicating the impact of direct and indirect GHG emissions of major projects, and of measures to

reduce those emissions, can be mutually beneficial. Canada and the U.S. will align approaches, reflecting
the best available science for accounting for the broad costs to society of the GHG emissions that will be
avoided by mitigation measures, including using similar values for the social cost of carbon and other
GHGs for assessing the benefits of regulatory measures.

Says No
Chinas growing Arctic presence signals future
exploitation of the Arctic region
Struznik, 13

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/chinas_new_arctic_presence_signals_future_deve
lopment/2658/ Canadian author and photographer Ed Struzik has been
writing on the Arctic for three decades. In previous articles for Yale
Environment 360
Chinas recent admission to the Arctic Council under observer status reflects
a new reality: the worlds economic powers now regard development of
natural resources and commerce in an increasingly ice-free Arctic as a top
priority. BY ED STRUZIK When China along with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, and Italy
was granted permanent observer status in the Arctic Council last month, it left
many experts wondering whether a paradigm shift in geopolitics is taking place in the region. Until
recently, security issues, search and rescue protocols, indigenous rights, climate change, and other
environmental priorities were the main concerns of the intergovernmental forum, which includes the eight
voting states bordering the Arctic and several indigenous organizations that enjoy participant status. But
the admission of China and other major Asian economic powers as observer states is yet another strong
sign, experts say, that the economic development of an increasingly ice-free Arctic is becoming a top
priority of nations in the region and beyond. Five or six years ago, most people would have reacted
skeptically to the suggestion that China, for example, would become a major player in the Arctic, says
Rob Huebert, associate director of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary

in the past few years, China has

been investing considerable resources to ensure it will be a major Arctic
power. Like other countries now looking northward, it wants to exploit the emerging
shipping opportunities and the largely unexploited energy and mineral
resources in the region. Of those non-Arctic states admitted as observers to the council last
and a board member of Canadas Polar Commission. But

month, China dwarfs the others in terms of its economic reach and its global track record of making deals
for resource development from Asia, to Africa, to Iceland twice rejected a Chinese proposal to buy a huge
farm, fearing it was part of a plan to build an Arctic port. South America. evidence of the growing
importance of resource exploitation in the Arctic and Chinas role in that development. Established in 1996,
the Arctic Council plays an advisory role by promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among
Arctic States. As a permanent observer, China does not have a vote on the council, but its mere presence
means that its voice will be heard. Its not because the Arctic countries have stopped being suspicious of
Chinese ambitions, explains Huebert. The

reality is that China is too ambitious and too

big to ignore. The fear is that they would just continue going after what they
wanted in the Arctic even if their application was rejected . Who is going to stop
them? How effectively members of the Arctic Council will be able to influence or constrain the ambitions
of China and other Asian powers in the Arctic is an open question. The

Chinese know that they

need us for the resources, but they have also made it clear that when it
comes to their core interests, it doesnt matter who their friends and allies
are they will do what they need to do, observes Huebert. Officially, China, whose
northernmost territory is as close to the Arctic as Germanys is, says it does not covet the Arctic for its
resources, but rather has a genuine interest in the fate of the region. Chinas activities are for the
purposes of regular environmental investigation and investment and have nothing to do with resource
plundering and strategic control, the state-controlled Xinhua news agency wrote last year. But most

China, many experts agree, is eyeing the Arctic

for three main reasons, each of which has profound environmental
implications. Chinas economy is heavily dependent on exports. Rapidly
experts are skeptical of that contention.

melting Arctic sea ice is raising the possibility that a much shorter sea route
through the Northwest and Northeast passages will save the country billions
of dollars in shipping expenses. The distance from Shanghai to Hamburg, for example, is 2,800
nautical miles shorter via the Arctic than via the Suez Canal. In addition to vast reservoirs of
oil, coal, uranium, and rare earth minerals, 30 percent of the worlds
technically recoverable natural gas and 13 percent of the technically
recoverable oil lie above the Arctic Circle. Like other nations, China views
those resources as a means to fuel future growth. China is also by far the
worlds largest fishing nation. With sea ice disappearing, the Arctic may
become a new and important fisheries frontier. China hasnt been biding its time waiting
to hear how its application to the Arctic Council would be decided. In spite of Icelands rejection of the real

China recently signed a free trade agreement with the tiny North
Atlantic country and built a new embassy there. Chinese resource companies
have invested $400 million in energy and mining projects in Arctic Canada
and theyre promising to invest $2.3 billion and 3,000 Chinese workers in a
mammoth, British-led mining project in Greenland. Wikimedia Commons A crew
decamps from the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long in the Arctic Ocean. Whats more, China has
increased its funding for Arctic research, set up a polar institute in Shanghai,
and in 2012 sent the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long through the Northeast
Passage above Russia and Scandinavia, presumably to determine the
suitability of using that route as a commercial waterway. It is currently building
estate deal,

another icebreaker and planning three Arctic expeditions for 2015. Oran Young, co-director of the Program
on Governance for Sustainable Development at the Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says many of these developments are an
unavoidable fact of life that reflect both the growing global economic importance of the Arctic and Chinas
position as a pre-eminent economic force. The Chinese are proceeding in the Arctic in much the same way
they are proceeding in other parts of the world, which is largely through economic initiatives, he says.
They develop connections that offer them the chance to develop natural resources. This is especially
evident in western Canada, where a third of all investments in tar sands projects since 2003 have come
from China. Responding to Canadian concerns, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper last December
placed restrictions on future foreign investments in the oil industry. Suspicious as some Arctic countries
may be of Chinas ambitions, each has signaled in its own way that the time for exploiting the Arctic has
come. Norwegian and Danish officials said as much at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, as did
Canadian Leona Aglukkaq when she assumed The Arctic Councils Leona Aglukkaq said a key focus will be
on natural resource development in the circumpolar region. chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May. A
key focus, she said, will be on natural resource development in the circumpolar region. The statements
of U.S Secretary of State John Kerry has been a notable exception. At the Arctic Council meeting last
month, he told his colleagues that the Obama Administration was making climate change and protecting
the environment one of its top priorities. The U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region lays out a plan
that tries to be all things to all interests, including Alaska natives and environmentalists; but it leaves no
doubt that economic development in the region is now a priority, although it vows to exercise responsible
[environmental] stewardship. The fast-moving developments in the Arctic worry environmental groups
such as Greenpeace and WWF, which have pointed out that Arctic states have not adequately addressed
the risk of an oil spill and other environmental disasters in the Arctic if resource development and shipping

There are also fears that China which catches 12 times more fish
beyond its own waters than it reports, according to a recent study by the
University of British Columbias Fisheries Center could quickly exhaust an
Arctic resource that hasnt even been quantified.
escalates.

China says no- extraction of resources trumps cooperation

Auerswald, 15. David, staff writer for the US Navy and professor of
security studies at the National War College, Dec 15. Geopolitical Iceberg.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-12/geopolitical-icebergs

Take threats: The Canadians fear losing control over the Northwest Passage, which they see as their sovereign territory. Denmark is worried
about Chinese influence over an increasingly independent and accessible Greenland. Iceland desperately fears being ignored by the other
Arctic powers. Norways largest security threats are from possible Russian demands similar to those in Scenario 1, or from an environmental
disaster that cripples fisheries in the North, Norwegian, or Barents Seas. Sweden and Finland both worry about a militarily and politically
assertive Russia and the possible spillover from a broader East-West dispute over Ukraine, Russias energy politics, or a clash in the Baltic Sea.
The Russians have signaled that NATO encroachment into Russias traditional sphere of influence is their most significant external threat. In
short, there is a patchwork of threat perceptions among Arctic powers. In a crisis or emergency, differences in threat perceptionswhether or
not they are truecould undermine regional cooperation or contribute to unintended conflicts. Opportunities, particularly on the economic
front, also vary across the region. Norway, Russia, and to a lesser extent Iceland have the most to gain in terms of hydrocarbon and fisheries
extraction and an interest in defining best practices to their own advantage. The United States, Canada, and Denmark (via Greenland) have
less to gain from near-term resource extraction given the greater ice coverage in the North American portion of the Arctic, and more to gain
from stringent codes of conduct for the various extractive industries. Sweden and Finland have little obvious, new economic opportunities

China and other powerful,

non-Arctic states have signaled that they want a role in polar governance and
resource extraction. Creating region-wide standards and extraction quotas
on fisheries, for instancecould be difficult when short-term interests conflict
across the region, or when the short-term interests of some states undermine
the long-term interests of others. This patchwork of threats, opportunities, and yes, power, has resulted in Arctic
associated with their Arctic territories, principally because they are not Arctic littoral states.

countries emphasizing different international forums depending on specific national goals. On security issues, the United States, Norway,
Denmark, and Iceland have emphasized NATO. Canada and Russia have emphasized unilateralism. Sweden and Finland have emphasized the
United Nations and the European Union. On issues associated with regional governance and stewardship, less powerful Arctic states have
emphasized broad multilateralism, principally by adding permanent observers to the Arctic Council and working through the U.N. Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and International Maritime Organization. The five Arctic littoral states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and
the United States) have emphasized their own abilities to manage the region without outside interference; a form of mini-multilateralism best
expressed through the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration . Iceland responded by creating the Arctic Circle, an organization through which interested
nations, indigenous peoples, and nongovernmental advocacy groups can discuss Arctic issues, an initiative met with disdain by some Arctic
nations but embraced by China and others. When should the United States engage in multilateralism, bilateral relations, or unilateral actions
in a region where the appropriate negotiating forum continually shifts depending on the issue and countries involved?

China is eager to exploit the Arctic

Guilford 2013
Guilford, Gwynn. "Why China Oh-so-desperately Wants a Claim to the Arctic
Ocean." Quartz. N.p., 14 May 2013.
The global race for the Arctics riches is already in progress and attracting
military interests, according to US State Secretary John Kerry, who says Washington is keeping a close eye on
China and Russia and adapting its national security strategy . Our future national security
strategy is going to be affected also by whats going on in the Arctic. The
melting of the polar cap is opening sea lanes that never before existed, Kerry
said in a speech at Old Dominion University. The potential there is already there for a global race to exploit the resources
of the region, Kerry stated. The US, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Denmark all have claims to

China has been an observer of the Arctic Council since May

2013, and has no claims to the Arctic, but being a manufacturing
powerhouse, Beijing is eager to exploit the Northeastern Passage have access
to shorter shipping routes. Everybody knows Russia planted a flag on the North Pole bottom. Other
countries are up there, China and others, with their ships, mapping out the exploitation of
resources, including oil, natural gas, fish, Kerry said. Below the ice and cold waters of the Arctic
the resource rich region.

Ocean are hidden vast natural reserves: approximately 20 percent of oil reserves worldwide, about 30 per cent of the
planets natural gas, there are also believe to be deposits of platinum, gold and tin just for starters. Climate change in
the Artic is progressing twice as fast as in the rest of the world. As the Arctic ice cap decreases year by year, the regions
natural resources and sea routes are becoming more accessible. Russia is leading the race in claiming the region and has
taken active steps to secure its interests. Moscow always stressed the priority of the Arctic in its latest economic and
defense programs. Kerry says the US is closely watching Moscows activity. Economic riches tend to attract military
interest as nations seek to ensure their own rights are protected. And we know, because we track it, that these countries
like Russia,

China, and others are active in the Arctic, said the Secretary of State.

China wants to fish in the Arctic

Lucas Jackson November 11, 2015

"Potential already there for global race to exploit Arctic resources Kerry."
https://www.rt.com/usa/321529-arctic-kerry-national-security/
Why is this so important to China? One reason is access to the Arctic Oceans
fishing supply. The new fishing grounds will become the worlds largest
storehouse of biological protein, wrote Tang Guoqiang, Chinas former
ambassador to Norway, in a recent paper (link in Chinese.) As we recently discussed, fishing is a big
business for China, so much so that its raiding the territorial waters of other
countries. Arctic nations are currently mulling an accord to prevent fishing in
the open water above the Bering Strait until scientists can assess fish stocks.
The objective would be to manage commercial fishing, not to protect the fish habitat, noted the New York Times. Heres what the territory
currently looks: The other reason is that the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage, as theyre sometimes called, connect China to
Europe, reducing travel from around 15,000 miles to 8,000 miles. That would save ships time and fuel. Heres what that looks like now, on the
left, and how thats set to change:

Heg

General
Limited US presence enables Arctic cooperation and
solves tensions Russian aggression is simply rhetoric
and wont escalate
Bernstein 14 Leandra, reporter for Ria Novosti, citing Marlene
Laruell, program director at the George Washington
Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies,
Research Professor of International Affairs, Ph.D. at the National
Institute of Oriental Languages and Cultures, 2014 (Arctic
Cooperation May Ease Russia-US Tensions Analyst, Ria Novosti, May 22nd,
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-EaseRussia-US-Tensions--Analyst.html)
Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be
cooled through Arctic cooperation, according to the program director at
the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.
I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation
with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis, Marlene Laruelle said.
US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation
on security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there
are several other elements that are still open for discussion.
Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development
and currently holds the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is
planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former
State Department official Heather Conley.
However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated
technology and borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia is
currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers.
The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly
not an issue of military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue,
Laruelle said.
Concerning Russias delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the
North Sea Pass, Laruelle said Russia is playing by the rules. The
demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the
Arctic Council, but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing,
through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered
to all Russian requirements for passage.

There are hopes that increased trade will take place through Arctic routes.
The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this
year.
Laruelles remarks were part of a panel discussion at the Wilson Center on
the interests of the Arctic nations, and the increasing participation in the
region by non-Arctic players, particularly China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

The affs containment strategy provokes Russia into

brinksmanship and wrecks relations causes
miscalculation and escalating aggression
Murray and Keating 14 Robert W. Murray, Vice-President,
Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and an
Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of
Alberta, holds a PhD, Political Science, from the University of Alberta. Tom
Keating, Professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta, 4/25/14,
(Why Neo-Containment Should Not Extend to Arctic,
http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/why-neocontainment-should-not-extend-to-arctic/) - AW
As the situation in Ukraine continues to worsen, Canada is under increasing
pressure to include the Arctic as part of NATOs strategy to counteract
Russian aggression. In the following, we content that it should continue to
resist this pressureeven in the wake of events in Crimea and eastern
Ukraine.
The efforts to increase NATOs common interests in the Arctic began as far
back as 2010 with Norway broaching the subject at a NATO Summit. At that
time, Canada requested that the Arctic be removed from the Summits
agenda as Canada felt that NATO had no place in Arctic affairs.
Recent events in Ukraine have evoked concern among NATO allies about
Russias potential interest in expanding its borders. In a recent meeting of the
Russian Security Council, Russian President Putin highlighted the special
place of the Arctic in Russias sphere of influence. Referring directly to
Russias future Arctic strategy, Putin noted: We need to take additional
measures so as not to fall behind our partners, to maintain Russian influence
in the region and, maybe in some areas, to be ahead of our partners. Russia
is in the process of continuing its militarization of the Arctic and this weeks
comments regarding Russias future Arctic interests is cause for concern.
Having mishandled the crisis in Ukraine for so long, NATOs response can now
be defined as neo-containment in which NATO bolsters its military presence
in Poland and the Baltic states in an effort to dissuade Putin from going any
further with his quest for what he has called New Russia. However, it would

be incredibly unwise for NATO to include the Arctic as a component of the

neo-containment strategy moving forward.
The idea of extending NATO to the Arctic theatre is not a new one. Canadian
officials raised the possibility of such an extended mandate in the 1950s
when Soviet bombers posed a threat to North America through Arctic
airspace. Canadas concerns at the time, however, were shaped as much by
the relationship with its southern neighbour as they were with the Soviet
threat. Indeed, Ottawa was hoping to deflect living under an exclusively
bilateral (NORAD) umbrella by including our European allies in the plan. The
Americans and NATOs European members took little interest in the Canadian
request and the matter was dropped.
The situation today is completely different. Russian interests in the Arctic are
not primarily about a global competition for power through territorial
expansion (despite the indirect implications of power accumulation); it is
about pressing territorial and resource claims to their most extreme limits. At
the same time, every other Arctic state is pressing similar claims. While
military power is not insignificant in asserting and defending such claims, it
has not been the exclusive, nor even primary, means employed thus far.
Diplomatic and institutional measures are still a viable option for
resolving these territorial disputes. A NATO presence in the Arctic would
severely undermine these non-military measures and would likely provoke
Russia into a game of brinkmanship.
To date, Arctic relations have been entirely diplomatic, with no genuine hint
of armed conflict on the immediate horizon. It is true that Arctic states have
invested significant domestic resources into Arctic scientific exploration,
resource extraction technology and military assets but thus far relations in
the Arctic Region have been cooperative. For the first time since the crisis
in Ukraine began, though, the Arctic became a component of a broader
strategic discussion when Canada withdrew from the meeting of the Arctic
Councils task force on black carbon and methane held in Moscow. Even so, it
is likely that Canadas withdrawal from the proceedings had more to do with
the fact that the meeting was being held in Moscow and not a sincere effort
on Canadas part to goad Russia on policy issues concerning the Arctic.
The disputes at play in the Arctic are also fundamentally different from
those being played out in Ukraine. Any attempt to link them would be
counterproductive on many fronts. Much has been made in the weeks
since the implosion in Ukraine on the effects that NATO expansion has had on
Russian foreign policy. Regardless of how one interprets the effects of NATOs
expansion to the borders of Russia, extending the alliance into the Arctic
would only confirm the perception in Moscow that the alliances primary
objective has been to encircle Russia and deny what it views as legitimate
security interests on its borders. If Russians werent paranoid about being
trapped before, such a move by NATO would surely reinforce such a view.

No impact to heg takes out Brooks et al

Benjamin H. Friedman et al 13, research fellow in defense and
homeland security studies; Brendan Rittenhouse Green, the Stanley
Kaplan Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science and Leadership Studies at
Williams College; Justin Logan, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato
Institute Fall 2013, Correspondence: Debating American Engagement: The
Future of U.S. Grand Strategy, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 181199
Brooks et al. argue that the specter of U.S. power eliminates some of the most baleful consequences of
anarchy, producing a more peaceful world. U.S. security guarantees deter aggressors, reassure allies, and
dampen security dilemmas (p. 34). By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, Brooks et al. write,
primacy reduces security competition and does so in a way that slows the diffusion of power away from the United

There are three reasons to reject this logic : security competition

is declining anyway; if competition increases, primacy will have difficulty
stopping it; and even if competition occurred, it would pose little threat to the
United States. an increasingly peaceful world. An array of research , some of which Brooks et al. cite,
indicates that factors other than U.S. power are diminishing interstate war
and security competition .2 These factors combine to make the costs of military aggression very high, and
its benefits low.3 A major reason for peace is that conquest has grown more costly. Nuclear
weapons make it nearly suicidal in some cases.4 Asia, the region where future great power
competition is most likely, has a geography of peace : its maritime and mountainous regions are
formidable barriers to conflict.5 Conquest also yields lower economic returns than in the
past. Post-industrial economies that rely heavily on human capital and information are more difficult to exploit.6
States (pp. 3940).

Communications and transport technologies aid nationalism and other identity politics that make foreigners harder to

The lowering of trade barriers limits the returns from their forcible
opening.7 Although states are slow learners, they increasingly appreciate these trends . That
should not surprise structural realists. Through two world wars, the international system
"selected against" hyperaggressive states and demonstrated even to victors
the costs of major war. Others adapt to the changed calculus of military
aggression through socialization.8 managing revisionist states. Brooks et al. caution against
betting on these positive trends. They worry that if states behave the way offensive realism predicts, then security
competition will be fierce even if its costs are high . Or, if nonsecurity preferences such as
prestige, status, or glory motivate states, even secure states may become aggressive (pp. 36-37).9 These
scenarios, however, are a bigger problem for primacy than for restraint . Offensive
realist security paranoia stems from states' uncertainty about intentions; such
states see alliances as temporary expedients of last resort, and U.S. military commitments are
unlikely to comfort or deter them .10 Nonsecurity preferences are, by definition,
resistant to the security blandishments that the United States can offer under
primacy Brooks et al.'s revisionist actors are unlikely to find additional costs sufficient reason to hold back, or the
threat of those costs to be particularly credible. The literature that Brooks et al. cite in arguing that the United
States restrains allies actually suggests that offensive realist and prestige-oriented
states will be the most resistant to the restraining effects of U.S. power . These
manage.

studies suggest that it is most difficult for strong states to prevent conflict between weaker allies and their rivals when the
restraining state is defending nonvital interests; when potential adversaries and allies have other alignment options;11
when the stronger state struggles to mobilize power domestically12; when the stronger state perceives reputational costs
for non-involvement;13 and when allies have hawkish interests and the stronger state has only moderately dovish
interests.14 In other words,

the cases where it would be most important to restrain U.S.

allies are those in which Washington's efforts at restraint would be least

effective. Highly motivated actors, by definition, have strong hawkish interests. Primacy puts limits on U.S.
dovishness, lest its commitments lack the credibility to deter or reassure. Such credibility concerns create perceived
reputational costs for restraining or not bailing out allies. The United States will be defending secondary interests, which

if
states are insensitive to the factors incentivizing peace, then the U nited States'
ability to manage global security will be doubtful . Third-party security
competition will likely ensue anyway. costs for whom? Fortunately, foreign security
competition poses little risk to the United States. Its wealth and geography create natural security.
will create domestic obstacles to mobilizing power. U.S. allies have other alliance options, especially in Asia. In short,

Historically, the only threats to U.S. sovereignty, territorial integrity, safety, or power position have been potential regional
hegemons that could mobilize their resources to project political and military power into the Western Hemisphere. Nazi

Brooks et al. argue that

rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the
table, at least in the medium to long term" (p. 38). That possibility is remote , even assuming that China
sustains its rapid wealth creation. Regional hegemony requires China to develop the
capacity to conquer Asia's other regional powers. India lies across the Himalayas and has
nuclear weapons. Japan is across a sea and has the wealth to quickly build up its
military and develop nuclear weapons. A disengaged United States would have ample
warning and time to form alliances or regenerate forces before China realizes such
vast ambitions.
Germany and the Soviet Union arguably posed such threats. None exist today.
"China's

Conflict is unlikely in the Arctic

Le Mire and Mazo 1-13 -14 -- Senior Research Fellow for Naval Forces and
Maritime Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and IISS
Consulting Senior Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy and
Consulting Editor, Survival (Christian* and Jeffrey**, Arctic Opening:
Insecurity and Opportunity, Taylor and Francis Online
Whether the sensitivities of the Arctic littoral states to cooperation with the three non-littoral states, or
mutual mistrust between Russia and the other states, will prevent such an architecture from being formed
is the main unknown in Arctic security. For the time being, however ,

while there remains

suspicion among some Arctic states and occasional bouts of belligerent rhetoric and the
procurement of some equipment, which suggests state-based rivalry the reality is that the
Arctic is not witnessing an uncontrolled or substantially competitive
militarisation. It is a region that has inherent strategic value, given the patrols of ballistic-missile
submarines, but it is also one in which operations are hampered by weather and geography. While
Russian defence spending has increased rapidly, it is from a remarkably low base
and investments are currently just rejuvenating an entirely dilapidated fleet.
Most Nordic budgets are constrained by austerity, US defence priorities lie
elsewhere and Canadas primary Arctic-focused procurement is of vessels
devoted to maritime security. There may be more military activity in the
Arctic in the future, but it is currently far from being a battleground for rival
states.

SQ Solves
SQ solves- the US already has leadership of the Arctic
Council and is doing well
Papp 4/12/16, Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., USCG (Ret.) is the State
Departments Special Representative for the Arctic. The Importance of U.S.
Arctic Leadership
https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2016/04/12/importance-us-arctic-leadership
A year ago, the United States assumed leadership of the Arctic Council, the
high-level forum in which the eight Arctic States and the regions indigenous
groups discuss circumpolar issues. As we approach the halfway mark of our two-year Chairmanship, we
have much to celebrate: last month the 2013 agreement on Arctic oil pollution,
preparedness, and response went into effect, ensuring strong cooperation
among the Arctic States in the event of an oil emergency in Arctic waters. Through the newlyestablished Arctic Coast Guard Forum, we conducted an initial exercise of the 2011 Search and Rescue

The Arctic Council

recently released groundbreaking procedures for the safe operation of
unmanned aircraft systems in the Arctic, the first international guidelines that include
protocols for the use of these aircraft across an entire region. The U.S. government is also
sponsoring the Fulbright Arctic Initiative where 17 scholars from across the
Arctic take part in a new 18-month study program supporting cutting-edge
research on energy, water, health, and infrastructure issues . Reaffirming the U.S.
agreement, and a full-scale operational demonstration will follow this summer.

Arctic Identity Americans living in Alaska understand the Arctics impact on our nation. However, others
may not fully appreciate our countrys Arctic personality. Initiatives such as the August 2015 GLACIER
conference, a highlight of President Obamas historic visit to Alaska and the U.S. Arctic, have been critical
in bringing the Arctic to the attention of those living in lower 49 States. As a demonstration of the
Administrations continuing commitment to the region, the White House will sponsor later this year an
Arctic Science Ministerial, convening key leaders to advance Arctic science and research. Weve also
launched our own Medium blog, Our Arctic Nation, that each week features different American voices
from different U.S. States, exploring the Arctics direct relationship to their communities. We are further
shining a spotlight on the amazing young people who live in the Arctic through the Arctic Youth
Ambassadors programa joint project of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Alaska Geographic, and the
Department of State. The program provides 22 Alaskan students a platform to share with the world their
experiences of living at the top of the globe. One of our Youth Ambassadors, Bryon Nicholai, has become a
YouTube sensation for his promotion of Yupik language and song and was recently featured on NPRs
Weekend Edition. We are promoting these powerful voices because their thoughts and experiences will
shape the international communitys view of the Arctic, while highlighting the obstacles and opportunities
facing the region. As the Arctics landscapes shifts, we need novel ideas to address the new needs

were working closely with our Arctic partners to

conduct an assessment of the regions telecommunications infrastructure to
better understand where significant connectivity gaps are affecting
communities. Also, through the Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy, the Arctic Energy Summit,
emerging in the region. For example,

and the new Arctic Renewable Energy Atlas, were driving conversations on sustainable-energy generation
in the Arctic. In the realm of health, we are also sponsoring the Arctic One Health project that uses a
holistic approachconsidering human, animal, plant, and environmental factorsto identify health risks
threatening the region. Finally, we are committed to bolstering the Arctic Council, which this year
celebrates its 20th anniversary. To ensure that the Council remains a vibrant forum for the next 20 years

we are working to strengthen the Council by promoting long-term

strategic planning, undertaking a comprehensive financial review, and
facilitating the meaningful engagement of observers . When we pass the gavel of the
and beyond,

Arctic Council to Finland at the May 2017 Ministerial meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, we expect that the

Council will be well positioned to continue it important sustainable development and environmental work,
continuing to foster peace and cooperation across the region.

The Arctic is governed by multipolarity and soft power

makes Arctic conflict impossible
Misje 12 Geography Department, Fullerton (RUSSIAN HEGEMONY IN
THE ARCTIC SPACE? CONTESTING THE POPULAR GEOPOLITICAL
DISCOURSES, April 16th, Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State
University, Fullerton)
On the other hand, balanced multipolar systems are structures without a
potential hegemon. As a result, there is less of a security threat than in an
unbalanced system. The Arctic powers that have ratified the UNCLOS are
more or less equal in power. Therefore, the Arctic region can be
considered a balanced multipolar system. However, the Arctic does have
a hegemonic power that has been waiting on the sidelines of the game, the
US. Furthermore, Russia could be seen as having greater power in the Arctic
as its use of the UNCLOS provisions has given the state an upper-hand in the
fight for sovereign rights. However, the other Arctic states can also use the
UNCLOS to claim sovereign rights, though being the first to submit a sizeable
claim has given Russia considerably more power. Multipolarity in the Arctic
needs to be defined as a system of two or more powers with one hegemonic
power (United States), a potential dominant power (Russia) and several great
powers (Canada, Denmark and Norway). Furthermore, illustrating the polarity
of the Arctic states as a triad configuration helps to explain the forthcoming
idea that perhaps the great powers are counter-balancers to Russian power in
the Arctic space. Counterbalancing can be defined as an influence that
balances or offsets another's power in the international system. Brooks and
Wohlforth argue that counter-balancers repress excessive amounts of power
by either enhancing the power of another ally in order for that state to
develop into a "peer rival to the hegemon" or by combining capabilities
through an alliance that roughly equals the capabilities of the hegemon
(Brooks and Wohlforth 2008,25). In this sense, counterbalancing is tailored to
systems that surround a hegemonic power. However, counterbalancing can
also be defined as the attempt to "build up real resources and capabilities to
match, check, or block another state's use of such capabilities to advance its
security interests" (Brooks and Wohlforth 2008,25). By using this definition of
counterbalancing, the action can be securely fitted to the Arctic triad
structure of power.
The three great powers of the triad (Canada, Denmark and Norway) can be
defined as counter-balancers that match, check, or block Russia's soft power,
by also utilizing the provisions of the UNCLOS. Furthermore, Brooks and
Wohlforth state that "balancing is a great power phenomenon, because only
great powers can prevent one among them from attaining geopolitical
predominance" (Brooks and Wohlforth 2008, 26). By deconstructing this
sentence, one can argue that Russia, the potential dominant 45 power among
the states, could also counterbalance the three great powers. If the great

powers successfully impede Russia from gaining power, then does it not give
the great powers the upper hand? Additionally, this could then be seen by
Russia as an act of aggression and an attempt to establish geopolitical
dominance. In essence, the great powers' attempts to thwart Russian power
could place these states in a higher position of influence, making Russia a
great power again. This would then lessen Russian power in the Arctic
system. Moreover, Russia could then be persuaded to counterbalance the
capabilities of Norway, Canada and Denmark.
Overall, this section has helped to develop the argument of this thesis by first
defining power as it pertains to current Arctic geopolitics. Furthermore, by
breaking down the types of opposing structures, it is possible to establish the
degree of power that each Arctic state holds at a given time. Accordingly,
some of the theoretical thinkers of power and politics have helped to argue
that in the contemporary world, much is needed to provoke a great power to
go to war with another great power; thus solidifying this 46 paper's argument
that soft power instruments will be the preferred tool for the Arctic states.
Ultimately, the clarifications under this section assist in further explaining the
structural design of the Arctic space within the international system.

Cooperation inevitable and resolves disputes especially

true for Russia
Friedman 14
Uri Friedman, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the
Global Channel, 3/28/14, (The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could
Square Off Next,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-wherethe-us-and-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/)
*Quotes:
- The Council on Foreign Relations
- Michael Byers international law professor at the University of British
Columbia
In mid-March, around the same time that Russia annexed Crimea, Russian
officials announced another territorial coup: 52,000 square kilometers in the
Sea of Okhotsk, a splotch of Pacific Ocean known as the "Peanut Hole" and
believed to be rich in oil and gas. A UN commission had recognized the
maritime territory as part of Russia's continental shelf, Russia's minister of
natural resources and environment proudly announced, and the decision
would only advance the territorial claims in the Arctic that Russia had
pending before the same committee. After a decade and a half of painstaking
petitioning, the Peanut Hole was Russia's. Russian officials were getting a bit
ahead of themselves. Technically, the UN commission had approved Russia's
recommendations on the outer limits of its continental shelfand only when
Russia acts on these suggestions is its control of the Sea of Okhotsk "final and

binding." Still, these technicalities shouldn't obscure the larger point: Russia
isn't only pursuing its territorial ambitions in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states. It's particularly active in the Arctic Circle, and, until recently, these
efforts engendered international cooperation, not conflict. But the Crimean
crisis has complicated matters. Take Hillary Clinton's call last week for
Canada and the United States to form a "united front" in response to Russia
"aggressively reopening military bases in the Arctic. Or the difficulties U.S.
officials are having in designing sanctions against Russia that won't harm
Western oil companies like Exxon Mobil, which are engaged in oil-and-gas
exploration with their Russian counterparts in parts of the Russian Arctic. In a
dispatch from "beneath the Arctic ocean" this week, The Wall Street Journal
reported on a U.S. navy exercise, scheduled before the crisis in Ukraine, that
included a simulated attack on a Russian submarine. The U.S. has now
canceled a joint naval exercise with Russia in the region and put various other
partnerships there on hold. This week, the Council on Foreign Relations
published a very helpful guide on the jostling among countries to capitalize
on the shipping routes and energy resources that could be unlocked as the
Arctic melts. The main players are the countries with Arctic Ocean
coastlines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, the United States
(Alaska)and, to a lesser extent, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. These nations
have generally agreed to work together to resolve territorial and
environmental issues. But some sovereignty disputes persist, including
American opposition to Russia's claims to parts of the Northern Sea Route
above Siberia. Here's CFR's infographic on where the Arctic's shipping and
natural-resource potential is, and where the "Arctic Five" are most at odds
with each other (you can even layer summer sea ice onto the map!): "Few
countries have been as keen to invest in the Arctic as Russia, whose economy
and federal budget rely heavily on hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the nearly
sixty large oil and natural-gas fields discovered in the Arctic, there are fortythree in Russia, eleven in Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway, according
to a 2009 U.S. Department of Energy report." "Russia, the only non-NATO
littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic
priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets,"
the guide adds. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military
leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed
'every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there.' He
also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian
Arctic by the end of 2014." Ultimately, the remarkable international
cooperation we've seen in the North Pole may continue even amid
the standoff in Ukraine. This week, for instance, government officials from
the eight members of the Arctic Council, including Russia and the United
States, went ahead with a summit in Canada. "The Russians have been quite
cooperative in the Arctic during the past decade," international-law
professor Michael Byers told The Canadian Press, "probably because they
realize how expensive it would be to take another approach, especially one
involving militarization."

No War- Arctic
Zero chance of Arctic war---experts
Mahony 3/19 Honor, EU Observer, "Fear of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'",
2013, euobserver.com/foreign/119479
The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of
potential conflict in the
region is overblown, say experts
resource-rich

For long a mystery

because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry. Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what
global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and
oil. The interest is reflected in the growing list of those wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region. While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway,

The Arctic
has become a new meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific
Sweden, Russia and Canada form the council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status. "

," says

Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by
far in the last years." He points to its red-carpet treatment of politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the
island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year
and shipping hubs like Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means
greater shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in 2012. For a
ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is connected to shipping. Russia is also
keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways. According to Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish
shipowners association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or
the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there." And he believes the
biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas
supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. "The

This resource potential although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable to
exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict But this is
nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert
There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds
great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned region where all these
resources are waiting to be picked
That is completely false
He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region ," with
international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to
12 nautical miles off their coast
a further 200 nautical miles of
exclusive economic zone "where you own every value in the water and under
the seabed 97 percent of energy resources actually belong to
someone already

the actors in the region all want to create

a business environment, which requires stable politics and security.
biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said.

Most resources have an owner

"

up by the one who gets there first.

," he

said.

."

"Up to

On top of that is

is

," says Wang.

ing

He suggest

Arctic War is impossible institutional diplomacy checks

conflict
CFR 14
Council on Foreign Relations, 2014 (The Emerging Arctic, Council
on Foreign Relations, March 25th, date acquired from Emerging Arctic
Explored in New CFR InfoGuide available at
http://www.cfr.org/arctic/emerging-arctic-explored-new-cfr-infoguide/p32654,
article available at http://www.cfr.org/arctic/emergingarctic/p32620#!/#Diplomacy%20and%20Security)
Less than a decade ago, many geopolitical analysts warned that the Arctic
had all of the makings for great-power rivalry reminiscent of the Cold War.
However, the movement has gone quite the other way. Despite a few
remaining territorial disputes, the overwhelming majority of Arctic resources

fall within accepted national boundaries and all Arctic governments have
committed to settling disagreements peaceably. Notably, Russia and
Norway resolved a decades-old maritime border dispute in 2010, equally
dividing some 67,600 square miles of water in the Barents Sea, and
partnering in the region on energy development. The historic deal is often
cited as a model for future Arctic diplomacy.
The Arctic Council, the leading international forum for cooperation in the
region, was established by the eight Arctic states in 1996 with participation
from indigenous peoples like the Inuit and Saami, and all member states
except the United States and Norway have appointed ambassador-level
diplomats to represent their interests in the region. With a secretariat in
Troms, Norway, the council is a forum that sponsors major assessments and
studies, and develops policies and guidelines that focus on environmental
protection and sustainable development. Chairmanship of the council rotates
every two years.
But Arctic cooperation takes place in a variety of other forums. Nordic nations
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Icelandalso partner on
sustainability and issues related to Arctic indigenous peoples via the Nordic
Council. Nineteen countries are party to the International Arctic Science
Committee, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to research. The
nonprofit Arctic Circle, formed in 2013 by Icelandic president lafur Ragnar
Grmsson, aims to provide a setting for political and business groups, as well
as other organizations from around the world, to discuss Arctic issues.
Still, steady diplomacy has not precluded nations from maneuvering to
protect their interests in the region. Each of the eight Arctic nations has
updated their strategy for the region in the last several years, including the
United States (see interactive diagram below). Russia, the only non-NATO
littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic
priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets.
In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay
particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed every lever for the
protection of its security and national interests there. He also ordered the
creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic by the end
of 2014.
Economic powers further afield are also angling for a larger role in the
Arctic. India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and China became Arctic
Council observer states in 2013. Analysts say Beijing is particularly attracted
to the region given its mounting energy demands and reliance on maritime
trade. Chinese officials now characterize their country as a near-Arctic
state, and Beijing has recently increased its investment in polar research,
spending some $60 million annually, and ordered a second, $300 million icebreaking research ship. China strengthened its toehold in the Arctic by
signing a free trade agreement with Iceland, its first with a European country,
and building an embassy that is Reykjaviks largest.

No War- China
China wont pursue aggressive Arctic policyKuo and Tang, 15. Mercy A. Kuo is an advisory board member of CHINA
Debate and was previously director of the Southeast Asia Studies and
Strategic Asia Programs at the National Bureau of Asian Research. Angie O.
Tang is Senior Advisor of Asia Value Advisors, a leading venture philanthropy
advisory firm based in Hong Kong.
China has not published any official Arctic strategy , policy or white paper, which
suggest that the region has not been a priority and presently not high enough
on the political agenda in Beijing. Nonetheless, statements by Chinese officials and Chinas
membership as a permanent observer in the Arctic Council have clarified Chinas position on Arctic affairs and

Chinas growing activism in the Arctic is

primarily shaped by scientific and climate considerations , commercial interest in the
acknowledged Chinas interests in the region.

petroleum, shipping and mineral sector, as well as diplomatic and legal concerns. Chinas willingness to become an Arctic
Council observer supports the view that China does not challenge the sovereignty of the littoral states in the Arctic Ocean
and remains committed to respecting the rule of law, including UNCLOS. China is positioning itself, and gaining a foot in
the door, in order to access and extract resources and take advantage of strategic, economic, military, and scientific
opportunities in the Arctic region in the years ahead. Chinas objectives in the Arctic could complement the One Belt, One
Road Strategy (OBOR). Geographically, the Indian Ocean and the Arctic Ocean are the southern and northern flanks of the
Eurasian landmass. Investments in shipping and infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route and the Maritime Silk Road
can enhance Chinas Silk Road Economic Belt strategy. In addition, China remains a huge littoral state. Consequently,
China can add three oceanic frontiers to Mackinders heartland in Eurasia and overcome some of the challenges in
controlling the heartland envisioned in the past. This could provide China with a favorable geopolitical position and an
opportunity to command the world islands Asia, Europe and Africa in the twenty first century. However, it remains to
be seen if China can successfully implement the OBOR strategy and whether Chinese investments in the Arctic region can
complement this strategy. Compare and contrast the China-Russia energy security competition and cooperation dynamic
in Central Asia with that in the Arctic. China is a major petroleum consumer and Russia is a major petroleum producer.
They are not competing directly. Sino-Russian energy cooperation is strongest in the Arctic were Russia is looking for
investments. China and its national oil companies (NOCs) are now one of the few willing to invest in this high cost
producing region. Chinas oil companies are looking for experience in international project management and are aiming to
advance their technological skills. The Chinese government is seeking to enhance Chinas energy security through a
hedging strategy that diversifies through investments in more costly petroleum sources and transportation routes. Control
over the future of Central Asian petroleum flows and production rights has emerged as a contentious issue between
Russia and China. Traditionally, Russia has contractually locked up petroleum supplies from Central Asia and controlled a
substantial part of the petroleum exports from Central Asia, which were shipped through the Russian pipeline system. As
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have developed alternative pipeline routes to China for their petroleum exports, Russia
faces stronger competition in securing cheap Central Asian petroleum. What is the impact of Chinas increasing influence
in Central Asia vis--vis Russia? Beijings growing influence in Central Asia undermines important Russian objectives,
namely, to maintain and exploit its monopsony position vis--vis Central Asian suppliers and to obstruct efforts by Central
Asian suppliers to bypass the Gazprom export pipeline system. However, in some cases China and Russia are not
competing for the same reserves and their interests may be complementary. For example, the Kazakhstan-China crude
pipeline has, at least temporarily, opened up an alternative route for the export of Russian crude oil to China. Furthermore,
the major Russian petroleum companies may dislike the strong competition from the Chinese NOCs for exploration,
production, and market share in the Central Asian petroleum market, but it might be preferable for Gazprom that Central
Asian gas moves to the East rather than through alternative routes to the West that might challenge Russias strong

The current stakes in the circumpolar Arctic region

are not sufficiently high to warrant confrontation between the U.S. and China.
Cooperation predominantly guides their policies and activities . While they play
position in the European gas market.

different roles and increasingly seek to demonstrate their influence, there are common interests, such as in the freedom
of the seas, in resource extraction and in developing infrastructure in the region. So far, there are few developments
suggesting that the Arctic will be a focal point of potential rivalry or confrontation in broader U.S.-China relations. Other
areas are more central to their respective international priorities, and to their interaction.

No War- Russia
Russian belligerence is purely rhetoric theres no hot
war
Gorenburg Senior Fellow of Harvard Universitys Davis
Center for Russian and East European Studies, holds a
Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University --- 14
Dmitry, Senior research scientist, CNA, Senior Fellow of Harvard Universitys
Davis Center for Russian and East European Studies, holds a Ph.D. in Political
Science from Harvard University, 2014 (How to understand Russias Arctic
strategy, Monkey Cage, Washington Post, February 12th,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/how-tounderstand-russias-arctic-strategy) - AW
During most of the late 20th century, the Arctic region was primarily a zone
of military interests, used by both NATO and Soviet strategic forces as bases
for their nuclear submarines and as testing grounds for intercontinental
ballistic missiles. With the end of the Cold War, the Arctic initially lost its
strategic significance. In the last decade, however, thanks to a combination
of accelerating climate change and a rapid increase in energy prices, it has
become a key zone of strategic competition among a range of regional actors
and outside powers. Russia has become heavily involved in these fledgling
efforts to develop the Arctic. Russian leaders now primarily see the Arctic as a
potential source of economic growth for the country, both as a strategic
resource base for the future and a potential maritime trade route.
Russian actions in the Arctic are governed by a combination of factors. The
highest priority is undoubtedly economic development of Russias Arctic
region. Russias natural resources ministry has stated that the parts of the
Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia may hold more petroleum deposits than those
currently held by Saudi Arabia. Russia has already put in place plans to
exploit resources in this region, beginning with deposits on the Yamal
Peninsula and adjacent offshore areas. The first offshore development is the
Prirazlomnoye oil field south of Novaia Zemlia, which started production in
December 2013. Russian companies face several challenges in developing
these oil and gas resources. Because most of these deposits are offshore in
the Arctic Ocean, where extraction platforms will be subject to severe storms
and the danger of sea ice, the exploitation of these resources will require
significant investment and in some cases the development of new
technology, and will only be economically feasible if prices for oil and natural
gas remain high.
The future economic potential of the region is not limited to the extraction of
natural resources. In recent decades, it has become clear that climate change
is leading to the rapid melting of the polar ice cap, which has already
improved access to the Russian Arctic. Russian planners are banking on the
relatively rapid development of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which they

hope might compete with the Suez Canal route for commercial maritime
traffic. This will require a serious investment in icebreakers, new and
expanded port facilities, places of refuge and other services.
While much of the recent increase in attention paid to the region and
investment in it is the result of perceptions of the Arctics economic potential,
Russian leaders also see the Arctic as a location where they can assert
Russias status as a major international power. This is done by claiming
sovereignty over Arctic territory and through steps to assure Russian security
in the region. Many of the actions designed to promote Russian sovereignty
claims to the Arctic have been highly symbolic in nature. The planting of a
titanium flag on the sea floor at the North Pole in 2007 is typical of these
types of actions, as are the highly publicized occasional air patrols along the
Norwegian, Canadian and Alaskan coastlines. The recent action against
Greenpeace protesters who sought to scale the Prirazlomnoye offshore oil rig
is also highly symbolic in nature. While an almost identical protest in 2012
resulted in nothing more than the protesters being removed from the
platform and their ship escorted out of Russian territory, the 2013 incident
resulted in Russia impounding the Greenpeace ship and highly charged
statements by Russian officials accusing the protesters of engaging in piracy.
These actions are indicative of an effort by the countrys leadership to ensure
that the Russian public perceives Russian sovereignty over the Arctic as
uncontested.
Russian policy is thus pursued on two divergent tracks. The first track seeks
international cooperation to ensure the development of the regions
resources. This includes efforts to settle maritime border disputes and
other conflicts of interest in the region. The second track uses bellicose
rhetoric to highlight Russias sovereignty over the largest portion of the
Arctic. This is combined with declarations of a coming military buildup in the
region. This second track is primarily aimed at shoring up support among a
domestic audience. Managing the lack of alignment between these
strategic and policy positions, and their potential for counter-productiveness,
is an important challenge for Russias leadership.
On the whole, Russia seeks cooperative international relationships in
the Arctic. Although Russian leaders rhetoric is at times confrontational, it is
primarily targeted at maintaining their popularity with their domestic
base. Bellicose statements by President Putin and his subordinates about
ensuring Russian sovereignty in the Arctic should not be treated as
indicators of an expansionist or militarist agenda in the region.
Although Russia is planning to improve its military and border patrol
capabilities in the Arctic, these improvements are primarily focused on areas
such as protection of coastlines and offshore energy extraction installations,
search-and-rescue operations and icebreaker capabilities, and should
therefore not be viewed as inherently threatening to other Arctic states.

In observing Russian activities in the Arctic, the U.S. government needs to be

careful to avoid assuming that provocative statements intended
primarily for a domestic audience are signals of belligerent intent in the
region. Instead, U.S. policymakers need to watch for more subtle signals of
Russian intent. While statements of Russian intent to build up military
capacity should not cause much worry, actions such as placing and deploying
expeditionary forces would be far more provocative. Russian refusal to
recognize the decisions or authority of international organizations in the
Arctic, or its withdrawal from such organizations, should be considered a
strong signal that Russia is truly shifting from a cooperative to a
confrontational posture in the Arctic.

Russia is pragmatic wont attack

Kpyl and Mikkola 13 Finnish Institute of International Affairs
(Juha, Harri, The Global Arctic, August, FIIA BRIE FING PAPER 133)
Russia also has strategic military forces in the Arctic, most notably the
Northern Fleet and its ballisticmissile submarines (SSBNs). These mobile
forces are of increasing strategic importance due to the challenges that
Russian land-based intercontinental ballistic-missile capability faces today.8
However, developments in Russian hard power in the Arctic have been
relatively modest, especially if compared to the Cold War era, and there is
widespread agreement that instead of re-militarization or the potential for a
hot conflict, Russia is seeking to govern its increasingly busy northern front
and secure its interests therein.9
While Russia seeks to modernize and project hard power in the Arctic, it is a
pragmatic player that has relied on international cooperation to maintain
stability conducive to economic activity in the region. It has resolved longstanding border disputes through bilateral negotiations and endorsed
multilateral governance in the Arctic. It has also endorsed the Arctic Council
as the legitimate institutional governance framework, including its recent
Kiruna developments. Even if Russia is likely to harbour concerns about the
growing role of China in the region and its governance, on the whole, Russia
seems to have little to lose in the AC co-operation as the forum cannot
produce independent and binding resolutions without Russias consent.
Russia has also supported the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) as the legitimate multilateral legal framework for governing
the Arctic Ocean, including the resolution of maritime boundary issues,
resource disputes on the continental shelves, and maritime navigation
disagreements. The key question that remains, however, is how committed
pragmatic Russia is to supporting multilateral governance in the Arctic, for
example in the event of a potentially unfavourable CLCS decision regarding
Russias claim to extend her continental shelf.

Russias attempt to increase presence is slow and modest

Le Mire and Mazo 1-13 -14 -- Senior Research Fellow for Naval Forces and
Maritime Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and IISS
Consulting Senior Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy and
Consulting Editor, Survival (Christian* and Jeffrey**, Arctic Opening:
Insecurity and Opportunity, Taylor and Francis Online

Russian activity in the Arctic has also increased. In August 2007, Moscow
renewed long-range aviation patrols to the Atlantic and the Pacific , and over
the Arctic, oceans. Strategic bomber flights along the Norwegian coast
increased from just 14 in 2006 to 97 in 2008; although the number declined in subsequent years, it
rose to over 55 in 2012.16 In March 2013, two Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers and four
Su-27 multi-role aircraft flew within 20 miles of Swedens borders ; the failure of
the Swedish Air Force to scramble in response to the night-time exercises led to searing media criticism.17

Surface naval patrols also returned

Downloaded by [141.213.236.110] at 13:51 07 July 2014

to Arctic waters for the first time since

the fall of the Soviet Union in 2008.18 The Russian military has therefore
recovered somewhat from the dire circumstances of the post-Cold War
environment, but it is equally struggling to deal with the legacy of a lack of investment in its
The Arctic as a theatre of military operations | 87

equipment. The recapitalisation of its fleet is on the surface a concern for neighbouring states, but it is
occurring from a very low base of capability. Equally, the focus on smaller vessels will, for the foreseeable
future, benefit organisations beyond the Northern Fleet. In line with this military rejuvenation,

Moscow

has touted the need to increase its military presence in the Arctic, but the force
posture announced thus far is modest. The primary change in the next few years will be
a renovation of the SSBN fleet, a factor that underlines the strategic
importance of the Arctic but does not suggest state-based military competition in the region on a
significant scale. It seems, therefore, presumptive to call the Russian defence
modernisation a militarisation of the Arctic, particularly as current activity
remains a shadow of that seen in the Cold-War era.

Environ
US China Cooperating on warming now9/22/14 SCMP http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1597558/us-andchina-collaborating-clean-energy-projects US and China collaborating on
clean energy projects SCMP is the South China Morning Post which is one of
the most prestigious newspaper in China. Monday, 22 September, 2014
The threat of climate change is driving China and the US - frequent rivals and
the world's two largest greenhouse-gas emitters - to collaborate on dozens of
potential clean-energy breakthroughs . In research laboratories on opposite
sides of the Pacific Ocean, more than 1,100 Chinese and American scientists
are engaged in a joint programme marrying public and private money and
talent. Among the US companies teamed with Chinese partners are Dow
Chemical, Duke Energy and Ford Motor. The cooperation contrasts with the
two nations' longstanding differences over a range of issues, including the
terms of a global treaty on climate change.
. The diplomatic inaction means that advances
in technology may represent the planet's best hope for avoiding runaway
warming. Innovations from the US-China brainstorming could spread to
developing countries, allowing the world's fastest- growing nations to avoid
repeating the advanced economies' fossil-fuel dependence. " What can be
more effective than the two largest emitters of CO2, or greenhouse gases,
going at it together, arm-in-arm?" asked James Wood , director of advanced
coal technology research for the US-China Clean Energy Research Centre at
West Virginia University.

While US President Barack Obama plans to join other world leaders in New York tomorrow for a UN climate summit, Chinese

President Xi Jinping won't be there. Nor will Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, the third largest emitter

"It sends some signals to people in the world that it can be solved and these are the two giants that can do it." The low-budget cooperation on everything from energy-efficient buildings to new

lithium-sulfur vehicle batteries is a rare bright spot in the Sino-US relationship. Tensions have risen this year over the South China Sea and China's treatment of foreign multinational corporations. The research centre, now in its fourth year, has no physical headquarters. It's a virtual
facility with advanced coal, vehicle and building-efficiency programmes running 88 separate projects. Each brings together teams of American and Chinese specialists to work on a specific problem or technology. The centre is one of several overlapping US-China efforts to promote clean

. Partnerships between the US and China "will set the tone for the
world", Bill Gates, co-founder and former chairman of Microsoft, said recently.
One joint programme is bringing Oakland, California-based BrightSource
Energy's solar-thermal-power technology to a demonstration project in
Qinghai province
energy or environmental improvement

. A second helped China last year enact its first rural energy-efficiency building code, opening the door to halving energy usage in a residential footprint equal to the entire US housing sector. A third linked Boeing, Honeywell

International, PetroChina and Air China in a demonstration flight of a Boeing 747 powered by a mix of biofuels and regular jet fuel. Perhaps the costliest undertaking is a commercial endeavour that evolved into US-China collaboration. Seattle-based Summit Power Group plans to build a
coal-gasification plant on a site near Odessa, Texas, which would strip carbon from coal through a chemical process, producing less pollution than traditional coal-burning plants. The resulting carbon dioxide would be used to coax trapped oil from ageing reservoirs and to produce
fertiliser. Summit anticipates completing a roughly US$2 billion loan with the Export-Import Bank of China in the spring of 2015 and beginning operations in 2018, several years behind schedule. The Chinese loan, conditioned on the involvement of a Chinese contractor, offered better
terms than other potential financing, said Eric Redman, Summit's CEO. "In this case, you have a lot of Chinese money and Chinese engineering expertise going into helping the US put a lot of the US carbon emissions underground," Redman said. Though its total greenhouse-gas
emissions continue to rise, China has reduced the amount of carbon it generates per unit of gross domestic product by almost 20 per cent and is expected to seek additional reductions. Despite its notoriously foul air, China by some measures already has done more to address climate
change than has the US. Under Xi, China has introduced seven pilot cap-and-trade programmes, covering roughly one-third of its US$9.3 trillion economy, and plans to establish a national system in 2016. China's US$54.2 billion investment in renewable energy last year was 50 per cent
larger than that of the US, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "They're serious about climate," said former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, who secured an earlier environmental partnership under president George W.Bush. Though there have been hiccups
- joint estimates of China's potential shale-gas reserves were stymied by the government's treatment of geological data as a "state secret" - by July, Obama boasted: "We have significantly enhanced our cooperation on climate change in the past year." Still, this is no Manhattan Project.
The research centre's five-year budget amounts to just US$150 million, divided between American and Chinese money. The US Energy Department is also kicking in US$450 million for the Texas coal-gasification plant. Yet programme officials and their corporate partners say the value of
the research dwarfs the modest spending. The programme has taken on some of the toughest clean-energy questions, including the search for ways to capture carbon from power-plant emissions and store them underground. "It's smart leveraging of public money for larger purposes,"
says David Sandalow, a former Energy Department official who was an architect of the US-China effort. "This is the right size" to start the research centre. For Dow Chemical, joining the US-China Clean Energy Research Centre offered a chance to develop connections in China and
collaborate with top scientific talent in US national laboratories. The company is developing improvements to a latex-based "cool roof" material aimed at reducing the cooling needs of buildings. Dow is closing in on ways to make the rooftop coatings reflect up to 75 per cent of sunlight,
which would double their effectiveness in cutting cooling bills, says Greg Bergtold, global research director for Dow's building solutions unit. "It's not sexy, but it actually works," Bergtold says. "In both countries, we've seen an ability to move the needle both in carbon emissions and the
energy demands of buildings." As the research centre nears its December 2015 expiration, officials are weighing a more ambitious second phase. Details are expected to be on the agenda in November when Obama travels to China for an Asian summit and private meetings with Xi. The
need for action is only growing more evident, according to the UN official heading the world body's climate work. Unless supplies of "low-carbon or no-carbon energy" were tripled or quadrupled, heat waves that now occurred once every 20 years would become every-other-year
phenomena, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Fragility theories are wrong the loss of single species

wont cascade and nature wont implode
Kareiva et al, Chief Scientist and Vice President, The
Nature Conservancy, 12 (Peter, Michelle Marvier, professor and department chair of
Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz, director of science
communications for The Nature Conservancy, Winter, Conservation in the Anthropocene,
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/)
As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's justification for
saving nature shifted from spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity. Nature was described as
primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse. And indeed, there are

consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and urban

ecologists and conservationists have

grossly overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem
is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will
be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart.
development and when key species or ecosystems are lost. But

Everything, from the expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been
painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings of our planetary ecosystem. The fragility trope dates
back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and
warned that perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore
made a similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have
been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting

The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the
idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of
systems in jeopardy of collapse.24

one species does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any

others, much less all others in the same ecosystem. In many circumstances,
the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American
chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet
the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks
darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo,

stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a

thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following major
disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of plant
and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72
percent) of these studies.25 While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern
with no catastrophic or even measurable effects. These

Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to former agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur
in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a similar level of economic development. A 2010

rainforests that have grown back over abandoned agricultural land had 40 to 70
percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to
report concluded that

be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations

Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human
disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving,
and degraded lands.28

despite the high levels of radiation.29 In the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests, including
the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the number of coral species has actually

the massive 2010 oil spill in

the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a
remarkably fast rate.31 Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons
increased relative to before the explosions.30 More recently,

astonish San Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next meal.
As we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern United States a rare and federally listed
salamander species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in no other
habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data
show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be written
about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse

Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear, seemingly stranded
may have a good chance of surviving global warming if the changing environment
continues to increase the populations and northern ranges of harbor seals and harp seals. Polar bears
evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling period in Earth's history, developing a
highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing
trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey. The history of life on Earth is
and environmental apocalypse.
on a melting ice block --

of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment
changes again. The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by

today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The
The wilderness so beloved
by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the last thousand
years, and arguably even longer. The effects of human activity are found in every corner of the Earth. Fish
and whales in remote Arctic oceans are contaminated with chemical pesticides. The nitrogen cycle and
humankind, but

truth is humans have been impacting their natural environment for centuries .

hydrological cycle are now dominated by people -- human activities produce 60 percent of all the fixed
nitrogen deposited on land each year, and people appropriate more than half of the annual accessible
freshwater runoff.35 There are now more tigers in captivity than in their native habitats. Instead of
sourcing wood from natural forests, by 2050 we are expected to get over three-quarters of our wood from
intensively managed tree farms. Erosion, weathering, and landslides used to be the prime movers of rock
and soil; today humans rival these geological processes with road building and massive construction

All around the world, a mix of climate change and nonnative species has created a wealth of
novel ecosystems catalyzed by human activities.
projects.36

Environment resilient
Kareiva et al 12 Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature
Conservancy (Peter, Michelle Marvier --professor and department
chair of Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara
University, Robert Lalasz -- director of science communications for The
Nature Conservancy, Winter, Conservation in the Anthropocene,
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/)

As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the

movement's justification for saving nature shifted from spiritual and aesthetic
values to focus on biodiversity. Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and
at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse . And indeed, there are
consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging,
intensive agriculture, and urban development and when key species or
ecosystems are lost. But ecologists and conservationists have grossly
overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is
gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole
ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is
lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the expansion
of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been
painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings of our planetary
ecosystem. The fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote
plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that
perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous
consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the
2.

2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other
forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was

the data
simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse . Ecologists
now know that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the
extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem. In many
circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be
inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once a
dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign
disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger
pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with
countless other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo , with no
simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy of collapse.24 The trouble for conservation is that

catastrophic or even measurable effects. These stories of resilience

are not isolated examples -- a thorough review of the scientific literature
identified 240 studies of ecosystems following major disturbances such as
deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance
of plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function
recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent) of these studies.25 While global
forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere,
where "nature" is returning to former agricultural lands .26 Something similar is likely
to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a similar level of economic

that rainforests that have grown back over

abandoned agricultural land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the
original forests.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only
development. A 2010 report concluded

in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28

Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most
powerful human disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which
melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation .29 In
the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests , including the 1954 hydrogen
bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the number of coral species has actually
increased relative to before the explosions .30 More recently, the massive 2010 oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a
remarkably fast rate.31 Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine
falcons astonish San Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to
pick off pigeons for their next meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new
ones: in the southwestern United States a rare and federally listed salamander
species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in no other
habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges
Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod has recovered to
precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be written about this cod
recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to
stories of collapse and environmental apocalypse. Even that classic symbol
of fragility -- the polar bear, seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good
chance of surviving global warming if the changing environment continues to
increase the populations and northern ranges of harbor seals and harp seals .
Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling
period in Earth's history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus,
the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase

The history of life on Earth is of species evolving to take

advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment
changes again. The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the
world untouched by humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on
Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been
impacting their natural environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved by
of energy-rich prey.

conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the last thousand
years, and arguably even longer.

Status quo ocean exploitation is disastrous either proves

resilience or plan insufficiency
Sielien 13, ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International
Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity
and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, 13 [The Devolution of the Seas, Foreign Affairs,
November/December, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-bsielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas]
The oceans problems start with pollution, the most visible forms
of which are the catastrophic spills from offshore oil and gas drilling or from
tanker accidents. Yet as devastating as these events can be, especially locally,
their overall contribution to marine pollution pales in comparison to the much
less spectacular waste that finds its way to the seas through rivers, pipes, runoff, and the air. For
example, trash -- plastic bags, bottles, cans, tiny plastic pellets used in
manufacturing -- washes into coastal waters or gets discarded by ships large
and small. This debris drifts out to sea, where it forms epic gyres of floating waste, such as the
LAYING WASTE

infamous Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which spans hundreds of miles across the North Pacific Ocean.

The most dangerous pollutants are chemicals. The seas are being poisoned
by substances that are toxic, remain in the environment for a long time, travel great distances,
accumulate in marine life, and move up the food chain. Among the worst culprits are heavy metals such as
mercury, which is released into the atmosphere by the burning of coal and then rains down on the oceans,

Hundreds of new industrial

chemicals enter the market each year, most of them untested. Of special
concern are those known as persistent organic pollutants, which are
commonly found in streams, rivers, coastal waters, and, increasingly, the
open ocean. These chemicals build up slowly in the tissues of fish and shellfish and are transferred to
rivers, and lakes; mercury can also be found in medical waste.

the larger creatures that eat them. Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have linked
exposure to persistent organic pollutants to death, disease, and abnormalities in fish and other wildlife.
These pervasive chemicals can also adversely affect the development of the brain, the neurologic system,

Then there are the nutrients, which

increasingly show up in coastal waters after being used as chemical fertilizers
on farms, often far inland. All living things require nutrients; excessive
amounts, however, wreak havoc on the natural environment . Fertilizer that makes
and the reproductive system in humans.

its way into the water causes the explosive growth of algae. When these algae die and sink to the sea
floor, their decomposition robs the water of the oxygen needed to support complex marine life. Some algal

The result
has been the emergence of what marine scientists call dead zones -- areas
devoid of the ocean life people value most . The high concentration of
nutrients flowing down the Mississippi River and emptying into the Gulf of
Mexico has created a seasonal offshore dead zone larger than the state of
New Jersey. An even larger dead zone -- the worlds biggest -- can be found in
the Baltic Sea, which is comparable in size to California . The estuaries of Chinas two
blooms also produce toxins that can kill fish and poison humans who consume seafood.

greatest rivers, the Yangtze and the Yellow, have similarly lost their complex marine life. Since 2004, the
total number of such aquatic wastelands worldwide has more than quadrupled, from 146 to over 600
today. TEACH A MAN TO FISH -- THEN WHAT? Another cause of the oceans decline is that humans are

A frequently cited 2003 study in the journal

Nature by the marine biologists Ransom Myers and Boris Worm found that the
simply killing and eating too many fish.

number of large fish -- both open-ocean species, such as tuna, swordfish, and
marlin, and large groundfish, such as cod, halibut, and flounder -- had
declined by 90 percent since 1950. The finding provoked controversy among some scientists
and fishery managers. But subsequent studies have confirmed that fish populations have indeed fallen

In fact, if one looks back further than 1950, the 90 percent figure
turns out to be conservative. As historical ecologists have shown, we are far removed from the
dramatically.

days when Christopher Columbus reported seeing large numbers of sea turtles migrating off the coast of
the New World, when 15-foot sturgeon bursting with caviar leaped from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
when George Washingtons Continental army could avoid starvation by feasting on swarms of shad
swimming upriver to spawn, when dense oyster beds nearly blocked the mouth of the Hudson River, and
when the early-twentieth-century American adventure writer Zane Grey marveled at the enormous

Today, the human

appetite has nearly wiped those populations out. Its no wonder that stocks of
large predator fish are rapidly dwindling when one considers the fact that one
bluefin tuna can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars at market in Japan.
swordfish, tuna, wahoo, and grouper he found in the Gulf of California.

High prices -- in January 2013, a 489-pound Pacific bluefin tuna sold for $1.7 million at auction in Tokyo -make it profitable to employ airplanes and helicopters to scan the ocean for the fish that remain; against
such technologies, marine animals dont stand a chance. Nor are big fish the only ones that are
threatened. In area after area, once the long-lived predatory species, such as tuna and swordfish,
disappear, fishing fleets move on to smaller, plankton-eating fish, such as sardines, anchovy, and herring.
The overexploitation of smaller fish deprives the larger wild fish that remain of their food; aquatic
mammals and sea birds, such as ospreys and eagles, also go hungry. Marine scientists refer to this

The problem is not just that we eat too

much seafood; its also how we catch it. Modern industrial fishing fleets drag
lines with thousands of hooks miles behind a vessel, and industrial trawlers
on the high seas drop nets thousands of feet below the seas surface . In the
sequential process as fishing down the food chain.

process, many untargeted species, including sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and large sea birds (such as
albatross) get accidentally captured or entangled. Millions of tons of unwanted sea life is killed or injured in

as much as a third of what fishermen pull

out of the waters was never meant to be harvested. Some of the most
destructive fisheries discard 80 to 90 percent of what they bring in. In the Gulf of
commercial fishing operations each year; indeed,

Mexico, for example, for every pound of shrimp caught by a trawler, over three pounds of marine life is
thrown away. As the oceans decline and the demand for their products rises, marine and freshwater
aquaculture may look like a tempting solution. After all, since we raise livestock on land for food, why not
farm fish at sea? Fish farming is growing faster than any other form of food production, and today, the
majority of commercially sold fish in the world and half of U.S. seafood imports come from aquaculture .

Done right, fish farming can be environmentally acceptable. But the impact of
aquaculture varies widely depending on the species raised, methods used,
and location, and several factors make healthy and sustainable production
difficult. Many farmed fish rely heavily on processed wild fish for food, which
eliminates the fish-conservation benefits of aquaculture. Farmed fish can also
escape into rivers and oceans and endanger wild populations by transmitting
diseases or parasites or by competing with native species for feeding and
spawning grounds. Open-net pens also pollute, sending fish waste, pesticides, antibiotics, uneaten
food, diseases, and parasites flowing directly into the surrounding waters. DESTROYING THE EARTHS

Yet another factor driving the decline of the oceans is the

destruction of the habitats that have allowed spectacular marine life to thrive
for millennia. Residential and commercial development have laid waste to
once-wild coastal areas. In particular, humans are eliminating coastal marshes, which serve as
FINAL FRONTIER

feeding grounds and nurseries for fish and other wildlife, filter out pollutants, and fortify coasts against

Hidden from view but no less worrying is the wholesale

destruction of deep-ocean habitats. For fishermen seeking ever more elusive
storms and erosion.

prey, the depths of the seas have become the earths final frontier. There,
submerged mountain chains called seamounts -- numbering in the tens of thousands and mostly uncharted
-- have proved especially desirable targets. Some rise from the sea floor to heights approaching that of

The steep slopes, ridges, and tops of seamounts in

the South Pacific and elsewhere are home to a rich variety of marine life,
including large pools of undiscovered species. Today, fishing vessels drag huge nets
Mount Rainier, in Washington State.

outfitted with steel plates and heavy rollers across the sea floor and over underwater mountains, more

As industrial trawlers bulldoze their

way along, the surfaces of seamounts are reduced to sand, bare rock, and
rubble. Deep cold-water corals, some older than the California redwoods, are being obliterated. In the
process, an unknown number of species from these unique islands of biological
diversity -- which might harbor new medicines or other important information
-- are being driven extinct before humans even get a chance to study them .
Relatively new problems present additional challenges. Invasive species, such
as lionfish, zebra mussels, and Pacific jellyfish, are disrupting coastal
ecosystems and in some cases have caused the collapse of entire fisheries .
than a mile deep, destroying everything in their path.

Noise from sonar used by military systems and other sources can have devastating effects on whales,
dolphins, and other marine life. Large vessels speeding through busy shipping lanes are also killing whales.
Finally, melting Arctic ice creates new environmental hazards, as wildlife habitats disappear, mining
becomes easier, and shipping routes expand. IN HOT WATER As if all this were not enough, scientists
estimate that man-made climate change will drive the planets temperature up by between four and seven
degrees Fahrenheit over the course of this century, making the oceans hotter. Sea levels are rising, storms
are getting stronger, and the life cycles of plants and animals are being upended, changing migration
patterns and causing other serious disruptions. Global warming has already devastated coral reefs, and
marine scientists now foresee the collapse of entire reef systems in the next few decades. Warmer waters
drive out the tiny plants that corals feed on and depend on for their vivid coloration. Deprived of food, the
corals starve to death, a process known as bleaching. At the same time, rising ocean temperatures
promote disease in corals and other marine life. Nowhere are these complex interrelationships contributing
to dying seas more than in fragile coral ecosystems. The oceans have also become more acidic as carbon
dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves in the worlds water. The buildup of acid in ocean waters
reduces the availability of calcium carbonate, a key building block for the skeletons and shells of corals,
plankton, shellfish, and many other marine organisms. Just as trees make wood to grow tall and reach
light, many sea creatures need hard shells to grow and also to guard against predators. On top of all these
problems, the most severe impact of the damage being done to the oceans by climate change and ocean
acidification may be impossible to predict. The worlds seas support processes essential to life on earth.
These include complex biological and physical systems, such as the nitrogen and carbon cycles;
photosynthesis, which creates half of the oxygen that humans breathe and forms the base of the oceans
biological productivity; and ocean circulation. Much of this activity takes place in the open ocean, where
the sea and the atmosphere interact. Despite flashes of terror, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake and
tsunami of 2004, the delicate balance of nature that sustains these systems has remained remarkably
stable since well before the advent of human civilization. But these complex processes both influence and
respond to the earths climate, and scientists see certain recent developments as red flags possibly
heralding an impending catastrophe. To take one example, tropical fish are increasingly migrating to the
cooler waters of the Arctic and Southern oceans. Such changes may result in extinctions of fish species,
threatening a critical food source especially in developing countries in the tropics. Or consider that satellite
data show that warm surface waters are mixing less with cooler, deeper waters. This reduction in vertical
mixing separates near-surface marine life from the nutrients below, ultimately driving down the population
of phytoplankton, which is the foundation of the oceans food chain. Transformations in the open ocean
could dramatically affect the earths climate and the complex processes that support life both on land and
at sea. Scientists do not yet fully understand how all these processes work, but disregarding the warning
signs could result in grave consequences. A WAY FORWARD Governments and societies have come to

The base lines of environmental quality, good

governance, and personal responsibility have plummeted. This passive
acceptance of the ongoing destruction of the seas is all the more shameful
given how avoidable the process is. Many solutions exist, and some are
relatively simple. For example, governments could create and expand
protected marine areas, adopt and enforce stronger international rules to
expect much less from the sea.

conserve biological diversity in the open ocean , and place a moratorium on the fishing of
dwindling fish species, such as Pacific bluefin tuna. But solutions will also require broader
changes in how societies approach energy , agriculture, and the management
of natural resources. Countries will have to make substantial reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions, transition to clean energy, eliminate
the worst toxic chemicals, and end the massive nutrient pollution in
watersheds. These challenges may seem daunting, especially for countries focused on basic
survival. But governments, international institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, scholars, and businesses have the necessary experience and
capacity to find answers to the oceans problems . And they have succeeded in the past,
through innovative local initiatives on every continent, impressive scientific advances, tough
environmental regulation and enforcement, and important international measures, such as the global ban

So long as pollution, overfishing, and

ocean acidification remain concerns only for scientists, however, little will
change for the good. Diplomats and national security experts, who
understand the potential for conflict in an overheated world, should realize
that climate change might soon become a matter of war and peace. Business
on the dumping of nuclear waste in the oceans.

leaders should understand better than most the direct links between healthy seas and healthy economies.
And government officials, who are entrusted with the publics well-being, must surely see the importance

The world faces a choice. We do not have to return to

an oceanic Stone Age. Whether we can summon the political will and moral
courage to restore the seas to health before it is too late is an open question.
The challenge and the opportunity are there.
of clean air, land, and water.

No impact prefer concrete data to speculation. Empirical

studies indicate isolated species extinction doesnt
spillover the lack of cascading biod loss from Fukushima,
Chernobyl, nuclear tests in the 60s, and BP prove
overwhelming resiliency. In 240 studies, 72% voted neg.
Prefer Kareivas breath of statistical analysis its the
only way to ensure methodological rigot
Evaluate their biod impact through a highly uncertain lens
despite new studies there is an overwhelming dearth of
research on marine ecosystems, best science proves we
just arent sure
Broderick 2/5, Annette C. Broderick, Associate Professor of Marine
Conservation, fellow at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of
Exeter, United Kingdom, 2/5/15 [Grand challenges in marine conservation
and sustainable use, ront. Mar. Sci. 2:11
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2015.00011/full]
The oceans contain the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth, yet in
comparison to terrestrial systems, our understanding and protection of these
habitats and their species is lagging (Hendriks et al., 2006; Richardson and Poloczanska,
2008; Polidoro et al., 2009; McCauley et al., 2015). Given the critical ecosystem services that the oceans
provide, such as food security, coastal defence and climate regulation, and with much of the oceans
considered overexploited and potentially beyond recovery (Neubauer et al., 2012; Dulvy et al., 2014),

protecting and sustainably using the oceans resources is a major issue for human well-being. Nearly all of
the drivers of biodiversity loss are anthropogenic, and with all studied marine ecosystems affected by
human influence (Halpern et al., 2008; Buchart et al., 2010), reducing the threats to marine systems
should be within our control. Yet the pressures from human population growth are set to rise and that
further exploitation of the oceans resources will occur is without a doubt. The overarching grand challenge
then is to maintain biodiversity, protect ecosystems and manage the sustainable extraction of these
resources. With this being such a vast topic, I have chosen to focus here on the challenge of the lack of

Although a recent
study of the scientific literature by Borja (2014), illustrates the dramatic
increase in the number of articles including the words marine ecosystems (in
data on our ability to assess and prioritise marine species or ecosystems.

the abstract, title or keywords) over the past decade, and a similar rise is seen if we repeat the above
exercise with marine conservation as the search term ,

several studies have highlighted the

lack of marine conservation articles in both general conservation and aquatic
focused journals (Levin and Kochin, 2004; Henriks et al., 2006; Parsons, 2014), particularly
those of high impact. Whether this is a result of the difficulty and additional expense of working in
the marine environment, a lack of perceived interest by those working in terrestrial systems, or a lack of
available funding is a matter of debate (Norse and Crowder, 2005; Richardson and Poloczanska, 2008), but
recent data from the IUCN would suggest that lack of data is a major issue for accurate species and habitat
assessments (IUCN 2014). If we dont know the status of a species or ecosystem, how can we assess the

As the IUCN celebrates 50 years of the Red List of Threatened

Species, it has a goal to more than double the number of species assessed
from 76,199 (IUCN 2014) to over 160,000 by 2020. This is still less than 10%
of described species and highlights the need to acquire data for key species
assessments. In particular, there is a need to focus on the marine
environment, making up fewer than 13% (9,608 species) of assessed species,
with 69% being terrestrial (52,602) and 34% (25,785) freshwater species .
impact of a threat?

Although 29% of all assessed species are listed in the threatened categories (Critically Endangered (CR),
Endangered (E) and Vulnerable (V)), in the marine realm only 11% of assessed species are listed as
threatened. A closer look at the data however, shows that 25% of all marine species assessed are listed as
Data Deficient (DD; meaning insufficient data to make an accurate assessment), in comparison to 12% of
terrestrial species (and 17% of all species assessed). These DD species need to remain a priority and be
treated as if they were in the threatened categories until data are available for accurate classification
(McCauley et al., 2015 Parsons et al., 2015), this is particularly important for long-lived species that need
decades of monitoring before accurate assessments can be made. Of the marine species that are
currently included on the IUCN Red List there is a clear bias toward vertebrates, making up 68% of those
assessed, with 30% invertebrates and only 2% plants (Polidoro et al., 2009; Schipper et al., 2009; IUCN
2014). A similar bias is, not surprisingly, seen in the scientific literature, towards marine megavertebrates
and coastal habitats and ecosystems (Mclenachan et al., 2012), both easier to assess (especially air
breathers and those that haul out or breed on land) and potentially more likely to gain conservation
support and funding. Species that haul out or breed on land have also however, been shown to have a
greater risk of becoming threatened (McCauley et al 2015). Given that we are unlikely to ever have all the
data we want to make informed management decisions it is often necessary to focus efforts on gathering
data on species that are considered to be indicative of the state of an ecosystem (Maxwell et al., 2013) or
on social science studies to help to prioritise our efforts (Maxwell et al. 2014). Adapting the existing IUCN
Red List species criteria to assess marine ecosystems, Jackson (2008) has suggested that Coral Reefs and
Estuaries and Coastal Seas should be listed as the most critically endangered marine ecosystems. Perhaps
it is no surprise that the status of ocean ecosystems (Jackson, 2008) reduces with distance from major land
mass and the influence of anthropogenic activities, but as we develop more advanced technologies to
exploit the oceans, it is likely that the threat status of pelagic and deep sea habitats will also increase. It is
pleasing to note that the IUCN is currently developing Red List criteria for the assessment of ecosystems
(Keith et al., 2013), although there has been some criticism regarding the difficulty of classification of

Accurate species or ecosystem assessment also

requires a greater understanding of the impact that stressors may have, but
many studies focus on single species or single stressors and fail to
consider the synergistic effects. Several recent studies have highlighted the need to
ecosystems (Boitani et al., 2014).

understand the cumulative effect that multiple stressors have on species or species groups, how these
vary spatially (Maxwell et al., 2013), and at what level they have a critical impact at a population level

(Davidson et al., 2012). Owing in part to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) for countries to protect 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020, we have recently seen
an increase in the designation of large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs) that now make up 80% of
MPAs world-wide (Leenhardt et al., 2013) and more recently the USA has proposed an expansion of the
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument that would make this one of, if not the largest MPA in the
world. There has been some debate regarding the rise in LSMPAs (Leenhardt et al., 2013; Wilhelm et al.,
2014), with suggestions that these are not priority areas for protection, but the easiest fix to achieving
targets, being placed in areas that are uninhabited by humans, and where stakeholder consultation is
limited or not required. There is a need to ensure that the most important and at risk ecosystems are being
protected and a Red List of threatened ecosystems could prove an important tool for prioritisation of areas

Perhaps however, our greatest challenges are those that exist

in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), where management is
reliant on international agreements and enforcement is likely to need remote
monitoring methods using satellite technologies. Even within Exclusive Economic Zones
by decision makers.

(EEZs), enforcement of Illegal Unregulated Fisheries (IUF) is a major issue, requiring expensive boat or
aerial enforcement and many countries are already looking to remote monitoring methods. Dynamic ocean
management (Hobday et al. 2014) may become more common as a management tool that provides
flexibility in time and space in how we utilise the oceans resources and how we manage these large MPAS
(Maxwell et al., 2014). For some species however, we are now seeing a recovery (Lotze et al., 2006) and
down-listing from the threatened categories of the IUCN Red List, a cause for celebration, but which some
find a cause for concern. A good example of this is my own area of research, the green turtle (Chelonia
mydas), currently (IUCN 2014) listed as globally endangered, many nesting populations have dramatically
recovered over the past two decades, most notable are the large colonies nesting at Ascension Island,
Costa Rica and Hawaii (Chaloupka et al., 2008; Weber et al., 2014). It is highly probably that we will see
this species removed from the threatened categories when the next assessment is completed. Although
many legal marine turtle fisheries currently operate (Humber et al., 2014), with over 40,000 green turtles
(90% of catch) estimated to be legally captured each year, illegal fisheries remain unquantified and likely
exceed this. Yet at sites where humans have reduced other marine species through exploitation at
unsustainable levels, and green turtles appear plentiful, even to a level that they may be damaging the
ecosystem (Heithaus et al., 2014), it is difficult not to consider allowing this species to be fished, although
to ensure sustainability could be a major challenge. Having worked in countries where stocks of conch and
lobster have been massively depleted, turtles are plentiful, and the alternatives for fishers are reef fish, the

There are indeed grand

challenges for marine conservation. Some, such as reduction of the threats
posed by fisheries, seem potentially achievable, if challenging, others,
such as the impacts of climate change, seem overwhelming huge and our
best efforts are likely to be in understanding and mitigation of threats . It is clear
that in order to reduce and mitigate the impact of threats on marine biodiversity we need a greater
understanding of their effects on the species and ecosystems on which they
act. The recently published article Seventy-one important questions for the conservation of marine
sustainable use of marine turtles needs to be seriously considered.

biodiversity (Parsons et al., 2014) demonstrates the breadth and complexity of issues in this field, which
range from understanding the direct and indirect impacts of fisheries and climate change to societal and

As scientists
however, we do need to question whether we are making the most of our
data, whether we are sharing it with policy and decision makers in a form that
is comprehensive for their needs, and how we can encourage them to use
these data to inform decisions. Having the data is only one step towards
the conservation and sustainable use of marine species and
habitats.
cultural considerations. Answering these 71 questions would indeed be a great start!