Round 8 NDT1NC

1NC DA 1Obamas capital holding off domestic backlash key to a successful deal with Iran failure insures regional war and Iran nuclearizationCOSTELLO 3 30 15 National Iranian American Council [Ryan Costello, Stakes Are High for Iran Nuclear Negotiations, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-costello/stakes-are-high-for-iran_b_6973272.html]

This week, the U.S. has a chance to lead an international coalition into an agreement that would guard against any attempt by Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, the decades since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 are littered with missed opportunities to resolve differences between the U.S. and Iran, including on the nuclear issue. With political capital expended to keep the negotiations afloat, particularly in Washington, and the list of issues to be resolved shrinking, these negotiations have steadily risen in importance. As a result, failure or the rash rejection of a breakthrough by Congress or Iranian hardliners could result in irreparable damage to the diplomatic track, with profound consequences for an already chaotic region.We may never see a pair of U.S. and Iranian Presidents more willing to expend the political capital necessary to reach a nuclear deal. President Obama famously distinguished himself on the campaign trail in 2008 by vowing to sit down with any world leader without preconditions, including Iran, and has turned an Iran nuclear deal into what could be the chief foreign policy goal of his second term. Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. diplomats have also spent countless hours doggedly pursuing a deal that balances between the political imperatives of Washington and Tehran.In Iran, President Rouhani campaigned on a platform of moderation and outreach to the West. Rouhani was the lead nuclear negotiator for Iran between 2003-2005, which resulted in Iran freezing its enrichment and implementing the IAEA's Additional Protocol. Rouhani's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also has a successful track record of negotiating with the West, playing a critical role in the effort to form a new government for Afghanistan at the Bonn conference in 2001. Over the past year and a half of intense negotiations, Rouhani and Zarif have kept Iran's skeptical Supreme Leader united behind their efforts to reach a deal, preventing counterproductive divides in Iran's political elite.Now, with the political scales tilted heavily in favor of diplomacy, failure could eliminate diplomatic prospects for the foreseeable future. Escalation will be the name of the game if negotiations fail, as lead U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman articulated in October. Congress would pass sanctions and President Obama might not put up much of a fight. Iran would expand its nuclear program and limit the access of international inspectors. The sanctions regime would fray or potentially collapse, diminishing U.S. leverage over Iran. Tacit cooperation in Iraq to counter ISIS militants could end, with dangerous consequences.If diplomacy fails, President Obama would likely resist the reinvigorated calls from neoconservative circles to attack Iran, but he has less than two years remaining in office. Prominent Republicans weighing Presidential runs have already staked out a hardline position by warning Iran that they would undo any potential multilateral nuclear agreement "with the stroke of a pen." Democrats, as well, could be scarred by failure and rush toward a hawkish position. Whereas a multilateral agreement would constrain the next President from returning to the escalation route, an advancing Iranian nuclear program and the lack of diplomatic prospects would tempt many of Obama's potential successors to consider the military option, regardless of the consequences. Those who have dreamed of attacking Tehran ever since the fall of Baghdad are banking on such an opportunity to renew their case for yet another disastrous war.It has been ten years since the European 3 (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) had a golden opportunity to constrain Iran's nuclear program. Those talks fell apart largely due to the George W. Bush administration's insistence that any agreement result in Iran eliminating its entire centrifuge program. As a result, Iran went from hundreds to 20,000 centrifuges as economic pressure escalated but failed to achieve any strategic goal. Now, diplomacy has once again halted the Iranian program's advance and could lead to a historic breakthrough that reshapes the U.S.-Iran relationship, cuts off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and averts a disastrous war. If an agreement falls through, however, getting through another ten years without a war, an Iranian nuclear weapon, or both would likely prove more challenging than reaching the diplomatic inflection point that the parties now face in Lausanne.Legalization costs capital and triggers democrat backlashAdam Nagourney 14, 4/5/2014, Despite Support in Party, Democratic Governors Resist Legalizing Marijuana, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/us/politics/despite-support-in-party-democratic-governors-resist-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0,)Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these governors are standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from Republicans. While 17 more states most of them leaning Democratic have seen bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational marijuana, no sitting governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of legalization. Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea. Quite frankly, I dont think we are ready, or want to go down that road, Dannel P. Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut, which has legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, said in an interview. Perhaps the best way to handle this is to watch those experiments that are underway. I dont think its necessary, and I dont think its appropriate. The hesitance expressed by these governors reflects not only governing concerns but also, several analysts said, a historically rooted political wariness of being portrayed as soft on crime by Republicans. In particular, Mr. Brown, who is 75, lived through the culture wars of the 1960s, when Democrats suffered from being seen as permissive on issues like this. Either they dont care about it as passionately or they feel embarrassed or vulnerable. They fear the judgment, said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that favors decriminalization of marijuana. The fear of being soft on drugs, soft on marijuana, soft on crime is woven into the DNA of American politicians, especially Democrats. He described that sentiment as, Do not let yourself be outflanked by Republicans when it comes to being tough on crime and tough on drugs. You will lose.Goes nuclearHobson, professor of physics at University of Arkansas, 3/31/2015(Art, Commentary: Absent agreement, Iran, U.S., Israel on path to war, http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/mar/31/commentary-absent-agreement-iran-u-s-is/?opinion)

One of history's greatest tragedies was the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in August 1945, a calamity compounded three days later by a second bomb exploded over Nagasaki. It was, like most tragedy, made virtually inevitable by foregoing blunders: revengeful treatment of Germany following World War I, U.S. failure to join World War II when it began in 1939, thoughtless responses to Japanese aggression in Asia during the 1930s, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since 1945, nuclear weapons have remained humankind's greatest single immediate threat.If we don't want to repeat the mistakes that led to Hiroshima, we had better treat the Iranian nuclear question rationally, realistically, and without childish bravado. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton's recent letter to Iran, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress, were not serious. Netanyahu argued that a nuclear agreement with Iran would be a bad deal and should be rejected. Cotton suggested to Iran that a future U.S. president could revoke the agreement.None of the agreement's opponents appear to have thought through the consequences of following their leads. Iran, having no further reason for restraint and every incentive for aggression, will move quickly toward a bomb; Israel will urge action to prevent a bomb and will pressure the U.S. to join it in threatening Iran; and we could easily be drawn into war -- a blunder that would dwarf even our foolish adventure into Iraq beginning in 2003.The realistic fact is that, absent an agreement, the United States, Iran and Israel are on the road to war, possibly a nuclear war

1NC TLegalization is a PROCESS of removing penalties, it does not include regulation the aff is extra topical and a voting issue adds an unlimited number of unpredictable parts to the plan and makes negative competition impossible voter for competitive equity. Rolles & Murkin 14 Senior Policy Analyst @ Transform Drug Policy Foundation & Communications Officer @ Transform Drug Policy Foundation [Steve Rolles & George Murkin, How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Updated May 2014

Historically, the drugs debate has been characterised by the imprecise or inconsistent use of key terms, inevitably leading to misunderstandings and myths about what is in reality being advocated by proponents of drug policy reform. For a clear sense of what the legal regulation of cannabis markets could look like, it is therefore necessary to clarify some of the terminology commonly used to describe options for reform. In much of the debate on drug policy, decriminalisation is used interchangeably with legalisation or legal regulation, yet these terms mean very different things. While it has no strict legal definition, decriminalisation is generally understood to refer to the removal of criminal sanctions for certain offences26 usually the possession of small quantities of currently illegal drugs for personal use. However, civil or administrative sanctions, such as fines, often remain. So the possession of drugs remains unlawful and a punishable offence albeit one that no longer attracts a criminal record. By contrast, any form of legalisation and regulation necessarily entails the removal of all types of penalty criminal or administrative for production, supply and possession that takes place within the parameters of the regulatory framework. Activities that take place outside any regulatory framework, such as sales to minors, are still subject to punitive sanctions.There is also a distinction to be made between de jure and de facto decriminalised or legally regulated drug control systems. Under a de jure model the respective policies are implemented through specific reforms enshrined in law. Under a de facto model, the same policies are enacted through the non-enforcement of criminal laws that technically remain in place. In the Netherlands, for example, the possession and retail supply of cannabis is still prohibited under law, yet is de facto legal, given it is tolerated within the licensing framework of the countrys cannabis coffee shops. Finally, while they are inherently related, it is useful to differentiate between the terms legal regulation and legalisation. Legalisation is merely a process essentially, of making something illegal, legal. Legal regulation, on the other hand, is the end point of this process, referring to a system of rules that govern the product or behaviours in question. Consequently, just calling for the legalisation of cannabis alone could reasonably be mistaken as a proposal for precisely the sort of commercial free market that Transform and most drug policy reform advocates do not support. Legally regulated cannabis markets or legalisation and regulation are more useful descriptive terms. Pg. 1NC DA 2UN reform is inevitable but breaking technical compliance undermines the entire UNHasse, 13 New York consultant for International Drug Policy Consortium and the Harm Reduction Coalition (Heather, The 2016 Drugs UNGASS: What does it mean for drug reform? 10/14,http://drogasenmovimiento.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/13-10-14-the-2016-drugs-ungass-e28093what-does-it-mean-for-drug-reform_.pdf)

A little bit of background: At the UN level , drug issues are normally handled by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) at annual meeting s in Vienna; however, a country or group of countries may request that the UNGA hold a Special Session in NY to assess the world drug problem and review the situation . Much like the first drugs UNGASS convened in 1998 , the 2016 UNGASS was called in response to a proposal from Mexico, and was co - sponsored by 95 UN members . This time around, the UNGA will review progresses made since the 1998 UNGASS, including an assessment of the achievements and challenges in countering the world drug problem, within the framework of the three international drug control conventions and other relevant United Nations instruments. The 2016 UNGASS will be a highly significant meeting, since it offers not only a broader venue (the CND is comprised of 53 members while the UNGA consists of 193), but the chance for a fresh set of eyes to review the issues. Finally, there may be an opportunity for a broader group of UN agencies (i.e., UNAIDS , UNDP , DPA ) to provide input into the process than usually happens at meetings of the CND.2016 may sound like a long way off, but earnest preparations have already begun: The UN Task Force on Transnational Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking, appointed by Secretary General Ban Ki - Moon i n March 201 1 , and co - chaired by UNODC and the UN Department of Political Affairs, is now tasked with helping to guide preparations for the UNGASS. This past June, UNODC held an event on the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking ( World Drug Day ) , which was hailed as part of the lead - up to the UNGASS. On the civil society side, the ( longstanding but dormant ) NY NGO Committee on drugs haxs been reconvened in New York as a conduit for NGOs to participate in the 2016 UNGASS and the preparations leading up to it. IDPC and Harm Reduction Coalition are both very active in the process holding events at the UN to build awareness around drug issues , mee ting with missions and UN agencies to garner support for the cause and ensure meaningful participation of civil society , and reporting back to the NGO community . Meanwhile, governments, heads of state, citizens, NGOs and other organizations around the world are tuned in to the process.But why? With all of the progress made in reform around the world lately, many - especially in the US - are asking if the UN is even relevant to domestic drug reform at this point. With the recent marijuana laws passed in Colorado and Washington and the proposed legislation in Uruguay - not to mention decriminalization measures enacted in Portugal and a growing number of other countries - reform seems inevitable. At some point, the argument goes, the UN system will simply be overtaken by "real world" reform on the ground. Why even bother with advocacy at the UN?This is not an easy question to answer; however, 1 truly believe that to be effective, reform efforts must be made at every level - locally, nationally, and globally.It may be true that reform efforts in the US and around the world have made significant progress in the last 10 years. But there is still a long way to go - marijuana is still not completely legal anywhere in the world (despite state laws to the contrary, marijuana still remains illegal under federal law throughout the US), and many human rights abuses continue to be carried out against drug users throughout the world in the name of drug control. Meanwhile, the international drug control treaties - the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and its progeny - remain in place and, in fact, enjoy nearly universal adherence by 184 member states.That so many countries comply at least technically, if not in spirit with the international drug treaty system, shows just how highly the international community regards the system. As well it should the UN system is invaluable and even vital in many areas, including climate change, HIV/AIDS reduction, and, most recently, the Syrian chemical weapons crisis (and dont forget that the international drug treaty system also governs the flow of licit medication). While it is not unheard of for a country to disregard a treaty, a system in which countries pick and choose which treaty provisions suit them and ignore the rest is, shall we say, less than ideal.But beyond the idea of simple respect for international law, there are practical aspects of reform to consider. The drug problem is a global one, involving not only consuming countries but producing and transit countries as well. Without global cooperation, any changes will at best be limited (marijuana reform in Washington and Colorado hardly affects the issue of human rights abuses in Singapore or the limitations on harm reduction measures in Russia). At worst, reform efforts enacted ad hoc around the world could be contradictory and incompatible - as might be the result if, for example, Colombia and the US opted for a regulated market without the cooperation of Costa Rica or Honduras, both transit countries.Full on state legalization linkstanks Obamas wait and see approachBennett, 10/16/14 - Brookings fellow in governance studies (Wells, Interview conducted by Jonathan Rauch, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/16-marijuana-enforcement-modernize-international-drug-treaties-rauch)

As a legal matter, what do you think of the administrations argument that it has this kind of discretion?It has a basis in international lawthough the argument will lose a lot of force quickly, if marijuana legalization moves forward and the federal government holds back on enforcement. Considering the policy alternatives, the United States approach is nevertheless quite well justified under the circumstances, practically speaking.So you think its okay as a short-term response?Right, if you want to push domestic policy right now in a direction more respectful of the drug treaties, you would have to do things in domestic law that would be either very difficult or politically toxic. For example, there was a call in some quarters to have the Justice Department bring a lawsuit establishing that the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bans marijuana, preempts the states regimes. But doing that would essentially only upend the states marijuana rules without restoring their criminal prohibitions of marijuana. In other words, a legal victory on those groundswhich, by the way, is not assuredwould require the federal government to take on a much broader enforcement portfolio with regard to marijuana, something it lacks the resources and political appetite to do.It also matters that the international cost to the United States, right now, is not off the charts at all. The body established by the treaties to monitor compliance has disagreed with the administrations claim that it is acting lawfully, but it hasnt gone further than that. And other nations have not publicly been making a lot of noise about the United States views. For those and other reasons, wait-and-see is a short-term response that makes a lot of sense.So, if what the administration is doing makes some sense, whats the problem?A wait-and-see strategy, under these circumstances, will look really good if marijuana legalization goes really badly. But if legalization proceeds in a smart and rigorous wayif 10, 15, 20 states enact and operate responsible regimes for the regulation of marijuanawe will be enforcing the Controlled Substances Act less and less in jurisdictions that have regulated, legal marijuana markets. And that will create more and more tension with our international commitments to suppress marijuana. At that point, it will be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to maintain that it complies with its obligations.Institution-based global cooperations key to manage existential threats and great power stabilityGraeme P. Herd 10, Head of the International Security Programme, Co-Director of the International Training Course in Security Policy, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2010, Great Powers: Towards a cooperative competitive future world order paradigm?, in Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the 21st Century, p. 197-198Given the absence of immediate hegemonic challengers to the US (or a global strategic catastrophe that could trigger US precipitous decline), and the need to cooperate to address pressing strategic threats - the real question is what will be the nature of relations between these Great Powers? Will global order be characterized as a predictable interdependent one-world system, in which shared strategic threats create interest-based incentives and functional benefits which drive cooperation between Great Powers? This pathway would be evidenced by the emergence of a global security agenda based on nascent similarity across national policy agendas. In addition. Great Powers would seek to cooperate by strengthening multilateral partnerships in institutions (such as the UN, G20 and regional variants), regimes (e.g., arms control, climate and trade), and shared global norms, including international law. Alternatively, Great Powers may rely less on institutions, regimes and shared norms, and more on increasing their order-producing managerial role through geopolitical-bloc formation within their near neighborhoods. Under such circumstances, a re-division of the world into a competing mercantilist nineteenth-century regional order emerges 17 World order would be characterized more by hierarchy and balance of power and zero-sum principles than by interdependence.Relative power shifts that allow a return to multipolarity - with three or more evenly matched powers - occur gradually. The transition from a bipolar in the Cold War to a unipolar moment in the post-Cold War has been crowned, according to Haass, by an era of non-polarity, where power is diffuse "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power"18 Multilateralism is on the rise, characterized by a combination of stales and international organizations, both influential and talking shops, formal and informal ("multilateralism light"). A dual system of global governance has evolved. An embryonic division of labor emerges, as groups with no formal rules or permanent structures coordinate policies and immediate reactions to crises, while formal treaty-based institutions then legitimize the results.'9As powerfully advocated by Wolfgang Schauble:Global cooperation is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own, nor can the entire international community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work together to find appropriate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.20Highlighting the emergence of what he terms an "interpolar" world - defined as "multipolarity in an age of interdependence" Grevi suggests that managing existential interdependence in an unstable multipolar world is the key.21 Such complex interdependence generates shared interest in cooperative solutions, meanwhile driving convergence, consensus and accommodation between Great Powers.22 As a result, the multilateral system is being adjusted to reflect the realities of a global age - the rise of emerging powers and relative decline of the West: "The new priority is to maintain a complex balance between multiple states."23 The G20 meeting in London in April 2009 suggested that great and rising powers will reform global financial architecture so that it regulates and supervises global markets in a more participative, transparent and responsive manner: all countries have contributed to the crisis; all will be involved in the solution.24

1NC DA 3Canadas economy is recovering plan collapses it marijuana exports to the US employ 1 out of 14 adults in Canada Haddow 10 (Douglas Haddow, communications coordinator for the Canadian drug policy coalition, The Guardian, "Marijuana may cause Canada's economic comedown," www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/05/marijuana-industry-canada, 10/16 [Edited for ableist language Sigalos])

If you've been paying attention to some of the more peculiar side-effects of the global recession, you may have noticed that Canadians have been behaving uncharacteristically uppity of late. This new-found swagger is a result of Canada having the dubious distinction of being the "least-bad-rich-world-economy" an honour that would be rather unimpressive if the rest of the G8 wasn't so persistently gloom-stricken.While most wealthy economies are still stagnant, in decline or disrepair, the Canadian economy has outpaced allcomers and will avoid the possibility of a double-dip recession that continues to haunt the US. But beyond the chorus of self-congratulatory backslapping coming from Ottawa, there has emerged a new and immediate threat of economic crisis that is being willfully ignored by Canadian politicians.This November, in an effort to increase tax revenue, California will hold a referendum on whether or not to legalise the cultivation and use of marijuana. If passed, the change in law would be devastating to the Canadian economy, halting the flow of billions of dollars from the US into Canada and eventually forcing hundreds of thousands into unemployment.Over the past 20 years, Canada has developed a substantial and highly profitable marijuana industry that is almost completely dependent on the US market. Between 60 and 90% of the marijuana produced domestically is exported to the US via cross-border smuggling operations. It's exactly like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, only far more sophisticated and more profitable. The establishment of a legal industry based in the US would likely cripple [undermine] these exports overnight.Due to its contraband nature, it's difficult to determine exactly how much marijuana contributes to the Canadian economy, but a number of agencies and economists have estimated that it is in the range of $20bn per year (12.5bn), making it Canada's single largest agricultural product. The bulk of production is based in British Columbia, where it employs a labour force of 250,000, roughly one in 14 adults. Although strict financial controls are often credited as the source of Canada's economic resilience, it's worth pointing out that marijuana production often insulates communities from larger economic phenomenon.My hometown, Nelson, British Columbia, is an example of such a community. After the lumber industry entered into decline, Nelson was able to make the transition from a typical rural lumber town into a thriving arts and mountain sports hotbed, due in part to the wealth generated by marijuana growers. If one were to have spent the last three years in this idyllic mountain hamlet, the economic crisis would have been barely noticeable.All over Canada there are comparable situations. Countless cities, including major centres like Vancouver, would have been far worse off if marijuana cultivation hadn't filled the employment vacuum left by declining resource-based industries.But the current system only works if it exists in contrast to American prohibition. If Californians vote to legalise, the only way for Canada to avoid taking a massive economic hit would be to follow suit, legalising on a national level and taxing the industry a la tobacco or alcohol.Causes Quebec to secede the economy is a rallying point RT News 12 Quebexit: Canada's separation anxiety Published time: September 04, 2012 http://rt.com/news/quebec-election-separation-canada-309/Quebecs separatist party is expecting a comeback amidst student protest and economic uncertainty. As voters head to the polls to choose their government, the French-speaking province looks on course for another referendum to split from Canada.Tuesdays provincial election is a three-way fight between the incumbent Liberals, newly-formed coalition Avenir Quebec, and the separatist Party Quebecois (PQ).PQ has been proving most popular at the polls marching ahead of the others at around 33 per cent.Liberal premier, Jean Charest, head of Quebecs government for nearly a decade, called for an early election on August 1 due to looming student protests. However, throughout the election campaign he has trailed the separatist Party Quebecois leader Pauline Marois in the polls.PQs popularity means the issue of Quebecs separation from Canada has surfaced again. Quebec has already had two unsuccessful referenda that came close to splitting Quebec from Canada in the past: one in 1980 with 40 per cent support and another in 1995 with almost 50 per cent voting for separation.The separatists leading in the polls claim their short-term priority would be picking the economy up off its knees, instead of pushing for a separation vote straight away."It's very important for me to manage our finances responsibly. That is without doubt why our engagements are the least costly of all parties," Marois told Canadian media, while outlining a program that sets out new spending of $1 billion over five years.At the same time she stated that she would hold an independence vote "tomorrow morning" if the conditions were right. Further, the party leader clarified that a referendum on Quebec's independence would only be held if there was complete confidence in a win. For now, opinion polls suggest that only less than 40 per cent of the province's population would support a split.Protests and lack of support for LiberalsThe new buzz over Quebec comes after months of student and union protests raging this spring and summer against tuition hikes in the province and the controversial new Bill 78, which restricts mass gatherings in the province.Tens of thousands of students have made their outrage public by demonstrating and clashing with police, making headlines across the world. Protests began in February, resulting in about 2,500 arrests. Tuesday's vote is seen by many as an echo of this public discontent.Experts believe that the more the economic uncertainty continues, the louder the calls for Quebec's sovereignty will be.After nine years of Liberals governing Quebec, people have grown wary and reluctant to re-elect them considering the student unrest that evolved into a larger social protest, says Concordia political science Professor Bruce Hicks."Quebecers tend to tire of the government and throw them out," he says. "It's sort of been the tradition in Quebec politics.""It's not going to be a referendum or nothing," said Antonia Maioni, a political scientist at McGill University. "The idea is to have smaller wins and move towards an eventual, perhaps, referendum. At least [Pauline Marois] can then go back to her party and say I'm moving to a third referendum."Referendum agenda:PQs referendum agenda consists of two phases. First, Marois plans to ask Ottawa for greater control in areas such as foreign policy and economic development. Any kind of refusal from Ottawa would be met with a legislative fight and any of PQs losses would be added to the list of reasons why Quebec should separate.The second phase is setting referendum in motion. PQ has already transferred the responsibility for calling a referendum to the general public. Currently, as soon as 850,000 people sign a petition 15 per cent of Quebecs population the public could demand a referendum. Moreover, Marois plans to establish a new cabinet post that would manage such requests, CBC reported.Canadian reporter Michael Forian says Quebec is growing estranged from the rest of Canada, while half of Canadians no longer care whether Quebec chooses to separate or not.Extinction causes civil wars, diversionary wars with China, Russia, and Iran and splits NATO. Matthews 14 Daniel S. Matthews, Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC). The Quebec Wars http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail?id=181216Thought of Canada being the region where the sparks for World War III will be struck may not seem likely, but there is one area where a foreign foe could surprise the West: Quebec. If Quebec were to secede from Canada, two unsettling possibilities could occur. The first is that Canada could go to war with its wayward province. The second is that some power like China or Russia could build an alliance with Quebec. While such possibilities are unlikely, there are means of defense.The Canadian Civil WarIf Quebec were to secede from Canada, there are several points that could spark a civil war between the two. The least likely would be national pride. There are several economic reasons that could provide the tinder for war. Quebec controls the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, and Quebec could use that control to wage economic war with Western Canada. In addition, Quebec possesses significant reserves of natural resources that currently contribute to the North American economy on a free basis. An independent Quebec would change that. Finally, Canada proper would become a split country, with a third of Canadian provinces being geographically separated from the Capital. In light of the fact that no state wants to be divided, and Canada already has several fluttering independence movements, the urge to prevent further dissolution will be strong.While it is true that Canada does not have a large military, and Quebec has none, it is not impossible for war to break out. The Quebec separatists have used violence before, most notably with the murder of Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte, and it would be easy for a semi-independent Quebec to buy arms on the international market.If Canada did get involved in civil war with Quebec, there are several options open to both sides if the war drags on. Canada could invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which could split NATO as France has traditionally expressed support for Francophone Quebec. It is unlikely Britain would be unconcerned with a core Commonwealth state being embroiled in civil war; especially depending on how the vote for Scottish independence goes this year. The United States would be committed, as they are deeply intertwined with Canada at every level.States like Russia, China, or Iran could use the distraction of a civil war in the very center of the Anglosphere to press their boundaries with the Western Alliance. Furthermore, they could start supporting the Quebec rebels, either directly or through third party means. If the war was presaged by an internationally recognized referendum, then Russia or China could take the position that they are upholding international norms, and paint the Western states in a negative light. Attempts at arming the rebels or openly supporting them would directly threaten the fundamental security of the United States, as it would provide a foothold on the continent from which hostile states could threaten the United States.1NC CPThe United States should - require energy performance standards for all electricity generation for non-marijuana goods and services in the United States.- fully fund and expedite renewable energy generation, generator retrofits, and micro-grids for its installations based on the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security program. - prohibit the production, sale, and cultivation of marihuana in the United States. - halt all existing efforts at liberalizing marijuana policy.- fund and push for Aid For Trade funding for global climate adaptation projects. The United States should substantially increase funding for international adaptation financing.-lift all import tariffs on ethanol.California should implement groundwater monitoring and conservation programs.

Solves the droughtBrian Stranko 2/13/14 is the Water Program Director for The Nature Conservancy's California chapter. Mr. Stranko has spent more than two decades working on complex issues at well-respected environmental organizations. Prior to joining The Nature Conservancy in 2009, he served as CEO and executive director of California Trout (CalTrout) and worked at National Geographic Society, Trout Unlimited and the Millennium Institute in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Stranko has an MBA from Georgetown University, a BA from Syracuse University and environmental policy education from the University of Maryland. Maurice Hall, Water Program Science and Engineering lead for the Conservancy, also contributed.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-nature-conservancy/california-must-look-bene_b_4776943.html California Must Look Beneath the Surface to Solve Water Woes

While Californians rejoiced to the sound of rain this weekend, the recent wet weather is not going to solve our drought, and we shouldn't lose this opportunity to fix long-term issues with water in our state. If we want to improve our water woes we should stop looking at the sky and start looking underground.We have had droughts before, and, while we've made some incremental fixes to improve efficiency and marginally manage our water better, we have not tackled the critical challenge that is necessary to meet the ongoing water needs of our farms, our cities and our unique natural environment.Even as we scramble with emergency measures, the real question we should be asking is: How do we prepare for the next drought...and the one after that?There are many improvements we could make. But, first and foremost, we need to change how we use water we pump from the ground. Under the surface of our lands and rivers is a vast network of groundwater basins -- like giant reservoirs underground -- that sustain our rivers and streams. And in California, where it seems every drop of our rivers is allocated, we don't have rules about groundwater usage in much of the state. We need to change that.In some parts of the state, groundwater is closely monitored, but in many parts of the state we have slowly added well after well to pump groundwater without assessing the impact that this pumping has had on our already stretched water supply. When we over-pump water, it may help in the short term, but it means we have less and less water in our rivers and streams. That's less water for everyone's use -- cities, farms and wildlife.The good news is that we can, in many places, turn this around. Learning from the areas where it's already being done right, we can start measuring groundwater use and monitor how it decreases water in our rivers. Collectively as a state, we can start setting appropriate limits on groundwater pumping so that the reservoirs have a chance to replenish in the dry times.This will not be easy, politically or operationally. But it's necessary. We need the state to provide incentives and tools for local authorities to manage water both underground and in our rivers. The governor's recently released California Water Action Plan is a good beginning. We also need to move forward with a water bond that provides funding for infrastructure to better manage our water and clean up our polluted groundwater basins.If we don't start managing our groundwater, we will be trying to fill a tub with a hole in it. All of our other actions and investments won't fix the problem. We need to do more than hope for more rain. We need to get serious about managing the water under our feet. If we don't, California will be in worse shape for the next drought than we are today.Solves food prices.American Meat Institute, 08 (AMI, Other Groups, Urge President To Immediately Suspend Import Tariff on Ethanol, 6/2, http://www.meatami.com/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/39583)

The American Meat Institute, joined by more than 30 other organizations concerned about skyrocketing corn prices, sent a letter today urging President Bush to exercise his emergency authority and immediately suspend the duties and quotas on imported ethanol used as a motor fuel additive. The letter notes that the suspension of the tariff will help producers, processors and consumers who are being directly and immediately impacted by rising feed and food prices due to the government mandate to convert nearly 30 percent of the domestic corn crop into fuel. The President can immediately suspend the tariff using the authorities provided by the Constitution, the National Emergencies Act, Tariff Act of 1930, Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The suspension of the 54 cents per gallon duty on ethanol will benefit Americans by introducing market competition for a product that is mandated and foster downward pressure for domestic ethanol and its feedstock. Domestic dairy, livestock and poultry farmers, food and beverage manufacturers, employees in these industries and American food consumers will benefit from this action, the letter notes. AMI President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle said that while there are many factors driving up corn prices, the combined impact of an ethanol mandate, subsidies, and a trade-distorting ethanol tariff has concentrated the economic consequences on American livestock and poultry producers and consumers. The immediate suspension of this duty could lower the economic pressure on livestock and poultry producers as well as on fuel consumers, Boyle said. The letter was sent the day after Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) told President Bush that to demonstrate leadership, the United States should lift the tariff on Brazilian ethanol that now shelters the U.S. industry and several days after the USDA crop report suggested a drop in corn production this year due to a wet spring and the historic flooding in the Midwest. The letter explains that suspending the duties and tariff will reintroduce market competition into the equation and alleviate a portion of the unnecessary feed and food price inflationary pressures that are adversely impacting our economic well-being. The suspension will also helpAmerican consumers struggling with their grocery bill.CP solves the impact to the gridAckerman 12Robert K. Ackerman has been the editor in chief of SIGNAL Magazine for more than a dozen years, seasoned technology journalist, served as a war correspondent covering the Iraq War embedded with the U.S. Armys 101st Airborne Division, Cybersecurity and a power supply come together on local bases, http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/2877]

No man may be an island, but each U.S. military base may become an energy island if a joint project among the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Department comes to fruition. The effort aims to develop a microgrid that would supply a base with internal power independent of any external source that might fail as a result of enemy action.Network security would be a key element of this energy microgrid. Facing the possibility of a cyberattack on the nations power grid, military bases must be able to sustain internal power with a degree of immunity from the online tactics employed by cybermarauders.This program also seeks to blend a host of conventional and alternative energy sources into a single entity that would respond seamlessly to internal base power demands. Complicating the endeavor to link these energy sources is the requirement to provide secure network control that could interoperate with the public power grid but still be immune to cyberthreats that menace the larger network.Known as the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security, or SPIDERS, the project is a Defense Department joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD). It already is underway at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii, and later phases will evaluate progressively sophisticated systems at Fort Collins, Colorado, and Camp Smith, Hawaii.Melanie Johnson, an electrical engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, explains that SPIDERS is designed to develop a template for bringing microgrid technology to military installations in the United States. Its success would have implications for installations outside the United States, particularly in operational settings, she points out.Part of the SPIDERS technical management team, Johnson explains that a key element in SPIDERS is to provide network security for the communications and control systems within that microgrid environment. That security would be vital if a base loses power because of a cyberattack on the local power grid.What sets SPIDERS apart from other microgrid efforts is its emphasis on cybersecurity and network communications. Security is a primary SPIDERS objective, Johnson says, adding that this includes information assurance certification and implementing emerging standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and Department of Energy organizations. Adding cybersecurity to the microgrid complicates the picture and requires a little critical thinking, Johnson observes. However, SPIDERS is not employing the traditional approach of first developing a control system and then overlaying security. Instead, security will be integrated into the system as it is developed. The result will be a comprehensive security solution that is tailored to the system, she offers.The microgrid control system continually will monitor power quality and conditions in the regional power grid. If it detects instability or significant quality issues, it can alert monitors who would decide to disconnect the base from the external grid. The microgrid would continue to provide power to critical missions.

CP 2The United States should: propose amendments to the international drug control treaties to authorize signatories to legalize marijuana, to be made binding upon the U.S. in event of acceptance and freeze any additional moves towards marihuana legalization, including halting legalization in the District of Colombia, pending the outcome of treaty reform. Upon acceptance of the treaty, the United States should legalize marijuana in the United States.

StandardsAT: Salmon

Invasive species are the biggest threat to salmon populations.The Oregonian, 3/5/2009. Invasive species are greatest threat to Northwest salmon, report says, http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/03/invasive_species_are_greatest.html.A new report says invasive species might be the greatest threat to salmon like this Chinook passing through Bonneville Dam in 2005.Most discussions about the causes of declining salmon runs focus on the four H's: habitat, hatcheries, harvest and hydropower. But the most important factor may be an I, as in invasive species.That's the conclusion of a new report from theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northwest Fisheries Science Centerin Seattle.You can see a PDF of thereport here.The study, which was published in the journal Bioscience, is sure to be controversial because much of the Northwest's multi-billion dollar salmon recovery work is centered on improving habitat, mitigating the damage of power-producing dams and curtailing commercial or recreational fishing.This report argues the greatest threat to fish are non-native species like crappie or bass that can eat up juvenile salmon as the make their way downstream from their birthplace to the ocean."On a per-run basis, the mortality attributed to (invasive species) predation may be similar to that associated with juvenile passage through each of the eight dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers, estimated at approximately 5% to 15% per dam," the study says."These non-natives are here -- we're not going to get rid of them," said the report's lead author, Beth Sanderson. "But they are managing the native predators, and in my opinion, that means we could manage non-native predators."Another interesting tidbit from the study: The spawning population of non-native American shad in the Columbia River is about 5,000,000, five times more than the annual salmon run on the river, but "no studies have quantified the impacts of shad on salmon ecosystems."Sanderson said a greater amount of the money dedicated to the 13 salmon stocks in the Northwest listed as threatened or endangered should go to battling invasive species.And at least one longtime salmon advocate agrees."There's no question that invasives are a major threat, right along with hydropower and a loss of habitat," said Jim Martin, former chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.Martin cautions that working on invasives shouldn't come at the expense of addressing the effects of dams and habitat loss, as well as the growing threat of climate change.1NCResilientResiliency empirically checks environmental damage. Our evidence cites the largest data sets.Kareiva et al. 11Peter Kareiva is a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow and chief scientist and vice president of The Nature Conservancy as well as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Robert Lalasz is director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy. He is founding editor of the Conservancy's blog, Cool Green Science. Michelle Marvier is professor and department chair of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University. [Fall, 2011, Conservation in the Anthropocene, Breakthrough Journal, No. 2, http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/peter-kareiva-robert-lalasz-an-1/conservation-in-the-anthropoce.shtml]

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 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 systems in jeopardy of collapse.24The 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 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 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

Prices Adv.

1NCGrid ResilientNatural Gas Prices stable driven by increased production long term trendsBUSINESS WIRE 4 1 15 [U.S. Natural Gas Supply is Expected to Reach 110 Billion Cubic Feet Per Day by 2035, According to Navigants Global Energy Practice, http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150401005260/en/U.S.-Natural-Gas-Supply-Expected-Reach-110#.VSF6Po54pAY]

A new report from Navigants global Energy Practice, the North American Natural Gas Market Outlook, Year-End 2014, examines the state of the natural gas industry and provides forecasts for supply and demand through 2035.Driven by ongoing gas shale growth in the Northeast, production of natural gas in the United States continued its strong growth trajectory in 2014, increasing by 6.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd), or 9.2 percent, over the course of the year. More growth in gas production is expected in the future, particularly from the Marcellus shale formation, with the only possible constraint the rate of infrastructure development in the region. Click to tweet: According to the North American Natural Gas Market Outlook, Year-End 2014, published by Navigants Energy Practice, U.S. natural gas supply is expected to increase from 72 Bcfd in 2015 to nearly 110 Bcfd by 2035.Supply side growth continues to drive most other aspects of the natural gas industry in North America, says Gordon Pickering, Director with Navigants Energy Practice. As we explain in the Natural Gas Market Outlook, this strong supply basis is giving rise to a new chapter of the gas industry, with the culmination of a half decade of new LNG project development and the beginning of a new, global market for natural gas.The opening of this new market is signaled by the opening of new export capacity on the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the Natural Gas Market Outlook. The opening of Sabine Pass will signify the point at which North America becomes connected to the global gas market for the first time in historywith truly global consequences for gas markets in North America and around the world. Those consequences will become fully apparent as more LNG export projects come online, the report concludes.Other findings from the Natural Gas Market Outlook, Year-End 2014, include:-Annual average natural gas prices at Henry Hub are expected to stabilize over the near to mid-term, and grow steadily over the long-termalbeit reaching only moderate levels compared to historical gas price levels seen earlier this century.-Additional infrastructure in the Marcellus and Utica shale gas regions, coming online around 2017, is expected to relieve bottlenecks and allow stranded gas to move to market, enabling prices to recover to levels similar to the broader North American gas market.-U.S. natural gas demand is expected to grow steadily through 2035, particularly for electricity generation, reaching around 90 Bcfd annually by 2035.Grid is resilientJim AVILA, Senior National Correspondent at ABC News, 12 [A U.S. Blackout as Large as Indias? Very Unlikely, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/a-u-s-blackout-as-large-as-indias-very-unlikely/]

As India recovers from a blackout that left the worlds second-largest country and more than 600 million residents in the dark, a ripple of uncertainty moved through the Federal Regulatory Commissions command center today in the U.S. The Indian crisis had some people asking about the vulnerability of Americas grid.What people really want to know today is, can something like India happen here? So if there is an outage or some problem in the Northeast, can it actually spread all the way to California, John Wellinghoff, the commissions chairman, told ABC News. Its very, very unlikely that ultimately would happen.Wellinghoff said that first, the grid was divided in the middle of the nation. Engineers said that it also was monitored more closely than ever. The grid is checked for line surges 30 times a second.Since the Northeast blackout in 2003 the largest in the U.S., which affected 55 million 16,000 miles of new transmission lines have been added to the grid.And even though some lines in the Northeast are more than 70 years old, Wellinghoff said that the chances of a blackout like Indias were very low.

1NC Energy Impact DefenseMeltdowns dont cause extinction (empirics)WNA 12(World nuclear association members are responsible for 95% of the world's nuclear power outside of the U.S., as well as the vast majority of world uranium, conversion and enrichment production, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, March 2012, WNA,http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html)Inthe1950s attention turned to harnessingthe power ofthe atomin a controlled way, as demonstrated at Chicago in 1942 and subsequently for military research, and applying the steady heat yield to generate electricity.This naturally gave rise to concerns about accidents and their possible effects. However, withnuclear power safety depends on much the same factors as in any comparable industry: intelligent planning, proper design with conservative margins and back-up systems,high-quality components and a well-developed safety culture in operations. A particular nuclear scenario was loss of cooling which resulted in melting of the nuclear reactor core, and this motivated studies on both the physical and chemical possibilities as well as the biological effects of any dispersed radioactivity.Those responsible fornuclear power technologyin the Westdevotedextraordinaryeffort to ensuring that a meltdownof the reactor corewould not take place, since itwas assumed that a meltdown of the corewould create a major public hazard,and if uncontained, a tragic accident with likely multiple fatalities.In avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful.Inover 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only three major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima- the second being of little relevance to reactor design outside the old Soviet bloc. It was not untilthe late1970sthatdetailed analyses andlarge-scale testing, followed bythe 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor,began tomake clear thateven the worst possible accidentin a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuelwould not be likely to causedramaticpublic harm.The industry still works hard to minimize the probability of a meltdown accident, butit is now clear that no-one need fear a potential public health catastrophe simply because a fuel meltdown happens.Fukushima has made that clear, witha triple meltdown causing no fatalities or serious radiation doses to anyone, whileover two hundred people continued working on the siteto mitigate the accident's effects. The decades-long test and analysis program showed that less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially assumed, and thatmost of this radioactive material is not readily mobilized beyond the immediate internal structure.Thus,even if the containment structure that surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, as it has been with at least one of the Fukushima reactors, it is still very effective in preventing escape of most radioactivity.It isthe laws of physicsand the properties of materials thatmitigate disaster, more than the required actions by safety equipment or personnel. In fact, licensing approval for new plants now requires thatthe effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself,without the need to evacuate nearby residents. The three significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation are: Three Mile Island(USA 1979)where the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequencesChernobyl(Ukraine 1986)where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and firekilled 31 peopleand had significant health and environmental consequences.The death toll hassince increased toabout5Fukushima(Japan 2011) wherethree old reactors(together with a fourth)were written offand the effects of loss of coolingdue to a huge tsunamiwere inadequately contained. A table showing all reactor accidents, and a table listing some energy-related accidents with multiple fatalities are appended.These three significant accidentsoccurred during more than 14,000 reactor-years of civil operation.Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation dosesto the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources.The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health,unlike Chernobyl.Other incidents(and one 'accident') have been completely confined to the plant. Apart from Chernobyl,no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a number of accidents inexperimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing pile - at Windscale,UK, in 1957,but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.) See also Table 2 in Appendix.2NCAT: DroughtSolves drought and salmonStranko 14 , Water Program Director Water Program Director for The Nature Conservancy's California chapter. Mr. Stranko has spent more than two decades working on complex issues at well-respected environmental organizations. Prior to joining The Nature Conservancy in 2009, he served as CEO and executive director of California Trout (CalTrout) and worked at National Geographic Society, Follow me on Twitter to get my perspective on California water solutions. @BrianStranko http://www.conserveca.org/our-stories/all/2-blog/131-drought-how-to-fix-californias-water-woes#.VSGAnPnF-SoWhile many of us celebrated the first rainstorm of 2014, those few inches of rain are not going to solve our drought. We use too much water during wet years and dont store enough for dry years, so there is not enough water to go around when we really need it. The reality is that this drought is no surprise. We need to focus on some long-term solutions that will help us be prepared for the next drought, and the one after that. We need to protect and restore our Sierra Nevada forests and meadows, where 60 percent of our water typically comes from. We need to establish a drought-preparedness plan. Lastly, we need to stop looking at the sky and start looking underground.I wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post detailing exactly why we need to look under our feet for long-term solutions. Under the surface of our lands and rivers is a vast network of groundwater basinslike giant reservoirs undergroundthat sustain our rivers and streams. And in California, where it seems every drop of our rivers is allocated, we dont have rules about groundwater usage in much of the state. We have been adding more and deeper wells to pump groundwater, leaving less and less water in our rivers and streams.In the Sacramento Valley, so much water has been pumped out of the Cosumnes River watershed that the river runs dry each year and there are parcels of land that have sunk 20 to 30 feet below sea level. Attempting to repair this problem is expensive, difficult and unlikely when we continue to use more water than we have available. Over-pumping our groundwater has staggering impacts for farmers, cities and wildlife, including salmon.

AdaptationThat is necessary and sufficient to enact adaptation policiesANCHARAZ, GHISU & TRAUBEL 13 a. Senior Development Economist, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) b. Programme Officer for the Competitiveness and Development Program, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) c. Former Intern for the Competitiveness and Development Program at the ICTSD [Vinaye Ancharaz, Paolo Ghisu, Sara Traubel, Financing LDC climate change adaptation through Aid for Trade, BIORES, VOLUME 7 - NUMBER 4, 11 November 2013]

While the aid for trade initiative has great potential to help address climate change, the necessary conditions are not often present in LDCs. It is necessary to ensure the institutional mechanisms are in place to allow for the effective delivery of aid and, as this article points out, help the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.There is now a growing body of evidence suggesting that sub-Saharan Africa is among the regions of the world most exposed to the damaging effects of climate change. Effects such as decreases in precipitation levels, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and shifting of rainy seasons would have a significant impact on the agricultural sector, livestock and fisheries, water resources, coastal zones, tourism, and infrastructure. Given the economic importance of agriculture in many African Least Developed Countries (LDCs) - for example, Burkina Faso, where agriculture and forestry related activities account for 86 percent of the country's employment, contribute 40 percent to GDP, and generate a significant share of foreign exchange, notably from cotton exports (over 50 percent) - these climate change-induced events could have far-reaching effects on trade, food security, and indeed on livelihoods and long-term development.Adapting to climate change is a necessity for African countries, especially the most vulnerable economies, the LDCs. All African LDCs have drawn up a National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA); a key instrument of climate change mainstreaming, also meant to serve as a fund-raising proposal for adaptation projects. The adaptation funds maintained by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are however both small relative to LDCs' adaptation needs and require co-financing, which has proved difficult for poor countries to provide on their own. Borrowing from other funds is costly and may not be a desirable option for debt-laden LDCs. Moreover, it is morally objectionable to ask poor countries to borrow to deal with a problem that is not of their making.The Aid for Trade (AfT) initiative could complement adaptation financing where such projects have trade impacts. This article makes the case for an "Aid for Trade-plus" initiative which consists of an augmented AfT initiative that finances trade-related adaptation projects. As the international community gathers in Warsaw to advance the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions, the synergies proposed in this paper merit consideration as a way to address significant climate finance constraints, as well as making trade and climate agendas more coherent and effective.Treaty CP2NC UQ Wall Stability NowReject their media spin experts conclude Afghanistan will remain stable.Karp and OHanlon 1/7, Candace: PhD, Senior Program Officer at US Institute for Peace, Michael: PhD, director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins, 2015, Protecting the Gains in Afghanistan, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/07-protecting-afghanistan-gains-ohanlon, Accessed 1/20/15By most U.S. media accounts, Afghanistan is at best a largely forgotten cause; at worst, lost. Even apart from the recent attacks on Kabul and Taliban gains, costs have been higher and accomplishments less solid than they should have been.But measured against core standards, the mission is far from a failure. Two imperative goals have been preventing future extremist attacks against the West from Afghan soil and giving Afghans a solid stake in their future so they will not turn again to the Taliban or be vulnerable to a takeover. By both metrics, success is much closer than failurethat is, if we stay the course and avoid a complete departure in two years, as President Barack Obama and the international community intend.Here is why those plans for premature departure should be revised.Among the successes achieved since 2001:*Life expectancy had increased to 61 years in 2012 from 51 years in 2001.*Infant mortality had declined, in 2012, to 72 deaths before age 1 per 1,000 live births, from 93 deaths in 2001.*As of 2014, 50% of Afghans had access to basic health care.*Fifty-six percent of the rural population had access to clean water in 2012, up from 44% in 2008.*Primary school enrollment (including overage, underage, and repeating students) is up severalfold from 21% in 2001.But all of these gains are not the main point. Less easily quantifiable, yet even more important, is the shift in Afghans view of government. Many are no longer willing to perceive central government as little more than an abstract irritation. There is an expectation, even in outlying areas, that government must respond to the interests of all Afghans and deliver a modicum of services to justify its presence and the demands made of citizens. For the most part, the Taliban are widely disdained.Islamic State extremists have been on the march in Iraq and Syria, and bombing plots from Yemen in recent years have produced major near-misses in the U.S. homeland, but Afghanistan has not produced another major attack. To the contrary, it has provided bases that have helped coalition forces significantly diminish the al-Qaeda threat in Pakistan.The greatest threat to Afghan gains is political uncertainty. Last years presidential election process was flawedinvolving an initial vote in April, a runoff in June, and lengthy negotiations before, finally, a new president in September. Yet Afghans, aided by Secretary of State John Kerry and United Nations Special Representative Jn Kubi, found their way to a power-sharing compromise. President Ashraf Ghani and his rival Abdullah Abdullah struggle to form a cabinet, but fears of all-out ethnic competition or civil war have ebbed.While the Taliban have taken back some rural areas, and have killed about 10,000 Afghan soldiers and police over the past two years, they are not winning. Afghan cities and major roads are in government hands, and last years voter turnout shows that Afghans overwhelmingly support their new national project. Recruits continue to join the army and police. The Afghan people remain 90% opposed to the Taliban, the Brookings Institutions Afghanistan index has found.Drug revenues causing Afghan stability now the plan causes instability.--employment stops them joining the insurgency. --alternative is collapse of the state because 50% of the illicit GDP comes from opium--small farmers dont matter whats needed is strong government support, political instability comes from Speri 5/21/14 (Alice,Alice Speri is an Italian-born journalist for VICE based in New York city. She has lived in many countries including Italy, India, Benin, Egypt, Palestine, Haiti and the United Kingdom. She is currently working on her PhD in Comparative Literature, https://news.vice.com/article/afghanistans-opium-economy-is-doing-better-than-ever)Afghanistans opium economy is bad news to the countrys growing population of drug addicts up to 1.5 million, according to the UN, and as all illicit trades, it is vulnerable to violence and abuse.But it may not be such bad news for the country's economy and political stability, as things in Afghanistan might actually be worse without it.For one, opium employs a lot of people. And at least until the end of harvesting season, it keeps them too busy to join the insurgency.'The alternative right now would be huge political instability and it would also be huge unemployment.'Theres no legal economy in Afghanistan that can match the profits and the amount of people opium can employ, Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and expert on counter-narcotic efforts in Afghanistan, told VICE News.Opium is both profitable and labor-intensive, an important combination in a country with some 400,000 people entering the workforce every year. To put things in perspective, if the 806 square miles Afghans cultivated with opium last year were to grow wheat instead, they would employ about 20 percent of the people currently working on opium fields, Felbab-Brown said.What we really need to ask ourselves is, is it bad to have this illicit economy? It probably is bad, but is it much worse than the alternative? The alternative right now would be huge political instability and it would also be huge unemployment, she said. So yes, its undesirable that there is a major illicit economy that constitutes so much of the countrys GDP, but theres just no way to walk away from that.Is an Illicit Economy Better than no Economy?But if the opium economy is illicit and fraught with potential for violence and devastating public health implications, it is an economy nonetheless, and a thriving one at that.Afghanistan produced 75 percent of the worlds heroin supply in 2013, and its on its way to produce as much as 90 percent this year. The country is also one of the world's top exporters of cannabis mostly hashish.You have a sector, the poppy cultivation, which provides employment for more than 200,000 families in Afghanistan and accounts for 73 million hours of labor annually," Ashita Mittal, acting country director for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Kabul told VICE News. "Those are huge numbers we are talking about.'Right now, growing opium makes more money than anything else for Afghan farmers so its going to be very hard to stomp out.'In the early 2000s, the $18 billion-worth trade accounted for as much as 50 percent of Afghanistans GDP, she noted, and was down to about 15 percent of it last year. But Afghanistan which doomsayers have dubbed a "narcostate" years ago lacks the determination to do away from such profits, despite massive financial incentives to do so, including some $7.5 billion from the US alone."The US has put three times more money on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan than it did in Colombia, but what distinguishes Colombia from Afghanistan is the political will that was demonstrated by the ruling parties there," Mittal said. "Unless there's a firm commitment from the top, it's not going to change. Perhaps the new government will be an opportunity to place this on the agenda."The profits of the opium trade, she added, are not exactly enriching the country's most destitute. While the economic impact trickles down somewhat, the largely poor farmers harvesting the white and pink poppy blooms are not the ones reaping the profits.Local warlords and the Taliban often have their hands in the trade, but it is wealthy elites with deep ties to the countrys government that have no interest in seeing the opium cultivation stop.

New Advantage

AT: FoodsThat causes global food crisesGrieff 14 (James Grieff, Bloomberg, California drought points to next food-price shock, http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/california-drought-points-to-next-food-price-shock/article_58f2e16c-99a3-50ee-ae46-1f4e2d928d73.html, April 17, 2014)Drought in the United States, past and present, might make 2014 one of the more volatile years for food prices and supplies globally. U.S. consumers may get a preview of what's coming at the salad bar. The main culprit is the parched land of California's Central Valley, which grows a large share of U.S. vegetables, fruits and nuts. Conditions are so dry that some farmers aren't even bothering to plant. That might have even bigger implications for food prices than the 2012 drought that baked the Corn Belt, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said this week. California has suffered a double hit: a dearth of rain in the lowlands and a lack of snow in the mountains in the north and east. Snowmelt provides water for many of the state's farmers during the growing season and for the huge population centers in the south. Snow this year was only about 30 percent of the historical average. Even though the snow now is melting, some streams and rivers have so little water that wildlife crews have had to truck stranded salmon fingerlings downstream so they can make it out to sea. The harshest winter weather in more than three decades in the Midwest and Northeast also will send shock waves through the food chain, according to the Wall Street Journal. Kansas's winter wheat crop took a beating as did vineyards for producing wine grapes in New York's Finger Lakes region. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had projected a 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent rise in the price of fresh fruits and vegetables this year. That estimate, however, was made before the full extent of the damage from the winter weather and California's drought could be assessed. The rise in commodities indexes since the start of the year has been about 20 percent, reflecting higher prices for hogs, steers, lard and wheat. Because of the 2012 drought, farmers slaughtered huge numbers of cattle and hogs as feed costs soared. All that extra meat on the market helped keep a lid on prices in 2013. But now, the U.S. cattle herd is at a 63-year low (hogs are at a seven-year low). The smaller supply of animals ready for slaughter plus the expectation of higher feed costs have sent prices soaring. Of course, no one consumes steers per se, so diners won't pay one-fifth more for steak just because of the increase in commodity prices. The cost of growing food accounts for only about 15 cents of every $1 we spend on it. The rest goes to processing, packaging, marketing and transportation. And even if prices rise more than the USDA forecasts the latest economic reports suggest they might most U.S. consumers are in a position to cope by spending less on other goods or switching to other types of food. In other words, going to fewer movies or purchasing less beef and more chicken, the price of which has risen much less than beef this year. What bears watching isn't so much what increased prices mean in the United States which has the world's cheapest food or other developed nations, but the implications for poorer countries. In much of the world, consumers devote a far larger share of personal income to food. Just eyeball a map of the world and the hot spots tend to be where rising food costs intersect with corruption and ineffectual government. Many analysts cite the rise in prices for staples such as bread as the trigger for the Arab Spring uprisings. Food shortages also figure in the unrest in Venezuela. The U.S. is the world's biggest food exporter by a wide margin. Whatever happens to domestic prices won't be confined to U.S. shores.

PricesAT: Aging Reactors228 tests disprove their impact insert a chartsTrinity Atomic Web Site 01 (Feb 1, 2001Summary of U.S. Nuclear Test Series http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/ustable.html JT)From 1945 to 1963 the U.S.A. conducted an extensive campaign of nuclear tests, generally grouped into the 20 test "series" summarized in the table below.Test SeriesYearLocationNumber of TestsNumber of Personnel*Project Trinity1945U.S.A.1164Operation Crossroads1946Pacific240,112Operation Sandstone1948Pacific311,782Operation Ranger1951U.S.A.5266Operation Greenhouse1951Pacific47,590Operation Buster-Jangle1951U.S.A.77,812Operation Tumbler-Snapper1952U.S.A.88,710Operation Ivy1952Pacific211,650Operation Upshot-Knothole1953U.S.A.1118,000Operation Castle1954Pacific612,700Operation Teapot1955U.S.A.148,700Operation Wigwam1955Pacific16,800Operation Redwing1956Pacific1711,350Operation Plumbbob1957U.S.A.2413,300Operation Hardtack I1958Pacific3416,000Operation Argus1958Atlantic34,500Operation Hardtack II1958U.S.A.191,650Operation Dominic I1962Pacific3622,600Operation Dominic II1962U.S.A.42,900Plowshare Program1961-1962U.S.A.27*** These approximate numbers represent only Department of Defense personnel.** Numbers for Plowshare not available.-- No risk of reactor meltdownUIC 7 (Uranium Information Center, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper, 14, http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm)

Those responsible for nuclear power technology in the west devoted extraordinary effort to ensuring that a meltdown of the reactor core would not take place, since it was assumed that a meltdown of the core would create a major public hazard, and if uncontained, a tragic accident with likely fatalities. In avoiding such accidents the industry has been outstandingly successful. In 12,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only two major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the latter being of little relevance outside the old Soviet bloc. It was not until the late 1970s that detailed analyses and large-scale testing, followed by the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor, began to make clear that even the worst possible accident in a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuel could not cause dramatic public harm. The industry still works hard to minimize the probability of a meltdown accident, but it is now clear that no-one need fear a potential public health catastrophe. The decades-long test and analysis program showed that less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially assumed, and that this radioactive material is not readily mobilized beyond the immediate internal structure. Thus, even if the containment structure that surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, it would still be highly effective in preventing escape of radioactivity. It is the laws of physics and the properties of materials that preclude disaster, not the required actions by safety equipment or personnel. In fact, licensing approval now requires that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents. The two significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation are: Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 56. A table showing all reactor accidents, and a table listing some energy-related accidents with multiple fatalities are appended. These two significant accidents occurred during more than 12,000 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl accident resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources. Other incidents (and one 'accident') have been completely confined to the plant. Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a number of accidents in experimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing pile - at Windscale, UK, in 1957, but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.) It should be emphasised that a commercial-type power reactor simply cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up by the United Nations in 1957. One of its functions was to act as an auditor of world nuclear safety. It prescribes safety procedures and the reporting of even minor incidents. Its role has been strengthened in the last decade. Every country which operates nuclear power plants has a nuclear safety inspectorate and all of these work closely with the IAEA.-- Even the worst case scenario will be contained and cause no harmMcGregor 1 (Douglas S., Director of the Semiconductor Materials and Radiological Technologies Laboratory University of Michigan, Ph.D Nuclear Engineering, Rethinking Nuclear Power, New American, 17(9), 4-23, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/04-23-2001/vo17no09_nuclear.htm)

The most serious accident possible is the release of radioactive material into the environment. It is not a nuclear explosion, for the simple reason that the uranium fuel used in a nuclear power plant does not contain a high enough concentration of U-235 to make a nuclear explosion even theoretically possible. To make such an explosion possible, the uranium fuel inside a reactor would have to be enriched to about 90 percent U-235, but it is only enriched to about 3.5 percent. The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history occurred when the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine experienced a heat (and gas) not nuclear explosion. If such an explosion were to have occurred in a Western nuclear power plant, the explosion would have been contained because all Western plants are required to have a containment building a solid structure of steel-reinforced concrete that completely encapsulates the nuclear reactor vessel. The Chernobyl plant did not have this fundamental safety structure, and so the explosion blew the top of the reactor building off, spewing radiation and reactor core pieces into the air. But the design of the Chernobyl plant was inferior in other ways as well. Unlike the Chernobyl reactor, Western power plant nuclear reactors are designed, under operating conditions, to have negative power coefficients of reactivity that make such runaway accidents impossible. The bottom line is that the flawed Chernobyl nuclear power plant would never have been licensed to operate in the U.S. or any other Western country, and the accident that occurred there simply would not occur in a Western nuclear power plant. The circumstances surrounding the Chernobyl accident were in many ways the worst possible, with an exposed reactor core and an open building. Thirty-one plant workers and firemen died directly from radiation exposure at Chernobyl. Also, it is projected that over 3,400 local residents will eventually acquire and die of cancer due to their exposure to the radioactive fallout. By comparison, within a matter of hours more than 2,300 were killed and as many as 200,000 others injured in a non-nuclear accident when a toxic gas cloud escaped from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. According to conventional wisdom, the worst nuclear power accident in this country occurred at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Yet, in that incident, nobody was killed and nobody was injured. One exception, perhaps, could be Dr. Edward Teller, the distinguished pro-nuclear physicist who played a key role in the development of nuclear advancements during and after World War II. In a two-page ad appearing in the Wall Street Journal for July 31, 1979, Dr. Teller explained that, at 71 years of age and working 20 hours per day, the strain of refuting some of the anti-nuclear "propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda and their ilk" were "spewing to the news media" in the wake of Three Mile Island led to a heart attack. He continued: "You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. Reactors are not dangerous." The event at Three Mile Island occurred from faulty instrumentation that gave erroneous readings for the reactor vessel environment. Due to a series of equipment failures and human errors, plus inadequate instrumentation, the reactor core was compromised and underwent a partial melt. Yet radioactive water released from the core configuration was safely confined within the containment building structure, and very little radiation was released into the environment. The Three Mile Island incident actually underscores the relative safety of nuclear power plants since the safety devices worked as designed and prevented any injury from occurring to humans, animals, or the environment. Moreover, the accident directly resulted in improved procedures, instrumentation, and safety systems, and now our nuclear reactor power plants are substantially safer. The Three Mile Island Unit 2 core has been cleaned up and the radioactive deposit properly stored; Three Mile Island Unit 1 is still operating with an impeccable record.

AT: Electricity PricesEIA evidence says the factors depend on SUPPLY SIDE aff cant solveEIA 12, Energy Information Administration (April 10, What are the major factors affecting natural gas prices? http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=43&t=8)Natural gas prices are mainly a function of market supply and dema