Embargo Environmental Conditions CP

Neg

1NC
CP Text: The United States federal government should [INSERT PLAN] if and only if Cuba agrees to tourism restrictions and joint marine environmental projects with the United States
CP solvesembargo removal absent environmental cooperation causes ecological and economic devastationturns case

Conell 09-Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Christina, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental
Duo?, 6/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo//VS)

Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cubas relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its environmental protection provisions, said an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a bulldozer, when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would stimulate Cubas stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license
from the United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way.

The US should establish more partnerships like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive, bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods, suggesting that if Obama lifts the embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for the island to be protected . It is Cubas lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbeans most biodiverse island will continue to be damaged. The key to a new dynamic in the U.S.Cuba relationship might be to embark on a series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each countrys sovereignty and traditions.

Environmental cooperation is key to perception of US global environmental legitimacy lifting the embargo isnt enough

Conell 09-Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Christina, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental
Duo?, 6/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo//VS)

Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global

warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The

U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States
unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. This

decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cubas substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cubas written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future ,
yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cubas bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure.

If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for

environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island.

International perception is critical to environmental leadershiponly the CP solves Hayward 08- previously the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI. He is the author of theAlmanac of Environmental Trends, and the author
of many books on environmental topics. He has written biographies of Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and of Winston Churchill, and the upcoming book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents. He contributed to AEI's Energy and Environment Outlook series (Steven F., The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?, 2/21/2008, http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-theenvironment/the-united-states-and-the-environment-laggard-or-leader//VS) To borrow the blunt language of Generation X and the "Millennials," does

the United States suck when it comes to the environment? Contrary to the perception expressed in the epigraphs above, the answer turns out to be a resounding No; the United States remains the world's environmental leader and is likely to continue as such. But to paraphrase the old slogan of the propagandist, if a misperception is repeated long enough, it will become an unshakeable belief . Environmental improvement in the United States has been substantial and dramatic almost across the board, as my annual Index of
Leading Environmental Indicators and other books and reports like it have shown for more than a decade.[3] The chief drivers of this improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, innovation in pollution control technology, and the deepening of environmental values among the American public that have translated into changed behavior and consumer preferences. Government regulation has played a vital role to be sure, but in the grand scheme of things, regulation can be understood as a lagging indicator that often achieves results at needlessly high cost. Were it not for rising affluence and technological innovation, regulation would have much the same effect as King Canute commanding the tides. But

in a variation of the old complaint " what have you done for me

lately ?" there is widespread perception that the United States lags behind Europe and other leading nations on environmental performance. This perception is more strongly held abroad than here in the United States.

Environmental leadership key to hegemonycollapse inevitable absent cooperation Walter, 02- chief economist of Deutsche Bank (Norbert, An American Abdication, 8/28/2002,
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/opinion/an-american-abdication.html//VS)
FRANKFURT At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the

United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a

low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is,
relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental

degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clearcut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United
States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one can expect the United States to provide any quick fixes, but one

would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies, for example greater fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment. Simply rejecting international treaties
(like the Kyoto Protocol) then failing to offer a better proposal cannot be an acceptable option for American policymakers. Much of the world has come together to help the United States in the fight against terrorism, out of the realization that a common threat can only be beaten through a cooperative effort. It is high time for the United States, metaphorically speaking, to get out of its oversized, gas-guzzling S.U.V. -- and join the rest of the world in doing more to combat global warming and protecting the planet

Lifting Embargo Destroys Biod

Lifting the embargo kills biodiversity PBS 10 (Public Broadcasting Service, "Cuba: The Accidental Eden", 9/26/10, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/cuba-theaccidental-eden/introduction/5728/)//SC Cuba may have been restricted politically and economically for the past 50 years, but its borders have remained open to wildlife for which Cubas undeveloped islands are an irresistible draw. While many islands in the Caribbean have poisoned or paved over their ecological riches on land and in the sea in pursuit of a growing tourist industry, Cubas

wild landscapes have remained virtually untouched, creating a safe haven for rare and intriguing indigenous animals, as well as for hundreds of species of migrating birds and marine creatures. Coral reefs have benefited, too. Independent research has shown that Cubas corals are doing much better than others both in the Caribbean
and around the world. Scientific research in Cuba on creatures such as the notoriously aggressive jumping crocodile, and the famous painted snails, paired with long-term ecological efforts on behalf of sea turtles, has been conducted primarily by devoted local experts. Conservation and research in Cuba can be a constant struggle for scientists who earn little for their work. But their work is their passion, and no less important than that of those collecting larger salaries. NATURE follows these scientists as they explore the crocodile population of Zapata swamp, the birth of baby sea turtles, and the mysteries of evolution demonstrated by creatures that travel no more than 60 yards in a lifetime. As

the possibility of an end to the U.S. trade embargo looms, Cubas wildlife hangs in the balance. Most experts predict that the end of the embargo could have devastating results. Tourism could double, and the economic development associated with tourism and other industries could change the face of what was once a nearly pristine ecosystem.

Tourism kills biodiversity Dean 07- distinguished science editor and reporter, urges scientists to overcome their institutional reticence and let their
voices be heard beyond the forum of scholarly publication. By offering useful hints for improving their interactions with policymakers, the public, and her fellow journalists, Dean aims to change the attitude of scientists who scorn the mass media as an arena where important work is too often misrepresented or hyped. Even more important, she seeks to convince them of the value and urgency of communicating to the public (Cornelia, "Conserving Cuba, After the Embargo." The New York Times, 12/25/2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/science/25cuba.html?pagewanted=all)//SC Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba

is a priceless ecological resource. That is why many scientists are so worried about what will become of it after Fidel Castro and his associates leave power and, as is widely anticipated, the American government relaxes or ends its trade embargo. Cuba, by far the regions largest island, sits at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Its mountains, forests, swamps, coasts and marine areas are rich in plants and animals, some seen nowhere else. And
since the imposition of the embargo in 1962, and especially with the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union, its major economic patron, Cubas economy has stagnated. Cuba has not been free of development, including Soviet-style top-down agricultural and mining operations and, in recent years, an expansion of tourism. But it also has an abundance of landscapes that elsewhere in the region have been ripped up, paved over, poisoned or otherwise destroyed in the decades since the Cuban revolution, when development has been most intense. Once

the embargo ends, the island could face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit those landscapes. Conservationists, environmental lawyers
and other experts, from Cuba and elsewhere, met last month in Cancn, Mexico, to discuss the islands resources and how to continue to protect them. Cuba has done what we should have done identify your hot spots of biodiversity and set them aside, said Oliver Houck, a professor of environmental law at Tulane University Law School who attended the conference. In the late 1990s, Mr. Houck was involved in an effort, financed in part by the MacArthur Foundation, to advise Cuban officials writing new environmental laws. But, he said in an interview, an

invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it like a bulldozer when the embargo ends. By some estimates, tourism in Cuba is increasing 10
percent annually. At a minimum, Orlando Rey Santos, the Cuban lawyer who led the law-writing effort, said in an interview at the conference, we

can guess that tourism is going to increase in a very fast way when the embargo ends. It is estimated we could double tourism in one year, said Mr. Rey, who heads environmental efforts at the Cuban ministry of science, technology and environment. About 700 miles long and about 100 miles wide at its widest, Cuba runs from Haiti west almost to the Yucatn Peninsula of Mexico. It offers crucial habitat for birds, like Bicknells thrush,
whose summer home is in the mountains of New England and Canada, and the North American warblers that stop in Cuba on their way south for the winter. Zapata Swamp, on the islands southern coast, may be notorious for its mosquitoes, but it is also known

for its fish,

amphibians, birds and other creatures. Among them is the Cuban crocodile, which has retreated to Cuba has the most biologically diverse populations of freshwater fish in the region. Its relatively large underwater coastal shelves are crucial for numerous marine species, including some whose larvae can be carried by currents into waters of the United
from a range that once ran from the Cayman Islands to the Bahamas. Cuba States, said Ken Lindeman, a marine biologist at Florida Institute of Technology. Dr. Lindeman, who did not attend the conference but who has spent many years studying Cubas marine ecology, said in an interview that some

of these creatures were important commercial and recreational species like the spiny lobster, grouper or snapper. Like corals elsewhere,
those in Cuba are suffering as global warming raises ocean temperatures and acidity levels. And like other corals in the region, they reeled when a mysterious die-off of sea urchins left them with algae overgrowth. But they have largely escaped damage from pollution, boat traffic and destructive fishing practices.

Tourism threatens endangered species Winfield 2K-Writer for the Los Angeles Times (Nicole, "Environmental Concerns Dawning in Cuba" Los Angeles Times, 11/26/2000,
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/26/news/mn-57478)//SC Today tourism

brings $1.3 billion a year into the cash-strapped country, surpassing sugar as the biggest source of hard currency, and it is likely to get much bigger if the U.S. government lifts the ban on Americans spending money in Cuba. The Cubans believe their late start has turned out to be a boon because they can learn from the mistakes made by other Caribbean tourism destinations. In Cayo Coco, the
main resort hub on the Sabana-Camaguey archipelago, hotels are set far back from the coast to prevent beach erosion. No new hotel can be more than four stories tall, and the government studies each one's environmental impact before approving construction, said the biodiversity project's director, Nelson Espinosa Pena. It's a placid contrast to crowded Varadero Beach on a peninsula off the mainland, where most beachgoers stay. Unlike Cayo Coco, Varadero, with its hotels, restaurants and souvenir stores, is open to the Cuban public. A few yards from the main group of resorts on Cayo Coco sits the project's monitoring station, where scientists chart water salinity and track some of the 542 types of terrestrial insects on the archipelago. Cuba can control tourist development because "in this country, private enterprises cannot do whatever they want like in other places," said Alberto Perez of the U.N. Development Program, which provides money and technical support for the project. Launched by Cuba in 1993, the project aims to establish eight protected areas within the South Carolina-sized ecosystem. Some environmentalists

worry that tourism development, even under safeguards, could threaten several species, including the queen conch, the Antilles crocodile, dolphins and manatees, which are already listed as endangered. Boat operators at resort hotels encourage snorkelers to feed bread to the barracudas and other
tropical fish darting about the purple fan coral--an environmental no-no. Also, the government built up stone berms to connect the islands, and the disrupted water flow changed the salinity in lagoons separating the archipelago from the mainland, said Georgina Bustamente of the nonprofit Nature Conservancy, based in Arlington, Va. She said environmentalists abroad as well as in Cuba tried to make the berm project more environmentally friendly, "but unfortunately they decided to do the short, bad track."

Embargo removal independently devastates Cuban ecosphere Benchley 02-Senior Associate at National Geographic (Peter, "Cuba Reefs: A Last Caribbean Refuge." National Geographic, 2/2002
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/cuban-reefs/)//SC

The Cuban government knows full well that in the tough competition for the global tourist dollar, environmental sensitivity is a valuable commodity. I met one day with Rosa Elena Simen, Cuba's
minister of science, environment, and technology, in her cavernous office in the classic capitol building in Old Havana. A grandmotherly woman with eyes of burnished steel, Minister Simen admitted that toughness was part of her mandate. "Laws are only as good as their enforcement," she said. "We must be strict. We'll shut down any hotel, any factory, any investment opportunity that violates our environmental laws." She smiled knowingly and added, "Of course, we can be stricter. The control we have permits the maintenance of order." So, I noticed, did the size of her staff. Her young ministry, begun only in 1994, was now composed of 40 entities employing 9,000 people, including, she said proudly, "more than 350 Ph.D.'s." Outside Old Havana, in a quiet residential neighborhood, Maria Elena Ibarra Martin, director of the Center of Marine Studies at the University of Havana, was, if anything, more direct than Minister Simen in articulating her government's commitment to marine conservation. "Because

the government controls all levels of activity," she said, "implementation of order is easier than in other Caribbean countries. There is not much violation of our laws. As a result our marine environment is in better condition than elsewhere." Cuba has another curious advantage over the rest of the Caribbean's island nations: Because of its political isolation, it lags more than 40 years behind in terms of massive tourism development and the concomitant destruction of marine life and habitat.

Tourism Destroys Coral Reef

Key species in Cuban marine ecosystems are threatened by tourism and development Boom 12- Ph.D., City University of New York, Director, Caribbean Biodiversity Program, and Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany, The New
York Botanical Garden, Expert in Neotropical systematic and economic botany; Rubiaceae; forest inventories (Brian M, Biodive rsity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through Environmental Research, Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 9/12, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)//SC

Cuba also has plans for new oil and gas platforms off its northern coast.4 Given the near- and long-term implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexicos biodiversity, it is imperative for the economic and ecological wellbeing of both Cuba and the United States that exploration is pursued with enhanced safeguards to avoid the mistakes of past disasters, such as the dramatic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. While Cuba and the United States are signatories to several international protocols for cooperation on containment of oil spills, there is scant cooperation between them on this frontalthough there were at least some low-level meetings between the
countries after the Deepwater Horizon blowout.5 Given the potential of currents in the Gulf of Mexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the waters and shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach of the disaster. Fortunately, relative to its potential, the Deepwater Horizon spill remained mostly contained. However, with increased drilling in the area, including deep wells, more than luck will be needed to avert future disasters. Even

if oil and gas leaks or spills are restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative environmental impacts can be important regionally. The two nations shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the mid-Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many important commercial and sport fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will impact stocks of species such as snapper, grouper, and tuna, along with myriad other animals, plants, and microbes that spend different parts of their life cycles in the territorial waters of each country.6 Given that urgent environmental problems can arise rapidly and harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that there should be a mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats. Emergent, Shared
Environmental Problems Thankfully, urgent, shared environmental problems involving the United States and Cuba are not everyday occurrences. Nonetheless, every day there

are numerous environmental issues of concern to both countries that are of great importance in the medium to long term. Such problems center on the need to study, monitor, and assess the status of organisms and ecosystems that functionally exist in both countries. A complex mosaic of coral reefs, sea grass beds, and mangroves knit together the marine and coastal ecosystems. Some of the most extensive, best preserved coral reefs in the Wider Caribbean Region occur in Cuban waters, and
extensive coral reefs parallel the Florida Keys in U.S. waters. Cuba has the largest extent of mangrove forests in the Caribbean, about 4,000 km, and Floridas southwestern coast supports mangrove forests comprising about half the extent of those in Cuba. Sea grass meadows occur in shallow waters of both countries, stabilizing sea bottom sediments that could otherwise threaten coral reefs and providing breeding, feeding, and shelter grounds for myriad marine animals, plants, and microbes.7 These

ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat modification, the impact of tourism, overexploitation of marine fishes and other commercial seafood resources, the ramifications of climate change and rising sea
levels, and pollution from land-based sources (e.g., unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices) and ocean-based sources (e.g., cruise ship waste). Increasing tourism especially threatens coral reefs. Despite some positive measures taken by the cruise industry in recent years, more cruise ships in the region still mean greater potential stresses to the marine and coastal environments. In addition to these and other shared ecosystems, many marine and terrestrial species are shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered, and disease vector species.

Oil Spill Destroys Coral Reef

Oil spill casts the final blow to Floridas coral reefs Thompson, 11- Freelance writer focused on science, environmental, and outdoor stories (Kaylee, What if Cubas Offshore Oil Project, Only 100 Miles From Florida, Goes Wrong?, Popular Mechanics, November 2, 2011, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/what-if-cubasoffshore-oil-project-only-100-miles-from-florida-goes-wrong)//TWR
Cubas enormous offshore oil potential, discovered several years ago, lies in Gulf waters even deeper than those where BPs D eepwater Horizon operated. Not long after the reserve was found, the Cuban national oil company, Cubapetroleo, briefed a number of environmental scientists on the projected aftereffects of the event they hope will never occur: a large-scale blowout. "Their models showed that 90 percent of an oil spill would end up in the Florida Straights, which becomes the Gulf Stream," says David Guggenheim, a marine biologist who has spent more than a decade working in Florida.

A potential spill would hit the most sensitive areas in the Florida Keys before rounding the east coast of Florida, and heading farther north. "Its coral reefs; its mangroves. Shallow areas that are very sensitive and already have gone through an incredible degradation over the last few years," Guggenheim says. "Almost half of that coral reef has died now due to other stresses. This could be the final blow." Geography is only
part of the problem. More than half a century has passed since the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Cuba, which the State Department considers a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Disaster-response experts from industry, academia, and government are all concerned that the political standoff could hinder response should the worst happen. "To enter Cuban waters as a citizen, you need to have a license. To send equipment, you need special export licenses. We have a lot of items that youd think would b e totally innocuous that we cannot ship," Guggenheim says. The

Coast Guard and other U.S. agencies dont have authorization to operate in a foreign exclusive economic zone, and it could take hoursor worse, daysafter a spill has taken place just to get that permission. And for a worst-case scenario, thats just not fast enough. "Its pretty ugly,"

Guggenheim says. "Those currents move so fast we would have to react incredibly quickly if we were going to deploy skimmers, say, to take some oil up." In the year and a half since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, advanced planning for future accidents has improved, according to John Slaughter, chief of planning, readiness, and response for the 7th Coast Guard District, which includes Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Local stakeholders have developed regional plans to deal with pollution nearing shore, while organizations such as the Coast Guard are drawing up separate plans to deal with offshore oil. "When you get into an offshore environment, its kin d of a new animal," Slaughter says. "Youre talking about offshore skimmers, dispersant use, in situ burning." The U.S. has a written co ntingency plan with Mexico that prescribes how the two nations would work together to respond to an offshore spill. But as for a spill originating in Cuban seas? "Clearly, there are advantages in being able to address pollution at its source. We may or may not be able to do that immediately," Slaughter says. The moment a spill reaches U.S. waters, though, the green light is on. "We have a robust response plan put together by the Coast Guard with industry to address any pollution in U.S. waters."

Oil spill destroys Floridas coral reefs Goodbody-Gringley et al. 1/9 Researcher at Mote Marine Laboratory (Gretchen, Toxicity of Deepwater Horizon Source Oil and the Chemical Dispersant, Corexit 9500, to Coral Larvae. PLoS ONE 8(1): e45574. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045574)//MM
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in April 2010 resulted in the release of over 760 million liters of Louisiana crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, thus constituting one of the greatest marine disasters in U.S. history [30]. Mitigation of the spill with dispersant chemicals was effective in reducing the magnitude of the offshore oil slick, however it is plausible that a

significant portion of petroleum toxicants have been absorbed into the water column as a result. Much concern has arisen regarding the potential for oil pollution to reach coral reefs, particularly those in the Florida Keys that may be impacted by oil originating in the Gulf of Mexico and arriving via offshore currents. Coral reefs worldwide have undergone drastic declines in the last several

decades [31], [32]. This is particularly evident in the Caribbean, where coral cover has been reduced by roughly 80% since 1975 [33]. In the Florida Keys, coral reefs have been affected by anthropogenic and environmental impacts including pollution, overfishing, eutrophication, coastal development, disease, and climate change related bleaching among others. As a result, coral mortality in this

region is unsustainably high [34] and substantially increased in 2010, following a cold-water event [35]. Such drivers have caused a dramatic shift in the Florida Keys reef ecosystem from a benthic community dominated by scleractinian corals to one overgrown with macroalgae [36]. With the advent of oil drilling off the coast of Cuba and our limited ability to be

able to respond to it, coupled with the current fragile state of coral species in the Florida Keys, it is imperative that the potential impacts of oil pollution on Caribbean reef-building corals be understood at all life-history stages. This study found settlement and survival of P. astreoides and M. faveolata planulae decreased significantly following exposure to increased concentrations of DWH crude oil, weathered oil, WAF, CEWAF, and dispersant Corexit 9500, with higher concentrations of CEWAF and Corexit 9500 resulting in settlement failure and complete larval mortality. The demonstrated effects of pollution by DWH crude oil and the dispersant Corexit 9500 on P. astreoides and M. faveolata planulae strongly suggest that the use of dispersants to mitigate oil spills in the vicinity of coral reefs should be avoided.

kBiod K2 Survival
Ocean biodiversity key to survival Craig, 3 - Attorneys Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at Florida State
University (Robin Kundis, ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and

Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii, McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean

ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the
complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many

maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon
otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral

reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.

Biodiversity loss guarantees multiple scenarios for extinction

Takacs, 96 - Environmental Humanities Professor at CSU Monterey Bay (David, The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise pg. 200-01)//IK
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs rivet -popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization. 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion

of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter,

mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.

Destruction of biodiversity hotspots leads to extinction Nautiyal & Nidamanuri, 10 Sunil, Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources at Institute for Social and Economic Change, and Rama Rao, Department of Earth and Space Sciences at Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (Conserving Biodiversity in Protected Area of Biodiversity Hotspot in India: A Case Study, International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 36 (2-3): 195-200, 2010)
The hotspots are the worlds most biologically rich areas hence recognized as important ecosystems not important only for the rich biodiversity but equally important for the human survival as these are the homes for more than 20% of the worlds population. India got recognition of one of the mega-diversity

countries of world as the country is home of the two important biodiversity hotspots: the Himalaya in north and the Western Ghats in the southern peninsula. Policy makers and decision takers have recognized the importance of

biodiversity (flora and fauna) and this has resulted to segregate (in the form of protected areas) the rich and diverse landscape

for biodiversity conservation. An approach which leads towards conservation of biological diversity is good efforts but such approaches should deal with humans equally who are residing in biodiversity hotspots since time immemorial. In this endeavor, a study was conducted in Nagarahole National Park of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, in Karnataka. Our empirical studies reveal that banning all the human activities in this ecosystem including agriculture, animal husbandry has produced the results opposite to the approach multiple values of national park. To monitor the impact, existing policies have been tested from an economic and ecological view-point. Unfortunately, the local livelihoods (most of them belongs to indigenous tribes) in the area have received setbacks due to the implementation of the policies, though unintentionally. However, the ecological perspective is also not showing support for the approach and framework of the current policies in the hotspots. Satellite data showed that the temporal pattern of ecosystem processes has been changing. An integrated approach for ecosystem conservation and strengthening local institutions for sustainable ecosystem management in such areas is therefore supported by this study.

Hotspots are key to future life on the planet Kunich, 1 Associate Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law (John, 52 Hastings L.J. 1149, Lexis)
It is rather well known, even beyond the scientific community, that many of the world's species have either gone extinct or are on the road to extinction. It is much less well known, but equally important, that enormous numbers of these species are confined to a few hotspots" of biodiversity, far beyond the norm for the average region of comparable size. These hotspots are the key to the future of life on this planet. To understand why, we must first examine the degree of risk to which earth's biodiversity is exposed today.

Env Coop Turns Relations

Environmental cooperation is a prerequisite to effective relations turns the advantage Pinon and Muse 10-Visiting Research Fellow with the Cuban Research Institute, Florida international University
;Former president, Amoco oil Latin America AND Attorney, Washington, D.C. based with long and substantial experience in U.S.Cuba legal matters (Jorge and Robert, Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical, 5/2010, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill%20cuba%20pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pi non.pdf)//JW

The sinking of The DeePwateR HoRizon drilling platform and the resulting discharge of millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea demonstrated graphically the challenge of environmental protection in the ocean waters shared by Cuba and the United states. While the quest for deepwater drilling
of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is unlikely to stop. it came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move forward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territorial waters later this year.1 As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The

sobering fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from
this countrys oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future disasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasterswhether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters. Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United statesCuba relations Cuba: a new Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration. The

report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal relations between the United states and Cuba through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identifying unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two
countries. Among the initiatives recommended to the new obama Administration were: Open a dialogue between the United Sta tes and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual concern, including migration, counter-narcotics, environment, health, and security. Develop agreements and assistance with the government of Cuba for disaster relief and environmental stewardship. shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a conference highlighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and environmental officials for over a decade to protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential bilateral collaboration aimed at protecting shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the Atlantic ocean. The importance of cooperation on environmental issues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their relation to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. Preserving that countrys marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the natural heritage of the Cuban people. The

health of Cubas ocean environment is likewise important to the economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in
Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vectors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates that Cubas Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cubas oil and gas reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment. in addition to spains Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norways statoil-hydro, Brazils Petrobras and others will be conducting exploratory work off Cubas north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the environmental risks rise exponentially. Responding to Oil Spills in Cuban Waters To respond effectively to an oil-related marine accident, any company operating in or near Cuban territorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine environment. obviously,

the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to facilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be
necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill. A good framework for such practical cooperation is the 1990 international Convention on oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation. The Convention is designed to encourage and facilitate international

cooperation and mutual assistance in preparing for and responding to major oil pollution incidents. signatory nations are charged with developing and maintaining adequate capabilities to deal with such an emergency. in the case of Cuba and the United states, those capabilities must be transnational because there is no barrier to the movement of oil from one countrys waters to anothers. 2 The eeZ is 112,000 square kilometers that has been divided into 59 exploration blocks of approximately 2,000 sq k Cuba and the United states are also members of the international Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) adopted in 1973. The MARPoL Convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) is another comprehensive umbrella agreement that provides the legal framework for cooperative regional and national actions to protect the marine environment. so, the commitment to marine environmental cooperation already exists at the often aspirational level of international accords. What is needed now is for the United states and Cuba to develop appropriate regulatory and procedural protocols that ensure the free movement of equipment and expertise between the two countries that will be indispensable to a satisfactory response to a future oil spill. establishing specific protocols cannot wait because nothing in U.s.-Cuba relations is ever simple. for example, disaster response coordination between Cuba and the United states will involve various government departments such as the environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Commerce because U.s.-origin equipment requires licenses for even temporary export to Cuba. The allocation of responsibilities and the development of interagency cooperation will take time. That luxury exists now, but will end very soon when the first drill bit hits the Cuban seabed. on the subject of the legal basis for proactive regulatory action to deal with a future oil disaster in Cuba, the obama Administration, irrespective of the current embargo, has the power to license the sale, lease or loan of emergency relief and reconstruction equipment to Cuba following an oil spill. it also has the authority to license U.s. citizens to perform emergency response and subsequent reconstruction services in Cuba in the wake of such a disaster.3 Recommendations for U.S. Policy The appropriate place for U.s. policymakers to begin is with an expedited identification of all current regulatory prohibitions on the transfer of the U.s. equipment, technology and personnel to Cuba that will be needed to combat an oil spillwhether it originates there or here. once identified, those regulations should be rescinded or amended, as required. in particular, the obama Administration should complete the following actions as soon as possible: 1. Proactive licensing by the Department of Commerce of temporary exports to Cuba of any U.s. equipment and technology necessary to emergency oil flow suppression, spill containment and cleanup. examples include the licensing of submersibles and ROVs (remote operated vehicles), as well as booms and chemical dispersants. 2. The pre-approval of licenses for travel to Cuba by qualified U.s. citizens to contribute to emergency relief and clean-up efforts. for example, petroleum engineers, environmental specialists and others should be authorized for such travel. 3. Plans should be made for providing Cuba with the most up-to-date information, including satellite imagery and predictive models, to assess the potential impact of an oil disaster and to prepare for the worst eventualities. 4. The U.s. should hold joint exercises with Cuba to coordinate emergency responses, the deployment of resources and the identification of the specialized oil well technologies and clean-up equipment that will be needed to be shipped to Cuba in the event of an oil spill. 5. The U.s. should encourage and facilitate scientific exchanges at both government and ngo levels that will identify the nature and sequencing of effective responses to a marine disaster and the mitigation of environmental harm. The President should also instruct the Department of states Bureau of oceans and international environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) and NOAA to meet with Cuban lead agencies such as the Transport Ministrys Direccin de Seguridad e inspeccin Martima, and the science, Technology and environment Ministrys agencia del Medio ambiente. The goal of such meetings should be a bilateral agreement on the protocols of cooperation needed to respond quickly and effectively to any incident that threatens either countrys marine and coastal habitats. The obama Administration should also facilitate immediate cooperation between U.s. and Cuban academic and scientific institutions. for example, Texas A&M Universitys harte Research institute (HRI) for Gulf of Mexico Studies has a long history of promoting a tri-national approach to understanding the gulf of Mexico ecosystem of the United states, Mexico and Cuba. Among their most recent projects is the Proyecto Costa noroccidental, a comprehensive multi-year research and conservation program for Cubas gulf of Mexico coast undertaken in cooperation with the University of havanas Center for Marine Research. Another valuable resource available to the Administration is the Envi ronmental Defense Fund which has worked on a number of projects with Cubas Ministry of science, Technology and the environment in order to develop cooperative projects and workshops to restore depleted shark populations, protect shallow and deepwater coral reefs, and manage vulnerable coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and sea grasses. in conclusion, it is worth underscoring that the President should use his executive authority to authorize the above recommended actions now, rather than in the context of an improvised response to a cataclysmic environmental disaster. should the obama Administration fail to act, then Congress should consider passing legislation authorizing the provision by U.s. citizens and companies to Cuba of the relief and reconstruction supplies and services necessary to respond to a marine disaster in that countrys waters and on its shores.

Environmental cooperation solves relations

Environmental Defense Fund 12 (U.S. and Cuba seek common ground, Environmental Defense Fund,
http://www.edf.org/oceans/us-and-cuba-seek-common-ground)//JW Teaming up to protect vital marine resources Vast untapped reserves of black gold are thought to lie off Cubas north shoreenough, experts say, to wean the country from its dependence on Venezuelan oil imports. This year Spanish oil giant Repsol plans to begin exploratory drilling in deep waters 50 miles off Key West, and foreign oil companies from Russia, Malaysia, Brazil, India and Venezuela, among others, are lining up behind them. For the United States, Cuba and Mexico, the risks of drilling in deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico are enormous. Experts warn that a large spill in Cuban waters could be more catastrophic than the BP disaster, given the three countries sensitive marine ecosystems. The

problems could be compounded by delays in getting the expertise and state-of-the-art technology needed to deal with a large, deepwater accident. U.S. policy restricts American companies from working with Cuban enterprises to protect the waters we share. Can environmental concerns bridge the political gulf? For half a century, a political gulf has divided our two countries, says EDFs chief oceans scientist Doug Rader. It is time for a

pragmatic approach that would help Cuba prepare for the worst, while developing a strong foundation for our shared environmental future. Over the past decade, Cuban environmental lawyers have been developing regulations for offshore oil and gas drilling that include strict oversight. During the BP oil spill crisis in
2010, EDFs oceans staff provided regular updates to Cuban environmental officials to help them assess what damage might occur to the islands ecosystems and coastal communities. Luckily, oil from the BP blowout did not wash onto Cuban beaches. But given prevailing currents and winds, neither country may be as fortunate next time around. EDF urges that the United States begin a dialogue with the Cuban and Mexican governments on oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill recommends that international standards be developed and specifically that it

is in our countrys national interest to negotiate now with these near neighbors to agree on a common, rigorous set of standards [and] a system for regulatory oversight Tapping clean energy to reduce oil imports As part of a national strategy to gain energy independence and reduce global warming pollution, Cuba also hopes to develop cleaner sources of energy. In 2008, at the request of our Cuban partners we
organized an international symposium on ocean energy to explore ways to develop this largely untapped source without harming the environment. Cuba provides good conditions for a variety of ocean energy optionsincluding wind and currentand may prove ideal for ocean thermal energy conversion. As with any large-scale technology, building and operating energy facilities may pose risks to marine life and habitat. Sensitive ecosystem such as coral reefs and mangroves, and important nursery and rookery areas for fish, marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtlesmust be protected. With good standards and policy in place, Cuba could be a model for clean energy development in the Caribbean, says Dr. Rod Fujita, EDF senior scientist and director of Ocean Innovations. Fostering

further cooperation Cooperation is as critical to U.S. interests as it is to Cubas. Cuban waters provide vital spawning and nursery grounds for
snapper, grouper and other commercially important reef fish in the United States. Cuba is also the major stopover point on migration routes to and from South America for most of the familiar songbirds along the U.S. East Coast. And the two nations quite likely share a recently discovered deepwater coral ecosystem that extends north to North Carolina. Though the United States and Cuba share many ecological resources, we have different ways of managing them, says EDF attorney Dan Whittle, director of our Cuba program. Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have huge impacts on the United States and vice-versa.

Scientific collaboration necessitates cooperation Tinker Foundation 12 promotes the development of an equitable, sustainable and productive society in Latin
America and to enhance understanding in the U.S. of Latin America and how U.S. policies may impact the region (Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through Environmental Research, 9/2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/biodiversity-without-borders_science__diplomacy.pdf) Current Situation of Environmental Cooperation Both Cuban and U.S. environmental scientists are aware of the shared urgent and emerging environmental challenges outlined in the previous sections. However, many scientists on both sides of the Florida Straits remain frustrated that more cannot be done to identify, study, and solve these challenges in a collaborative fashion. On the other hand, there

is increasingly a palpable sense among environmental scientists in both Cuba and the United States that the opportunities for bilateral collaboration are poised to expand. This was underscored by an April 2009 panel discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations concerning marine and coastal resources conservation hosted by the Brookings Institution and the Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF). Among many notable elements of that event was the Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom participation of U.S. government representatives (NOAA and the Department of State), which was a real

A few months before the Brookings/EDF gathering, the American Council of Learned Societies/Social Science Research Council Working Group on Cuba and the Christopher Reynolds Foundation sponsored a twoday workshop. Workshop on the Future of Environmental Collaboration between the United States and Cuba, held in November 2008 in New York City, helped identify and define the issues that led to the Brookings/EDF event and to a number of others. This workshop was attended by
breakthrough in expanding this discussion in the United States beyond the NGO community. thirty-two representatives of environmental NGOs and private philanthropic foundations. One of the outputs was a letter, dated December 11, 2008, which was signed by twelve CEOs of environmental NGOs, addressed to then President-elect Barack Obama urging him to take action to increase scientific exchange and collaboration between the United States and Cuba. The letter specifically suggested issuing U.S. visas to Cuban scientists and conservation professionals; directing the U.S. Department of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to grant licenses to U.S. scientists and conservation professionals planning to collaborate with their Cuban colleagues; giving OFAC licenses to U.S. entities to enable Cuban scientists and conservation professionals to travel to third countries when U.S. funds are used; directing federal agencies, such as NOAA, to encourage more collaboration between U.S. and Cuban scientists and academic and conservation professionals; and amending OFAC regulations that govern educational exchanges between the United States and Cuba to allow more flexibility. Another major barometer for sensing a momentum in the direction of greater environmental collaboration is a series of meetingsfour to dateof a group that has come to be known as the Trinational Initiative for Marine Science and Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico & Western Caribbean. The Trinational Initiatives objective is to encourage increased collaborations between the trinationalsCuba, Mexico, and the United Stateson marine research and conservation issues. Membership of the group currently includes eight Cuban organizations, ten Mexican

organizations, and fourteen U.S.-based organizations. Another recent example of improved environmental collaboration between Cuba and the United States was the U.S.-Cuba Conference on Hurricane Cooperation, sponsored by the Center for International Policy and held in December 2010 in Galveston, Texas. Participants from the U.S. private sector and policy makers and technical experts from both the United States and Cuba concluded that Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom communication concerning hurricane forecasting and early warning between the two countries is excellent. However, due to current government policies, there is no ready mechanism for either country to aid the other in hurricane damage remediation. Bilateral cooperation in other arenas, such as counternarcotics,11 could provide some precedent for bilateral collaboration in hurricane recovery. It is still too early to fully understand how OFAC will interpret the updated Cuba policy announced by the Obama administration on January 14, 2011, which eased travel restrictions in an attempt to increase interactions between Cubans and Americans. These changes should have salutary effects on environmental collaboration between Cuba and the United States. Already, a number of peopleto-people OFAC-licensed programs have taken place or are being scheduled, and several of these are being conducted by organizations with an environmental focus. See, for example, advertisements for two programs being run by the American Museum of Natural History.12 Impediments to Enhanced Environmental Cooperation Despite the success stories of various U.S.-based environmental NGOs, the realities of carrying out effective and timely collaborative projects between Cuban and U.S. researchers are nonetheless daunting for everyone concerned. The problems are especially acute for environmental NGOs that have little or no track record in working with Cuban counterparts and for U.S. government agencies with environmental responsibilities but without the authority to conduct joint projects with the Cuban government. Even U.S.-based NGOs licensed by OFAC to conduct environmental projects in Cuba with years of experience doing so are thwarted by administrative rules and procedures that limit the breadth and depth of collaborative initiatives working to address urgent and emerging shared environmental problems. These impediments emanate from both the Cuban and U.S. governments. U.S. Impediments to Enhanced Environmental Cooperation Licenses for People: OFAC is the U.S. government entity that grants licenses for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba, as described in the fifty-one-page document Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions Involving Cuba. These guidelines are periodically revised to reflect new policy directives from the White House, as they were most recently on April 19, 2011, with respect to regulations and policies governing purposeful travel, non-family remittances, and U.S. airports supporting licensed charter flights to and from Cuba. Getting the appropriate license from OFAC is the first hurdle for U.S. citizens who wish to engage in environmental collaboration with Cuban colleagues, and it can be a very daunting process. While recent rule changes are very welcome and are improving Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom options for licenses for such activities, there are still ongoing issues with OFAC. First, the regulations and policies are interpreted unevenly. As a result, some NGOs are required to have a specific license, while others doing the same sort of activity are allowed to proceed with a general license. Second, the length of time required to get a decision on a license application is unpredictable and can range from one month to one year or more, which makes it difficult to arrange all the other aspects of conducting collaborative projects (e.g., obtaining Cuban visas, securing permits to conduct projects in Cuba, arranging for funding, and scheduling travel and time in Cuba to do the project). Licenses for Equipment: Environmental research requires specialized equipment, ranging from handheld GPS units to deepwater submersibles. It is a complicated proposition to bring items into Cuba that are not carried in ones luggage, and even items in the luggage can be problematic, such as GPS units, which are not allowed. It is only possible for U.S.-based environmental NGOs to send permitted large items, such as natural history specimen cabinets, if they have a license from the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). BIS consults with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense before approving applications. In addition, BIS has approved the exports of aircraft or vessels on temporary visits to Cuba on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with additional authorizations needed (e.g., boats going into Cuban territorial waters from south Florida must get advance permission from the U.S. Coast Guard). While it is possible for established NGOs with solid partnerships with Cuban counterparts to export selected equipment for environmental research or monitoring purposes, it is by no means a speedy or certain process or one that includes selected critical items, such as GPS units. Impediments with respect to environmental equipment exports to Cuba are matters of both what is permitted and how expediently the shipment is approved. The current situation is inadequate for cases involving exports of equipment needed for responding to urgent environmental problems or for NGOs attempting to begin new projects. Funding: Cuba has an excellent cadre of environmental professionals with a demonstrated capacity for conducting successful projects.13 Unfortunately, Cubas investment to date has been limited, and there is a chronic shortage of funding for the infrastructure, research, training, monitoring, and dissemination of research results for Cuban environmental projects that would be of shared interest for the United States and Cuba. U.S. funds that could support such environmental initiatives are potentially considerable, but they are severely limited currently due to OFAC restrictions on the amount of private funds that can be expended in Cuba and the complete prohibition of U.S. government funds for such environmental projects. U.S.-based private foundations, including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, the Tinker Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom Foundation, Inc., and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, have taken the lead in funding OFAC-licensed environmental projects in Cuba. More funding is needed to provide modern infrastructure and information technology; vehicles, vessels, and gear for field studies; and travel options for Cuban scientists and students to participate in workshops and conferences and to pursue formal and informal studies and internships abroad. Cuban Impediments to Enhanced Environmental Cooperation Project Approvals: Environmental projects conducted in collaboration with Cuban organizations must be approved by an array of Cuban agenciesand at various levels within those agenciesdepending on the nature of the project. This can be a daunting procedure for U.S.-based NGOs attempting to initiate collaborative activities in Cuba, but even NGOs experienced in the process of project approval can have delays and frustrations. Some of the impediments are related to technical problems (e.g., spotty Internet connections and difficulty transmitting large file attachments via email) or to changes in key administrative personnel at agencies. The most important Cuban agency for most projects is the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnologa y Medio Ambiente (CITMA), but depending on the situation other entities must give high-level approval for environmental projects. For example, the Jardn Botnico Nacional (JBN) reports administratively to the Ministerio de Educacin Superior, so projects with the JBN need to be approved by that ministry, in addition to CITMA. Projects taking place in Cubas numerous protected marine and terrestrial areas must be approved by the Centro Nacional de reas Protegidas (CNAP), which is part of CITMA. The major impediment with respect to conducting collaborative environmental projects in Cuba is what can be a complex, non-linear, and slow approval process. Visas: Once an appropriate OFAC license is obtained, a U.S. citizen must also obtain the appropriate visa from Cuba to enter the country and conduct the approved activity. In some cases, for example to attend a professional conference, this can be accomplished with a tourist visa, which can be issued by airline companies for a modest fee. However, for a U.S. citizen to engage in research activities, a research visa is required from Cuba, and this needs to be arranged through the Cuban

counterparts organization, which can take up to thirty working days to process. The challenge here is that the collaborative activity for which the visa is sought must already have been approved by the Cuban counterpart organization, but that to get the approval it is usually necessary to meet with and explain the project concept and to work out the specifics in person, thus creating a catch-22 situation. Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom Permits: Once projects are approved and research visas secured, the third category of impediment in Cuba for U.S.-based environmental researchers is to obtain the permits needed for implementing the projects specific activities. Probably the key permits pertain to the conduct of field expeditions in collaboration with Cuban counterparts. Such permits require information about the individuals who will be doing the field work and a detailed schedule of sites they will visit and on what dates. However, the time it takes to get a permit approved often can affect the specific details in the permit application. For example, illness or other external factors may affect an individuals availability (substitutions are not allowed) and natural events, such as hurricanes, may prohibit the expedition from going somewhere on the approved day. The high degree of specificity of information required, the relative inflexibility to modify what has been approved due to changing circumstances of personnel or weather, and the length of time to get the approvals of the permits impede research expeditions. Enhancements to Environmental Cooperation Nature knows no boundaries, and given

the number and scale of environmental problems shared by Cuba and the United States, combined with the multitude of impediments to finding joint solutions to these problems, the best way to enhance environmental cooperation between the two countries would be through the establishment of a bilateral agreement on this theme. The ecological stakes are too high for Cuba and the United States to rely on anything short of a government-togovernment accord to formalize, catalyze, and facilitate cooperation on environmental problems of mutual concern. Various models for such an agreement exist: the United States has joint statements on
environmental cooperation with Spain and Italy, an agreement on air quality with Canada, and a memorandum of understanding on environmental protection with India, among others. Such

a bilateral agreement could logically take advantage of the collective experiences of the U.S.-based environmental NGO community in conducting collaborative initiatives with Cuban counterparts over many years and, in some cases, decades. The focus of such a bilateral agreement should be on helping to facilitate the activities by NGOs that are currently underway and encouraging new initiatives by NGOs in consultation with and the approval of Cuban authorities. The elements of such an agreement should take into account the difficulties mentioned
above and the following considerations: Project Approvals: Before cooperative projects can begin, one or more Cuban agencies need to approve. It would be ideal to have this process more clearly defined and streamlined to minimize delays in getting approvals.Science & Diplomacy, September 2012 www.ScienceDiplomacy.org Biodiversity without Borders Brian M. Boom Visas: Research visas for representatives of NGOs conducting approved projects should be expedited and ideally approved for multiple entries into Cuba, perhaps renewable annually for the duration of the project. Permits: Permits for all the components of projects (e.g., to collect specimens, to enter and collect or monitor in protected areas, to import research equipment, to export biological specimens, etc.) should be expedited for approved projects. Licenses: The processes for obtaining the U.S. Department of the Treasurys OFAC specific licenses and the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Industry and Security licenses should be streamlined and more transparent. Cubas Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (MINREX) might logically take the lead on such a bilateral agreement. Any of several U.S. government entities could logically take the lead, such as the Department of State, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Environmental Protection Agency. At the same time, efforts

should continue unabated to promote the revision of U.S. government policies that currently impede greater bilateral environmental cooperation between the two countries. Cuba and the United States have the potential to work around their differences to respond to the threats to their shared biodiversity. And no matter what the trajectory of future official relations between the two countries, initial mutually beneficial steps concerning the environment can provide an important opportunity to address real shared problems while also building links and trust between the two societies that can provide some bedrock for future relations.

Cooperation now on environmental preparedness lays foundation for broader policy Peterson et al 12 Associate, Philanthropic Services at California Environmental Associates (Emily, Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), Bridging the Gulf: Finding Common Ground on Environmental and Safety Preparedness for Offshore Oil and Gas in Cuba, The Cuban Economy, September 8, 2012, http://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/tag/us-cubarelations/page/2/)//JW
Executive Summary In May 2012, the Spanish oil company Repsol announced it had drilled a dry hole during its deepwater exploration in Cuba. After having spent roughly $150 million on two failed wells in Cubas waters (the first being in 2004), the company revealed it would like ly exit the island and explore more profitable fields such as those in Angola and Brazil. In August 2012, Cubas state oil company announced that the latest offshore exploration projecta well drilled by Malaysias state-owned Petronas on Cubas

To some, the outcome of three failed wells out of three attempts in Cuban waters may suggest that the threat of a catastrophic offshore spill impacting U.S. waters and the shared ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico is now moot. To the contrary, the issue is salient now more than ever. Cuba has an existing
northwest coastwas also unsuccessful.

near-coastal oil industry on its north coast near Matanzas, a near- single-source dependency on imported petroleum from Venezuela, and has exhibited continued strong interest in developing its own offshore capacity. Several additional foreign oil companies are slated to conduct exploratory deepwater drilling in Cuba at least through 2013. Current U.S. foreign policy on Cuba creates a conspicuous blind spot that is detrimental to the interests of both countries. The United States government enacted stricter regulations

governing deepwater drilling in U.S. waters in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and has publicly acknowledged a need to better prepare for a potential major spill in neighboring Cuban waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Yet U.S. policy still does not do enough to lessen the likelihood of such a spill or to ensure that sufficient resources will be at the ready to respond to a spill in a timely and effective manner. Beyond their geographical proximity, Cuba and the United States are tightly interconnected by ocean currents and share ecosystems such that a spill in either country could have profound impacts on fisheries, tourism, and recreation in the entire region. Yet, due to longstanding U.S. economic sanctions, international operators working in Cuba are unable to turn northward to the United States to freely access equipment and expertise in the event of an oil disaster. The purpose of this report is to present EDFs position that direct dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Cuba on environmental and safety matters associated with offshore oil and gas development is the only effective pathway to protect valuable environmental and economic interests in both countries.

Cooperation now on safety and environmental preparedness surrounding offshore oil can also lay a foundation for broader constructive engagement on environmental protection and natural resources management in the future. Principally, this report addresses U.S. policy toward Cuba and makes recommendations for improving environmental and safety preparedness related to offshore oil exploration and development in Cuba. This report is not intended nor does it purport to serve as a comprehensive analysis
of Cubas domestic energy strategy, policies, laws, or regulations. Deepwater drilling off the northern coast of Cuba and in many other areas of the Gulf of Mexico poses a potential threat to sensitive and vulnerable marine and coastal ecosystems and to coastal communities. Cuba has a sovereign right to determine whether to exploit oil and gas resources within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), in the same way other nations do, including Cubas neighbors in the Gulf of Mexico, the United States and Mexico. Other Caribbean countries, such as the Bahamas, are also considering offshore oil and gas operations in the future. The underlying reality is that the Cuban government will continue with its drilling activities, with or without the acquiescence of U.S. policymakers. Therefore, EDF proposes policy recommendations along two dimensions: those that the U.S. government should take unilaterally and those that require the U.S. government to engage in meaningful dialogue and cooperation with the Cuban government. In this report, we recommend the following: Unilaterally, the United States should revise its licensing process to ensure that the resources of U.S. private companies and personnel could be deployed in a timely and comprehensive manner should an oil spill occur in Cuba. On a bilateral level, the U.S. and Cuban governments should create a written agreement similar to existing agreements with neighbors like Mexico and Canada. Such an agreement should stipulate proactive joint planning aimed at maximizing preparedness and response to prevent or mitigate the consequences of an offshore oil spill. (This agreement would supplement any regional, multi-lateral agreement that may result from ongoing discussions described in this report.) U.S. and Cuban government agencies should fund and facilitate collaborative research on baseline science of shared marine resources in the Western Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. The high level of connectivity between the two countries underscores that developing baseline science is an imperative that should not wait for a disaster to occur. These and other recommendations in this report are pragmatic and fully consistent with those put forth by the National Commission on the

co-chair of the commission and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, William K. Reilly, concurs that environmental cooperation is as critical to U.S. interests as it is to Cubas. Our priority with Cuba should be to make safety and environmental
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The response the equivalent of drug interdiction and weather exchange information, both of which we have very open, cooperative p olicies with the Cuban government, Reilly said.

Finally, we are hopeful that the Cuban government will continue to expand its promising energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, so as to minimize fossil fuel reliance and to mitigate environmental threats on the island and beyond.

Mutual interests increase cooperation Frank 09- journalist in Havana, ABC News (Mark, February 25, 2009, ABC News,Optimism Marks Future for U.S.-Cuba
Relations)//JW The dawn of President Obama and twilight of the Castro brothers' rule has shifted discussion on U.S.-Cuban relations in both countries and around the world from whether they will improve to how quickly and how far normalization might proceed. Outside the Copelia ice cream parlor in downtown Havana, the young people waiting to be served recently were all smiles, twinkling eyes and talkative when asked about Obama. They had great expectations. "It is hard to imagine life without the embargo but we will know it soon enough," Carlos Diaremos, a Havana University student, said with a big grin as ellow students around him nodded in agreement. U.S. congressional staffers have been passing through Havana this year to get the lay of the land. All agree change

is in the wind but will take time and begin with increased cooperation in areas of mutual interest such as the environment, drug trafficking, immigration. Perhaps Cuba will be taken off the State Department's terrorist list.

Richard Lugar of Indiana, the leading Republican on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this week called for a full review of U.S. policy toward the communist-run Island, a loosening of travel restrictions and increased cooperation in security-related areas. Organizations that have worked for years in the U.S. Congress to lift sanctions on Cuba reported that corporations and business groups that had been discouraged and intimidated into silence by the Bush administration now feel free to lobby Congress and the president. The American Farm Bureau, American Society of Travel Agents, National Retail Association, American Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and many other organizations have already called for an end to the trade embargo, especially in light of Cuba's economic problems. A bill eliminating all travel restrictions to Cuba has already been introduced in Congress this year and is given a fair chance of passage. Adding to expectations that fundamental change is near are demands from Latin America that sanctions end, and a gradual shift in the traditional uncompromising attitude toward the island in Miami, home to close to 1 million Cuban-Americans. Rolling Back Bush-era Measures "I believe that the style of the Obama

administration lends itself to giving up the regime change policy and adopting one of critical and constructive engagement," said Vicki Huddleston, head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana during the last years of the
Clinton administration and first of the Bush administration. The two countries do not have diplomatic relations but maintain lower level representations in each other's capitals. "I think we should act unilaterally and do what is in our interests because greater human contact, broader flow of information, and better lives for Cubans will, in my view, lead to a more open Cuba, and removing the U.S. threat shifts the onus for change from Washington and Miami to Havana," said Huddleston, who served on Obama's transition team on Africa. Obama has already announced he would lift restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to their homeland and sending money to relatives, and he is expected to quickly roll back Bush-era measures that limit contact between professionals from both countries and end its provocative and threatening rhetoric. Western diplomatic sources said initial changes would be announced before Obama meets with regional leaders at the Americas Summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April. A group of U.S. experts received quick approval from the Obama administration to attend a geology conference in Havana next month, the

organizers of the event told Reuters. Obama has ordered a review of Cuba policy, but says he will hold on to the trade embargo for now to pressure Cuba, a position he may well have to soften if he hopes to truly engage Havana even as ever more strident demands from Latin America and the United Nations to unilaterally lift sanctions test his pledge of international partnership. "Obama is too intelligent to ignore the "Pink Tide," the election of 11 socialist or social democratic governments, "in Latin America in recent years and more than a decade of near unanimous votes against the embargo in the United Nations," said John Kirk, a Latin American expert at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Latin American Steps Up the Pressure Brazil, seen as key to Washington's strategy of holding back the revolutionary trend in the area represented by governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere, has been particularly strident. "I hope the blockade of Cuba ends, because it no longer has any justification in the history of humanity,'' Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in November at an area summit that welcomed Cuba back into the fold and apologized for allying with the United States against the island in the past. The presidents of Panama, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala and Venezuela have visited Havana since November, with Honduras expected in March and Mexico in April. Cuban President Raul Castro, 77, and former President Fidel Castro, 82, have heaped praise on Obama while trying to dampen expectations that he will radically change U.S. policy at home or abroad as they position the country for inevitable talks. "We won't respond to the carrot and stick, but are ready to make gesture for gesture," Raul Castro has repeatedly said. Rafael Hernandez, a leading Cuban intellectual and editor of the oft-critical Temas Magazine, said normalization was inevitable and opened up new opportunities and risks for his country. "The biggest challenge Cuba faces in the coming years is normalization of relations with the United States," he said. "That will be something we are not used to after the 50 years of threats and sanctions we have suffered but also grown accustomed to."

Cubas strong environmental interests allows for short and long term cooperation with US firms CDA 11 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, Oil, Energy, and Cooperation, 2011,
http://www.democracyinamericas.org/cuba/cuba-trip-reports/oil-energy-and-cooperation/ ) //JW Delegation Summary: The Center for Democracy in the Americas hosted a trip to Cuba that took place July 8th through 12th 2010 for a delegation that consisted of our staff, 2 Congressional staff, and 3 energy experts: Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, Lisa Margonelli from the New America Foundation, and Ron Soligo of Rice University. This trip had two dimensions: political and energy-related. CDA typically visits Cuba two-three times per year, using our Treasury Department license, to conduct research and fact-finding on developments in Cuba and the impact of U.S. policy. Because this trip started the day that the agreement was announced by the Cuban Catholic Church on the release of political prisoners, it turned accident a critical moment to be in Cuba. We had several important meetings with the Church, members of civil society, foreign diplomats and others, which bore upon that event and its larger significance. We wrote about the prisoner release here. Political developments in Cuba, and the U.S. response to them, remains of compelling interest to us. But the main

out to be quite by

focus of our visit to Cuba was energy and climate related issues. CDA has been interested in Cubas off-shore oil

resources for years. We have visited drilling facilities, we have toured Matanzas where imported oil lands from tankers, and met with Cuban energy officials. We published a book in 2009 that used cooperation on energy development to illustrate one of several ways the U.S. could engage with Cuba. We have been planning to bring energy experts to the island for two years, to meet with Cubans and foreigners, to learn about how Cuba intends to exploit its off-shore oil reserves, its policies on foreign investment, the potential impact for Cuba if oil is found in commercially viable amounts, and the effect of the U.S. embargo both on Cuba and the U.S. as an obstacle to Cubas oil program. We are writing a report on that trip. But in this space we will summarize what we learned, with the understanding that a detailed document will be issued by CDA in the near future. One sentence neatly captures what is happening in Cuba regarding energy and why it should interest and concern us: Repsol, a Spanish oil company is paying an Italian firm, to build an oil rig in China that will be used next year to explore for oil off the shores of Cuba. What this means is that Cuba has oil. Whether its available in commercially viable amounts we do not yet know. Repsol will begin drilling exploratory wells next year. We were told by sources in Cuba that seven such wells will be drilled throughout 2011-2012. If this drilling finds significant oil, production could take place as early as 2014 and as late as 2018 (estimates vary). A significant oil strike, even before production takes place, will likely render the U.S. embargo moot, and change the political and economic climate of the Hemisphere in profoundly important ways. Unless U.S. policy changes, however, American firms will be locked out of the exploration process. Similarly, while Cuba has strong environmental interests and practices in place, current

policy only allows for piecemeal approaches that would enable U.S. firms to cooperate with Cuba if there is another disaster like the BP spill. This problem would grow worse if Rep. Ros-Lehtinens legislation which would apply Helms-Burton style sanctions to foreign firms operating in the Gulf were to become law. Policy makers should instead take positive short-and long-term steps to address this issue in terms of energy development and environmental protection. We strongly believe that the U.S. has an interest in Cuba finding these
resources and having U.S. firms participate in that process, and engaging U.S. expertise in protecting the environment.

BP oil response set an unprecedented foundation for cooperation on environmental protection Whittle 12- Cuba Program Director , Environmental Defense Fund (Daniel, September 7, 2012, CUBA CENTRAL
Newsblast: Not Like Oil and Water Cuba and the US Can Cooperate on Drilling, Democracy in Americas http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/cuba-central-newsblast-not-like-oil-and-water-cuba-and-the-us-can-cooperateon-drilling/)// JW

The Environmental Defense Fund recently released a report called Bridging

the Gulf in which we concluded that current U.S. A failure to cooperate on oil spill planning, prevention, and response in the Gulf of Mexico could result in devastating environmental and economic impacts on a scale greater than the 2010 BP oil disaster. Recently, I witnessed a potential bright spot in US-Cuba relations that could lead to real and meaningful cooperation in protecting Cuban and American shores from future oil spills. As the Venezuelan state oil
foreign policy on Cuba creates a conspicuous blind spot that is detrimental to the interests of both countries. company PDVSA was preparing to drill off of Cubas northwest coast in August, U.S. and Cuban negotiators met in Mexico City to discuss how to work together to prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The meeting was the fourth in a series of landmark talks hosted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and included officials from Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas, and other countries in the region. I was among the handful of industry and environmental representatives invited to attend. I was struck by the candid back-and-forth discussions on the risks involved in deep water oil drilling and by the constructive exchanges between delegates from Cuba and the United States. I came away convinced that negotiators from both countries are operating in good faith and are committed to making progress on this issue. That being said, more needs to be done. Attendees agreed that the BP oil disaster was a wake-up call and that failure to heed

the lessons learned from it would be an inexcusable and costly mistake. Chief among those lessons is that oil spills do not observe political boundaries and, as such, joint planning among all countries in the region is critical. The event also taught us that sufficient public and private resources must be available to contain and clean-up oil pollution as soon as possible. In fact, the scale of response needed for the BP spill was unprecedented6,500 vessels, 125 planes, 48,000 responders, and equipment resourced

globally. Several presenters in Mexico City emphasized that full and timely access to private sector equipment and response personnel, wherever they are located, is fundamental to responding effectively to future oil spills. This lesson is particularly relevant to the current U.S.-Cuba talks. If a major oil spill were to occur in Cuban waters anytime soon, the U.S. Coast Guardas incident commanderwould be able to marshal the resources needed to address oil pollution after it enters our waters. The agency has neither the authority nor the mandate, however, to support response and clean-up activities in Cuban waters. Furthermore, the Cuban government would be hamstrung in its ability to solicit direct help from private sector oil spill response companies in the United States. Currently, only a few American companies are licensed by the U.S. government to work in Cuba (actual names and numbers of license holders are not a matter of public record.). The Obama Administration could solve this problem by directing the Treasury Department to adopt a new category of general licenses to allow U.S. individuals from qualified oil services and equipment companies to travel to Cuba and provide technical expertise in the event of an oil disaster. The Administration should also direct the Commerce Department to pre-approve licenses for the temporary export of U.S. equipment, vessels, and technology to Cuba for use during a significant oil spill. The U.S. and Cuba have laid an unprecedented foundation for

cooperation on offshore oil safety and environmental protection.

They should continue their talks in earnest and produce a written agreement on joint planning, preparedness and response as soon as possible.

Answers To

AT Say No
Cuba will say yes but precondition is keyrobust partnership for environmental sustainability must be in place first

Conell 09-Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Christina, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental
Duo?, 6/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo//VS)

Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The

U.S., although a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States
unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. This

decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cubas substandard environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological public image in the international arena. The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cubas written regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development initiatives in the future ,
yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cubas bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure .

If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and plans for

environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island.

Cuba will say yeswants to exemplify its conservation proclivities Ali 12-director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, and Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of
Queensland, Australia (on extended professional leave from his tenure at the University of Vermont, USA). Dr. Ali is a National Geographic Emerging Explorer for 2010 and author of "Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed and a Sustainable Future" (Yale University Press) (Saleem, Greening Diplomacy with Cuba, 6/16/2012, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/16/greening-diplomacy-with-cuba//VS)

The Cuban government has noted that environmental cooperation can provide an opportunity for diplomatic engagement with the United States. There are also domestic indications that environmental issues are increasingly being recognized in Cuba as a priority as exemplified by a speech given by Raul Castro in 2009 in which he decided to not allow expansion of nickel mining near Humboldt National Park. Daniel Whittle, Cuba program director for the Environmental Defense Fund notes that Cuba has undertaken some remarkable steps to exemplify their conservation proclivities. For example the country has set a target to have 25% of the island as a protected area by international conservation definitions (this number is around 8% for the United States). Whittle also notes a gradual softening of stances from the Cuban diaspora, recalling a statement by former Florida senator Mel Martinez in a valedictory speech before leaving Congress in 2009 that environmental cooperation could provide a firmer basis for trust. The Environmental Defense Fund has also noted that the Cuban government is now more willing to share data with US researchers and the credibility of the information is improving with far more internal critique of ecological concerns discussed in the National Environmental Strategy of the country. Part of the reason behind Cuban proclivities towards environmentalism can be traced to Antonio Nunez Jimenz, a firm friend of Fidel Castro who was actively engaged in the revolution but was personally a conservationists. Most
environmental researchers visiting Cuba are escorted to the Foundation named in his honor by the Cuban government. Jimenez was an explorer in the classic tradition, traveling by canoe from the Amazon region all the way to Cuba to show that such a journey was possible in ancient history leading to human migration from the south as well as the north to the island. He also used

his influence with Castro to promote conservation. On one occasion, Jimenez convinced Castro to stop the construction of a

hydroelectric dam which would have impacted a sensitive wildlife habitat in the west of the island. The Jimenez foundation continues its conservation work and in recent years its staff have been able to travel to the US fairly often for collaborations. However,negotiations at the governmental level on environmental issues remain elusive,
despite the presence of a US Interests section in Havana.

Cuba will say yesCP is mutually beneficial CDA 11 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. policy poses needless risks to our
national interest, 2011, http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf//VS)
4. The

U.S. should enter direct discussions with Cuba on energy and environmental cooperation. Officials speaking to the CDA delegation at CITMA, the ministry with environmental oversight, said that Cuba would welcome cooperation with the United States on energy and climate issues . They referred to earlier environmental projects
regarding sharks, turtles, dolphins, and migratory birds. Referring to the BP spill, they said: what is going on (now) creates new areas where we could do more work.84 Lisa Margonelli recommends that the

U.S. and Cuba should talk about standards for drilling and safety, on which the U.S. and Cuba have shared interests.85 According to one official at Cubas Ministry of Foreign Relations, Cuba did propose an environmental
protecting fisheries, and responses to possible damage during storms, all issues

cooperation initiative during a 2010 round of the U.S.-Cuba migration talks . This official told our delegation that there was no meaningful U.S. response. In fairness, Cubas government is not always easy to deal with, either for bureaucratic, political, or ideological reasons. But under the circumstances, we should test how far they are willing to go. Cuba has shown a willingness to cooperate when possiblegranting 38 airspace for U.S. planes providing earthquake relief to Haiti, cooperating on drugs, and periodic, joint military exercises at Guantanamoand such cooperation will be essential in fighting a possible oil spill. As we learned in Haiti after the earthquake, and in the Gulf after the BP disaster, crises of these kinds will require heavy military and Coast Guard responses. Currently, most officials on each side do not know who their counterparts are. The U.S. and Cuban governments should agree to meaningful cooperation between their militariesThe Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (MINFAR) on the Cuban side and the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) on oursand the two countries Coast Guards. Increased military and Coast Guard cooperation, including exercises not directly related to oil spill response and clean up, will help build confidence and familiarity between many of the players if a spill does occur. The environmental benefits to such cooperation are clear. As Dr. Guggenheim told us, We are trying to protect species like sea turtles and sharks, and marine mammals like whales and dolphins, and fish
species like blue fin tuna that travel hundreds and thousands of miles across international borders. Their existence depends on the policies and practices of many countries. So we are kidding ourselves if we think we can protect those species without engaging the entire neighborhood, including Cuba. That means not only working together on policy issues but working together on science and gathering the basic information we need to support policy.86

Cuba will say yesUS is obstructing cooperation now framework for environmental cooperation key Conell 09-Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Christina, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental
Duo?, 6/12/2009, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo//VS) Cubas abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance Lifting

the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies With the support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and environmental protection on a global scale Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich island nation by moving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. Cuba is the most biologically diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If President Obama is sincerely

committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.s own backyard, where Cuba has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint solutions to environmental challenges.

Cuba will say yessmall scale cooperation now

CDA 12 (Center for Democracy in the Americas Not Like Oil and Water Cuba and the US Can Cooperate on Drilling, 9/7/2012,
http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/not-like-oil-and-water-cuba-and-the-us-can-cooperate-on-drilling//VS)

The Environmental Defense Fund recently released a report called Bridging the Gulf in which we concluded that current U.S. foreign policy on Cuba creates a conspicuous blind spot that is detrimental to the interests of both countries. A failure to cooperate on oil spill planning, prevention, and response in the Gulf of Mexico could result in devastating environmental and economic impacts on a scale greater than the 2010 BP oil disaster. Recently, I witnessed a potential bright spot in US-Cuba relations that could lead to real and meaningful cooperation in protecting Cuban and American shores from future oil spills. As the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA was preparing to drill off of Cubas northwest coast in August, U.S. and Cuban negotiators met in Mexico City to discuss how to work together to prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The
meeting was the fourth in a series of landmark talks hosted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and included officials from Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas, and other countries in the region. I was among the handful of industry and environmental representatives invited to attend.

I was struck by the candid back-and-forth discussions on the risks involved in deep water oil drilling and by the constructive exchanges between delegates from Cuba and the United States. I came away convinced that negotiators from both countries are operating in good faith and are committed to making progress on this issue. That being said, more needs to be done . Attendees agreed that the BP oil disaster was a
wake-up call and that failure to heed the lessons learned from it would be an inexcusable and costly mistake. Chief among those lessons is that

oil spills do not observe political boundaries and, as such, joint planning among all countries in the region is critical. The event also taught us that sufficient public and private resources must be available to contain and clean-up oil pollution as
soon as possible.

Cuba will say yessmall cooperation initiatives now

Boom 12- director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden (Brian
M.,Biodiversity without Borders, 8/14/2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders//VS) Current Situation of Environmental Cooperation Both Cuban

and U.S. environmental scientists are aware of the shared urgent and emerging environmental challenges outlined in the previous sections. However, many scientists on both sides of
the Florida Straits remain frustrated that more cannot be done to identify, study, and solve these challenges in a collaborative fashion. On the other hand, there

is increasingly a palpable sense among environmental scientists in both Cuba and the United States that the opportunities for bilateral collaboration are poised to expand. This was underscored by
an April 2009 panel discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations concerning marine and coastal resources conservation hosted by the Brookings Institution and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Among many notable

elements of that event was the participation of U.S. government representatives (NOAA and the Department of State), which was a real breakthrough in expanding this discussion in the United States beyond the NGO community. A few months before the Brookings/EDF gathering, the American Council of Learned Societies/Social Science Research Council Working Group on Cuba and the Christopher Reynolds Foundation sponsored a two-day workshop. Workshop on the Future of Environmental Collaboration between the United States and Cuba, held in November 2008 in New York City, helped identify and define the issues that led to the Brookings/EDF
event and to a number of others. This workshop was attended by thirty-two representatives of environmental NGOs and private philanthropic foundations. One

of the outputs was a letter, dated December 11, 2008, which was signed by twelve CEOs of environmental NGOs, addressed to then President-elect Barack Obama urging him to take action to increase scientific exchange and collaboration between the United States and Cuba. The letter specifically suggested
issuing U.S. visas to Cuban scientists and conservation professionals; directing the U.S. Department of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to grant licenses to U.S. scientists and conservation professionals planning to collaborate with their Cuban colleagues; giving OFAC licenses to U.S. entities to enable Cuban scientists and conservation professionals to travel to third countries when U.S. funds are used; directing federal agencies, such as NOAA, to encourage more collaboration between U.S. and Cuban scientists and academic and conservation professionals; and amending OFAC regulations that govern educational exchanges between the United States and Cuba to allow more

flexibility. Another

major barometer for sensing a momentum in the direction of greater environmental collaboration is a series of meetingsfour to dateof a group that has come to be known as the Trinational Initiative for Marine Science and Conservation in the Gulf of Mexico & Western Caribbean. The Trinational Initiatives objective is to encourage increased collaborations between the trinationalsCuba, Mexico, and the United Stateson marine research and conservation issues. Membership of the group currently includes eight Cuban organizations, ten Mexican organizations, and fourteen U.S.-based organizations. Another recent example of improved environmental collaboration between Cuba and the United States was the U.S.-Cuba Conference on Hurricane Cooperation, sponsored by the Center for International Policy and held in December 2010 in Galveston, Texas. Participants from the U.S. private sector and policy makers and technical experts from both the United States and Cuba concluded
that communication concerning hurricane forecasting and early warning between the two countries is excellent.

AT Status Quo Solves

Status quo cooperation is insufficientdirect negotiations and environmental cooperation must take place before the embargo is lifted
Stephens 11- executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas (Sarah, Like oil and water in the gulf, 3/14/2011,
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-stephens-cuba-oil-20110314//VS)

As Cuba gets ready to drill, the Obama administration has limited options. It could do nothing. It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world. Or it could use its executive authority to cooperate with Cuba, despite the embargo, to ensure that drilling in the gulf protects our mutual interests. Since the 1990s, Cuba has showed a serious commitment to the environment, building an array of environmental policies, many based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience responding to major spills. And, like the U.S., Cuba has to balance its economic and environmental interests, and the environmental side will not always prevail. Against this backdrop, cooperation and engagement is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it. During the BP spill, Cuba permitted a vessel from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look for damage in Cuban waters. The Obama administration declared its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to the BP spill, and to others in the future that threaten Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists to attend an important environmental conference in Florida. But these modest measures are not sufficient . Members of Congress from Florida have introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies and U.S. firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in U.S. waters. These proposals will not stop Cuba from drilling; if enacted, Cuba's partners will disregard them, and they will make cooperation to protect our mutual coastal
environment even more difficult. Energy policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the embargo is an abiding threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign policy on the illusion that sanctions will cause Cuba's government to collapse or stop Cuba from developing its oil resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from addressing both the challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The

Obama administration should use its executive authority to guarantee that firms with the best equipment and greatest expertise are licensed in advance to fight the effects of any oil spills. The Treasury Department, which
enforces Cuba sanctions, should make clear to the private sector that efforts to protect drilling safety will not be met with adverse regulatory actions. The

U.S. government should commit to vigorous information-sharing with Cuba, and open direct negotiations with the Cuban government for environmental agreements modeled on cooperation that
exists with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors. Most of all, it should replace a policy predicated on Cuba failing with a diplomatic approach that recognizes Cuba's sovereignty. Only

then will our nation be able to respond effectively to what could become a new chapter in Cuba's history, and ours.

Cooperation now insufficientmore national cooperation key

CDA 12 (Center for Democracy in the Americas Not Like Oil and Water Cuba and the US Can Cooperate on Drilling, 9/7/2012,
http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/not-like-oil-and-water-cuba-and-the-us-can-cooperate-on-drilling//VS)

The Environmental Defense Fund recently released a report called Bridging the Gulf in which we concluded that current U.S. foreign policy on Cuba creates a conspicuous blind spot that is detrimental to the interests of both countries. A failure to cooperate on oil spill planning, prevention, and response in the Gulf of Mexico could result in devastating environmental and economic impacts on a scale greater than the 2010 BP oil disaster. Recently, I witnessed a potential bright spot in US-Cuba relations that could lead to real and meaningful cooperation in protecting Cuban and American shores from future oil spills. As the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA was preparing to drill off of Cubas northwest coast in August, U.S. and Cuban negotiators met in Mexico City to discuss how to work together to prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The
meeting was the fourth in a series of landmark talks hosted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and included officials from Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas, and other countries in the region. I was among the handful of industry and environmental representatives invited to attend.

I was struck by the candid back-and-forth discussions on the risks involved in deep water oil drilling and by the constructive exchanges between delegates from Cuba and the United States. I came

away convinced that negotiators from

both countries are operating in good faith and are committed to making progress on this issue. That being said, more needs to be done . Attendees agreed that the BP oil disaster was a
wake-up call and that failure to heed the lessons learned from it would be an inexcusable and costly mistake. Chief among those lessons is that

oil spills do not observe political boundaries and, as such, joint planning among all countries in the region is critical. The event also taught us that sufficient public and private resources must be available to contain and clean-up oil pollution as
soon as possible.

AT Cuba Env Bad Now

Isolation from tourism and economic development has kept Cubas marine environment unharmed Waitt 11-(The Waitt Foundation, "Cubas Unique Marine Resources", 2011, http://waittfoundation.org/cubas-unique-marineresources)//SC In 1996, the Cuban government set aside Jardines de la Reina as an 850 square mile marine reserve the largest in the Caribbean as part of a planned island-wide network of protected areas. Only 500 catch and release fishermen and 1,000 divers are permitted to enter the Gardens each year. Having been granted permission by the Cuban Government to explore their diverse marine habitat, the Waitt Foundations mission was to support a scientific expedition off of Cubas southern coast to characterize important areas for expanding and strengthening Cubas network of marine protected areas and to gather preliminary baseline information about biodiversity, reef fish and sharks. Exploring this underwater Eden was

a rare opportunity that allowed researchers to collect valuable data for analyzing possible future environmental threats to this relatively unspoiled patch of ocean. Cubas natural marine environment is world class, but at a critical juncture. During five decades of isolation from mass tourism and rapid economic development, Cubas marine and coastal resources have thrived. Its coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves abound with beauty and biodiversity, providing shelter and sustenance to more than 200 species of valuable fish, crustaceans, mollusks and sponges. As both the gateway to the Gulf of
Mexico and the crown jewel of the Caribbean, Cuba and its natural resources provide important regional benefits to the United States and Mexico as well as the rest of the insular Caribbean.

Aff

Solvency Deficit - Travel Restrictions

Travel restrictions strengthen the regime, kill relations, and catalyze US economic decline

Sullivan 11-Specialist in Latin American affairs (Mark P., Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel
and Remittances, 1/07/2011, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/155003.pdf//VS) Those who argue in favor of lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba contend

that the travel ban hinders U.S. efforts to influence political and economic conditions in Cuba. They maintain that the best way to realize change in Cuba is to lift restrictions, allowing a flood of U.S. citizens to travel and engage in
conversations with average Cubans. They point to the influence of person-to person contact in Russia and Eastern European nations, which they argue ultimately helped lead to the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc. They maintain that restricting

travel by ordinary Americans prevents interaction and information exchanges with ordinary Cubans, exchanges that can help break down the Cuban governments tight control and manipulation of news; that the current travel ban actually supports the Cuban government in its efforts to restrict information provided to the Cuban people; and that it in effect supports the Cuban governments totalitarian control over the Cuban nation. A second argument made by those who want to lift travel restrictions is

that the ban abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel. They contend that such restrictions on the right to travel subvert the first amendment right of free speech. They maintain that the U.S. government should not limit the categories of travelers who can visit Cuba or subject many prospective travelers to the requirement of applying for specific licenses, subject to denial, in order to engage in peopleto- people contact. Those in favor of lifting the travel ban also argue that U.S. citizens can travel to other communist or authoritarian governments around the world, such as the Peoples Republic of China, Vietnam, Burma, and Iran. They point out that Americans could travel to the Soviet Union before its breakup. Supporters of changing travel policy toward Cuba argue that their proposals would still allow the President to prohibit such travel in times of war or armed hostilities, or if there were imminent danger to the health or safety of Americans. They argue that these conditions do not exist with regard to Cuba, and point to a May 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency report that concluded that Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.39 Those arguing for lifting travel restrictions also point to human

rights activists in Cuba who themselves argue for the lifting of such sanctions. According to the prominent Cuban human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez: The more Americans on the streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society in Cuba.40 Miriam Leiva, founder of the Ladies in White
human rights group, and Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a formerly jailed independent economist on conditional release, support lifting travel restrictions for all Americans, maintaining that Americans could help Cubas efforts for democracy by

sharing simple conversation and sharing every-day experiences with Cubans.41 Supporters of lifting the travel ban maintain that such a move could be done without lifting the underlying U.S. embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba. They point to the 1977- 1982 period when the travel ban was essentially lifted, but the overall embargo remained in place. Finally, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S. economy would benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, which reportedly would expand U.S. economic output. According to a report prepared for the Center for International Policy, a policy group that advocates lifting the embargo, U.S. economic output would expand by $1.18 billion- $1.61 billion, with the creation of between 16,888 and 23,020 jobs if travel restrictions were lifted.42

Env Leadership Inevitable

U.S. environmental leadership is inevitable

Hayward 08 - F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, AEI (Steven, The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?, 2/1/2008,
AEI http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-united-states-and-the-environment-laggard-or-leader/ )//JW If there is one country that bears the most responsibility for the lack of progress on international environmental issues, it is the United States. -Gus Speth, Red Sky at Dawn[1] Sadly, our nation is also at present the biggest engine of ecological destruction on Earth, the chief (but by no means only) force keeping humanity on collision course with the natural world. --Paul and Anne Ehrlich, One with Nineveh[2] U.S. Given Poor Marks on the Environment --New York Times headline, January 23, 2008 To borrow the blunt language of Generation X and the "Millennials," does the United States suck when it comes to the environment? Contrary

to the perception expressed in the epigraphs above, the answer turns out to be a resounding No; the United States remains the world's environmental leader and is likely to continue as such. But to paraphrase the old slogan of the propagandist, if a misperception is repeated long enough, it will become an unshakeable belief. Environmental improvement in the United States has been substantial and dramatic almost across the board, as my annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators and other books and reports like it have shown for more than a decade.[3] The
chief drivers of this improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, innovation in pollution control technology, and the deepening of environmental values among the American public that have translated into changed behavior and consumer preferences. Government regulation has played a vital role to be sure, but in the grand scheme of things, regulation can be understood as a lagging indicator that often achieves results at needlessly high cost. Were it not for rising affluence and technological innovation, regulation would have much the same effect as King Canute commanding the tides. But in a variation of the old complaint "what have you done for me lately?" there is widespread perception that the United States lags behind Europe and other leading nations on environmental performance. This perception is more strongly held abroad than here in the United States. Yale University's Daniel Esty, the chief author of the World Economic Forum's very useful Environmental Performance Index (EPI)--a new iteration of which appeared in January of this year[4]--notes an interesting irony on this point. In the EPI's 2006 ranking of 133 nations, the United States ranked twenty-eighth, based on the study's comparison of sixteen key indicators. When he presents these findings in the United States, Esty reports, some audiences often ask how it is that the United States scores so poorly on the rankings, Americans being used to appearing near the very top of all international rankings of good things. In Europe, Esty says, audiences wonder how it is possible that the United States scores so high in the rankings--surely there must be some dreadful mistake in the methodology that gives the United States the unjustified high rank of twenty-eighth place![5]

Alt C Env Leadership

US environmental leadership has faltered due to lack of response and delays in Congress to ratify treaties CPR 12 - research and educational organization comprising a network of scholars across the nation dedicated to protecting
health, safety, and the environment through analysis and commentary (Center for Progressive Reform, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties, 1/2012, http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/International_Environmental_Treaties_1201.pdf)//JW For more than a century, the United States has taken the lead in organizing international responses to international environmental problems. The long list of environmental agreements spearheaded by the United States extends from early treaties with Canada and Mexico on boundary waters and migratory birds to global agreements restricting trade in endangered species and protecting against ozone depletion. In the last two decades, however, U.S. environmental leadership has faltered. The

best known example is the lack of an effective response to climate change, underscored by the U.S. decision not to join the Kyoto Protocol. But that is not the only shortfall. The United States has also failed to join a large and growing number of treaties directed at other environmental threats, including marine pollution, the loss of biological diversity, persistent organic pollutants, and trade in toxic substances. In this paper, we urge the U.S. government to ratify ten of these treaties. We focus on these

agreements not only because they address important environmental problems, but also because they do not cause the fierce partisan debate that has unfortunately hampered U.S. policy toward climate change. All ten of these agreements enjoy bipartisan support. All ten have been signed by the United States: five by Republican administrations and five by Democratic administrations. Signatures alone do not make these treaties binding. The treaties must also be ratified, which generally requires that the Senate provide its advice and consent by a two-thirds vote. In some cases, implementing legislation must be enacted by both houses of Congress. It is here that the process has broken down. The Executive Branch has sent each of these agreements to the Senate, albeit sometimes after a lengthy delay.1 But the Senate has given its advice and consent to only one, which nevertheless still awaits the necessary implementing legislation. Both the Executive Branch and Congress have contributed to this problem. In some cases, presidential administrations have failed to urge prompt approval of an agreement or to propose implementing legislation. In others, the

Senate or Congress as a whole has failed to act despite encouragement from the Executive Branch. Although the reasons for the delays vary from treaty to treaty, the delays are alike in their unconscionable length. As Table 1 shows, the United States signed eight of the treaties more than a decade ago. A ninth treaty has been waiting
nine years. The average time since signature is 13 years, and the average time for those pending Senate approval is more than eight years.

Alt causes to lack of US environmental leadership DeSombre 10 Director of Environmental Studies Program, Wellesey College (Elizabeth, The United States and Global
Environmental Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Unilateralism, 2010, SAGE, http://www.polisci.ufl.edu/usfpinstitute/2010/documents/readings/DeSombre%20Chapter.pdf)//JW When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in November 2008 he promised to renew American diplomacy,3 and to make the U.S. a leader on climate change.4 Environmentalists rejoiced, hoping for an en d to the George W. Bush era of reduced domestic environmental regulation and rejected international environmental engagement. But in evaluating the likelihood of a return to U.S. international environmental leadership it is essential to understand the history of the U.S. role in environmental diplomacy and the factors that underlie the positions the United States takes on international environmental issues. The history of U.S. engagement with international environmental issues is complex. In the 1970s the United States emerged as a real leader on the development of international environmental agreements, working to negotiate agreements on international trade in endangered species, ocean pollution, and, later, to protect the ozone layer. But the decline in that leadership was evident long before George W. Bush was elected. It was most apparent at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Of the two binding agreements signed there, the United States signed but refused to ratify

the Convention on Biological Diversity. The United States and Global Environmental Politics (and has not signed its
Biosafety Protocol) and signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (after working to weaken it) but refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to that agreement, negotiated later, which contained actual abatement obligations. But the

U.S. refusal to participate in important international environmental agreements began even earlier. Its lack of ratification of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and

Their Disposal (1989) and related treaties on transborder movement of other toxic materials suggests that it managed to avoid important global environmental obligations before Rio. Its public and sudden refusal to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), at least partially for reasons relating to how it addressed access to resources of the deep seabed, extends this pattern further back in time. To be sure, the effect of the administration of George W. Bush on the U.S. role in international environmental politics should not be overlooked. Most important was his role on climate change, and the stated desire of the United States to unsign the Kyoto Protocol.5 U.S. unwillingness to participate delayed the protocols entry into force and weakened the agreement because without the United States it needed the participation of almost all industrialized countries, many of which also

refused to go along until their obligations were made more flexible and less onerous. It also arguably decreased the likelihood that those states that did take on obligations would meet them. Without serious action by the United States to decrease emissions, other states knew their actions could not make a serious impact on the climate system. Canadas decision to not meet its Kyoto obligations, for instance, made reference to the U.S. absence from the UN climate negotiation process.6 In addition, the recent unilateral behavior of the United States is not restricted to issues of environmental cooperation; even apart from broader difficulties with the United Nations over Iraq, the United States has refused to join the International Criminal Court; to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997); or to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996), to name just a few recent issues. The recent unwillingness of the United

States to leador even join efforts at multilateral environmental cooperation in the postCold War world thus seems overdetermined: it is neither an entirely new phenomenon, nor one restricted to environmental issues, and it is certainly not one that can be attributed to the administration of George W. Bush. It is an essential trend to understand, given a U.S. history of strong domestic
environmental action, previous U.S. leadership on global environmental issues, the importance of the United States for addressing global environmental issues, and a new administration that promises increased engagement with the world community. When does the United States lead in addressing global environmental problems, and when does it refuse even to go along ? A variety of

approaches explains U.S. action in terms of broader characteristics of the country or its 194 ideological goals, the degree of uncertainty about the environmental problem, the ecological vulnerability of the United States or the costs of taking action on the issue in question, or the domestic political power of industrial actors likely to bear those costs. Ultimately the most promising explanation for the pattern of U.S. unilateralism on international environmental issues involves characteristics of the domestic political system and the way in which national policymaking relates to international negotiations. The issues on which the United States leads internationally are
those on which it has previously regulated domestically. The intersection between domestic politics and international relations can go a long way toward explaining what we see, and what we should expect, from U.S. environmental leadership. It also explains why, despite the particularly unilateralist bent of the George W. Bush administration, it is less the actions or the party of the president that matters, and much more the regulatory processes undertaken by Congress that provide an explanation for U.S. environmental leadership or lack thereof. If we want to understand what the United States has chosen to pursue or avoid internationally in terms of environmental policy, and predict what future leadership is likely, we need to look at what it has regulated or shunned domestically.

US falls behind on environmental policypoor economic security Scorse 11- Associate Professor and Chair of the International Environmental Policy (Jason, Why the U.S. is No Longer a
Leader in Environmental Policy , Progressive Policy Institute, 4/22/2011, http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/04/why-the-u-sis-no-longer-a-leader-in-environmental-policy/)//JW

The past decade has been extremely depressing for the U.S. environmental community. Rather than lead the world on climate and energy policy, the U.S. has fallen further behind our developed-world allies, and now even lags behind rising powers such as China and Brazil. The

question arises: Why has America not been able to muster the political will to usher in a clean energy future and join forces with the other rich (and not so rich) nations of the world to combat climate change? The answer is, of course, complex. Institutional

barriers in the American political system favor rural states over urban ones and demand supermajorities that are almost impossible to muster; powerful industrial interests continue to disproportionately sway politicians while funding vast networks of misinformation; and one of our two major parties has embraced a virulently anti-science position that is unprecedented in modern history. But there is something even more fundamental that the environmental community has failed to grasp. Its not
that Germans, Canadians, Norwegians, and French have a greater love for the environment, or that these countries lack parochial and special interests and powerful corporations. Above all else, what differentiates Americans from these

other wealthy nations is our much greater degree of economic insecurity. The reality is that a bold new energy and climate change policy would inevitably result in dislocations in certain industries and upset long-established ways of life in many regions; in addition, it would lead to higher prices for basic commodities such as gas, home heating oil, and food. In societies where there are

strong social safety netsuniversal healthcare, universal preschool, strong support for new parents, significant investments in public transportation, and sustained support for higher education the changes wrought by a paradigm shift in energy will tend not to result in hugely destabilizing effects across whole towns and communities. In fact, with good planning and investments in critical infrastructure, strong environmental policies can result in overall improvements in the quality of life for nearly everyone. Throughout much of the developed world, citizens are willing to pay prices for gasoline that would lead to riots in American streets, because they know that the government revenue raised by high gas taxes is used for programs that directly benefit them. In other words, ten-dollar a gallon gas isnt such a big deal when everyone has great healthcare, great public transportation, and free high quality schooling. Many environmentalists criticized President Obama for using virtually all of his political capital to pass healthcare legislation before a comprehensive energy bill. Though many of the benefits of that healthcare bill wont go into effect unti l years

from now, and support for the legislation still suffers from the copious amounts of misinformation peddled by the bills detractors, the goal of universal healthcare will ultimately serve the environmental community. The question is whether it will be too late to matter. The bottom line is that people are much more willing to support environmental policies that come with large risks and disruptions to their way of life when other policies are in place to shield them from excessive risk and instability. Progressive environmental policies must rest on a foundation of broader investments in social safety nets. One of the primary reasons

that the U.S. has fallen behind the world on environmental policy is because we have fallen behind on virtually all measures of economic security; the two are intimately linked.

Squo Solves Oil Spills

Status quo solves spills U.S. drill inspections and safety discussions with Cuba Wall Street Journal, 12 (Cuba - Repsol's Cuba drilling rig complies with safety standards, 1/10, http://www.bpcplc.com/media-centre/noncompany-press-releases/cuba-repsol%27s-cuba-drilling-rig-complieswith-safety-standards.aspx)
U.S. officials said Monday a rig operated by Spain's Repsol YPF that is expected to drill offshore Cuba in the coming months complies with international and U.S. safety standards . 'U.S. personnel found the vessel to generally comply with existing international and U.S. standards by which Repsol

has pledged to abide,' the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said in the press release. The agency, however, noted that the vessel review 'does not confer any form of certification or endorsement under U.S. or international law' and that the U.S. has no legal or regulatory authority over the rig. The vessel, named Scarabeo 9, was inspected off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago and it will begin drilling a deep-water oil well later this year about 100 kms off the Florida Keys. Repsol, which does business in

the U.S., had agreed to let U.S. federal regulators inspect the rig

before it enters Cuban waters. The

rig's review was aimed at minimizing the possibility of a major oil spill, which would hurt U.S. economic and environmental interests, the regulatory agency said. While aboard the Scarabeo 9, U.S. officials reviewed vessel construction, drilling equipment, and safety systems--including lifesaving and firefighting equipment,
emergency generators, dynamic positioning systems, machinery spaces, and the blowout preventer, according to agency. In anticipation of increased drilling activities in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. is in discussions with the Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica and Mexico on a broad range of issues, including drilling safety, ocean modeling, and oil spill preparedness and response, in order to reduce the impact of a major pollution incident, the agency said.

Status quo solves inspection ensures compliance with U.S. standards Geman, 12 (Ben, Interior: Cuba-bound drilling rig generally meets US standards, 1/9, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/203161-interior-cuba-bound-drilling-rig-generallymeets-us-standards) The deepwater drilling rig that Spanish oil giant Repsol will use for planned oil exploration off Cubas coast is getting a clean bill of health from U.S. officials. The United States has no regulatory authority over the drilling, but an Interior Department and Coast Guard team was invited to inspect the Scarabeo 9 rig by Repsol, a check-up that comes as planned drilling off Cubas coast draws criticism from several U.S. lawmakers. The review compared the vessel with applicable international safety and security standards as well as U.S. standards for drilling units operating in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. personnel found the vessel to generally comply with existing international and U.S. standards by which Repsol has
pledged to abide, the U.S. agencies said in a joint statement Monday upon completion of the review. The U.S. team reviewed drilling equipment, safety systems such as firefighting equipment and the units blowout preventer and other aspects of the rig. A num ber of U.S. lawmakers critical of the Cuban government have criticized Repsols planned project, noting it will bring revenues to the Cuban regime and that a spill could threaten nearby U.S. shores. More on that here, here and here. The review is consistent with

U.S. efforts to minimize the possibility of a major oil spill, which would hurt U.S. economic and environmental interests, Interior and the Coast Guard said of the inspection, which occurred off the coast of Trinidad and
Tobago.

Status quo solves spills Cuba has agreed to ensure safety measures meet U.S. standards Padgett, 12 (Tim, The Oil Off Cuba: Washington and Havana Dance at Arms Length Over
Spill Prevention, 1/27, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2105598,00.html) On Christmas Eve, a massive, Chinese-made maritime oil rig, the Scarabeo 9, arrived at Trinidad and Tobago for inspection. The Spanish oil company Repsol YPF, which keeps regional headquarters in Trinidad, ferried it to the Caribbean to perform deep-ocean drilling off Cuba whose communist government believes as much as 20 billion barrels of crude may lie near the island's northwest coast. But it wasn't Cuban authorities who came aboard the Scarabeo 9 to give it the once-over : officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and Interior Department did, even though the rig won't be operating in U.S. waters. On any other occasion that might have raised the ire of the Cubans, who consider Washington their imperialista enemy. But the U.S. examination of the Scarabeo 9, which Repsol agreed to and Cuba abided, was part of an unusual choreography of cooperation between the two countries. Their otherwise bitter cold-war feud (they haven't had diplomatic relations since 1961) is best
known for a 50-year-long trade embargo and history's scariest nuclear standoff. Now, Cuba's commitment to offshore oil exploration drilling may start this weekend raises a specter that haunts both nations: an oil spill in the Florida Straits like the BP calamity that tarred the nearby Gulf of Mexico two years ago and left $40 billion in U.S. damages. The Straits, an equally vital body of water that's home to some of the world's most precious coral reefs, separates Havana and Key West, Florida, by a mere 90 miles. As a result, the U.S. has tacitly loosened its embargo against Cuba to give firms like Repsol easier access to the U.S. equipment they need to help avoid or contain possible spills. "Preventing drilling off Cuba better protects our interests than preparing for [a disaster] does," U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida tells TIME, noting the U.S. would prefer to stop the Cuban drilling but can't. "But the two are not mutually exclusive, and that's why we should aim to do both." Cuba

meanwhile has tacitly agreed to

ensure that its safety measures meet U.S. standards (not that U.S. standards proved all that golden during the 2010 BP disaster) and is letting unofficial U.S. delegations in to discuss the precautions being taken by Havana and the international oil companies it is contracting. No Cuban official would discuss the matter, but Dan
Whittle, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund in New York, who was part of one recent delegation, says the Cubans "seem very motivated to do the right thing."

Status quo solves spills U.S. drill inspections and safety discussions with Cuba Wall Street Journal, 12 (Cuba - Repsol's Cuba drilling rig complies with safety standards, 1/10, http://www.bpcplc.com/media-centre/noncompany-press-releases/cuba-repsol%27s-cuba-drilling-rig-complieswith-safety-standards.aspx)
U.S. officials said Monday a rig operated by Spain's Repsol YPF that is expected to drill offshore Cuba in the coming months complies with international and U.S. safety standards . 'U.S. personnel found the vessel to generally comply with existing international and U.S. standards by which Repsol

has pledged to abide,' the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said in the press release. The agency, however, noted that the vessel review 'does not confer any form of certification or endorsement under U.S. or international law' and that the U.S. has no legal or regulatory authority over the rig. The vessel, named Scarabeo 9, was inspected off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago and it will begin drilling a deep-water oil well later this year about 100 kms off the Florida Keys. Repsol, which does business in

the U.S., had agreed to let U.S. federal regulators inspect the rig

before it enters Cuban waters. The

rig's review was aimed at minimizing the possibility of a major oil spill, which would hurt U.S. economic and environmental interests, the regulatory agency said. While aboard the Scarabeo 9, U.S. officials reviewed vessel construction, drilling equipment, and safety systems--including lifesaving and firefighting equipment,
emergency generators, dynamic positioning systems, machinery spaces, and the blowout preventer, according to agency. In anticipation of increased drilling activities in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. is in discussions with the Bahamas, Cuba, Jamaica and Mexico on a broad range of issues, including drilling safety, ocean modeling, and oil spill preparedness and response, in order to reduce the impact of a major pollution incident, the agency said.

Alt C Reef Destruction

Alt causes to reef destruction hurricanes are the main cause of damage Bisch, 10 doctorate in philosophy, did research and development on coral reefs for his thesis ( B.G., 3/1, http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/ theses/ available/etd06252010-114813/unrestricted/Bischof_B_Dissertation_2010.pdf )//AK
hurricanes are the main causes of reef destruction, even as early as the several studies since have focused on the patterns of destruction and recovery from hurricanes, the overall message is that hurricanes can generate a severe environmental crisis across a large geographic area from which reefs can recover, although most often do not (Fig.1.1) (Connell 1997; Rogers 1993). And, regardless of what happens, there is little that can be done to shield them from the effects, even if circumstances are predictable. There are abundant rubble storm layers in just
In general, it is believed or often said that 1950s (Goreau 1959). Although

about any paleo-reef, which provide geologic evidence that storms have been inuencing coral growth patterns and species dominance for hundreds of millions of years. The question for many is not whether the reef area recovers or returns, but rather what exactly will be growing in these areas. Reef scientists are generally concerned that more frequent or more destructive storms, as is predicted with anthropogenic climate change discourses, could reduce the biodiversity on reefs to mainly stony mounded species, and that only if we are lucky, will not result in Scleractinians, i.e. stony reef-building corals, becoming increasingly scarce, and reefs ecosystems becoming dominated by soft corals and leafy algae (Blanchon et al 1997; Dollar and Tribble 1993; Gardner et al 2005). This issue therefore is also mostly driven by some deep desire to retain the coral reefs that represent ideal nature and the pristine and perfect rainforests of the sea that exist in remote reefs not drastically inuenced by human stressors.

Alt cause to reef destruction- water and coastal pollution Bisch, 10 doctorate in philosophy, did research and development on coral reefs for his thesis ( B.G., 3/1, http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/ theses/ available/etd06252010-114813/unrestricted/Bischof_B_Dissertation_2010.pdf )//AK
Although each reef region has its particular combination of local stressors, in the most general terms, the main stressors for any reef is anything that negatively affects its ambient water quality, and in coastal waters, inevitably includes land-based sources of pollution, which is among the most serious problems affecting reef environments today. This pollution is usually caused by untreated (or minimally treated) sewage outows, pesticides and other agricultural waste run-off, excessive sedimentation from excessive rainfall and river outows, usually associated with loose soils resulting from deforestation on higher ground, trash, and the direct impacts caused by increasing densities of people along the shore and the growth in recreational economies and coastal development that comes with them. Coastal pollution is therefore a main
local stressor over the long term, directly contributing to worsening water qualities. Land-based sources are substantial, but at the same time among the most difcult for marine managers to because of their direct connection to land-use regimes, which are considered outside of the jurisdictional realm of managing marine systems.

Alt cause to reef destruction coastal development ranks as a major disturbance

Lirman, 4/10 Professor of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Miami (2013, http://sofla mares.org/docs /MARES_ICEM _FKDT_v2_20120802pf _Appdx_HabitatsCorals.pdf)//AK

Coastal Development The impacts of coastal development and the stressors created by associated activities (sedimentation, eutrophication, solid and chemical wastes, overexploitation, physical impacts) have been -79-consistently ranked at the top of disturbance rankings having signi cant negative impacts on coral reefs and other coastal resources (Kleypas

and Eakin 2007; Waycott et al., 2009). In the Florida Keys, impacts of population growth and expanded need for both coastal and inland development on coral reefs and hardbottom communities are manifested mainly through the pathways or mechanisms listed below.

Alt cause to reef destruction- warming destroys reefs through ocean acidification and rising sea levels

Bisch, 10 doctorate in philosophy, did research and development on coral reefs for his thesis ( B.G., 3/1, http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/ theses/ available/etd06252010-114813/unrestricted/Bischof_B_Dissertation_2010.pdf )//AK
Global changes in atmospheric chemistry are also revealing themselves on reef systems, an issue that is gaining research momentum as its connections to climate change are made increasingly clear. It is also a unifying factor and provides a common ground of conservation concerns in the localized diversity of management concerns. Oceans are warming and oceans are acidifying. Despite the political posturing and blame-games
currently playing out in politics regarding global climate change, abundant evidence exists that supports both of those claims; however, how these physical changes affect the multidimensional and highly connected ecological and bio-geochemical feedback cycles inherent in the oceans is a matter of great ecological debate among reef scientists (Marubini et al 2008), and considered crucial to understand in contexts of developing effective conservation strategies (Knowlton 2001). Some scientists, often those with strong geological backgrounds, believe that the driver of decline for reefs is not CO2 in the atmosphere, given that during the Cretaceous Period in Earths history, reefs were at their most prolic in the geologic record, when levels were roughly seven times greater (Shinn 2010); while others, mostly biologists, maintain that CO2 (and its effects) will be the ultimate ecological assault on these systems (Buddemeir et al 2004; Hughes et al 2003). Regardless of the decision regarding the effects of CO2, some problems associated with warming have emerged as having serious political connections and grave implications regarding cultural and regional survival. The absorption of CO2 and rising temperatures have resulted in measured sea-

level rise, and many nations, particularly the low-lying atoll countries, are expected to literally vanish as sea-levels inch up, with some already forced to leave their homes as salt-water leeches up through the already poor soils, destroying crops and water resources in the lowest-lying atolls of Kiribati. The inability of coral to keep up with rising sea-levels has endangered not only Kiribati, but also Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives (Yamamoto and Esteban 2010).

Alt causes for reef destruction warming destroys reef through ocean acidification, diseases, increased sedimentation, and rising sea levels
Lirman, 4/10 Professor of Ecology and Earth Science, University of Miami (2013, http://sofla mares.org/docs /MARES_ICEM _FKDT_v2_20120802pf _Appdx_HabitatsCorals.pdf)//AK Temperature Extremes: One of the most worrisome predictions of Global Climate Change (GCC) scenarios for coral reefs is the projected increase in seawater temperatures over the upcoming decades (IPCC 2007). For coral reefs that are close to their thermal tolerance, increases in the intensity and frequency of warm-water anomalies can be catastrophic (Baker et al., 2008). The most

common response of corals to increased seawater temperature (commonly > 30 C for extended periods) is bleaching, or the expulsion of their endosymbiotic dino agellates (zooxanthellae). The loss of zooxanthellae represents a serious energetic drain as these microalgae provide their coral host with both nutrients and energy in the form reduced carbon compounds. While bleaching is a reversible process, extended bleaching can cause signi cant coral mortality as evidenced by the 2005 bleaching event that caused widespread mortality throughout the Caribbean region (Eakin et al., 2010). Finally, while high temperature can impact

corals directly, increased temperatures have also been correlated with a higher prevalence of diseases that can also cause signi cant coral mortality and would be an undesirable effect of GCC in the Florida Keys (Brandt and McManus, 2009; Miller et al., 2009). Sea-level Rise: Projected sea-level rise may in
uence both the condition of present coral reefs as well as the future distribution of these communities. Changes in water depth can in uence species distributions based on their speci c light limitations and may limit the abundance of reef or hardbottom species with high light requirements (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). Communities an species living at their physiological depth/light limits will be most affected. Similarly, flooding of coastal habitats may increased inputs of sediments and

nutrients with associated impacts on benthic organisms (as described in previous sections).Ocean

Acidication: With the realization that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will cause changes in the oceans ca rbonate chemistry leading to lower pH and lower saturation states of carbonate minerals, there is growing concern for the marine organisms like corals that use such materials to build and support their skeletal structures (Kleypas et al., 2006). Under GCC scenarios, it is predicted that calci cation rates will decrease up to 60% within the 21st century. The potential negative effects of

acidi cation on corals include reduced fecundity, reduced larval settlement, reduced larval survivorship, reduced coral growth and calci cation and, in the most extreme conditions, skeletal dissolution (Albright et al., 2010; Albright and Langdon, 2011). Similar impacts are expected on other calcifying
organisms like foraminifera, macroalgae, and macroinvertebrates. Limited information is presently available on the carbon chemistry of seawater on Florida reefs and hardbottom habitats.

No Extinction
No scenario for environmental destruction causing extinction Easterbrook, 3 Distinguished Fellow, Fulbright Foundation (Gregg, Were All Gonna
Die!, Wired Magazine, July, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=) If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People
and machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but

considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain .
Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.