T-its

1. We meet Gas leasing is federal development

NOAA No Date (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, GEORGIAS LISTED FEDERAL ACTIONS,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/media/ga.pdf, accessed 7/14/14)

Direct Federal Activities and Development Projects Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service: Fisheries Management Plans Endangered Species Act listings and Designation of Critical
Habitat Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers: Dredging, channel improvement, breakwaters, other
navigational works, erosion control structures, beach replenishment, dams or flood control works, and activities
and other projects with the potential to impact coastal lands and waters Land acquisition for spoil disposal or
other purposes Selection of disposal sites for dredged material from federal harbors and
navigation channels Department of Defense: Air Force, Army, and Navy: Location, design, and acquisition of
new or expanded defense installations (active or reserve status including associated housing, transportation, or
other facilities) Plans, procedures, and facilities for handling storage use zones Establishment of impact,
compatibility, or restricted use zones Disposal and reuse plans for military base closures General Services
Administration: Acquisition, location, and design of proposed federal government property or buildings, whether
leased or owned by the federal government Disposal and disposition of federal surplus lands and
structuresDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Land Management: Oil and gas leasing on federal landsDepartment
of Interior, Minerals Management Service: Oil and
Offshore sand mining leases Offshore mineral leases

gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf

2. Counter-interpretation Federal development include

licenses and permits
USDA 11 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, CHAPTER 110 - AGRICULTURE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS SUBCHAPTER N - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PART 110-50 - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
http://www.dm.usda.gov/pmd/AGPMRPart11050PropertyManagement.pdf, accessed 7/14/14)
(a) Agencies will coordinate all Direct Federal development projects in accordance with 7 C.F.R. 3015, Subpart V.
Direct

Federal development projects include: planning and construction of facilities and installations or
licenses and permits.

other public works, the acquisition, use and disposal of real property, and granting of

3. Prefer our interpretation

a) Education resource extraction affs are at the core of the
topic only ones with USFG key warrants and good solvency
advocates energy is necessary to understand the ocean
intrinsically tied to one another
b) Aff ground all federal ocean development is contracted out
to private companies the neg overlimits the topic by
excluding one half of the topic
4. No link to limits or ground the aff still mandates US federal
government action
5. Reasonability the burden should be on the neg to prove
that there doesnt exist any good interpretation that we meet
otherwise, it creates a race to the bottom as the neg tries to
limit out all the affs

TPA
Were actually gonna go line by line: answering UQ, Link, AND
Impact:
Non-unique: TPP and TPA support is dwindling
Jacobi 1/27 (Stephen, 1/27/15, executive director of the NZ-US Council, "Stephen
Jacobi: Clock ticks on trade talks as detractors grow", New Zealand Herald,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?
c_id=3&objectid=11392095]
the United States President and Congress have yet to agree on the over-riding
objectives of US trade policy. The Congressional election and the new US Congress, which has now taken
First,

office, may assist the passage of Trade Promotion Authority clarifying a way forward, provided President Barack

the Japanese
Government wishes to continue to protect so-called "sensitive" agricultural
products. The Diet election may have strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Abe,
but he still faces opposition from within his own party -- in that respect Abe and Obama are in
the same position. Third, there are substantive issues which negotiators have not been
able to resolve. Much has been agreed but this does not apply to market access,
largely because of the stand-off between the US and Japan, or to other issues -intellectual property, investment, state-owned enterprises and environment -- on
which other participants, including New Zealand, are unlikely to want to conclude
until the market access issue is settled. The conventional thinking is that if Trade
Promotion Authority is secured, it will strengthen the hand of the US in seeking a
conclusion to TPP. Japan could then be convinced to show greater flexibility in agriculture in anticipation of an
agreement, which would boost its productivity in other areas. This scenario is not impossible, but
political will, especially in the US Congress, is hard to predict. TPP has a growing
number of detractors and business is becoming weary of the time that has been
taken. Towards the middle of this year the early jockeying for next year's US
Presidential election will get under way. The political environment could well change
once again for TPP and negotiators may need to look to other avenues to achieve its
much-needed objectives.
Obama and the majority Republicans can overcome differences on other issues. Second,

Republicans and natural gas industry loves the plan

Clark 12 [Aaron, Obama Stance on Fossil Fuel Angers Industry, Bloomberg, 01/24/12,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/obama-claiming-credit-for-fossil-fuel-gains-angers-industry.html,
07/07/14]

Obama is taking credit for higher U.S. oil and gas production and lower
imports, angering industry groups and Republicans who say he is working
against domestic energy production. American energy will be a major theme of Obamas State of the
President Barack

Union address to Congress tonight, Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said in a briefing yesterday. In his first
campaign ad this year, Obama boasts that U.S. dependence on foreign oil is below 50 percent for the first time in

Since Obama took office, U.S. natural gas production averaged 1.89 trillion cubic
13 percent higher than the average during President George W. Bushs
two terms, according to Energy Department data. Crude oil production is 2 percent higher, the department said.
To be sure that is not because the White House meant for that to happen , said Pavel
Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James & Associates Inc. Republicans say the numbers are
13 years.

feet a month through October,

misleading. Onshore oil and gas production on federal lands directly under Obamas
control is down 40 percent compared to 10 years ago , according to Spencer Pederson, a
spokesman for Representative Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican and chairman of the House Natural
Resources Committee. In 2010, the U.S. signed the fewest number of offshore drilling leases since 1984. Drill Baby
Drill The

president is responding to what Americas gut feeling is, that we should

be less dependent on foreign oil, and hes trying to take credit for it , Hastings said in
an interview. His policies are exactly the opposite . Four years ago, Obama campaigned
against Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palins rally to Drill Baby Drill. Today he is highlighting fossil
fuel gains to blunt charges that his policies are contributing to higher energy costs, according to Tyson Slocum,
energy program director for Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group, said in an interview.
The Republican narrative is that Obama is shoveling huge amounts of money to his cronies in the renewable
industry, and blocking the real energy that American needs, Slocum said in an interview. Its a false narrative. The
administration has been focused on green energy, but they havent been against fossil fuels. Federal Leases In a

the American Petroleum Institute in Washington said that in two years

the number of new leases to drill on federal lands declined 44 percent to 1,053 in
January report,

2010. The report blamed new rules, policies and administrative actions that are not conducive to oil and natural

increasing production has come

despite Obamas policies, according to Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute
President. The U.S. needs a course correction on energy policy that includes
faster permitting on federal lands in the West and in the Gulf of Mexico , he said. The
gas production. Lower imports are the result of lower demand, and

group, whose members include Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest U.S. oil company, convened a conference call with
reporters today to comment on what Obama is expected to say on domestic energy in tonights address. We hope
that the actions match the words, Gerard said on the call. The

truth is that the administration has

sometimes paid lip service to more domestic energy development , including more oil and
natural gas development. Offshore Drilling The American Enterprise Institute, a Washington group that supports
free markets, called Obamas Jan. 18 decision to deny a permit for TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s $7 billion Keystone XL
oil pipeline, part of his crusade against fossil fuels. The

losses due to the Obama

administrations death-grip on offshore drilling and its unwillingness to open
federal lands or issue timely permits for exploration far outweigh any energy gains that
the White House may tout this week, Thomas Pyle, president of the Washington-based Institute for
Energy Research, said in a statement. Obama last year called on Congress to eliminate billions in taxpayer
subsidies for oil companies and to invest instead in renewable sources of power. In 2010, he proposed drilling for oil
and natural gas off the U.S. East Coast, weeks before BP Plc (BP/)s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico failed,
spewing 4.9 million barrels of oil and triggering a temporary administration ban on offshore exploration.

No impact either: Trade is irrelevant for war

Barbieri, 13 [Katherine, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina, Ph.D. in
Political Science from Binghamton University, Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or Source of Interstate
Conflict? Chapter 10 in Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research]

How does interdependence affect war, the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives the empirical
results. The rarity of wars makes any analysis of their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs,
the log-likelihood ratio tests for each model suggest that the inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the control variables improves our understanding of the factors
affecting the occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model. However, the individual interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with
contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant. Again, we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with unequal
power are more pacific than those with highly equal power. Surprisingly, no evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are less likely to

evidence from the pre-WWII period provides support for

those arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on affecting
leaders decisions to engage in war, but many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results should be interpreted
engage in wars with other democratic states. The

with caution, since the sample does not contain a sufficient number wars to allow us to capture great variations across different types of relationships. Many observations of war are
excluded from the sample by virtue of not having the corresponding explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an extremely strong influence on conflictas does contiguity

This study provides little empirical support for the liberal

proposition that trade provides a path to interstate peace. Even after controlling for
the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities, the
evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter conflict. Instead,
to find significant results.

7. Conclusions

economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it appears to
have little influence on the incidence of war. The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading
extensive

relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages. That is, extensive economic linkages, be they symmetrical or asymmetrical,
appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.

No impact to tradethey mix up correlation and causation

Keshk, 10 [Omar, senior lecturer in the Political Science Department at, and PhD in Political Science from,
Ohio State University; Rafael Reuveny, prof of international political economy and ecological economics at and PhD
from Indiana University; and Brian M. Pollins, emeritus Associate Prof of Political Science at Ohio State; Trade and
Conflict: Proximity, Country Size, and Measures, Conflict Management and Peace Science 2010 27: 3, SAGE
journals]

any signal that trade brings peace remains weak and inconsistent
regardless of the
model
The signal that conflict reduces trade
, is
strong and consistent international politics are clearly affecting dyadic trade,
while it is far less obvious whether trade
is conflict
dampening

In all,

way proximity is

ed in the conflict equation.

, in contrast

. Thus,

systematically affects dyadic politics, and if it does, whether that effect

or conflict amplifying. This is what we have termed in KPR (2004) The Primacy of Politics.

7. Conclusion

This study revisited the simultaneous equations model we presented in KPR (2004) and

subjected it to four important challenges. Two of these challenges concerned The specification of the conflict equation in our model regarding the role of inter- capital distance and the sizes of both sides in a dyad; one questioned the
bilateral trade data assumptions used in the treatment of zero and missing values, and one challenge suggested a focus on fatal MIDs as an alternative indicator to the widely used all-MID measure The theoretical and empirical
analyses used to explore proposed alternatives to our original work were instructive and the empirical results were informative, but there are certainly other legitimate issues that the trade and conflict research community may
continue to ponder. For example, researchers may continue to work on questions of missing bilateral trade data, attempt to move beyond the near- exclusive use of the MIDs data as we contemplate the meaning of military conflict,
and use, and extend the scope of, the Harvey Starr GIS-based border data as one way to treat contiguity with more sophistication than the typical binary variable. The single greatest lesson of this study is that future work studying

The results we obtained

yielded an important, measurable effect of conflict on trade
any study of the effect of trade on conflict that ignores this reverse
fact is practically guaranteed to produce estimates that contain simultaneity bias.
Such studies will claim that trade brings peace, when we now know that in a
much broader range of circumstances, it is peace that brings trade.
the effect of international trade on international military conflict needs to employ a simultaneous specification of the relationship between the two forces.

all

the 36 SEM alternatives we estimated

under

. Henceforth, we

would say with high confidence that

Our message to those who

would use conflict as one factor in a single-equation model of trade is only slightly less cautionary. They too face dangers in ignoring the other side of the coin. In one half of the 36 permutations we explored, the likelihood of dyadic
military conflict was influenced by trade flows. In most tests where this effect surfaced, it was positive, that is, trade made conflict more likely. But the direction of this effect is of no consequence for the larger lesson: trade modelers
ignore the simultaneity between international commerce and political enmity at their peril. They too run no small risk of finding themselves deceived by simultaneity bias. Our empirical findings show clearly that international
politics pushes commerce in a much broader range of circumstances than the reverse. In fact, we could find no combination of model choices, indicators, or data assumptions that failed to yield the result that dyadic conflict reduces

Liberal claims regarding the effect of dyadic trade on dyadic conflict simply
were not robust in our findings
dyadic trade.

. They survived in only 8 of the 36 tests we ran, and failed to hold up when certain data assumptions were altered, and were seriously

vulnerable to indicator choices regarding inter-capital distance, conflict, and national size.

Inherency
Our evidence is more recent: its literally from yesterday and
assumes their evidence as well. Obama opening up drilling still
doesnt solve: the impacts are inevitable without the plan.

Arctic Conflict

Gulf Spills

Solvency
Their Kalen evidence goes aff: its the same card we read in
our evidence and their author pushes for the plan.
Enerkol 14 goes aff too- it says OCS has little impact thats
the non-highlighted portion. The letter stated that oil and gas
available from OCS areas that are currently off-limits to drilling
is small compared to existing offshore leases