Verbatim Mac



Industry DAs Note This file includes three industry DAs: Agriculture, Defense Industrial Base with a REM focus, and Oil. There are cards for an Electricity Prices DA but it never came together. Shout out to Alex, Ruhee, Kaavya, Emma, Leah, Aarin, Anish, Francesca, Isabel, Madison, Nora, and Jack for putting multiple DAs together. ****Agriculture DA 1NC 1NC -- Ag DA A. Uniqueness -- Ag sector is recovering quickly from COVID but remains uncertain – sudden shocks collapse it.USDA 21 (US Department of Agriculture, “The Outlook for U.S. Agriculture – 2021; Building on Innovation: A Pathway to Resilience”, 2-19-2021, USDA: 97th Agriculture Outlook Forum, URL: , //RN)U.S. producers faced many challenges in 2020, and chief among them was the high level of uncertainty, price volatility, and market adjustments related to COVID-19. Impacts varied considerably by sector with some facing lockdowns that fundamentally changed consumer buying habits, such as the sharp drop in food consumption outside the home and increase in food consumed at home, the rise in telecommuting that reduced fuel ethanol demand, and the closure of educational and other institutions that shuttered most cafeterias (and many school lunch providers) nationwide. The livestock and dairy sectors were especially challenged as industry supply chains had to adjust product offerings and packaging to shift products from foodservice lines toward retail grocery or other outlets. This created a period of sharply lower prices for many commodities in the spring, but as conditions stabilized prices began to recover as the year progressed. Lawmakers and USDA responded rapidly to the challenging market conditions with several programs to offset agricultural losses and stabilize markets, including the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and the Farmers to Families Food Box Program. The CFAP programs provided more than $23 billion in direct payments to help compensate farmers for losses due to the pandemic, while the Farmers to Families Food Box program linked farmers to consumers, distributing more than 100 million boxes of food to people in need. Substantial modifications were made to SNAP, WIC, and school meals programs to provide increased and more flexible delivery of benefits to persons in need as well. USDA currently expects net cash income to finish 2020 at $136.2 billion, but to fall to $128.3 billion in 2021. We expect net farm income, which includes the value of inventory changes, to decrease $9.8 billion (8.1 percent) to $111.4 billion in 2021. Despite this decline, 2021 net farm income would still be 21 percent above its 2000-19 average of $92.1 billion. Cash receipts, for both crops and livestock, are forecast to increase in 2021, driven sharply higher on the strength of corn, soybeans, hogs, and cattle, increasing $20.4 billion (5.5 percent) to $390.8 billion (in nominal terms) in 2021. Total animal/animal product receipts are expected to increase $8.6 billion (5.2 percent) with increases in receipts for cattle/calves, hogs, and broilers, and total crop receipts are expected to increase $11.8 billion (5.8 percent) from 2020 levels, led by higher receipts for soybeans and corn on both increased production and strong prices. When combined, soybean and corn receipts are forecast to increase $16.1 billion (19 percent) in 2021, more than offsetting declines in fruits/nuts, vegetables/melons, and cotton and when combined with the contributions to cash receipts from hogs and cattle. However, the decline in direct government farm payments from 2020 to 2021 is expected to more than offset the jump in cash receipts and drive most of the decline in both net income measures. Direct government farm payments are forecast at $25.3 billion in 2021, a decrease of $21 billion (45.3 percent) in nominal terms as smaller supplemental and ad hoc disaster assistance for COVID19 relief is expected in 2021 relative to 2020. Further reducing farm income, sector production expenses (including expenses associated with operator dwellings) are forecast to increase $8.6 billion (2.5 percent) in nominal terms to $353.7 billion in 2021, led by higher spending on feed, fertilizer, and labor. However, these production expenses would remain 18.9 percent below the record high of $436.1 billion in 2014 when adjusted for inflation. The 2021 farm assets forecast of $3.18 trillion represents a 1.8 percent increase from 2020 in nominal dollars. The value of farm real estate assets (land and buildings) accounts for 82.6 percent of 2021 farm sector assets and is forecast at $2.63 trillion, up 2.2 percent in 2021 in nominal terms. Farm real estate debt is also expected to increase, reaching $287.4 billion in 2021, a 3.1- percent annual increase from last year. Farm real estate debt as a share of total debt has risen each year since 2014 and is expected to account for 65.1 percent of total farm debt in 2021. Farm nonreal estate debt is expected to decline by 0.6 percent in nominal terms to $154.3 billion in 2021. Since its peak in 2014, nonreal estate inflation-adjusted debt has decreased 6.8 percent. With the expected increase in the value of farm sector assets exceeding the expected rise in farm debt, farm sector equity—the difference between farm sector total assets and total debt—is forecast to rise 1.8 percent in 2021 to about $2.74 trillion. While the agriculture sector’s risk of insolvency is at the highest level since 2002, it is still modest and well below the peak in 1985. The farm sector’s debt-to-asset ratio and debt-to-equity ratio are forecast to reach 13.89 and 16.13 percent, respectively, continuing their slow climb from the lows achieved in 2012. Across the sector, historically low interest rates make managing debt less burdensome and expensive than in decades prior; however, the financial situation of farm varies regionally and by production focus, with nearly 8% of crop farm businesses and 6.1% of livestock/animal product farm businesses forecast to have debt-to-asset ratios exceeding 40%. Acknowledging uncertainty and looking beyond next season Perhaps more than any year in recent memory, this year’s forecast is characterized by is subject to the uncertainty of how events may unfold over the coming year. Supply chain disruptions have largely been mitigated, but at some cost, and many bottlenecks continue, including current disruptions in container shipping logistics. While the majority of agricultural processing disruptions have been addressed, as this week’s cold weather has shown, new disruptions are not inconceivable. The rise in disposable income (and savings rates) in 2020 with a simultaneous contraction in GDP is likely to unwind in 2021 - as the two indicators again move in opposite directions, as the economy rebounds, supporting what has to date been a robust domestic demand for various livestock and dairy products. With large scale vaccination underway against COVID-19 and the anticipated opening of the economy, motor gasoline use is forecast to further recover and is likely to be the single largest determinant of the domestic use of ethanol and therefore the corn grind for ethanol in the 2021/22 corn balance sheet. With the reported ongoing recovery of the sow herd from African Swine Fever in China and the expected continued cooling of trade tensions, growth in feed exports along with continued pork exports are important elements which will help form crop and livestock balance sheets. These factors are in addition to the normal vagaries of weather both here in the United States and around the world that will determine ongoing crop supplies and feed availability, while tighter stock levels for many crops will likely result in greater price movements as factors emerge. While current conditions in the sector reflect the uncertainty and volatility associated with the extreme events of the last year, the long-term global demand outlook for U.S. agricultural commodities remains favorable. The longer-run outlook reflects decades-long trends in income growth and shifting dietary patterns toward an increasingly diverse set of crop and animal products, especially in developing countries. USDA’s recently published long-run projections envisions world demand for beef, pork, and poultry (combined) to increase by more than 17 percent through 2030, supporting an increase in world corn trade of 22.5 percent (41.8 million tons) and soybean trade of 26.7 percent (36.2 million tons), by the end of the 2030/31 crop year. The U.S. is expected to capture a significant—but declining—share of this growth, with U.S. corn exports projected to grow 11.4 million tons to 70.5 million, and U.S. soybeans exports would increase from 59.2 million tons in 2021/22 to 64.6 million tons by 2030/31.B. Link -- water protections deck the ag industry -- regulations are costly, hurts industry certainty and lowers production Bakst 16 (Daren, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Studies, "Eliminating and Reducing Regulatory Obstacles in Agriculture," 6-28-2016, Heritage Foundation, URL: , //RN)Too often, federal agricultural policy focuses on helping farmers through massive programs rather than on determining how government itself creates problems for farmers and ranchers. Regulations, in particular, make agricultural production and innovation more difficult by limiting farmers’ and ranchers’ ability to address agricultural risk, work their land, and meet market needs. In general, federal regulation is often based on unsound science and data, and agencies develop regulations that extend beyond the scope of the underlying statute. For regulated entities, such as farmers and ranchers, these unnecessary regulations can impose major compliance costs and other significant burdens. They can also discourage a party from taking an action (e.g., using land for ordinary business activities) due to fear of being out of compliance or because the regulation prohibits the action or makes it cost prohibitive. Regulatory costs are borne not merely by those parties who are regulated, but also by third parties such as consumers who may have to pay higher prices for goods and services. The list of regulatory obstacles for agricultural producers is extensive. However, there are some types of regulations that are particularly troubling. For example, any government intervention that makes it more difficult to manage the risk inherent in agriculture is a serious problem. Additionally, the overreach and scope of environmental regulations is inflicting serious harm on farmers and ranchers alike. Finally, because technology and innovation help the agriculture industry meet critical new challenges, any regulation that hinders important developments is a major concern. This paper highlights just some of the biggest regulatory obstacles, focusing on regulations that affect risk management, hurt farmers because of environmental overreach, and undermine innovation. It also provides some specific policy recommendations to address these obstacles. Overbroad Application of Title VII of Dodd–Frank Like every business, agricultural producers face a number of serious risks. There are many ways that farmers and ranchers can manage different kinds of risk through private means. One of the best risk-management tools is to hedge risk through participation in the commodities market. Unfortunately, one regulatory development is making this risk-management tool far more difficult for farmers to use. In 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act[2] (Dodd–Frank) was enacted to address the 2008 financial crisis.[3] Yet this law is being interpreted broadly by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to cover businesses that had nothing to do with the 2008 crisis, including agricultural producers. As Senator Pat Roberts (R–KS), Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, explained: Farmers, ranchers and end-users did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, and Congress did not intend for them to be subject to Title VII of Dodd–Frank. However, five long years later, they continue to be subjected to a bounty of rules and regulations stemming from the regulatory implementation of Dodd–Frank. The use of commodity derivatives is extremely critical for farmers and is undermined by convoluted and restrictive regulations. For example, the CFTC is narrowly interpreting[5] the statutory term “bona fide hedge.”[6] This interpretation has resulted in “many types of trading in derivatives markets that were long recognized as legitimate hedging by commercial firms and regulators…now no longer afforded bona fide hedging treatment,” according to the Commodity Markets Council, “a trade association that brings together exchanges and their industry counterparts,”[7] in comments made to the CFTC.[8] The CFTC is making decisions as to what is the proper nature of hedging transactions, as if anyone could (or should) evaluate the variety of ways that risk can be managed effectively. CFTC Commissioner Jill Sommers, in her opening statement at a meeting to consider Dodd–Frank final rules (the final rule addressing “bona fide hedge” was vacated by a district court[9]) explained: When analyzing the potential impact this rule will have on market participants, I am most concerned about the effect on bona fide hedgers—that is the producers, processors, manufacturers, handlers, and users of physical commodities. This rule will make hedging more difficult, more costly, and less efficient, all of which ironically can result in increased costs for consumers. [10] A recent Cato Institute report by New York University Professor Bruce Tuckman captures the problem of making use of derivatives more difficult, stating that “rules that make derivatives harder to use will reduce derivatives risks; but the reduction will be at the expense of increasing business risks.”[11] Federal Overreach in Addressing Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution The Clean Water Act (CWA) expressly says that states are supposed to play the leading role in protecting water: It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources. [12] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ignoring this state role and instead seeking to expand its own power. This extension of federal control is evidenced by the EPA’s efforts to address water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, where the agency is effectively seeking to regulate agricultural runoff and other nonpoint sources of pollution (pollution coming from multiple sources over a wide area, as opposed to pollution from a point source that is a specific and identifiable source).[13] Specifically, the EPA is allocating specific limits of pollution for numerous segments of the Bay by source, including nonpoint sources. There is even concern that the EPA could determine where farming is allowed.[14] This Chesapeake Bay scheme was challenged in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the court upheld the agency’s actions[15]), and petitioners, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, asked the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.[16] Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture John Block warned of the consequences of the Court’s declining to hear the case: “[I]n a matter of days or at most weeks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could become our national zoning board.”[17] On February 29, 2016, the Court declined to hear the case.[18] This overreach by the EPA has practical impacts on farming. Secretary Block illustrated this point: Myopic rigidity, typical of federal regulators and particularly EPA, has human costs. In lower court filings, Pendleton County, West Virginia, reported that “a significant amount of farmland will have to be removed from production” as a result. Pendleton, the court document noted, is a poor county where families “displaced from farming would have little to no opportunity to replace their loss.” [19] EPA’s and Corps’ Land- and Water-Grab Through the “Waters of the United States” Rule On June 29, 2015, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published their final rule[20] defining what waters are covered under the CWA. Under the CWA, the federal government has jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” which is further defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”[21] This rule seeks to regulate almost any type of water, including certain man-made ditches and so-called waters that are dry land most of the time. This vast overreach is consistent with past attempts by the agencies to grab power by broadly interpreting the definition of “waters of the United States.” In just over a decade, the United States Supreme Court twice struck down the agencies’ efforts to regulate more waters: in 2001, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,[22] and in 2006, in Rapanos v. United States.[23] For property owners, including farmers and ranchers, this regulatory overreach is problematic. If a water is covered under the law (i.e., a jurisdictional water), property owners could be required to secure costly and time-consuming permits to take actions that affect these waters. Under the CWA, this impact can be nominal and does not even require environmental harm. Someone may need a permit just for kicking sand into a jurisdictional water.[24] Property owners could be required to secure a permit if there is a discharge of dredged material (material excavated or dredged from waters of the U.S.) or fill material (“material placed in waters such that dry land replaces water—or a portion thereof—or the water’s bottom elevation changes”).[25] In Rapanos v. United States, the late Justice Antonin Scalia cited a study highlighting the following costs and delays for one of the major types of permits (Section 404 dredge and fill permits): “The average applicant for an individual permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spends 313 days and $28,915—not counting costs of mitigation or design changes.”[26] Since there will be more jurisdictional waters, there will be a need to secure more CWA permits. This means that property owners, such as farmers, who want to use their property for normal business activities will have to secure more permits. They may choose not to engage in ordinary activities because of the time and cost of securing a permit. The rule is also vague, making compliance difficult. The risk of not complying with the vague and subjective rule is another disincentive to using property for ordinary business activities.[27] The risk is compounded by the significant civil and criminal penalties for not securing a permit. One case now pending before a federal court involves a Wyoming family who are facing $16 million in fines for constructing a stock pond on the family’s eight-acre farm for the family’s horses and cattle.[28] C. Internal link -- strong US agricultural industry is key food security GAP 15 (Global Agricultural Productivity 2015 Report, “USA: A Powerful Legacy, With Room to Grow,” 2015, Global Agricultural Productivity, Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech, URL: , //RN) U.S. agriculture and food sectors are key drivers of economic growth, producing $2 trillion in annual revenue and $130 billion in profit for more than 2.6 million businesses. The agriculture and food sectors employ 19 million people in full and part-time jobs, 9 percent of total U.S. employment in 2013. On-farm employment provided more than 2.6 million of these jobs. Food services and restaurants and bars accounted for the largest share, 11.1 million jobs.1 U.S. consumers benefit from this success with year-round access to safe, nutritious and affordable foods. The average U.S. consumer spends just six percent of their household income on food eaten at home, the lowest percentage among 86 major countries.2 U.S. agriculture is also a reliable source of affordable safe food and agriculture products for the world. The U.S. exported $141 billion in agricultural products in fiscal year 2017, the third highest level recorded, and had an agricultural trade surplus of $22 billion, a 30 percent increase from 2016.3 The Seeds of Success Most of the success of U.S. farmers and ranchers can be attributed Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth generated by the widespread adoption and efficient use of seed technologies, precision mechanization and best practices for soil health, nutrient management and animal health. For the past 65 years, U.S. agriculture has been a global leader in TFP and output growth. From 1949 to 2015, TFP grew by an average annual rate of 1.38 percent.5 Agricultural output has tripled, even as farmers and ranchers have reduced their labor use by 75 percent and land use by 24 percent.6 Wider use of irrigation has allowed the farm sector to increase total output using less land.7 Irrigation systems help farmers in areas with challenging and variable weather conditions stay productive during dry seasons and drought.C. Impact -- Food insecurity results in mass instability and state failure – leads to terrorist attacks, loose nukes, and civil warDeFeo 17 (Michael, graduated in 2019 with a Bachelors degree in Political Science from Gettysburg College, “Food Insecurity and the Threat to Global Stability and Security in the 21st Century,” 2017, Inquiries Journal, VOL. 9 NO. 12, URL: , //RN)In 2010, over 250,000 Syrian farmers were forced from their land due to water shortages. Lack of water left these farmers dangerously food insecure, so they moved, en masse, into Syrian urban centers. This strained an already overburdened infrastructure which increased tensions between urban dwellers and the displaced farmers (El Hassan, 2014). One year later, the Syrian Civil War began, which has killed over 500,000 Syrians and has destabilized the entire country. Since then, the Islamic State has conquered swaths of land through terror campaigns, rebel and Syrian military clashes have left thousands dead, while bombing campaigns by American, Russian, French, and Turkish air forces have reduced cities to rubble. The conflict began as a civil war but has evolved to threaten the interests of major world powers. While limited access to food and water did not directly spark the violence in Syria, it was the underlying cause of the instability seen in that region today. Concerns about access to food can be applied to many of the world's developing countries. Developing countries generally have large agricultural sectors but may lack the infrastructure or government institutions to supply all of its citizens with adequate food. When people are hungry, they often fight their government, or they break into ethnic or religious factions and fight each other. Such conflicts can destabilize countries and even, as Syria has proven, entire regions. Regional destabilization in the developing world, in turn, threatens the peace and security of the international community. Rich countries such as the United States and Western Europe, must support developing countries through aid and trade policies so that food insecure countries do not become fragile or failed states. Causes of Food Insecurity Many developing nations experience food and water insecurity on a higher scale than developed nations because of irresponsible or malicious government policies, the effects of climate change, and rising food prices. The war in Afghanistan has left many rural Afghans without access to food because of increases in staple food prices. Using a multivariate framework, D’Souza and Jolliffe (2013) found that provinces experiencing declines in food security have been active hotspots for violence. The pains of food shortages have been felt in Afghanistan long before the American invasion in 2001, however. During the 1990s, civil conflict made it extremely difficult to grow and distribute enough food to feed everyone. Adequate supply and distribution of food may be more important than food production itself because it actually became a military strategy to starve off certain armed groups and civilian supporters (Clarke, 2000). More commonly, the flow of staple food was inadequately disrupted as a result of the conflict. Fighting closed roads and increased the cost of transportation, making it extremely difficult to reach rural areas. Similar problems affected Syrian farmers in 2010. Destruction of roads and shutdowns cut off transportation of food in or out of the cities, which starved rural civilians. Their desperation helped bolster Islamic State ranks because joining the group provided a better promise of food (El Hassan, 2014). The displaced farmers in the cities found themselves relying on locally produced food to survive rather than their own harvests. This is a massive problem that follows food insecurity in rural areas. Insecurity leads to urbanization, thus forcing more citizens to rely on other farmers or the government to feed them. Such conditions strain already weak government institutions and can lead to internal conflict (Byrd, 2003). Sudan dealt with urbanization very poorly in the early 2000s which helped continue the Second Sudanese Civil War. Sudan faced particularly brutal circumstances in the 21st century because of late rains, disruptions in trade,1 high levels of displacement, and higher food prices (Moszynski, 2009). The Janjaweed, who controlled the government, refused to provide certain areas with sufficient food, which increased violent responses from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (Moszynski, 2009). Higher food prices and potential effects of climate change also played roles in the Sudanese crisis. It was not just a lack of rain and high food prices that starved Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan, it was their government’s inability to remedy these problems in the first place. Poor Institutional Capacity Although the developed world experiences food insecurity, it is the lack of infrastructure and government institutions in developing countries that contribute to civil wars and state fragility. Foreign exchange shortages can provoke food and fuel scarcities that force governments to spend less on essential services and public goods. Accordingly, citizens see their medical and educational entitlements melt away. Such circumstances create breeding grounds for internal conflict. All violent conflicts destroy land, water, and social resources for food production. Developing countries do not have massive industrial machines that can remedy such losses, therefore, the population will suffer. Food insecurity is a recruitment tool for violent extremist groups. Promising food and water to a starving population, especially in urban areas, makes recruiting young and disgruntled youth easier (Messer & Cohen, 2015). Syria had limited institutional capacity to deal with the mass displacement, and that lead to a civilian revolt and recruitment into the Islamic State. Countries that fail to provide their people with basic services often experience gross economic inequality, and even human-rights violations, as was the case in both Syria and Sudan. Both countries are classified as Least Developed Countries (LDCs). LDCs are distinguished not just by their widespread poverty, but also by their structural weaknesses in economic, institutional, and human resources that make them unable to maintain stability during a drought. The combination of drought and political instability or violence led to famine in Somalia (another LDC) in 2011. Even with urgent humanitarian action, the country still plunged into chaos and violence (Messer & Cohen, 2015). Severe drought, like Somalia's, may result in crop failure in major food producing areas, which in turn is a significant threat to social stability and peace (Wischnath, 2014). Sometimes droughts of exceptional severity (and the civil unrest that follows) are attributed to climate change, especially in particularly arid regions. Scholars are divided on whether climate change actually impacts civil conflict. That is why African countries like Somalia and Sudan are prime case studies. Africa has the lowest percentage of irrigated land in the world. Agriculture is the most important sector of most African countries. Very high percentages of civilians in African countries live in rural areas. Those characteristics combined with low economic and state capacity make African, particularly sub-Saharan African countries the most vulnerable to climate change and civil instability. Africa experiences more civil conflict than other parts of the world, therefore, it is possible to argue that a lack of climate variability effect on civil conflict in Africa would make it unlikely to cause civil conflict in other parts of the world (Koubi et al., 2012). Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon attributed the conflict in Darfur to an ecological crisis arising “at least in part from climate change” (Ki-moon, 2007). The Fourth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed that climate change will continue to worsen. As it does, it will increase food shortages, which may lead to conflict (AR4, 2007). The report also stated that forced displacement and rising social instability is the most likely result of food insecurity. This is almost exactly what happened in Syria. The first step towards conflict might be food riots, which often occur during a food shortage or when there is an unequal distribution of food. These are usually caused by food price increases, food speculation, transport problems, or extreme weather. In 1977, Egyptians became so desperate for food that they attacked shops, markets, and government buildings just to obtain bread and grain (Paveliuc-Olariu, 2013). Moreover, civil war can create economic opportunities for certain groups, so they try to avoid resolving the conflict. Urban elites in Somalia profited tremendously off of internal conflict because of the absurd amount of foreign aid that was pumped into the country and then largely stolen (Shortland, Christopoulou, & Makatsoris, 2013). Once a country experiences a food shortage, it may lead to protests, riots, and violence. This all contributes to state instability, but it is not the state alone that suffers. If one country fails, it creates a crisis that could destabilize an entire region. State Failure and the Threat to Regional Stability Although fragile governments in developing countries are at a heightened risk for internal conflict that could topple them, that risk also threatens the country’s neighbors. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Afghanistan found itself alone in regional trade. Without a guaranteed source of cereal, the government had to turn to Iran and Pakistan for support in order to avoid its own collapse (Clarke, 2000). Unlike Afghanistan, many other developing countries have been unable to work together on food and water security. Thirteen of the twenty-two members of the Arab League rank among the most water-scarce nations on the planet. Food cannot be grown without water. The majority of the world is engaged in some sort of agreement with neighboring countries to share water supplies, but thirty-seven countries still do not share their water resources (El Hassan, 2014). Lack of cooperation can cause civil as well as interstate conflict. South Sudan legally has no share of the Nile River and the effects of that lack of water access have been mass starvation and violence. The effects of climate change, water shortages, and mass migrations have resulted in acute food insecurity not just in Syria, but across the region (El Hassan, 2014). Food insecurity, plus an increase in the prices of staple foods have destabilized much of the area. The Arab Spring was the beginning of multiple conflicts that have affected countries like Syria, Egypt, and Libya. In Syria, food insecurity resulted in mass violence and has now created an international crisis involving multiple world powers. Food insecurity is such a threat to entire regions because people cannot live without food and people want to live. When a region experiences food scarcity and that population feels threatened by hunger, it will relinquish dependency on any political authority and take up arms in order to ensure its well-being (Paveliuc-Olariu, 2013). This is human survivalism. It is important for developing countries in areas that are at risk for food insecurity to formulate policy that ensures aid goes to the food insecurity hotspots so as to maintain stability. South Sudan experienced what happens when countries do not work together to feed their people. After gaining its independence from Sudan in 2011, 360,000 South Sudanese refugees returned to the country. This influx of human beings, coupled with drought conditions exacerbated economic strain and drove food prices up. The increases were the result of trade restrictions between Sudan and South Sudan. The overall reason for the food crisis, however, was the government's preoccupation with fighting a political and quasi-ethnic civil war rather than negotiating fair access to the Nile River (Tappis et al., 2013). Because of South Sudan’s weak institutions, it has done little to address the food shortage. That inability to solve the problem fuels insurgent recruitment that continues the bloodshed in South Sudan. The conflict is keeping regional rivalries alive with Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Sudan; all of whom have attempted to intervene in South Sudan militarily to bring about stability (Council on Foreign Affairs 2016). Aside from South Sudan, multiple conflicts across Africa are consuming massive amounts of diplomatic, political, and humanitarian resources in a region that faces a multitude of threats. South Sudan, Somalia, and Syria are all failing states that are experiencing huge food shortages, humanitarian crises, and most importantly, extreme civil violence. South Sudan is mired in a civil war. Somalia is controlled by warlords and terror organizations. Syria has both of those problems. Conflict has turned these countries into “breeding grounds of instability, mass migration, and murder” rather than sovereign states with a monopoly on violence and control over their borders (Rotberg, 2002). To be sure, failing states are a concern because of their ability to destabilize entire regions, but states at risk for failure are also very important. Countries like Pakistan that are politically unstable and have food and water shortages could result in uncontrollable civil upheaval (The Fund for Peace, 2016). Global Consequences of State Failure Failing states and destabilized regions are not just a problem for the developing world. They are a very real concern for the United States and other developed countries as well. The Islamic State fed off of the Syrian Civil War and helped destabilize Iraq, Syria, Libya, and even Afghanistan and the Philippines. They have at also inspired terror attacks in Europe and the United States. They are a threat to both the developed and developing world. State instability allows them to recruit and train without government interference, which in turn allows them to plan attacks outside the region. An important source of income for the Islamic State has been agriculture from Iraq and Syria. While this revenue has received less media attention than oil extraction, it is still an important part of their economy (Jaafar & Woertz, 2016). It is also a key aspect of their political legitimacy because it allows them to feed their soldiers and those they control. Controlling some of the most fertile regions of the two countries has also helped the Islamic State starve off areas that have resisted them (Jaafar & Woertz, 2016). If Syria or Iraq are ever going to stabilize, those breadbaskets must be retaken and the food must reach the civilians in the cut off areas. In the 20th century, state failure had few implications for international peace and security. Thanks to globalization, that is no longer the case. Failed states pose a threat to themselves, their neighbors, and the entire international community (Rotberg, 2002). Islamic State - inspired terror attacks in Belgium and France are a direct result of state collapse in Syria and Iraq. Preventing states from failing, rather than having to intervene militarily when they do, ought to be a top priority in the foreign policy of rich nations. Although the situations in Syria, Somalia, and South Sudan seem beyond repair, nation-building projects have had success in the past. Tajikistan, Lebanon, Cambodia, Kosovo and East Timor are all examples of relatively successful attempts to put failing states back on the right track (Rotberg, 2002). Developed countries must have the political will to ensure that people in developing countries are fed so that they remain pacified. It is often severe food insecurity that precedes ethnic or religious violence, as has been the case in South Sudan, therefore, adequate food is paramount to avoiding humanitarian crises that accompany ethnic and sectarian conflict (The Economist, 2016). While it is true that many developed countries, especially the United States, are weary of providing so much financial aid and intervening militarily in war-torn, developing countries, it is imperative that the rich do not abandon the poor to a fate of internal destruction. Money must not be thrown blindly towards humanitarian crises and military intervention must be the last resort. Developed countries provided $1.4 billion for humanitarian aid in South Sudan in its first year of independence, but without specific conditions, that money went to kleptocrats rather than infrastructure projects or public services (The Economist, 2016). Paying to help developing nations is expensive and will continue to be so. Afghanistan and Iraq are proof of that. But the war on terror, repeated military intervention, and humanitarian aid are expensive as well. In 2002, Robert Rotberg suggested that a new Marshall Plan was required for places like Afghanistan, the DRC, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Sudan. If it is true that food and water security are the keys to keeping relative peace in new and developing countries and their collapse threatens the safety of the developed world, it seems logical that assisting those countries is wise. In 1999, Susan L. Woodward argued that military leaders focus too much on force versus force combat rather than the issues of insurgency and terrorism in failed states. In 2017, military leaders have adjusted their strategies accordingly. Woodward believed that globalization made states less important, but their failure would still be felt around the world. Failed states cannot exercise their monopoly on violence and they cannot control their borders, thus threatening more than just the failed state (Woodward, 1999). Because state failure is so consequential, the United States military must continue to look into measures it can take to prevent it. The Threat of the Future Finally, the threats from food shortages in South Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are important to the United States and the international community at large, but there is one country that, while it is not a failing state right now, could easily become one if the wealthy nations of the world do not ensure its stability. That country is Pakistan. The Fund for Peace ranked Pakistan as the 14th most fragile state in the world in 2016, giving it a “High Alert” designation for state failure (The Fund for Peace, 2016). Its Demographic Pressure Indicator was an 8.9 - 10.2 Although it improved by one-tenth of a point last year, its decade trend is worse by seven-tenths of a point and its five-year trend is worse by four-tenths of a point, suggesting that the food situation is actually worsening overall (The Fund for Peace, 2016). If internal conflict and potential state failure at its most basic level begins with food and water insecurity, then Pakistan could become a real problem very soon. Considering the risk of state failure, Pakistan poses the greatest threat to the rest of the world because of the existence of nuclear weapons within the country. Pakistan is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet it has about 120 nuclear weapons. It also has a Shaheen 1A ballistic missile that can reach targets 550 miles away (Pakistan Defence, 2015). Should a food crisis arise in Pakistan that results in civil war and governmental collapse, those weapons could end up in the hands of a group that intends to use them maliciously as an act of terror. That prospect should be incentive enough for the developed countries to realize that they cannot and must not leave food insecure countries to devour themselves. While it is difficult to argue that food insecurity immediately and directly causes civil conflict, there is no denying that people need food and water and will fight to survive. In South Sudan, ethnic and political armies fight one another. In Syria, rebels and government forces fight each other while also fighting the Islamic State. And in Somalia, warlords and their armies fight. The Syrian Civil War began six years ago after a water shortage forced thousands of migrants into urban centers. Developing countries tend to be most affected by climate change, poor governance, and food price increases. Therefore, they are the most prone to instability that may lead to outright violence. Without the wherewithal to handle civil conflict, these countries may become fragile or even failing states. Once that happens, they represent a threat not just in their region of influence, but the whole world. That is why the developed Western nations must pay attention and provide aid to the developing world in order to maintain stability. There will be more food crises in developing countries in the future, but if the North has the strength to continue aiding the South, perhaps it will be able to curb mass starvation and avoid the horrendous violence that consumes starving countries.Uniqueness UQ -- Ag High -- General Agriculture industry at an all time high nowSuccessful Farming 21 [(Successful Farming, ) “U.S. AG exports to set all-time record in 2021, thanks to China,” May 26, 2021, ] KMThe U.S. Department of Agriculture’s quarterly agricultural trade forecast projects fiscal year 2021 U.S. farm exports at $164 billion – the highest total on record. This represents an increase of $28 billion, or 21%, from last fiscal year’s total, and a $7-billion increase from USDA’s previous FY 2021 forecast published in February. The annual export record of $152.3 billion was set in FY 2014. “U.S. agricultural trade has proven extraordinarily resilient in the face of a global pandemic and economic contraction. This strength is reflected in today’s USDA export forecast,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “As we conclude World Trade Month, it’s clear that trade remains a critical engine powering the agricultural economy and the U.S. economy as a whole. Today’s estimate shows that our agricultural trading partners are responding to a return to certainty and reliability from the United States. Yesterday’s action regarding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement also made it clear that our trading partners must play by the rules. Ensuring that all U.S. producers and exporters have access to global markets is a key to building back better and ensuring the continued strength and resiliency of rural America.” Key drivers of the surge in exports include a record outlook for China, record export volumes and values for a number of key products, sharply higher commodity prices, and reduced foreign competition. China is poised to be back on top as the United States’ No. 1 customer, with U.S. exports forecast at $35 billion, eclipsing the previous record of $29.6 billion set in FY 2014. This growth is led by Chinese demand for soybeans and corn. Other top markets, in order, are Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union, and South Korea, with demand remaining strong across the board. USDA projects that total exports of bulk commodities and meat will reach record levels for both volume and value in FY 2021. On the bulk commodity side, this is true for both corn and soybeans exports, with sorghum export value also at a record. On the meat side, beef and pork export values and volumes are projected at an all-time high, as is broiler meat volume.The US agricultural industry is on the rise for 2021Farm Bureau 21 [Credit, "ICYMI: 2021 Agricultural Outlook Forum Highlights," No Publication, 2-25-2021, , wcLH]Expected Rebound in Livestock Prices, Despite Record Protein ProductionDespite the unprecedented challenges in the processing sector due to COVID-19, red meat and poultry production in the U.S. hit an all-time record of 106.5 billion pounds in 2020. Beef production remained relatively unchanged, while pork and broiler production increased last year. At the height of the coronavirus pandemic, weekly production for both beef and pork was down 34% from 2019 At that time, few thought the industry would recover to produce more red meat and poultry than ever before. This result is due to a strong start to 2020, with production surging pre-pandemic, as well as increased slaughter weights due to the backup in animals that occurred because of the supply chain disruptions.Moving forward into 2021, USDA is forecasting a 1% increase in overall red meat and poultry production. Increasing feed costs are expected to somewhat dampen production gains across the species, as producers are likely to struggle to put weight on their animals in an economic way. USDA is forecasting a 1.4% increase in beef production for 2021, with the increase coming in on higher commercial steer and heifer slaughter, while cow slaughter declines.On the pork side of things, USDA is forecasting record production of 28.7 billion pounds, a 1.4% increase from 2020. This increase is expected to be driven more by increasing slaughter hog inventories, while lighter carcass weights will likely pull down on production gains from increased slaughter. Like pork, broiler production is forecasted to be record large, coming in at nearly 45 billion pounds, driven by heavier bird weights.Exports are an important outlet for animal protein and are expected to account for roughly 11% of beef production, 17% of broiler production, and 25% of pork production in 2021. Beef exports saw a slight decline in 2020, likely a result of the lack of availability of supply and higher non-farm domestic prices, but USDA is forecasting an increase of over 6% in 2021. Strong international demand from late 2020 is expected to carry forward into this year. USDA is forecasting a 1.5% decline in pork exports in 2021, coming off of a strong 2020 surge. The driving factor behind both last year’s strength and the forecasted decline is African Swine Fever in China. The slow rebuilding of their hog herd led to an animal protein deficit in China and a resulting surge in animal protein imports for the country across the board. In 2021, USDA is forecasting China will recover some from ASF and require fewer pork imports. However, export growth in other key markets such as USMCA countries and Japan are expected to somewhat offset these losses. USDA forecasts U.S. broiler exports will marginally increase in 2021, rising by 0.3%. In 2020 China lifted its ban on U.S. broiler meat, and the 2021 increase is linked to continued import demand from the country and a gradual recovery of global economic conditions.Another big takeaway from USDA’s Outlook Forum is that across the board, livestock and poultry prices are forecasted to be up. Even with higher beef production, strong domestic and export demand are expected to support more elevated prices in cattle. USDA is forecasting the 5-area steer price to average $115 per hundredweight, an increase of 6% over 2020. Similar to cattle, strong domestic and export demand for pork is expected to support hog prices, even with the forecasted increase in pork production. USDA forecasts U.S. hog prices, on a national base, 51%-52% lean, live equivalent to average $50.50 per hundredweight through 2021. USDA is also forecasting higher average 2021 broiler prices, expecting prices to be supported by lighter production in the second half of the year, in addition to improving demand.Agricultural TradeThe ability to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global economic contraction of 4.4% in fiscal 2020, will be the primary influencer on the global economy (and U.S. agricultural exports). As of the Outlook Conference, USDA is projecting that containment of the disease, at least to some degree, will occur, spurring global gross domestic product (GDP) growth 5.5% in fiscal 2021. Emerging markets (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China), which account for more than 40% of the global population and nearly 25% of global GDP, are expected to lead the pack with GDP growth of 6.3%. On this projection, U.S. ag exports are forecast to rise to a record $157 billion in fiscal 2021. This would be an increase of $21.3 billion over fiscal 2020’s $135.7 billion. If realized, this would be the third-largest fiscal year-over-fiscal year increase in U.S. ag export history. By product, USDA is forecasting increased exports in every major commodity group. Grains and feeds are projected up $7.8 billion, oilseeds and products up $11.1 billion, livestock, dairy and poultry up $1.2 billion, horticultural products up $800 million, cotton up $300 million, sugar and tropical products up $300 million and seeds up $100 million. USDA is projecting an increase, or at a minimum no change, in agricultural exports to every major region across the globe.After trade spats took their toll in recent years, China is poised to once again become the largest U.S. agricultural market in fiscal 2021, with record exports of $31.5 billion forecasted This growth is projected despite significant tariffs, which remain on nearly 99% of U.S. agricultural exports to China. Much of the increase in demand for U.S. agricultural products is dependent on very strong feedstuff usage from a rebounding Chinese hog herd. Imports are also expected to rise on an improved U.S. economy. Fiscal 2021 imports are forecast at $137.5 billion, up $4.3 billion over fiscal 2020 imports of $133.2 billion. If imports and exports reach forecasted levels, the trade balance in agriculture would improve to $19.5 billion in fiscal 2021, a $17 billion increase over the very slim $2.5 billion trade surplus in fiscal 2020.SummaryUSDA’s annual Agricultural Outlook Forum provided an optimistic first look at the 2021 agricultural economy. Crop acres are expected to increase for corn, soybeans and wheat and higher crop prices are expected for wheat, cotton and soybeans. On the livestock front, record red meat and poultry production is also expected to be accompanied by higher prices. Agricultural exports are expected to reach new highs on the back of strong fiscal year 2021 exports to China. The improvement in exports is expected to bolster the U.S. agricultural trade balance to $19.5 billion. Combined, higher crop and livestock prices are expected to boost farm cash receipts and push U.S. net farm income, a broad measure of farm profitability, to $111 billion in 2021. If realized, net farm income in 2021 would be the fourth-highest all time in nominal terms.UQ -- Ag High -- PricesAg industry strong – high and stable prices Reichenberger, Progressive Farmer Senior Editor, 7-15, 2021, (Joel, "Keep the Good Times Rolling -- 6," Progressive Farmer, DDI) SPRINGS, Colo. (DTN) -- The key, David Hula said, is consistent emergence. Or at least it's a key to the world-record corn yields he's logged on his Virginia farm, topping out at the eye-popping 616-bushel-per-acre crop he harvested in 2019. "Several years ago, everyone was talking about that picket fence -- even spacing -- and how important that seems, but even more important to me is even emergence," he said. So, if Hula could choose any technology to add to a planter, any one feature he considers to have the most bang for its buck, that's the goal he has in mind. "No. 1 for me would be down force. If farmers are going to retrofit their planters, that's what I'd recommend. We had pneumatic. Now it's hydraulic, and that would be the No. 1 thing I'd want." This spring and summer's spike in commodity prices means that for the first time in years, some farmers may find themselves feeling a bit flush with some cash to invest. In this sixth and final installment of DTN's special series "Keep the Good Times Rolling," which explored ways farmers can capitalize on current prices to set themselves up for future success, we'll discuss the tough decisions farmers face when looking to spend on equipment and technology. Do you buy new or upgrade old equipment? Look for the cutting edge or turn to something more tried and true? It's not as easy as it seems. Major agriculture manufacturers have fought bitter battles in recent months to acquire the raw materials they need to build equipment. The price of steel has more than tripled for some. Rubber has been in short supply, as have plastics. A lack of microprocessors has slowed production even more across many industries, from tractors to automobiles. (You can read more on those struggles here: .) Many equipment companies are already sold out of their 2021 builds, and some have restricted orders on their 2022 line as well, so spending money on upgrades isn't as simple as it has been in the past.Agriculture is making a comeback – government aid and high pricesMcfetridge 21 [Scott Mcfetridge, "US farmers finally see better outlook after 2 odd years," AP NEWS, 4-27-2021, , wcLHNow, as Hill and other farmers begin planting the nation’s dominant crops of corn and soybeans, they’re dealing with another shift — the strongest prices in years and a chance to put much of the recent stomach-churning uncertainty behind them. The return to something more akin to normal will be a welcome change from the last two seasons that likely will be remembered as among the most unusual in U.S. agricultural history. “It will be nice to get out there and feel good about what you’re doing,” said Hill, who farms 400 acres (162 hectares) near the small Iowa community of Madrid. “I don’t have a black cloud hanging over me.” It’s hard to overstate how bizarre the past two seasons have been for farmers, who for the previous six years had repeatedly produced near-record harvests but saw little profit because commodity prices were so low. The situation worsened after then-President Donald Trump launched a trade war with China that reduced demand and lowered prices, but Trump then blunted the impact with $16 billion in agricultural aid. Last spring, farmers’ hopes for a more normal season were initially wiped out by the coronavirus pandemic, which disrupted domestic markets, slowed shipping to other countries and devastated demand for corn-based ethanol as people stopped driving. Hundreds of Midwest farmers last August also were hit by a devastating wind storm, called a derecho, that flattened 850,000 acres (343,983 hectares) of crops, including 90% of Hill’s corn and soybean crop. The federal government then offset those hits with $50 billion in various kinds of aid to farmers plus crop insurance payments. That massive infusion of aid continued even as U.S. agricultural exports recovered midway through the year, eventually soaring to $146 billion, the second highest export total ever, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The main reason was big increases in exports of soybeans, corn and pork to China. “So 2020 ended up being the best of both worlds,” said Scott Irwin, a University of Illinois agricultural economist. “Huge government payment and unexpectedly high grain prices.” The USDA has forecast that those agricultural exports will remain strong later this year, and coupled with greater demand for livestock feed and ethanol, corn prices have roughly doubled from just over $3 a bushel in spring 2020 to about $6 a bushel now, the highest price in eight years. Thanks to that good news and continued low interest rates, the value of farmland continued a long-term increase, with average prices in Iowa up 7.8% from September to March, according to the Realtors Land Institute’s Iowa chapter. “All this great news, it makes me nervous,” said Wayne Humphreys, a farmer from Columbus Junction, who laughed as he contrasted the last two years with current trends. “It will be something they’ll never forget,” Nurden said. “It’s a welcome change for them, looking at more of a normal year and realizing that support hopefully will be less needed, and they’ll get their profit from their own production.”Agriculture’s profit is rising- products are getting more expensive, farmers make more money, and farmers can grow a fourtune.Polansek 21 [Tom Polansek, "Surging U.S. crop prices reverse fortunes in rural Iowa," Reuters, 4-29-2021, , wcLH]In western Iowa, where Arkfeld lives, the rise in farm income is helping to revitalize the rural economy, after a deadly flood in 2019 submerged fields and drove some growers out of business. Farm families are spending more at stores that sell clothing, grooming products and home improvement supplies, local businesses said. Iowa's economy is particularly tied to agriculture as the state is the No. 1 U.S. producer of hogs and corn, as well as home to many seed and agricultural equipment dealerships. "When farmers make money, they spend money, which is good for the economy all the way around," said Bret Hays, a farmer in Malvern, Iowa, in Mills County. Hays is sowing crops this spring with his first new planter in about a dozen years, a hulking Deere & Co (DE.N) machine that costs nearly $350,000. It is a stark contrast to 2019 when he cleared sand and debris left in his fields from floods and crop prices slumped during the U.S.-China trade war. Now, soaring grain prices make it easier to swallow the price tag of the planter he ordered last year and to pay off debt. The uptick in the agricultural economy began last year when commodity prices started climbing as China accelerated imports of U.S. crops. China increased purchases after the Phase 1 trade deal signed with Washington in January 2020, following two years of acrimony and a steep drop in imports. Although China's 2020 imports fell short of the trade pact's goals, the purchases tightened U.S. grain supplies and rallied prices. Values for good-quality Midwest farmland rose 4% in last year's fourth quarter from the third quarter, while repayment rates for non-real-estate farm loans notched their first year-on-year increase in seven years, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Low interest rates, a lack of farmland for sale and record-large aid payments to farmers from the Trump administration are helping push up farmland values. In Mills County, the average rent for farmland is $229 per acre, according to Iowa State University, about half of what Arkfeld paid. Arkfeld says he can guarantee a profit this year by booking corn and soy sales ahead of time for the autumn harvest. "I never even looked at the farm to tell you the truth, until after I rented it," he said. "It's pretty decent." Fellow farmers on Twitter and other online forums have said they think Arkfeld's rental payments are too high. Crop prices have continued to rise since he won the auction in February, though, making the deal look better and better. On April 20, Arkfeld said he sold three-year-old soybeans left over in a storage bin for $15.03 a bushel, the highest price he has ever obtained for any soybeans. LAND SALES HEAT UP Farmers in Mills County, with about 15,000 residents, compete in land sales against investors and housing developers, locals said. Developers often buy smaller parcels to build homes that are later sold to people moving from Omaha, Nebraska, some searching for more space during the pandemic, they said. "There's so much of the farm ground now that is housing and it's just going to keep going," said John Stortenbecker, owner of Glenwood Farm Equipment in Glenwood, Iowa, the county seat. Local farmers who shop at Stortenbecker's store are pre-ordering grain bin augers, which transport crops into and out of storage, for the first time since he took over four years ago, he said. Buyers are worried about availability of the augers - which cost up to $14,000 and are normally sold around harvest time - and are paying for them in advance, Stortenbecker said. He is glad for the business after the worst flood in 50 years hit the area in March 2019 and the pandemic began one year later. "This is the first year in three years that March didn't have something terrible happen," Stortenbecker said. The U.S. Department of Agriculture on March 31 said farmers intended to plant fewer acres of corn and soybeans than analysts expected, sending crop prices on another rally. read more Chicago Board of Trade corn futures on Wednesday matched an eight-year high that was up 28% from the start of the month and 138% from a year earlier. At an eight-year peak on Tuesday, soybean futures were up 12% for the month and 94% from the previous year. The boom and bust nature of farming means grain prices could crash if farmers ultimately plant more acres or demand for grain evaporates. In China, a government plan to change the crops used to feed livestock, and a resurgence of a deadly pig disease in the country could cut the need for corn and soybean imports and send U.S. prices lower. read more TRACTOR DEMAND JUMPS For now, high crop prices are lifting North America's demand for large farm machines to the highest level since 2012-13, said Eric Hansotia, chief executive of tractor maker AGCO Corp (AGCO.N). Inventories of machines are lean and farmers need to replace aging fleets, he said. At Lindeman Tractor in Atlantic, Iowa, an hour's drive northeast from Malvern, sales of new New Holland tractors made by CNH Industrial (CNHI.MI) started rising in November 2020, salesman Lonn Schlueter said. They are now up threefold from a year ago and the strongest in about nine years, he said. "Customers are very optimistic, very satisfied with commodity prices," Schlueter said. "So they are anxious to improve their equipment and buy new." Prices are up 20% year-on-year for large used tractors and 50% for small tractors, while supplies in North America are at an 18-year low, according to Jefferies Equity Research. Federal stimulus checks are helping drive business in western Iowa, local stores said. Online sales are up 600% at Bountiful Blossoms Bee Company in Glenwood, owner Carol Fassbinder-Orth said. She plans to hire workers from outside the family for the first time to keep up with rising demand for honey, soap and beard oil. "The stimulus this year was better than Christmas,” Fassbinder-Orth said. At Bomgaars, a general store in Glenwood, sales are up 15% to 20% from last year amid solid demand for clothing, gardening supplies and agricultural equipment like hydraulic hoses, salesman Bill Dawson said. "If the farmers are doing good, everybody else is in pretty decent shape," said Doug Shere, who has served on Malvern's city council for 16 years.The farm sector is strong now – commodity prices and government paymentsStaff 21 (Successful Farming Staff, "2021 is an economic game changer for farmers," 2-10-2021, Successful Farming, URL: ] RNIt’s taken a while, but the economics for corn and soybean farmers have changed since late summer of 2020. Farmers may have a new four-letter word to describe 2020: cash. It largely has to do with the market rally that started in late summer and continued into 2021. At the time of this writing, the soybean cash market had added more than $4 per bushel since October 30. The cash corn market had added more than $2 per bushel since late August. In addition to commodity prices, ad hoc government payments, which reached historic highs in 2020, have contributed to the economic turnaround. As farmers budget for 2021, the opportunity for profits exists for the first time in many years, says David Widmar, cofounder of Agricultural Economic Insights. “In August, December 2020 corn got as low as $3.20 per bushel, with many producers facing sub-$3 cash prices. Since then, the outlook has changed completely. We’ve gone from producers facing significant losses to finishing 2020 with strong returns. Thinking about 2021, our crop budget projections have improved significantly with the price rally. In the Corn Belt, revenue projections have improved $73 per acre for corn and $114 per acre for soybeans over the last six months,” Widmar says. There are a lot of reasons these farm markets have reached seven- and eight-year highs. A key factor is the uncertainty in corn and soybean production, Widmar says. “The supply story is a major price driver. U.S. production has been limited by the large prevented-plant acreage of 2019 and 2020. We’ve also had below-trend corn yields. The combination of limited U.S. production and strong demand, which is well known, has paved the path for this rally. The supply story has been very important but largely overlooked,” Widmar says. HIGHER FEED COSTS HIJACKING LIVESTOCK PROFITS IN 2021 With corn prices at an eight-year high, Iowa State University ag economist Lee Schulz is dusting off his records from the 2012-13 drought years to see the impact of higher prices on livestock production. “We are already at large production levels, which are pressuring prices, and now we have the added factor, the wild card, of higher feed costs,” he says. His model for farrow-to-finish production shows the increase in feed costs have added, compared with last year, about $12/cwt to the cost of production. That is more than $20 a head and takes projected profitability to breakeven to slightly below breakeven. In the cattle industry, cost of production impacts placement into feedlots. “Farmer/feeders who walk corn off the farm through feeding cattle may change decisions now that corn is worth a lot more,” Schulz says. In the long run, livestock markets will adjust, says Schulz, but in the short run there can be some harsh pinch points. “A producer may have placed feeder cattle at higher prices than the current feed cost situation dictates. In the long run, higher feed prices will increase finished animal values, because it cost more to finish those animals. It also brings down prices for feeder animals,” he says. There is little margin for error in the cost to produce livestock this year. Delayed planting this spring could increase feed prices even more. On the bright side is the opportunity to have more acreage than expected going into production, says Schulz. An early start to the planting season would help, too. “There are several factors that could help steady or weaken feed prices. Unfortunately, only time will tell.” It’s hard to know yet how pork production levels could be impacted by the recent run-up in grain prices, he says. Farrowing intentions are a best guess by producers, and the last guess they made was December 1. At that point, the industry hadn’t fully realized the latest hike in feed prices. “Costs have increased significantly since then,” says Schulz. “That could dictate how many sows are actually farrowed going forward.” The beef herd was already declining in 2020 as a natural part of the current cattle cycle, says Schulz. He estimates the beef cow herd is down about 1% in early 2021 from a year ago. COVID-19 likely didn’t have a huge impact, he explains, because 75% of U.S. producers calve in the spring and market them in the fall or winter. Calf prices in fall 2020 had rebounded from the spring and were steady with fall 2019 levels. Higher feed prices didn’t fully start to hit until late November. “I don’t think we will see as large of declines in beef cow numbers as some would suggest,” he says. Schulz also thinks the 2020 calf crop will be reported as slightly lower than in 2019. A GOOD TIME TO PUMP THE BRAKES The silly season of farmland auctions is already showing astounding prices in 2021: ? 76 acres in Lyon County, Iowa, sold for $14,100 per acre January 13. READ MORE: Farmland Insider: A wild few weeks in northwest Iowa ? 160 acres in Stark County, Illinois, sold for $12,600 per acre January 18. It’s little wonder that farmland is in high demand. Farmers appear to be flush with cash thanks to a rocket-like rise in commodity prices plus COVID-19 safety net programs like the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) 1 and 2 and the Paycheck Protection Program. David Widmar, cofounder of AEI, expects farmers to aggressively pursue farmland purchases and bid up cash rents to maximize on this window of prosperity. “I think the cash rent and farmland market is going to be red hot. We’ll see double-digit percentage increases,” Widmar says. Yet, he urges caution. Commodity prices can fall just as quickly as they soared, which could put farmers in a difficult position. Rental agreements should be structured so that if times get lean, cash rents are adjusted accordingly. In most cases, farmers’ balance sheets in 2021 are weaker than they were during the 2013 run-up in commodity prices. There is less working capital and more debt now, but $5 corn is an alluring prize. It’s also a dangerous one, says Widmar, who urges farmers to ask themselves two questions: ? What did 2020 net farm income look like without government payments? ? What were you losing sleep about last May? If the answers are: not positive and grain marketing, you may want to consider pumping the brakes on spending a lot of money to add more farmland. “We need to avoid the decisions made in good years that we have to pay for in bad years,” he says. ?UQ -- Ag High -- OptimismAg industry strong now – optimism across the sector AgDaily, 4-6, 2021, (AgDaily Reporters, "Strong commodity prices boost Ag Economy Barometer," DDI) an increase in market prices right before planting season, many farmers have more of an optimistic view of the future. According to the the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer, farmer’s optimism rose 12 points in March to a reading of 177 — marking the highest reading for the barometer since October 2020. The Index of Future Expectations snapped a four-month decline, rising 16 points to a reading of 164 in March. The Index of Current Conditions tied with its previous all-time high, rising two points to a reading of 202. The Ag Economy Barometer is calculated each month from 400 U.S. agricultural producers’ responses to a telephone survey. “Even with a rebound in crop production in 2021, it looks like carryover supplies of corn and soybeans will remain tight, providing producers’ confidence that crop prices will remain strong this year,” said James Mintert, the barometer’s principal investigator and director of Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture. “A rebound in the U.S. economy this summer combined with expectations for a smaller pork supply is also providing some optimism in the livestock sector.” In March, producers continued to be relatively optimistic about making farm machinery purchases and capital investments in their farming operations. The Farm Capital Investment Index held at a reading of 88, just 5 points below its all-time high of 93. Since March 2020, when farmers’ confidence in the agricultural economy plummeted, the investment index has risen 63%. Farmers’ bullish views on farmland values, both in the coming year and in the next five years, continued in March. The Short-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index rose for the fourth month in a row, up 3-points to a reading of 148, and the Long-Term Farmland Value Index, matched its previous high set back in December, up 4-points to a reading of 157. Compared to the May 2020 low-point, producers’ optimism toward long-term farmland values is up 22 percent. Producers’ perspective on their farms’ financial position continues to improve, which appears to be fueling some of the short-term optimism about farmland values and capital investments. The Farm Financial Performance Index is based on responses to a question that asks producers, “As of today, do you expect your farm’s financial performance to be better than, worse than, or about the same as last year?” In April 2020, the index hit an all-time low of 55; since that time, the index has seen a remarkable improvement, up 127 percent to a record high of 125 in March.UQ -- Ag High -- Exports HighAgricultural exports continue to grow as Chinese purchases increaseNewman 21 [Jesse Newman, "For U.S. Farmers, China Is Back and Bigger Than Ever," WSJ, 3-10-2021, , wcLH]The revival of trade relations is rippling across fields and barns throughout the U.S., buoying businesses that suffered as Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods such as soybeans and pork slashed exports and pressured prices. Josh Gackle, a North Dakota farmer who grows corn, soybeans and other crops, said sharply higher commodity prices have allowed him to show his bankers this year—the first in six—that his farm will turn a profit. “It’s definitely encouraging to see China back in the market,” Mr. Gackle said, adding that he plans to build a $500,000 shop on his farm for fixing equipment. Like other farmers, Mr. Gackle had bet big on China in recent years, planting soybeans across half his 6,000 acres. In 2018, the year the trade conflict began, U.S. soybean exports to China fell 74% by volume. Prices for the oilseeds tumbled, too, and the Trump administration launched a relief program that ultimately would dole out more than $23 billion in aid to struggling farmers. U.S. farmers, industry groups and government officials hurried to woo buyers in markets beyond China, including Europe and Southeast Asia. Launching a project to make up for lost sales to China, soybean officials joined regional trade exchanges overseas and led prospective buyers on tours of U.S. farms and shipping infrastructure. The U.S. and China signed a deal in January 2020 marking a truce in the trade war, with Beijing pledging to boost U.S. agricultural imports. China’s swift recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and efforts to rebuild the country’s hog herd following a deadly swine disease, are further fueling China’s appetite for U.S. farm goods, agriculture executives and analysts said. China’s race to fatten its hogs helped drive a 53% jump in U.S. soybean exports to the country last year compared with 2019, representing the second-highest volume on record and more than half of all soybean shipments, according to USDA. Corn exports soared more than 20-fold to a new high. Brian Pridgeon interacts with pigs on his Michigan farm. China is now buying more U.S. agricultural goods than it did before the trade war. In the first eight weeks of this year, Chinese buyers have purchased nearly triple the amount of U.S. soybeans compared with the same period a year earlier. Prices for the oilseeds are up 64% from year-ago levels. In response, U.S. farmers are expected to plant a record 182 million acres of corn and soybeans this spring, boosting soybean acreage by seven million from 2020, according to a USDA forecast. Grain-trading giants that are pumping out feed ingredients for Chinese hog farmers say they expect the strong demand to continue. Chinese purchases are helping draw down U.S. corn and soybean stockpiles, prompting domestic processors to rush to lock in supplies and boosting some food prices for consumers. “This is not a one-year phenomenon,” said Ray Young, financial chief at grain-trading firm Archer Daniels Midland Co. ADM -1.24% during a conference last week. Cargill Inc. said Thursday that it would plow $475 million into its U.S. soybean facilities, expanding processing plants in Ohio and Iowa and automating some loading operations in Kansas and Missouri. Farmers and agricultural officials caution that China’s rapid return must not impede recent U.S. efforts to court buyers in other world markets. Brian Pridgeon cradles a piglet on his farm, which raises 70,000 pigs a year. U.S. soybean exports to China jumped 53% last year as the country raced to fatten its own hog herds that were devastated by disease. Michigan hog farmer Brian Pridgeon said China’s pork-purchasing spree is exciting. But he said he worries it will wane as China’s own production rebounds. “We can’t just be reliant on one partner,” said Mr. Pridgeon, who raises 70,000 pigs a year. ‘The wish is to build demand for soybeans in emerging markets so that we’re not just tied to China.’— Josh Gackle, North Dakota farmer. The Biden administration’s newly confirmed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in February that strong Chinese demand and higher commodity prices were good news for U.S. farmers. “The bad news is that at any point in time, because of the complex nature of that relationship, things can happen that might impact and affect those purchases,” he said. Soybean industry officials say efforts to expand U.S. oilseeds’ reach haven’t let up. Unable to travel due to global Covid-19 restrictions, the U.S. Soybean Export Council instead hosted some 400 virtual events for global buyers within the past year and launched its biggest-ever digital marketing campaign to attract new customers, said Jim Sutter, the council’s chief executive. As part of that effort, Mr. Gackle logged onto a Zoom call at 10 p.m. one night last month to answer questions about his farm from poultry and aquaculture firms in countries including Vietnam and Indonesia. “The wish is to build demand for soybeans in emerging markets so that we’re not just tied to China,” Mr. Gackle said. “I don’t think any farmer thinks this will last forever.”Agriculture exports are on an upward trend for 2021 – current exports are record-breakingRamirez-Santos 7/1 (Hernando Ramirez-Santos, “U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO REACH A NEW RECORD IN 2021”, 7/1/21, abasto, pg online @) U.S. agricultural exports in the first four months (January – April) of 2021 were a record $59 billion, exceeding the previous record set in 2014 by nearly $5 billion. At the current pace, there is a strong possibility of a record-breaking year for U.S. agricultural exports surpassing the 2014 mark of $154.5 billion, according to the USDA’s International Agricultural Trade Report. Robust global demand, high commodity prices, and increased U.S. competitiveness have led to record exports of corn, sorghum, beef, food preparations, and other products. Others, including soybeans, soybean meal, wheat, and dairy, have also seen large increases during recent years and have contributed significantly to early-year export levels. The agriculture, food, and related industries are vital parts of the U.S. economy, contributing an estimated $1.109 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product and providing employment for 22.2 million people in the United States in 2019, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service. Agricultural exports have grown significantly within the past decades, becoming an increasingly important component of the agriculture industry. From 2000 to 2020, U.S. agricultural exports grew from $56 billion to $150 billion. It is estimated that U.S. agricultural exports supported nearly 1.1 million full-time jobs in 2019. In 2020, exports increased by nearly $9 billion during 2019. A record in 2021 would drive this total even higher, likely supporting more U.S. jobs and making a larger positive impact on the U.S. economy. U.S. agricultural exports during the pandemic reinforce this idea. While the export value of a few products like tree nuts, beef, and cotton declined in 2020, total exports increased significantly. Record harvests causing low prices were the main drivers for the decline in tree nut export value (despite volume increases). Still, declines in beef and cotton could be partially attributed to COVID-19 due to reduced hotel, restaurant, and institutional sector demand and a slowdown of global apparel consumption. All other top export products performed as well as or better than 2019. In the first four months of 2021, exports of top products have met, exceeded, or in some cases greatly exceeded exports from the same period in 2020, contributing to an overall increase of more than $12 billion.UQ -- AG High -- Grain Grain prices are high making the sector strong – but prices are volatile, and a reduction in production could deck progress.Newman 21 (Jesse, covers food and agriculture for The Wall Street Journal, with an emphasis on grain farming and the American Midwest, 1-22-2021, Wall Street Journal, URL: , //RN)A crop glut that battered American farmers is subsiding, fueling an unexpected recovery in the U.S. Farm Belt following a yearslong agricultural recession. Prices for corn, soybeans and wheat have soared to their highest levels in more than six years as dry weather and strong export demand from China drain U.S. stockpiles. The rising commodity prices are rippling through the food chain, helping drive a sharp increase in U.S. farm income and lifting the prospects for a swath of rural businesses, from grain traders to equipment manufacturers and fertilizer suppliers. At the same time, the revival in the grain sector is boosting costs and pressuring profit margins for producers of food and fuel that soak up vast quantities of U.S. corn and soybeans each year, and likely will drive increases in food prices for consumers, some food executives say. It is a dramatic reversal from recent years in which bumper harvests swelled U.S. grain supplies, pushing prices lower and slashing farmers’ incomes. A wave of bankruptcies swept Midwestern farms, followed by trade disputes and the coronavirus pandemic, which deepened farmers’ struggles. Now, China’s push to increase pork production and fulfill recent trade commitments are propelling huge volumes of U.S. crops overseas. American food processors and manufacturers also are racing to ensure they have adequate grain and oilseed supplies to meet burgeoning consumer demand. Inventories of corn, soybeans and wheat are on track this season to hit their lowest in at least six years, according to U.S. Agriculture Department forecasts. “There’s euphoria over [grain] prices,” said Illinois farmer David Brown, on a trip to his local grain elevator to sell soybeans. “There’s a feeling out there saying ‘game on, we’re back.’” Large harvests or a slowdown in U.S. crop shipments to China could dampen the rally in grain markets, though industry analysts say rebuilding domestic stockpiles to comfortable levels could potentially keep prices high for up to two years. Higher crop prices combined with record federal aid from the Trump administration pushed farmers’ incomes last year to their highest since 2013 even after the pandemic upended the U.S. farm sector, according to a USDA forecast. U.S. farm income will top $119 billion in 2020, the USDA said, the second-highest in nominal terms. Farmers emboldened by the turnaround could sow crops this spring over the largest area since 2014, some agricultural economists and analysts say, planting corn and soybeans on millions of acres kept out of production by regional wet weather the past two seasons. Businesses across the agricultural supply chain stand to benefit, as newly flush farmers who have delayed purchases spring for new tractors or higher-yielding seeds. The activity could boost profits for farm-equipment maker Deere & Co. and seed and pesticide suppliers such as Corteva Inc. “Farmers are going to be bidding for farm ground, replacing combines and talking about ways to put another 10 bushels per acre into their bins,” said Michael Swanson, agricultural economist at Wells Fargo & Co., a major farm lender. Stronger commodity markets already are pushing up farmland values, according to farmers, lenders and land managers. David Englund, chief executive of Farmers National Company, said the farm-management company last fall sold some parcels of land at prices that neared those last seen in 2012, during the last farm boom. A cornfield being plowed after harvest in Rosecrans, Ill., in December. Growing global demand is also lifting the fortunes of grain giants such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bunge Ltd. , which trade crops and process them into food. Both companies cited stronger exports as a factor behind rising profits last fall. Farmers’ windfall is reviving the outlook for other rural businesses and organizations whose fates are closely tied to agriculture, said Andrew McDermid, owner of a hardware store in Kulm, N.D. Customer debts at Mr. McDermid’s store are half what they were at this time last year, he said, and the town’s fire department is anticipating an uptick in donations after a 25% drop over the last five years. A turnaround on grain farms will mean high prices for others. U.S. livestock producers and poultry farmers this year could see a 27% jump in prices for grain, the main cost of raising animals, said Will Sawyer, an economist for agricultural lender CoBank. Higher feed costs will also boost expenses for U.S. meat companies such as Tyson Foods Inc. and Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. Ethanol plants that suffered from a sharp drop-off in demand during the pandemic now face climbing prices for corn, their main raw material. Some U.S. food manufacturers and grocers say consumers likely will see higher food prices due to rising commodity costs. Other major grain exporters have taken steps to curb food-price inflation: Russia has said it would raise duties on grain exports for several months this spring, and Argentina temporarily halted corn exports earlier this year. Still, Minnesota farmer George Goblish said higher grain prices are welcome after six lean years, enabling him to consider replacing a combine he has kept running for 13 years. “Some of the stress is gone,” said Mr. Goblish. Deere last fall raised expectations for profits this year in anticipation of better demand from U.S. farmers for its tractors and harvesting combines. Mr. Goblish, who also sells crop-seed to nearby farmers, said a feeling of relief is palpable among his customers too. “They don’t bicker so much when I tell them what the seed cost is,” he said.UQ -- Ag High -- Beans Agriculture is going to be more profitable in 2021.Rook 21 [Written By, "Grain prices have hit multiyear highs in 2021, but many farmers missed out," Agweek, 3-8-2021, , wcLH]The grain markets have been on a bull run for the last several months, with futures prices hitting multiyear highs. Corn in early February 2021 hit a seven-year high, with soybeans scoring six-year highs. The move took many in the industry by surprise, given that grain prices in the spring of 2020 had hit new contract and multiyear lows at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.As the pandemic began the spring of 2020, the demand picture had looked dismal. The corn market was crushed as roughly 50% of the ethanol plants in the United States went offline in mid-April as the nation went into lockdown and gas demand came to a screeching halt. That was followed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's predictions for increased corn acreage of 97 million acres in the June 2020 WASDE Report, with production of 15.995 billion bushels and record corn ending stocks at 3.323 billion bushels.Soybean ending stocks looked more manageable in the June report at 395 million bushels. However, with African swine fever destroying more than half of China’s hog herd, the outlook for soybean demand was threatened, despite the signing of the phase one trade agreement. Add to that the prospects for record crops in South America and cooperative weather helping farmers to plant their crops at a near record place in the U.S.As a result, many market services advised clients to forward price new crop corn and soybean with little improvement expected in the markets during 2020.Daniel Fixsen, a Wabasso, Minn., farmer, said he totally missed out on the rally.“Well, most of our beans were sold off the combine this fall, that was different. Normally we wait till the summer,” he said.Bob Worth of Lake Benton, Minn., said his farm did some scale up selling, but they still sold most of their crop too early. While they made a profit, they still left money on the table.“We started selling our beans at $8.20 and we got all the way up to $9.50 before we had the last of them gone," he said. "Same way with corn, we don't have a kernel of anything left on the farm.”By the end of June, things started to change in the markets. In USDA’s June 30, 2020, Acreage Report, corn acreage was cut by nearly 5 million acres, to 92 million acres, which was a huge surprise to the trade.That was followed by production problems including the flash drought in the western Corn Belt. Western Iowa was hit the hardest, which cut corn and soybean yields. However, the bigger production cut came from the historic derecho that hit Iowa in mid-August, flattening corn and taking several million bushels of corn production off the balance sheets.However, the biggest factor was the robust demand that started to kick in in August, with big export sales of corn and soybeans to China. This jump started a parabolic rally in soybean prices that caught nearly everyone off-guard. Unfortunately, many farmers had already marketed their soybeans prior to or at harvest, well before the majority of the rally started. It was estimated nearly 80% of soybeans were sold before the largest part of the rally took place.Old crop soybeans put their lows in in August 2020 and put on over $6 when they hit new contract highs in the last week of February 2021. Old crop corn futures rallied nearly $2.50 off the lows to hit their contract highs in February 2021.Now producers are watching new crop grain futures and trying to decide when and if they should start selling ahead or wait, especially with looming drought in the back of their minds. Jordan Scott and his father Kevin farm near Valley Springs, S.D. They have been doing a few new crop sales with prices above year-ago levels.“It might be a good point to look ahead and make some sales. We’ve sold a little ahead, nothing crazy, but we’re looking to the future,” Scott said.During the last week of February, both new crop corn and soybeans hit new contract highs. As a result, that put the February Crop Insurance Base Prices at $4.58 for corn and $11.87 for soybeans, while spring wheat averaged $6.53. These prices are well above a year ago and hopefully an indication farmers will be able to market at even more profitable levels in 2021 than they did in 2020.UQ -- AT: Covid = No AgIndustries have long adapted and aren’t vulnerable to COVIDOECD 20, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is an organization that works to build better policies. 60 years of experience with governments on establishing international standards and solutions to various challengs, COVID-19 and the food and agriculture sector: Issues and policy responses," 4-1-2020, //AKCurrently, there is no reason for the health crisis to develop into a global food crisis. Supplies of staple crops are large, production prospects are favourable, and cereal stocks are expected to reach their third highest level on record.1 Moreover, most countries have designated the agriculture and agro-food sector as essential and exempt from business closure and restrictions on movement. For many countries, the direct impacts of the pandemic on primary agriculture should be limited, as the disease does not affect the natural resources upon which production is based. However, the virus poses a serious threat to food security and livelihoods in the poorest countries, where agricultural production systems are more labour-intensive and there is less capacity to withstand a severe macroeconomic shock.Because food is a basic necessity, the level of food demand should be affected less by the crisis than the demand for other goods and services. However, there has been a major shift in the structure of demand, with a collapse in demand from restaurants, hotels and catering, the closure of open markets, and a surge in demand from supermarkets. There are signs that businesses along the food chain are already adapting to shifts in demand, for example by switching production lines and increasing their capacity to manage larger inventories; moving to on-line platforms and direct delivery to households; and hiring temporary staff. Agriculture will continue to grow coming out of the pandemicSuccessful Farming 21 [Successful Farming, "2021 is an economic game changer for farmers," 2-10-2021, , wcLH]It’s taken a while, but the economics for corn and soybean farmers have changed since late summer of 2020.Farmers may have a new four-letter word to describe 2020: cash. It largely has to do with the market rally that started in late summer and continued into 2021.At the time of this writing, the soybean cash market had added more than $4 per bushel since October 30. The cash corn market had added more than $2 per bushel since late August. In addition to commodity prices, ad hoc government payments, which reached historic highs in 2020, have contributed to the economic turnaround.As farmers budget for 2021, the opportunity for profits exists for the first time in many years, says David Widmar, cofounder of Agricultural Economic Insights.“In August, December 2020 corn got as low as $3.20 per bushel, with many producers facing sub-$3 cash prices. Since then, the outlook has changed completely. We’ve gone from producers facing significant losses to finishing 2020 with strong returns. Thinking about 2021, our crop budget projections have improved significantly with the price rally. In the Corn Belt, revenue projections have improved $73 per acre for corn and $114 per acre for soybeans over the last six months,” Widmar says.There are a lot of reasons these farm markets have reached seven- and eight-year highs. A key factor is the uncertainty in corn and soybean production, Widmar says.“The supply story is a major price driver. U.S. production has been limited by the large prevented-plant acreage of 2019 and 2020. We’ve also had below-trend corn yields. The combination of limited U.S. production and strong demand, which is well known, has paved the path for this rally. The supply story has been very important but largely overlooked,” Widmar says.UQ -- Brink Ag is strong now but on the brink – uncertainty from COVID means anything can tip it over.Johansson 20 (Robert, USDA Chief Economist in Farming Trade, "America’s Farmers: Resilient Throughout the COVID Pandemic," 10-13-2020, USDA, URL: , //RN)Positive signs, but uncertainty continues Earlier this year, when we released the Department’s initial projections for 2020 at USDA’s Agricultural Outlook Forum, the immediate future looked to be improving (oce/ag-outlook-forum). We were expecting better weather, improved trading relationships, and global economic growth that would fuel demand for US agricultural exports. The COVID-19 outbreak has severely dampened expectations for 2020 and 2021. And while the timing and pace of the economic recovery remain uncertain, the fundamentals of U.S. agriculture are sufficiently strong to withstand the crisis. The sector continues to chart productivity gains; and smart policies, technology, and innovation are helping farmers deal with the effects of adverse weather conditions. Although the early August derecho in the Midwest, the severe fires in the West, and the more recent Hurricane activity in the Gulf have caused localized losses, from a national perspective weather conditions have improved relative to 2018 and 2019, signaling a more bountiful harvest in the fall. Record levels of meat and dairy production are expected in 2020 and 2021. We know that U.S. agriculture is highly competitive in global markets, and the trade outlook is looking more favorable with expected global economic recovery in 2021. Overall, agricultural exports during the COVID-19 period appear to have been holding up relatively well compared to overall U.S. exports. In the first seven months of 2020, U.S. ag exports were down 3.5 percent from last year compared to a decrease of 18 percent for non-ag exports. Just recently we have seen a major uptick in Chinese purchases. For instance, while U.S. soybean exports had started off slow this year, since July, China has purchased 14 MMTs. Over the past few months, China has also signaled the intent to purchase corn at amounts exceeding its 7.2 MMT quota if they all finalized. Purchases are up across the board, with total accumulated sales for wheat, sorghum, cotton, pork and beef exceeding the pace of 2017 levels year-to-date. The limited impact of the crisis on overall agricultural exports reflects the fact that demand for food is relatively income-inelastic, and that marine transportation used for most agricultural products (in particular bulk products) has not been significantly disrupted. U.S. agricultural exports in Fiscal Year 2021 are projected at $140.5 billion, up $5.5 billion from the FY 2020, primarily driven by higher exports of soybeans and corn. Soybean export volume is forecast to rise nearly 26 percent year-over-year as growing demand in China and significantly reduced export volume forecast from Brazil opens the door for a rise in U.S. exports. Corn exports are also forecast to rise $700 million to $9.0 billion in FY2021 and horticultural exports by $500 million to $35.0 billion due to expected increase in sales of tree nuts, among other products. Similarly, livestock, poultry, and dairy exports are forecast up $500 million to $32.3 billion. But despite these encouraging signs, many U.S. farmers continue to confront significant challenges and the immediate outlook for the sector remains highly uncertain. In many cases, producers didn’t experience the full impacts of markets disrupted by COVID-19 until just recently. Think of a sweet potato grower that has just begun to harvest his or her crop and now has nowhere to send it – and they incur unexpected costs to dispose of the portion they cannot sell. Or a potato grower whose contracts with potato processors for potatoes destined for restaurants have been cut in half. Those producers began to experience higher costs and lower revenues as a result of COVID-19 only recently. And the impacts of COVID-19 are expected to continue into next year: a forecast by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri expects farm income to fall by $21.9 billion in 2021 compared to their forecast prior to COVID-19, even when accounting for higher payments from farm bill programs.UQ -- AT: Biden Regs Biden is set on undoing Trump era legislation and reinstating Obama era legislationBoyce 2/3/21(“A look at the Biden Administration’s agriculture policies and initiatives”, 2/3/21, Brian Boyce, --MR)Ag producers around the country watched the 2020 U.S. presidential elections with mixed emotions and little clarity as to which candidate was really theirs. After a most tumultuous year for all things related to COVID-19, the ag industry, like all others, was more than perplexed at what the future had in store. That said, with the results now firmly in and U.S. President Joe Biden in the White House, farmers and their related business partners are already feeling more confident that they at least understand the direction this administration will be taking over the next four years. With Biden’s decision to return former President Barack Obama administration’s Tom Vilsack to the position of Secretary of Agriculture, it seems clear that many of that administration’s larger policy initiatives and overall goals will return. For the ag industry, that brings a mixed bag of cheers and jeers. But the good news is, familiarity yields some degree of predictability. In the boil-down, Vilsack is seen as a relatively strong ally of the larger commercial ag industry, which has many progressive Democrats a bit a’boil as they’d hoped for harder-line climate change, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and race-related issues. That said, Vilsack has received high praise from the groups ranging from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Conservation Districts, and the American Farmland Trust. Here we take a deeper look at some of the specifics: Most recently the president and CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council, Vilsack has served in that role since 2017 following his years as Secretary of Agriculture under Obama, where he earned the distinction of being that administration’s longest serving Cabinet member. While the Biden Administration will be the overall driver in terms of policy, Vilsack’s role is vital specifically to agriculture and to how the industry will be shaped in the coming years. His nomination, which was on the Senate’s fast track, was perhaps considered a “safe” choice by many considering the division over the other leading candidates: Heidi Heitkamp, a former senator from North Dakota, and Marcia Fudge, a congresswoman from Ohio. While at the USDEC, Vilsack’s role was to serve as the organization’s primary spokesperson and provide strategic leadership while promoting their research, regulatory, and trade policy initiatives. A native of Pittsburgh, Vilsack was born into an orphanage, later adopted, and ultimately graduated from Hamilton College and Albany Law School in New York. With his wife, Christie, he moved to her hometown of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, to practice law, and ultimately serve two terms as governor of that state. In addition to policy matters, members of the Biden administration have noted that one of Vilsack’s roles will be to serve as an emissary to the rural states which have tended away from Democratic candidates over the years, in favor of Republicans. “It isn’t an overnight problem to be solved. It’s a long-term investment in understanding, appreciating and respecting rural America,” stated spokeswoman Anne McMillan on his behalf. joe biden food Image by Evan El-Amin, Shutterstock President Biden’s Ag Initiatives In terms of agriculture policy, Biden’s platform proposals remained remarkably consistent throughout the din and furor of the 2020 primary and general election. With his pick of Vilsack and statements made in the earliest weeks of selection, it seems likely that those goals will remain in place. Immigration: Considered an ag issue due to the high numbers of farm workers who come to America for work, the Biden administration is pledging sweeping moves to undo the rules laid down by his predecessor, President Donald Trump. The package would provide a path to legal citizenship for as many as 11 million people presently undocumented or in the U.S. illegally. Agricultural labor supply has long been a cause championed by groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation. It’s good to keep in mind that the Biden administration is quite keen on all things green as well as social justice, so moves involving immigration passes will most certainly hinge in that direction. Infrastructure: The Biden administration is also seeking a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure plan focused on green energy, rural Wi-Fi, bridges, roads, water systems, and the electrical grid. As infrastructure and transportation are crucial elements for ag producers, many see this as a positive, although concerns about new regulations are ever-present. No doubt, the Biden team is seeing most issues in a shade of Green. For instance, the USDA maintains a multibillion-dollar fund called the Commodity Credit Corp, long used as a funding vehicle for producer payments. Biden’s team is actively calling for that to be converted into a “carbon bank,” which would help produces transition to greener practices. Rural communities: Clearly both a political and economic goal of the new administration is to win hearts and minds in rural America, which has in recent years trended away from the Democrats. Although some minorities within the Democratic Party claimed disappointment in the pick of Vilsack over a minority, the administration’s stated commitment to increasing opportunities and funding for minority producers remains among the highest of its goals. In addition to greener practices, the administration has pledged to help support smaller and mid-sized operations which have felt ignored in the past. Crop subsidies: Throughout the campaign, Biden has emphasized his intent to emphasize conservation payments and use of agriculture as a way to address climate change through practices such as carbon sequestration. Biden has called for the ag industry aiming for a zero emissions over time, which could include support for biofuels and ethanol. With the COVID-19 quarantines and shut-downs hopefully nearing an end, the question of how much subsidization will occur going forward is a bit foggy yet. Producers under the Trump administration received record sums in terms of support, but to a large degree those sums went part-and-parcel with trade battles and COVID-19. Again, with the Biden administration, crop subsidies are going to be seen as tools in their efforts to affect social change on the behalf of smaller operation, minority farmers, and the climate change issues. Trade: From the start, foreign trade talks have dominated the political discussions for not just agricultural industries, but nearly all. With the U.S. still holding significant tariffs on various Chinese goods, farmers who deal with that nation and others have been both shaken and stirred. The Biden administration has maintained that it will continue working for better trade deals with China, but promises to take a less combative approach then their predecessor, forgoing the unilateral approach to a multi-lateral one with other allies. Biden is also expected to return to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Growing Forward One consistent message throughout the 2020 election was Biden’s intent to help smaller and mid-size farms as opposed to the larger operations. How exactly that comes into play remains to be seen, but the team commitment to social justice issues across all boards includes those smaller operations as well. Tax policy will also undoubtedly be driven toward shifting a greater burden onto higher earners and companies with higher revenues, which in turn would be explained as a benefit to smaller farms and their owners. In boiling down the message from all different topics one sees that while basic programs will remain the same in terms of structure, smaller and greener will be the buzz words for the foreseeable future. Producers and enthusiasts throughout the field of agriculture can take note that with familiar faces come familiar results. Fans of the Obama-era USDA will most likely take comfort in that, while those unhappy with that team’s tax and regulation strategy will not.Biden administration substantially investing in the agriculture industryNRCS, 6-24-2021, "USDA to Invest $10 Million to Support Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry through Voluntary Conservation," National Resources Conservation Service, , June 24, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is providing $10 million to support climate-smart agriculture and forestry through voluntary conservation practices in 10 targeted states. This assistance, available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), will help agricultural producers plan and implement voluntary conservation practices that sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change on working lands. Producers in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin can apply for this funding opportunity. Each state will determine its own signup period, with signups expected to begin on or around?June 24 in most states. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which administers EQIP, selected states based on demonstrated demand for additional support for climate-smart practices. This pilot will be expanded through a comprehensive effort across all states and programs to support farmers, ranchers and forest landowners in fiscal year 2022. “Farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are the best stewards of our lands and waters, and they play a critical role in climate change mitigation,” said Gloria Monta?o Greene, USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. “We will use this EQIP signup to deliver support for implementing critical climate-smart conservation practices to producers in key states, with plans to leverage lessons learned and further support national climate change mitigation efforts later this calendar year.” “Supporting producers equitably is critical to our mission,” said NRCS Chief Terry Cosby. “By working with our producers and partner groups across these states, we are striving to ensure funds are equitably distributed, including to our historically underserved producers. NRCS has a suite of conservation practices producers can implement to meet these goals.” EQIP and Targeted Climate Change Mitigation. Through EQIP, NRCS provides agricultural producers and landowners with financial assistance and one-on-one technical support to plan and implement voluntary conservation practices. The outcomes are a benefit for producers and the environment, with producers conserving natural resources and delivering environmental benefits while building resiliency to strengthen their working land. While NRCS offers a broad array of conservation practices, the agency identifies a sub-set as critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sequestering carbon and ultimately mitigating the impacts of climate change. These climate-smart conservation practices will be prioritized in this targeted EQIP signup period and support systems for: Building soil health. Improving nitrogen management. Improving livestock waste management systems. Enhancing grazing and pasture management. Improving agroforestry, forestry and upland wildlife habitat. Improving conservation management for rice production. Producers can visit NRCS’s EQIP webpage for a list of the specific climate-smart conservation practices. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry and Voluntary Conservation. USDA is committed to working with farmers, ranchers, forest landowners and partners to increase climate resilience, sequester carbon, enhance agricultural productivity and maintain critical environmental benefits through voluntary conservation efforts. In addition to this targeted EQIP signup, USDA has also: Invested $330 million in 85 locally driven, public-private partnerships to mitigate climate change and address other natural resource challenges through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Allocated up to $25 million for On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials in 2021, with climate-smart agricultural solutions set as one priority. Allocated up to $15 million to support the development of new tools, approaches, practices and technologies to further natural resource conservation on private lands through the Conservation Innovation Grants program. NRCS is accepting proposals through July 19. Expanded the Conservation Reserve Program to include higher payment rates, new incentives and a more targeted focus on the program’s role in climate change mitigation. USDA’s Farm Service Agency is accepting applications through July 23, 2021. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is engaged in a whole-of-government effort to combat the climate crisis and conserve and protect our nation’s lands, biodiversity and natural resources including our soil, air and water. Through conservation practices and partnerships, USDA aims to enhance economic growth and create new streams of income for farmers, ranchers, producers and private foresters. Successfully meeting these challenges will require USDA and our agencies to pursue a coordinated approach alongside USDA stakeholders, including State, local and Tribal governments. USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. Biden’s executive order will create a more competitive agricultural industryHirtzer and Shanker 21 [Michael Hirtzer,Deena Shanker, "Biden Is Taking On Big Ag With a Bid to Help Family Farmers," Bloomberg, 7-9-2021, , wcLH]President Joe Biden’s sweeping?executive order?promoting competition across American industries aims to give a boost to farmers whose profits have dwindled as multinational companies increasingly dominate markets for crops, chemicals, seeds and meat.Biden’s?order?includes directives on issues long pushed by some farm groups, such as rules that would help chicken farmers and ranchers win claims against poultry and meat packers, and better-defined “Product of the USA” labels. It also encourages regulators to limit equipment makers’ ability to restrict farmers from repairing their own tractors.The order comes amid increasing?political pressure?on lawmakers to level the playing field in agricultural markets. The U.S. industry is heavily concentrated, with four companies controlling the world’s seeds while poultry and beef are similarly consolidated. The disparity came into focus in the coronavirus outbreak last year, when thousands of workers at meat plants caught the virus. Plants closed, sending meat prices surging while hog and cattle prices tumbled.For farmers, market concentration “means they get less when they sell their produce and meat -- even as prices rise at the grocery store,” the order on Friday stated.Rules with similar goals as some described in the order were proposed under President Obama, whose Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack now serves under Biden.UQ -- Ag High -- FWMAAn agricultural bill passed the house w/ bipartisan support alreadyNational Law Review, 4-10-2021, "Legislation to Create a Pathway to Legalization Passes House and Goes to Senate," National Law Review, House also passed the Farm Workforce Modernization Act by a 247-174 vote. Thirty Republicans voted for the bill, while one Democrat voted against it. The legislation will provide a temporary status, Certified Agricultural Workers, for those who were agricultural workers for at least 180 days during the past two years. Spouses and children of the workers can also apply under the Act. Undocumented farmworkers will have to pay a fine and engage in additional agricultural work depending on their length of period they have performed agricultural labor in the United States. Those with ten years of previous agricultural experience will be eligible to apply for a green card after working four more years. Those with less than ten years of experience will have to work eight more years to apply. The legislation also streamlines the process to get an H-2A visa, which is a work visa for foreign citizens to work temporarily in the United States. This bill is seen as a welcome measure for many in the agricultural sector, as there has always been a dearth of farmworkers in the United States. Undocumented farmworkers are especially vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus, as they have limited access to medical facilities and are often underpaid due to their immigration status.UQ -- Ag High -- AIThe agriculture industry is booming with the help of AIMarketWatch 6/24 (MarketWatch, “Global AI Market in Agriculture Market 2021 Is Expected To Register a CAGR Of 21.48% With Top Countries Data Industry Size, Future Trends, Growth Key Factors, Demand, Manufacture Players, Application, Scope, and Opportunities Analysis by Outlook” 6/24/21, MarketWatch, pg online @ ) The Artificial Intelligence (AI) market in agriculture is expected to register a CAGR of over 21.48%, during the forecast period.. The report profiles the application of AI, for increasing production and streamlining cultivation process, in the farming sector. The AI market is driven by the increasing adoption of robots, in agriculture. The increasing consumption and rising requirement of better yields of crops are fueling the demand for robots, in agriculture. The increasing consumption encourages farmers to scale up agricultural operations, thus paving way for the requirement of automation, in farming operations. As the farmers are shifting toward automation, drones and robots have become an integral part of agriculture farms, and are enhancing yield and improving the product quality. The combination of the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence technologies, such as machine learning, computer vision, and predictive analytics, allows farmers to analyze real-time data of weather conditions, temperature, soil moisture, plant health, and crop prices in the market. Precision Farming Expected to Record Significant Growth Machine learning is booming, with the rising adoption of AI technologies for various applications across the agriculture sector, such as precision farming, drone analytics, agriculture robots, and livestock monitoring. Machine learning-enabled solutions are being significantly adopted by agricultural organizations and farmers across the world, to enhance farm productivity and gain a competitive edge, across the business operations. Moreover, in the coming years, the application of machine learning for various agricultural activities is expected to rise exponentially, along with other applications, including smart greenhouse management, soil management, and fish farming management. Due to the robust adoption of artificial intelligence technologies for this application, the application of precision farming is likely to continue to account for the largest market size over the forecast period. Europe Expected to Account for the Largest Market Share AI is the backbone of robotics. In addition, the increasing adoption of smart sensors in agriculture and growing trend of precision farming are estimated to be the major factors that are contributing significantly toward the overall revenue of the regional enterprises. The integration of mobile technologies with farming techniques, along with the rising use of artificial intelligence software to improve farm efficiency, is fueling the demand for real-time data management systems, across the region. Also, Report contains a comprehensive analysis of the important segments like market opportunities, import/export details, market dynamics, key manufacturers, growth rate, and key regions. AI Market in Agriculture Market report categorizes the market based on manufacturers, regions, type, and application. AI Market in Agriculture Market reports offer a detailed assessment of the AI Market in Agriculture including enabling technologies, current market situation, market assumptions, restraining factors.UQ -- Ag High -- DemandThe agriculture industry is growing - there is a larger need for food, and people are taking sustainability into their own handsBusinessMoney 20 (BusinessMoney, Business Money delivers business finance news, jobs, reviews, research, comment and analysis to the invoice finance and business banking sectors, “Why the agriculture industry is gaining popularity”, 10/15/20, BusinessMoney, pg online @ )Agriculture is one of the oldest industries known to us. However, it’s always taken a back seat to industries related to modern technologies. For example, the smartphone industry is expected to grow to $290,098 million by the end of 2025. That’s a staggering number and shows the importance of modern technology in our lives. Because of the huge numbers that it draws and our growing reliance on technology, industries such as agriculture have gone largely unnoticed. But that doesn’t mean they’re failing or experiencing troubles. In fact, the agricultural industry is starting to boom once again. With the rise of technology-powered agricultural processes, it’s finally getting the attention it deserves and here’s why. The world’s population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050. That’s a lot of mouths to feed and we need to start thinking more about how we can produce enough food to feed everyone. As of today, India, China and the United States are leading in terms of population. However, Nigeria is expected to overtake the U.S. by roughly 2050 with an enormous rate of growth. With so many people to feed, it’s clear that we need to innovate the agricultural industry to ensure that we can feed everyone. Sustaining agricultural developments and growth in areas such as India and Nigeria will be the key to feeding such a large world population. This will require many new farmers that are incentivized by agriculture initiatives. More people are taking sustainability into their own hands In the past few years, we’ve seen many people make the switch to more sustainable practices at home. Many people are starting to plant their own crops and some have moved to living on farms and ranges to become more self-reliant. UQ -- Ag High -- CottonAgriculture industry rebounding now - cotton mill use provesMeyer 2021 – Agricultural Economist Leslie Meyer, Agricultural Economist with the Crops Branch, Market and Trade Economics Division, Global cotton mill use rebounds from COVID-19 disruptions, 06/30/2021, , DDI-FGilbardCotton mill use generally follows world economic activity. When the global economy contracts (expands), consumers often decrease (increase) purchases of items such as clothing. As the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic weakened the world economy in 2020, numerous industrial disruptions occurred, including textile and apparel operations. Correspondingly, world cotton mill use in marketing year 2019 (August 2019-July 2020) declined to a 16-year low, with the 14.6 percent year-over-year decrease unmatched during the previous 100 years. However, as the global economy begins to recover from the pandemic, world cotton mill use has increased. Based on USDA’s June 2021 forecast, marketing year 2020 global cotton mill use is estimated to regain most of the past season’s lost volume, and the projected 14.8 percent year-over-year expansion is the second highest during the past century. Global cotton mill use has increased more than 10 percent year-over-year in only 7 other years since 1920, with most of those gains following significant recessionary declines. Although the global economy and cotton mill use continues to recover from the pandemic’s impact, the 2020 rebound in cotton mill use has arguably been just as historic as the unprecedented 2019 decline. This information and the effects on global cotton supply and demand are discussed in the USDA, Economic Research Service’s June 2021?Cotton and Wool Outlook.Link Link -- General Water regulations are nightmares for the ag industry – the CWA doesn’t thump because it was never fully implementedVaughn 21 (Hillary, correspondent based in Washington, D.C, "Farmers fear Biden’s climate regulations will be 'hot mess' for industry," 1-15-2021, Fox Business, URL: , //RN)Rural ranchers across the U.S. are bracing for a comeback of Environmental Protection Agency regulations under President-elect Biden that were in place during the Obama-Biden administration. The farming industry says one regulation in particular – the Clean Water Act – would be a nightmare for the industry and potentially pockets of the economy. “The 2015 Obama rule has been litigated all across the country. Multiple courts have found it to be illegal and the fact is it’s extremely confusing. The 2015 rule is basically a hot mess. It's an explosion of regulation that no one could understand," said Stefanie Smallhouse, state president of the Arizona Farm Bureau.The Clean Water Act along with Waters of the U.S. were never were fully implemented under the Obama administration before President Trump rolled it back. The rules were intended to make sure runoff from farms did not make its way into waterways and pollute the drinking water supply. But it sparked controversy industry wide – opponents argue it gave the federal government too much power and put even small puddles on the EPA’s watchlist for pollutants.“When an administration comes in and says, 'We're going to clean up the water, but we're going to put these onerous regulations in and now we're going to regulate the puddle that's in the middle of the field,' as opposed to actually putting good buffers in, incentivizing folks to do good practices, it’s a scary thought," said Mike Webert, owner of Locust Hill Farm, a cattle farm in Middleburg, Va.Ticker Security Last Change Change %CAT CATERPILLAR, INC. 218.57 +1.23 +0.57%DE DEERE & CO. 354.49 +4.80 +1.37%Other farmers are on board with the government regulations that help protect the environment and promote water safety but say they need the government to continue to cough up the cash to help them do it. Farmers are required to install fencing to cut off livestock like cows from reaching waterways, like creeks, and potentially polluting it. That forces farms to build wells to give cows a separate source of drinking water.“There's not a whole lot of profit left in farming and the little bit there is, as farmers, we need to direct those funds to cow health, cow comfort, employee safety ... updating equipment that gets used every day," said Ben Smith of Cool Lawn farm in Bealeton, Va. "All the profit that we do make needs to go back to the cows and to our employees.”Right now, the government can pay up to 75% of the cost and Smith says they need every penny.Smith said, “You know, without cost-share and funding of these projects, it would definitely be a burden. Unless we see an immediate return on investment on the farm, we're probably not going to do it.”It’s not just a flashback to Obama-era regulations that the industry is worried about but what could come under a first-time Climate Czar in the White House.“The administration can create all the climate czars and sustainability positions that they want. When farmers and ranchers are on the farm, in the ranch, we're already practicing consciousness of what's happening with the environment," said Smallhouse. "It's not as if this is a new concept on the farm or the ranch. A lot of people act like it is. It's something that we've been doing for decades."Others worry about a lack of firsthand farming experience in Biden’s climate team in Washington, D.C., would create rules that don’t make sense.“The biggest thing that I think is myself and some of my colleagues in agriculture are bracing for is you have more and more people that have been removed from agriculture and don't understand exactly what we do," said Webert. "When people can walk down an aisle and all they see is beef that's packaged, not steers that are actually eating that are going to then become that beef they get disconnected and they don't understand."Regulations affect ag innovation Miller, Hoover Institution Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy Fellow, 2017, (Henry I., "Over-regulation at USDA is holding back American agriculture," The Hill, 10-2, PAS) Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) will tackle “key problems” in the industry at its October 6 annual board meeting including optimizing agricultural water usage and improving soil health. And while those issues are important, FFAR is ignoring the most pressing issue in the industry — excessive and wrong-headed government regulation. That omission was predictable, given that four ex officio members of FFAR’s board are senior USDA officials. Excessively burdensome regulation blunts technological innovation, as explained in a 2013 policy memo by Progressive Policy Institute economists Michael Mandel and Diana Carew: "For each new regulation added to the existing pile, there is a greater possibility for…inefficient company resource allocation, and for reduced ability to invest in innovation.” The result? "The negative effect on U.S. industry of regulatory accumulation actually compounds on itself for every additional regulation added to the pile." As the regulator of the critical agricultural sector of genetically engineered plants, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is in dire need of reform to make its regulation more science-based and less burdensome. Some background is necessary. Water regulations are farmers biggest threat. Doering 16 (Christopher, Senior editor and reporter at Food Dive, an Industry Dive publication, [AFBF: Federal regulations are the biggest threat to farmers," 1-17-2016, Des Moines Register, URL: , //RN)Efforts by the federal government to regulate agriculture is one of the biggest challenges facing farmers and ranchers, the head of the country's largest farm group said last week as he worked to rally producers to defend their land.Bob Stallman, outgoing president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, used his final speech before an estimated 5,000 people at the group's annual convention to tell members that while generations of farmers have survived difficult markets and weather, “bad government should not be the straw that breaks us.”The Texas rice and cattle farmer criticized an Environmental Protection Agency's plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay in the eastern U.S., warning that unless it is struck down, it would set a dangerous precedent for the government to regulate pollution flowing into the Mississippi River and other waterways. The Farm Bureau, which has sued, recently asked the Supreme Court to hear its case.“EPA is starting with the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but unless the Supreme Court steps in, this latest EPA power grab will soon be coming to watersheds all across the country,” Stallman said. “If we’re going to let the government dictate where we can and cannot farm … then this is not the Land of Liberty.”Stallman also addressed a regulation from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to curb pollution in small waterways and wetlands that he said could infringe on farmers and ranchers and saddle them with higher costs — concerns that have been downplayed by the White House."The Clean Water Rule only regulates discharges of pollution or fill material into water," the EPA said last week in response to Stallman's comments. "A farmer is free to do whatever he or she wants to do on their land, as long as pollution doesn’t leave their farm and go into waters that are protected under the Clean Water Act."Iowa has had its own share of water concerns. Des Moines Water Works, which says it has been paying more to remove dangerous nitrates from drinking water, has sued drainage districts in three rural Iowa counties and asked the federal government to put in place regulations requiring the districts, and indirectly farmers, to adopt conservation practices. Bill Stowe, chief executive of water utility, has said the agricultural industry is not doing enough and instead pushing costs to remove the pollutants on to water users.The plan devastates groups with massive litigation and uncertainty---Trump rule preferred.Mark Ryan 20, Member of the editorial board of Natural Resources & Environment, the author of the Clean Water Act blog, and is with the firm of Ryan & Kuehler PLLC in Winthrop, Washington., “The Back Page: An Unwinnable Battle,” ABA, 10-5-2020, //AKWe're in the 2020 equivalent of trench warfare. The prize is the "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule, and the battlefield is the courts. After six years of fighting over the WOTUS rule, we're no closer to resolution than we were in 2015, when the Obama administration promulgated the rule and took the first shot at clearing up the confusion created by the Supreme Court's SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2007) decisions. Determining whether something qualifies as a WOTUS is one of the fundamental elements of establishing Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction, and the statutory definition of the term hasn't changed since the Act was passed in 1972. It is reasonable to assume that we would have figured out by now what is a WOTUS. But we haven't.The problems started with the above Supreme Court decisions that led to a 2015 Obama-era rulemaking that in turn started the current string of court cases. First, industry and agriculture groups and some red states sued over the 2015 rule. Then after Trump took office, enviro groups and some blue states went after the rules suspending and repealing the 2015 rule and just recently new suits have been filed challenging the 2020 rule that replaces the 2015 rule. The muddle was compounded by the Supreme Court's ruling in National Assoc. of Manuf's v. Dept. of Def., 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018), holding that challenges to the WOTUS rule must be brought in district courts under the Administrative Procedure Act instead of in the Circuit Courts under CWA section 509(b). As a result, instead of one case in the Sixth Circuit as we had in 2015, we now have scores of cases in district courts around the country, all challenging the same law. Forum shopping has been rampant.Enormous resources are being devoted to this litigation. I'm aware of at least 27 reported WOTUS litigation decisions since 2015. There are now three active tracts of litigation in multiple federal district courts by scores of parties. And everyone is involved--many of the major environmental groups, at least one national property rights advocate, every trade organization one can imagine and, of course, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). The Department of Justice has an entire team of lawyers assigned to this litigation, and many of the major law firms in the country are involved.No one knows what the future holds because there is too much uncertainty surrounding this litigation and the future leadership of EPA. If Trump wins reelection, it is all likely headed back to SCOTUS, where Justice Kavanaugh recently telegraphed in Maui that he might support the plurality opinion from Rapanos. But will Roberts stick with his decision to support the Rapanos plurality? If Biden wins, his administration likely will attempt to roll back the 2020 rule in favor of one that is more protective of the environment. That will surely spawn another round of litigation by agriculture, property rights and industry groups that support the Trump administration's restrictive version of WOTUS. And on and on it will go.It's time to end the madness. We deserve a WOTUS definition that reasonably protects the environment, and businesses, farmers, and landowners deserve to know what the law will be so they can plan. But the uncertainty will remain so long as Congress relies on EPA and the Corps to fix the statutory ambiguity through rulemaking. Congress needs to step in and fix the WOTUS definition. It made a run at it in 2008 with a bill that would have enshrined in the statute the EPA/Corps' definition of WOTUS that had been in place for many years. But powerful lobbies opposed, and it died in committee.It's time to try again. Let's come together, set aside the hyperbole and false narratives, debate the legitimate merits of economics, states' rights, and environmental protection through the legislative process and reach agreement on a workable national standard. Then redirect those many millions of dollars we're spending on attorneys to do something more fruitful (there are limitless options). Yes, I am aware how na?ve this sounds. But we can do better. So I ask, Congress, are you listening?Any new water policies hurt farmers – uncertainty and overregulation.Beeman 21 (Perry, Senior Reporter with over 40 years of experience in Iowa journalism, "Iowa ag secretary: Biden's waterway regulations could hurt farm interests," 1-22-2021, Iowa Capital Dispatch, URL: , //RN)Democratic President Joe Biden spent part of his first week in office inserting himself into one of agriculture’s hottest policy debates, the fight over which waterways will be protected under the Clean Water Act. Biden’s initial executive orders included one that threw out Republican President Donald Trump’s order. Trump’s action led to new rules that farmers fear will limit their work in fields that contain what the federal government considers “navigable waters.” Various versions of those rules have been tied up in court through multiple administrations led by both major parties. Mike Naig is Iowa secretary of agriculture. (Photo courtesy of state of Iowa) In Iowa, the debate has included a sitting governor who considered the Obama-Biden rules a “land grab,” and scholars who say farmers are largely unaffected by the rules and are merely jockeying for political position. Iowa officials’ reaction to Biden’s move to change the rules again have been somewhat guarded, in part because the specifics aren’t known. The debate is over the Waters of the United States rules, commonly referred to as WOTUS. In an interview, Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig, a Republican, said a return to Obama’s version of the rules would be “very detrimental” to farmers. “WOTUS, as it was written under the Obama administration, was very detrimental to farmers, communities and businesses,” Naig said. “Its broad interpretation created uncertainty, overly burdensome regulations, inconsistent enforcement, and hindered conservation efforts. The WOTUS rule was a disaster then and it would be a disaster now. I hope the Biden administration will not make the mistake of reverting to these Obama-era policies.” Biden was vice president in the Obama administration. ‘A political hoax?’ Neil Hamilton, emeritus director of the Drake Agricultural Law Center, called the whole debate a “political hoax” pushed by farm interests. “The whole WOTUS debate was a political hoax created by the (American Farm Bureau Federation) as part of their anti-government and anti-public campaign,” said Hamilton, an emeritus professor of ag law at Drake University. “The WOTUS rules have essentially no impact on Iowa farmers in large part because the (Clean Water Act) has almost no impact on farmers. This was all one large political stunt which most Iowa Republican politicians were more than happy to traffic in.” The Raccoon River in the Des Moines area is among the most-polluted in the state. The Raccoon River is heavily polluted with farm chemicals. (Photo by Perry Beeman, Iowa Capital Dispatch) The Clean Water Act exempts much of agriculture from its requirements because pollution is from diffuse sources that are hard to regulate or control. However, some large agricultural facilities are included. Plaintiffs in many court cases have argued that drainage districts and other elements of farming should be regulated as “point” sources of pollution akin to pipes coming out of a factory. Representatives of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Corn Growers Association said it’s too early to comment. Pat Garrett, an aide to Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday afternoon. Trump moved to ease regulations with his now-eliminated 2017 order, which led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to propose new rules in 2019 that became final in June. The idea was to clarify what was covered by the WOTUS rule. The Trump-era rule set four categories of waters covered by the restrictions and defined exclusions and legal terms. The rule broadly determines which waters in the United States are protected under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Farmers fear limits Farmers have long feared that the rules would limit what they could do on land that was merely damp, used to be damp, or has a stream across it only during deluges. Reynolds and Naig, along with the acting director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Trautman, in 2019 supported Trump’s move in official comments. At the time, Reynolds referred to the Obama-era rules as a “massive overreach.” Now farmers anticipate the rules will tip back toward the Obama version. “The new WOTUS rule provides much needed stability for our farmers whose livelihoods depend upon their ability to work the land,” Reynolds said in 2019. “It’s another win in the battle against the Obama administration’s massive federal overreach in 2015.” Naig said at the time that the uncertainty around the rules are a headache for farmers. “Farmers, businesses and communities need to clearly understand what bodies of water are and are not covered under the WOTUS rule,” Naig said in 2019. Last year, when the Trump administration’s final rule proposal emerged, Naig said the Trump-era rule would help Iowa farmers reach the goals of the state’s voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy. After meeting with then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in Iowa, Reynolds said: “The 2015 WOTUS rule released during the Obama administration was a massive federal land grab, creating confusing and uncertainty for regulators, farmers, ranchers and others who depend on their ability to work the land.”The agriculture industry causes water pollution - protecting water would overall limit the agriculture industry FAO 17 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Agriculture: cause and victim of water pollution, but change is possible”, 8/27/17, FAO, pg online @ ) Diagnosis, prediction, and monitoring are key requirements for the management of agricultural practices that mitigate these harmful impacts on water resources, according to a new publication released today. The executive summary of Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Global Review, A Global Review, a precursor to the launch of the full report next year, highlights that water pollution is an increasing global concern that damages economic growth and the health of billions of people. According to the report – from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) program led by the International Water Management Institute – exploding demand for food with high environmental footprints, such as meat from industrial farms, is contributing to unsustainable agricultural intensification and to water-quality degradation. This growth in crop production has been achieved mainly through the intensive use of inputs such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Today, the global market in pesticides is worth more than USD 35 billion per year. Some countries – such as Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa and Pakistan – have experienced double-digit growth in the intensity of pesticide use. Nitrate from agriculture is now the most common chemical contaminant in the world’s groundwater aquifers. Aquatic ecosystems are affected by agricultural pollution; for example, eutrophication caused by the accumulation of nutrients in lakes and coastal waters impacts biodiversity and fisheries. Despite data gaps, 415 coastal areas have been identified experiencing eutrophication. Meanwhile, about one-quarter of produced food is lost along the food-supply chain, accounting for 24 percent of the freshwater resources used in food-crop production, 23 percent of total global cropland area and 23 percent of total global fertilizer use. As a result of all of the above, 38 percent of water bodies in the European Union are under pressure from agricultural pollution. In the US, agriculture is the main source of pollution in rivers and streams, the second main source in wetlands and the third main source in lakes. In China, agriculture is responsible for a large share of surface-water pollution and is responsible almost exclusively for groundwater pollution by nitrogen. This pollution poses demonstrated risks to aquatic ecosystems, human health and productive activities. For example, high levels of nitrates in water can cause “blue baby syndrome”, a potentially fatal illness in infants. In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries alone, the environmental and social costs of water pollution caused by agriculture are estimated to exceed billions of dollars annually. And, over the last 20 years, a new class of agricultural pollutants has emerged in the form of veterinary medicines (antibiotics, vaccines, and growth promoters), which move from farms through water to ecosystems and drinking water sources.Link -- Turns Case Uncertainty turns case – transaction costs make regulation impossibleSrivastava and Batie 02 - has a Ph.D. in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, from Michigan State University, Professor at Michigan State, (Lorie and Sandra S., “The Effect of Uncertainty on Compliance with Environmental Performance Standards: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Michigan,” January 2002, , Accessed 7-13-21, LASA-AH)Whether performance standards are actually superior to technology-based agro-environmental policies depends in parrt upon transaction costs (Batie and Ervin 1999; Norris and Thurow 1999; Shortle and Dunn, 1986). The crucial role of transaction costs is especially important in the case of stochastic nonpoint source pollution where compliance uncertainty may be an issue. These transaction costs exist for both regulators and farmers. A transaction cost can be defined to include “the costs of gathering and processing the information needed to carry out a transaction, of reaching decisions, of negotiating contracts, and of policing and enforcing those contracts” (Williamson 1981). Transaction costs arise because of a lack of sufficient information – the pervasive uncertainty in the world prevents firms and individuals from making perfectly informed decisions. For regulators, transaction costs such as information, monitoring, and enforcement costs can be significant with flexible environmental performance standards. Among other informational requirements, regulators must understand the pollutant transport process[2], the absorptive capacity of the ecosystem in question, and the extent of any environmental degradation. Given these transaction costs, it can be challenging for regulators to even determine what “being in compliance” means from an agro-environmental enforcement perspective. That is, with flexible environmental performance standards, regulators do not specify technologies to be used by regulated farms, rather they specify only an environmental standard. Thus, in most cases, the regulator can only check in an indirect manner as to whether a firm is in compliance. For example, suppose a regulator periodically samples the impaired water body and measures the ambient pollutant level for phosphorus. If the ambient level exceeds the specified standard, the regulator only knows that the aggregate effluent level must be reduced; this observation does not help the regulator answer questions like: “Which farm must reduce its phosphorus pollution the water body?” or “How much must each farm reduce pollution”[3]. Consequently, it may be difficult for the regulator to define compliance at an operational enforcement level. Compliance uncertainty thus poses a major challenge for regulators in managing nonpoint sources of pollution using flexible environmental performance standards. In contrast, technology-based standards tend to be easier to administer, thus reducing certain transaction costs for the regulator. Once the technology-based standard is specified, (e.g. “install filter strips”) the regulator simply has to observe whether each farmer is in fact correctly employing the required technology. If a farmer is not, he is in violation of the environmental regulation; if he does use the technology, then the farm is in compliance.[4] The actual ambient pollutant level is of secondary importance with technology-based regulations. Indeed, achieving the desired ambient level may require adaptive implementation strategies of experimentation and adjustments[5] (NRC 2000). Flexible environmental performance standards also result in transaction costs for farmers. Informational costs dominate. In order to comply with flexible environmental performance standards, farmers must possess superior knowledge about the nature and extent of effluent from their farm at their source, as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of different pollution prevention management practices. In practice, it is extremely difficult for farmers to ascertain whether they are in compliance with a flexible environmental performance standard due to the nature of nonpoint source pollution. This difficulty can be contrasted with compliance with technology-based environmental regulations. Since the farmer is usually told what pollution prevention technology to use, he clearly knows whether he is in compliance. If he does not adopt the specified technology, then he is not in compliance, otherwise he is. Thus, many informational transaction costs, which exist with flexible environmental performance standards are eliminated with technology-based environmental regulations.Regulation of non-point source pollution decks innovation and is fundamentally unpreditable – makes regulation impossibleSrivastava and Batie 02 - has a Ph.D. in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, from Michigan State University, Professor at Michigan State, (Lorie and Sandra S., “The Effect of Uncertainty on Compliance with Environmental Performance Standards: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Michigan,” January 2002, , Accessed 7-13-21, LASA-AH)In the case of non-point sources of pollution, however, it appears that this outcome may not usually hold. The very nature of non-point source pollution makes observation and direct measurement impossible, or very costly. With limited regulatory budgets, the diffuse nature of non-point source pollution results in uncertainty with regard to compliance. Consequently, it is difficult to accurately assess who is in compliance with the flexible environmental performance standard. This uncertainty raises transaction costs for regulators, in terms of monitoring and enforcement costs, as well as for farmers who have to incur information costs to find technologies that can be implemented. Farmers can not ensure they are in compliance with the performance standard. Both regulators and farmers will try to achieve certainty in an effort to minimize transaction costs. In other words, both regulators and farmers are looking for certainty with respect to managing non-point source pollution. This certainty and attendant lower transaction costs may be easily obtained through a technical sheet or list of approved practices. This list of practices determines compliance; if a farmer follows the practices on this list, or a subset that is best suited for his farm, he is considered to be in compliance with the water quality standard. At least initially, the actual environmental outcome becomes a secondary issue. Thus, although this list reduces the transaction costs for both the regulator and the farmer by increasing compliance certainty, there may be limited environmental improvement if the practices adopted do not link well with water quality concerns. Compliance certainty, in turn, ensures that farmers will not be penalized by regulators. More importantly, however, this compliance certainty allows farmers to shift liability costs onto the state regulators if they are sued by a third-party group. As long as the farmer follows the list of approved practices – approved by the state regulator – then the state regulator implicitly assumes responsibility for the environmental outcome. Thus, a third-party or citizen’s group that is concerned about violations of the Clean Water Act, perhaps because the ambient environmental performance standard has been exceeded in a body of water, may not have any recourse with respect to the farmer, but may still be able to sue the state regulator. A technical sheet of approved practices reduces monitoring and enforcement costs for regulators. It is not too difficult to verify whether a farmer is following a list of approved practices, and thus determine whether he is in compliance is easily observable. This method of examining practices, as opposed to actual environmental outcomes, is also easier for regulators to do since no institutional change is necessary. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has essentially been conducting design-inspections for the past 30 years in its efforts to monitor point sources that have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Thus, an approved list of practices requires few institutional changes by the MDEQ. The transaction costs associated with uncertainty surrounding flexible environmental performance standards and nonpoint sources of pollution may reduce the practicability and usefulness of these standards from a policy perspective. If regulators – with limited budgets to monitor and enforce environmental regulations – want to reduce their transaction costs, they will likely develop an approved list of practices. This approach also ensures that by providing compliance certainty to the farmer, the farmer is more likely to undertake pollution abatement actions than if such a list did not exist. This list, however, precludes any induced innovation from occurring and may limit environmental improvements, depending upon how well the adoption of approved practices correlates with water quality improvements. In the case of non-point source pollution, the transaction costs associated with uncertainty results in (a) no induced technological innovations, (b) no innovation offsets, (c) potentially higher compliance costs for the agricultural industry, but (d) lower monitoring and enforcement costs for regulators. The evidence from this study indicates that the desire for certainty and resultant policy design can negate the possibility of the Porter Hypothesis from holding in the dairy sector in Michigan in response to an environmental performance standard. If the total maximum daily load process is to achieve its objective, considerable research needs to be undertaken to investigate ways in which the transaction costs associated with compliance uncertainty can be reduced, for both the regulator and farmers in Michigan. For instance, regulators and dairy farmers need to be able to link practices with resultant water quality outcomes in a cost-effective and equitable manner. Currently there is insufficient information and knowledge available to target enforcement on the major sources of pollution, including farms, and tailor solutions to their needs. Monitoring of water bodies and enforcement by regulators will must be undertaken; research may help to reduce these ex post transaction costs for regulators. Research efforts can help fill these knowledge gaps to ensure that the benefits of flexible environmental performance standards, such as total maximum daily loads, are realized, thereby ensuring continual water quality improvements cost-effectively.Link -- AT: Link Turn -- Regulations No neutralization, increase regulations have seriously disrupted the agriculture industry- empirics proveFarming Progress, 2011, ("EPA regulations suffocating U.S. agriculture", American Farm Bureau Federation is an insurance company that aims to represent the American agriculture industry, 1/23/2011, just the last three years, the Environmental Protection Agency has set in motion a significant number of new regulations that will significantly change the face of agriculture. The coming changes threaten the continued operation of family farms and ranches, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation Testifying on behalf of AFBF before the House Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade, Carl Shaffer, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, said EPA proposals to exert greater regulatory control over agriculture will drive up the cost of producing food, fiber and fuel. "EPA proposals are overwhelming to farmers and ranchers and are creating a cascade of costly requirements that are likely to drive individual farmers to the tipping point," Shaffer said. "The overwhelming number of proposed regulations on the nation's food system is unprecedented and promises profound effects on both the structure and competitiveness of all of agriculture." "In contrast to EPA's heavy-handed approach of issuing crushing regulatory burdens, agriculture and the Agriculture Department have worked together over the last few decades to make enormous strides in agriculture's environmental performance by adopting a range of conservation practices and environmental measures," Shaffer said. Shaffer owns and operates a wheat, corn and green bean farm in Columbia County, Pa., located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay is one area of concern to Farm Bureau, due to the burdensome and unlawful nutrient management plan EPA is taking steps to implement. Other areas of concern include EPA's proposals to expand the scope of waters subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, which require costly and duplicative permits for normal pesticide applications, proposed standards for regulation of dust, and unjustified attempts to collect data from livestock farms. In his testimony, Shaffer said that "EPA is literally piling regulation on top of regulation, and guidance on top of guidance, to the point of erecting barriers to economic growth," said Shaffer. Philip Nelson, president of Illinois Farm Bureau, also testified at today's hearing, on behalf of farmers and ranchers in his state. Nelson raises corn, soybeans, alfalfa, cattle and hogs. He testified to the subcommittee regarding a new regulation, the Pesticide General Permit, that went into effect Nov. 1. "This new permit is a needless duplication of existing law. We do not need this entirely new permit program," Nelson said, noting that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act has covered pesticide labeling and application very effectively since 1947. Further, the pesticide permit "doesn't improve food safety, doesn't add any additional environmental protection or benefit for society, and does nothing to improve my bottom line," Nelson said. Nelson also commented briefly on the potential impacts of proposed dust regulations on agriculture, urging support for legislation such as H.R. 1633, the Dust Regulation Prevention Act. The act would provide the certainty that farmers, ranchers and residents of rural areas need to ensure that normal activities that are essential parts of their farming operations are not unduly regulated by a standard for which there is no proven benefit to human health.Link -- SF -- Regulations Federal regulation deck small farmers—lack of ability to adhere and maintain sufficient production levelsFatka, Policy Editor Farm Futures, 2018[Jacqui, “Farmers testify on impact of overregulation”, Feedstuff, 6/21, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]Complying with federal regulations continues to be one of the biggest challenges for America’s small businesses, including small farmers. Many federal agencies have the authority to issue regulations that affect the agriculture industry. As a result, small farmers often struggle to comply with expensive, confusing and time-consuming regulations, which affects their ability to grow.On Thursday, the House Small Business Committee's subcommittee on agriculture, energy and trade held a hearing to examine how federal regulations affect small farmers and to explore ways to provide regulatory relief to the industry.America’s farmers and ranchers are facing an economic storm. With farm income levels that have been slashed by half since 2013, a continued slump in crop prices and export markets in serious peril, the hit farmers are taking from costly regulations only intensifies the storm, according to Kansas farmer Glenn Brunkow.“Right now, every penny counts in agriculture,” Brunkow today the subcommittee on Capitol Hill. “In tough economic times like this, farmers feel the impact of regulations even more because money dedicated to compliance – especially when it is of doubtful value – is money that cannot be reinvested in the farm or put in the bank to cushion against hard times.”Regulation of water resource create uncertainty and overreach for farms—CWA provesWaskom, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University, and Cooper, Senior Research Scientist and Scholar Professor, Colorado State University, 2017[Reagan and David, “Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far”, The Conversation, 2/27, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]At the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University, we work in partnership with the farm and ranch community to find solutions to difficult western water problems. Farmers and ranchers often express frustration with one-size-fits-all worker protection, food safety, animal welfare, immigration, endangered species and environmental regulations. So we understand their concern that this rule may further constrain agricultural activities on their land.In particular, they fear the Clean Water Rule could expand federal regulations that impact their private property rights. However, regulatory agencies and the regulated community need to know the limits of the Clean Water Act’s reach so they can take appropriate measures to protect water resources. If the rule is scrapped, we still will need to know which water bodies require protection under the law.Link -- CAFO Regulations deck agricultural innovation -- CAFO industry proves Fatka, Policy Editor Farm Futures, 2018[Jacqui, “Farmers testify on impact of overregulation”, Feedstuff, 6/21, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]In his testimony, Brunkow also highlighted the reforms needed regarding the Endangered Species Act, duplicative regulatory burdens, labor regulations, the need for cost/benefit analysis and transparency in the regulatory process itself.National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) past president John Weber, a pork producer from Dysart, Iowa, also testified, noting, “Regulations add to the cost of doing business.”The U.S. pork industry has had to contend with several ill-conceived, burdensome and potentially costly regulations over the past 10 years, including ones related to buying and selling livestock, labeling meat, trucking, air emissions, clean water, antibiotic use and organic livestock production.“Many of the rules we’ve seen coming out of Washington have had harmful unintended consequences, including stifling innovation and impeding the inherent motivation of farmers and small business people to get better and more efficient at what they do,” Weber said.CAFOs key to stable agriculture, doing the aff would be undoing the actions of BidenStephanie Paige Ogburn, 2011-08-11, "Idaho: The CAFO state?," No Publication, waste collects in one place, it can also release ammonia, a noxious gas that irritates lungs and contributes to harmful particulate pollution. Large chicken and dairy farms have been known to emit significant amounts of ammonia and other harmful gases. Idaho's Department of Agriculture, rather than its Environmental Quality Department, regulates these sources of pollution, something critics see as a conflict of interest. Yet CAFOs have helped stabilize Idaho's overall agricultural economy, even in a time of recession. Chickens eat corn; cows eat hay, corn and crop residues, and farmers who years ago may have grown only wheat or sugar beets have been able to diversify by selling to the state's dairy industry, says Sen. Corder. Although the initial dairy influx resulted in pollution problems, Corder says that dairymen actively worked to ease their environmental impacts. He sees state actions like limiting nuisance claims as a way to create consistency for CAFOs across counties, avoiding a "patchwork" of varying regulations. Corder acknowledges that many environmental groups disapprove of how the state has regulated animal agriculture, but he thinks Idaho's strategy of working with industry is the right way to fix environmental problems. With three chicken farms in the works and a $2.75 million poultry-processing plant on the way, the state is preparing to test that strategy anew. "I feel really good about where we are right now," he says. "We will always have two arguments: One that we've gone too far regulatorily, and the other that we haven't gone far enough."empirically provenBart Pfankuch, 2019-12-13, "CAFOs in SD: Benefit or detriment?," Mitchell Republic, (Pfankuch is a journalist at South Dakota News Watch who mainly writes articles for the Mitchell Republic news website.)Despite a rising wave of grassroots opposition, South Dakota is seeing a steady increase in the development of livestock operations known as CAFOs, concentrated animal feeding operations, in which thousands and sometimes more than a million animals are bred, housed and fed in a confined space. Supporters of CAFO development say the farms can boost the state’s agricultural economy and strengthen rural communities. Opponents say the farms are causing division among rural populations and will limit opportunities for non-agricultural development in small-town South Dakota. The state has seen a nearly 15% rise in the number of CAFOs in operation over the past decade, and the pace of development has picked up recently, with 18 new CAFOs put into production over the past 18 months. As of October 2019, there were 452 permitted CAFOs allowed to house about 9.6 million cows, hogs, turkeys and chickens in the state, according to the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Supporters of the farms — including Gov. Kristi Noem — see strong opportunity for expansion of the livestock and related products market, which accounted for $4.5 billion in sales in 2017, about half of the state’s total agricultural economy. A single hog-birthing facility recently approved for a rural site south of Miller in Hand County, for example, is expected to create 19 full-time jobs with an annual payroll of $1.3 million and produce another $1.3 million in annual feed purchases. The state of South Dakota this year started a new effort to provide a major financial incentive to county governments that approve new CAFO projects. Industry groups and some state officials say CAFOs provide new opportunities for existing farmers, create options for young farmers to get started and add significant financial value to the state’s largest industry. “I do think we need more ag development in South Dakota,” Gov. Noem said in an interview with News Watch in September. “Anytime we can add value to the commodities and livestock that we raise here, it puts more money into South Dakota’s pocket and for those producers out there that are working so hard to feed the world.” Operators and industry groups say large livestock farms are generally well run and are subject to strong permitting processes and regular inspections that don’t apply to smaller farms. Noem said she will continue to support CAFOs as long as they are properly sited and operate within state guidelines.“I actually live right down the road from a large dairy that has thousands of head of dairy cattle, and I’m a rancher too,” Noem said. “The smart thing is to make sure we’re putting these in the right locations, that we’re protecting our resources, and that we’re protecting our environment and putting them in areas where economic development can grow. Agriculture is our number-one industry and if we can add value to those products right here, that is a win for everyone.” Livestock industry scaling upward. The vast majority of American livestock is now raised in CAFOs, with federal data showing that about 70% of cows, 98% of pigs and 99% of chickens and turkeys are produced in CAFOs each year. The farms differ from traditional livestock farming in the number of animals raised and where and how they are kept. Large CAFOs are farm operations that require a state permit and are subject to regular inspection once they reach 1,000 or more “animal units.” Based on weight, 1,000 animal units equates to either 700 dairy cows, 1,000 head of cattle, 2,500 adult hogs or 10,000 juvenile swine, 55,000 turkeys, 82,000 laying hens or 155,000 chickens, or some combination of those animals. Rather than feeding and holding animals in fenced fields, outdoor pens or open barns, the animals are kept en masse in large barns that often are segregated into smaller pens inside. Animals typically are not exposed to the sun or the elements, usually live on concrete slabs or metal slats, and sometimes stand almost shoulder-to-shoulder, especially as they age and grow closer to harvesting weight. South Dakota has increasingly become a magnet for CAFO development by both existing local farmers and out-of-state firms that partner with local landowners and investors to implement well-defined systems of animal birthing, feeding and housing. South Dakota, particularly in the east, is attractive for CAFO developers owing to access to inexpensive feed, solid infrastructure, available land and close proximity to major slaughterhouses and processing plants. The state is bordered by three states that are top-five in the nation for number of large CAFOs — Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. CAFOs provide farmers with a way to produce a high-volume, valuable and stable crop of animals in a climate-controlled setting with low capital costs for equipment and land. The development of CAFOs is also generating new jobs, state and local tax revenues and significant spinoff spending on feed and other commodities. The ultimate result is affordable meat for a growing population of consumers in the U.S. and across the world. Agricultural organizations say CAFOs are part of an ongoing advancement in efficiency of handling and raising animals. They also stress that the vast majority of CAFOs and other farm operations in South Dakota remain owned or operated by families. “Agriculture has been changing for 100 years, and just like the four-row planter became the 16-row planter and then the 20-row planter, the common theme is that there’s still a family that is out there doing it,” said Steve Dick, director of Ag United, a Sioux Falls organization that represents farmers in several agricultural sectors in South Dakota. “And I don’t know if hogs or cattle being in a confined space has changed. I think what has changed in the last 10, 15 or 20 years is the technology for the comfort of those animals.” Farmers and industry officials say that in order to make a good living in the modern agriculture industry, getting larger and creating economies of scale is one way to find success. “The days of having a few chickens, a few milk cows, a few cows, those days have changed a lot as [livestock] farmers have specialized in one species, just as a lot of farmers have specialized in corn or soybeans,” Dick said. Supporters and producers also say the growth of large livestock operations that produce cheap meat is being driven by consumers, not farmers. “This is what we’re getting pushed into doing; we’re not driving our own market, it’s demand,” said Brian Alderson, a part-time cattle farmer who raises about 600 head in a CAFO-style barn in western Minnehaha County. “You tell us what you want us to do when you go to the grocery store. It’s supply and demand, and the consumers make the rules, not us.” But opponents worry that aggressive development of CAFOs, particularly by out-of-state firms, will change the nature of farming and rural living in South Dakota. “Industrial CAFOs that store manure under their operations for 365 days before spreading are a separate agricultural business than compared to grazing animals that are not confined, not under a roof, but are under the sun and the air where they can naturally distribute the manure that makes it a positive, instead of a toxic overload,” said Candice Lockner, a Ree Heights rancher who fended off a proposed 50,000-head cattle CAFO in her neighborhood in 2014 and has since become a grassroots organizer against the farms. “If we want to have strong rural communities, we should have farms that have family farmers who care about the animals in a way that is environmentally sound and is regenerative and sustainable.” Research done mainly in North Carolina and Iowa has shown that large livestock operations can cause health problems in workers in the farms and to neighbors. One study found that children who live or attend school near large livestock operations suffer from higher rates of asthma. The farms emit high levels of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide that can harm humans, the research has shown. So far, South Dakota has avoided major environmental disasters from large livestock farms. According to data obtained through a public-records request by News Watch to the DENR, permitted CAFOs in South Dakota violated state regulations 217 times from October 2009 to August 2019 and $207,000 in fines were levied. Violations led to farm wastes making their way into state waterways nine times during that period, but little or no environmental damage resulted, DENR officials said. Further expansion of CAFOs likely in S.D. Development of new large livestock farms and expansion of existing farms can result in large payments to counties that approve them under a new tax-rebate program started by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development in spring 2019. The program is not the first time the state has tried to encourage counties to approve new CAFOs. In 2013, the state Department of Agriculture embarked on a program to use Geographic Information Systems data to provide each county in the state with a report on which areas would be appropriate for new agricultural operations, specifically including CAFOs. Just as worldwide demand has led to more mechanized livestock production, changing consumer desires have also led to an increase in organic and sustainable farms that eschew the use of antibiotics and hormones and raise animals in a free-range setting. Recent research shows that the millennial generation, in particular, has a desire for more organic and sustainable agricultural products. The website for the group EatWild, a consortium of sustainable farms in South Dakota, lists 15 farms that feature only grass-fed, open-range livestock. A 2017 report on farm size by South Dakota State University indicated a 57% increase in the number of farm operations with 100 or fewer acres. However, such farms still make up only a small fraction of farms in the state overall. Farm size and production data also illustrate the rapid growth in the largest farms in South Dakota, both in row cropping and in livestock. SDSU found that farms with more than 2,000 acres took up almost 67% of the state’s total cropland in 2017, compared with only 48% in 1997. South Dakota has seen a steady increase in the number of CAFO operations permitted by the state since state regulation began in 1997, from 15 that year to 338 in 2007 to 452 as of October 2019. State data also show that the number of animals allowed at those operations has also increased significantly in recent years, from 8.4 million animals at 400 permitted operations in January 2011 to 9.8 million animals at 443 permitted operations in January 2019. The majority of the recent growth has occurred in the hog industry, which has seen a 21% increase in permitted operations from 2011 to 2019 and a 32% rise in the number of permitted animals during that time. The largest CAFO operations in South Dakota include the National Foods egg hatchery east of Plankinton in Aurora County with 1.98 million chickens; the Schlitz Goose Farm in Sisseton with 193,000 geese; the PIC Apex Farm in Mound City in Campbell County, with 36,400 sows; and the Fall River Feed Yard southeast of Hot Springs in Fall River County with 25,000 head of beef cattle. Hog farming has grown significantly in scale in recent years, and statistics reveal the impact of CAFO growth on the industry. While the number of hog farms overall in South Dakota has fallen by 16% from 2012 to 2017, the number of large farms producing 5,000 or more hogs per year has jumped by almost 30% over that period. In 2012, the state had 145 large hog farms that produced 3.6 million hogs valued at $390 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture. In 2017, 188 large farms produced 5.2 million hogs valued at $545 million, the USDA said. Also, the USDA data show that 20 of the 85 largest hog farms in South Dakota are operated by contract farmers or integrators, indicating the growing push into the state by outside interests. The concerns over involvement of non-local CAFO system providers are misplaced, said Nick Fitzgerald, business development manager with the Pipestone System, a Minnesota-based firm that works with landowners and investors to start up and operate hog facilities in seven Midwestern states, including South Dakota. Pipestone operates 74 hog birthing and weaning facilities, including more than 20 in South Dakota. The company provides new hog farmers with siting expertise, management training and full production systems to raise hogs. Fitzgerald said the firm, started by a group of veterinarians in Pipestone, Minn., employs a proven method of farming that engages safeguards for animal safety and protection of the environment. “We want to be great neighbors, and we don’t want to be an environmental risk in any way, shape or form,” Fitzgerald said. Pipestone will likely continue its expansion in South Dakota, which has inexpensive feed, including corn and ethanol byproducts, Fitzgerald said. “In terms of setbacks and siting, South Dakota is more strict than other states,” Fitzgerald said. “But we would like to raise more pigs in South Dakota because we can raise them at a lower cost than in the state of Iowa, for example.” Industry experts say there is more room for growth in American hog production, particularly due to growth in the foreign market. Iowa, for instance, passed the $1 billion mark in exports of hogs to China and Hong Kong alone in 2016. South Dakota is also likely to see strong growth in dairy cattle CAFOs, especially in the far northeast, to accommodate expansion in the cheese-making industry. The Valley Queen Cheese company in Milbank, Dimock Dairy in Dimock and the Agropur cheese plant in Lake Norden all underwent significant expansion in 2019. The tripling of capacity at Agropur alone will require milk from 85,000 more cows in the region, the company said. The expansion of CAFOs in South Dakota may also be hastened by a need for room for expansion within the livestock industry in the Great Plains. South Dakota is flanked by three states that are in the national top five for number of large CAFOs — Iowa at No. 1, Minnesota at No. 2 and Nebraska at No. 4. David Osterberg, who has studied CAFOs in Iowa for three decades, said South Dakota should expect to see even more CAFO projects proposed as those neighboring states reach a saturation point for CAFOs, with dwindling land where CAFO wastes can legally be spread. “It makes sense they are moving into South Dakota, because we’re running out of room to put the manure over here,” said Osterberg, of the Iowa Public Policy Project. “Especially in the northwest of Iowa toward you guys, there are so many CAFOs that finding a place to get rid of the manure is getting difficult.” Regulation higher on largest CAFOs. Even though CAFOs can generate millions of gallons of cattle and hog manure and thousands of pounds of litter from turkeys and chickens, industry and government officials say CAFOs can be cleaner than smaller farms. The animal wastes created by CAFOs are collected and held in lagoons or huge underground tanks and then are spread onto nearby farm fields as fertilizer. Spreading typically takes place when the frost breaks in spring and before the ground freezes in fall. Farmers use trucks to haul wastes or flexible pipes that run for miles to get the liquid manure to nearby farm fields, where it is forced into ground dug up by a discing machine. The days when the manure is spread are the most malodorous. The manure is an effective, valuable fertilizer that reduces the need for commercial fertilizers; CAFO operators are typically paid for the nutrient value of the manure by crop farmers. Regulation of large animal-feeding operations in South Dakota is based on the federal Clean Water Act, which became law in 1972, and subsequent livestock laws that were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1974. The state began regulating animal-feeding operations beginning with hog farms in 1997 and adding other animal types in 1998. The CAFO permit rules were updated in 2003 and again in 2017. CAFOs in South Dakota are subject to far more regulation than smaller farms. Once a farm reaches CAFO status, it must obtain a state permit that provides for regulation of waste management and water use, said Kent Woodmansey, who oversees the CAFO inspection program within the state DENR. CAFO operators must attend a producer training class to become educated on state regulations and monitoring requirements, he said. New CAFOs are inspected within the first 18 months of operation and then every one to three years after, depending on size, Woodmansey said. CAFO operators are held to strict standards on proper storage of wastes, with a close eye on their not overreaching the capacity of waste-holding ponds or lagoons that are typically lined with clay or concrete. Soil testing is done, and operators must adhere to plans for how, when and where they will spread the wastes. Woodmansey said. State regulators will also make contact with an operator or inspect the operator’s property if they receive a complaint from the public. Most complaints relate to concerns over potential contamination of water sources and the spreading of wastes, he said. The state also receives complaints about odors, but has no authority to monitor or take action against strong odors because no state or federal law regulates smells released by agricultural operations, including CAFOs. “We won’t respond to an odor complaint because we don’t have any criteria for that,” Woodmansey said. “If somebody sent something in about odors or called about that, we would respond that we have no authority over that.” South Dakota CAFOs also must gain approval, typically in the form of a conditional-use permit, from county commissions or planning and zoning boards before being built. That process provides a level of local control not in place in states such as Iowa. Counties can have a range of local rules and guidelines, the most important being the “setback” limits on how close a CAFO can be to residences, municipalities and water sources. The limits can vary from county to county, and undergo fairly frequent updates. The new hog farm in Hand County has a two-mile setback requirement from any residence and 660 feet from any ground or surface water supply. Voters in Grant County passed a referendum in 2016 to double the setback from homes of new large CAFOs from a half to a full mile. Meanwhile, the Minnehaha County Commission in 2017 reduced the setback from buildings for new feeding operations of 2,000 or more animals from 4,620 feet to 3,960.99% of US farmed animals are in CAFOsSentience Institute, 4-11-2019, "US Factory Farming Estimates, [1] Land animal figures use data from the USDA Census of Agriculture[2] and EPA definitions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, " estimate that 99% of US farmed animals are living in factory farms at present. By species, we estimate that 70.4% of cows, 98.3% of pigs, 99.8% of turkeys, 98.2% of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat are living in factory farms. Based on the confinement and living conditions of farmed fish, we estimate that virtually all US fish farms are suitably described as factory farms, though there is limited data on fish farm conditions and no standardized definition. CAFOs negatively impacts the quality of water - improving the quality of water would limit CAFOsHribar 10 (Carri Hribar, “Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities”, 2010, CDC, pg online @ ) All of the environmental problems with CAFOs have direct impact on human health and welfare for communities that contain large industrial farms. As the following sections demonstrate, human health can suffer because of contaminated air and degraded water quality, or from diseases spread from farms. Quality of life can suffer because of odors or insect vectors surrounding farms, and property values can drop, affecting the financial stability of a community. One study found that 82.8% of those living near and 89.5% of those living far from CAFOs believed that their property values decreased, and 92.2% of those living near and 78.9% of those living far from CAFOs believed the odor from manure was a problem. The study found that real estate values had not dropped and odor infestations were not validated by local governmental staff in the areas. However, the concerns show that CAFOs remain contentious in communities (Schmalzried and Fallon, 2007). CAFOs are an excellent example of how environmental problems can directly impact human and community well-being. Groundwater Groundwater can be contaminated by CAFOs through runoff from land application of manure, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through leaks or breaks in storage or containment units. The EPA’s 2000 National Water Quality Inventory found that 29 states specifically identified animal feeding operations, not just concentrated animal feeding operations, as contributing to water quality impairment (Congressional Research Service, 2008). A study of private water wells in Idaho detected levels of veterinary antibiotics, as well as elevated levels of nitrates (Batt, Snow, & Alga, 2006). Groundwater is a major source of drinking water in the United States. The EPA estimates that 53% of the population relies on groundwater for drinking water, often at much higher rates in rural areas (EPA, 2004). Unlike surface water, groundwater contamination sources are more difficult to monitor. The extent and source of contamination are often harder to pinpoint in groundwater than surface water contamination. Regular testing of household water wells for total and fecal coliform bacteria is a crucial element in monitoring groundwater quality, and can be the first step in discovering contamination issues related to CAFO discharge. Groundwater contamination can also affect surface water (Spellman & understanding concentrated animal feeding operations Whiting, 2007). Contaminated groundwater can move laterally and eventually enter surface water, such as rivers or streams. When groundwater is contaminated by pathogenic organisms, a serious threat to drinking water can occur. Pathogens survive longer in groundwater than surface water due to lower temperatures and protection from the sun. Even if the contamination appears to be a single episode, viruses could become attached to sediment near groundwater and continue to leach slowly into groundwater. One pollution event by a CAFO could become a lingering source of viral contamination for groundwater (EPA, 2005). Groundwater can still be at risk for contamination after a CAFO has closed and its lagoons are empty. When given increased air exposure, ammonia in soil transforms into nitrates. Nitrates are highly mobile in soil, and will reach groundwater quicker than ammonia. It can be dangerous to ignore contaminated soil. The amount of pollution found in groundwater after contamination depends on the proximity of the aquifer to the CAFO, the size of the CAFO, whether storage units or pits are lined, the type of subsoil, and the depth of the groundwater. If a CAFO has contaminated a water system, community members should be concerned about nitrates and nitrate poisoning. Elevated nitrates in drinking water can be especially harmful to infants, leading to blue baby syndrome and possible death. Nitrates oxidize iron in hemoglobin in red blood cells to methemoglobin. Most people convert methemoglobin back to hemoglobin fairly quickly, but infants do not convert back as fast. This hinders the ability of the infant’s blood to carry oxygen, leading to a blue or purple appearance in affected infants. However, infants are not the only ones who can be affected by excess nitrates in water. Low blood oxygen in adults can lead to birth defects, miscarriages, and poor general health. Nitrates have also been speculated to be linked to higher rates of stomach and esophageal cancer (Bowman, Mueller, & Smith, 2000). In general, private water wells are at higher risk of nitrate contamination than public water supplies.The agriculture industry negatively impacts water quality through sedimentation and animal feeding programsEPA 05 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff”, 2005, EPA, pg online @ ) The United States has more than 330 million acres of agricultural land that produce an abundant supply of food and other products. Ameri- can agriculture is noted worldwide for its high productivity, quality, and efficiency in delivering goods to the consumer. When improperly managed however, activities from working farms and ranches can affect water quality. In the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory, states reported that agricul- tural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading source of water quality impacts on surveyed rivers and lakes, the second largest source of impair- ments to wetlands, and a major contributor to contamination of sur- veyed estuaries and ground water. Agricultural activities that cause NPS pollution include poorly located or managed animal feeding operations; overgrazing; plowing too often or at the wrong time; and improper, excessive, or poorly timed application of pesticides, irrigation water, and fertilizer. Pollutants that result from farming and ranching include sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, metals, and salts. Impacts from agricultural activities on surface water and ground water can be minimized by using management practices that are adapted to local conditions. Many practices designed Did you know that runoff from farms is the leading source of impairments to surveyed rivers and lakes? Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from point sources such as industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. Polluted runoff is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into watersheds through lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. to reduce pollution also increase productivity and save farmers and ranchers money in the long run. There are many government programs available to help farmers and ranchers design and pay for management approaches to prevent and control NPS pollution. For example, over 40 percent of section 319 Clean Water Act grants have been used to control NPS pollution from working farms and ranches. Also, many programs funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and by states provide cost-share, technical assistance, and economic incentives to implement NPS pollution management practices. Many local organizations and individuals have come together to help create regional support networks to adopt technologies and practices to eliminate or reduce water quality impacts caused by agricultural activities. The most prevalent source of agricultural water pollution is soil that is washed off fields. Rain water carries soil particles (sediment) and dumps them into nearby lakes or streams. Too much sediment can cloud the water, reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches aquatic plants. It can also clog the gills of fish or smother fish larvae. In addition, other pollutants like fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy metals are often attached to the soil particles and wash into the water bodies, causing algal blooms and depleted oxygen, which is deadly to most aquatic life. Farmers and ranchers can reduce erosion and sedimentation by 20 to 90 percent by applying management practices that control the volume and flow rate of runoff water, keep the soil in place, and reduce soil transport.CAFOs worsen water quality Copeland 10 (Claudia Copeland, “Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)”, 2/16/10, Congressional Research Service, pg online @ ) According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the release of waste from animal feedlots to surface water, groundwater, soil, and air is associated with a range of human health and ecological impacts and contributes to degradation of the nation’s surface waters. The most dramatic ecological impacts are massive fish kills. A variety of pollutants in animal waste can affect human health, including causing infections of the skin, eye, ear, nose, and throat. Contaminants from manure can also affect human health by polluting drinking water sources. The primary pollutants associated with animal wastes are nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, solids, pathogens, and odorous/volatile compounds. Animal waste also contains salts and trace elements, and to a lesser extent, antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones. Pollutants in animal waste can impact waters through several possible pathways, including surface runoff and erosion, direct discharges to surface waters, spills and other dry- weather discharges, leaching into soil and groundwater, and releases to air (including subsequent deposition back to land and surface waters). Pollutants associated with animal waste can also originate from a variety of other sources, such as cropland, municipal and industrial discharges, and urban runoff. The most dramatic ecological impacts associated with manure pollutants in surface waters are massive fish kills. Highly publicized incidents have occurred in nearly every state—from California to Maryland. In addition, manure pollutants can seriously disrupt aquatic systems by over-enriching water (in the case of nutrients) or by increasing turbidity (in the case of solids), processes that can disrupt aquatic ecosystems. Excess nutrients cause fast-growing algae blooms that reduce the penetration of sunlight in the water column and reduce the mount of available oxygen in the water, thus reducing fish and shellfish habitat and affecting fish and invertebrates. EPA’s 2004 Water Quality Inventory report indicates that excess algal growth alone is among the leading causes of impairment in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and that agricultural activities are among the top sources of lake impairments. A variety of pollutants in animal waste can also affect human health. Over 150 pathogens in livestock manure are associated with risks to humans; these include the bacteria E. coli and Salmonella species and the protozoa Giardia species. Contact with pathogens contained in manure during swimming or boating can result in infections of the skin, eye, ear, nose, and throat. Shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels can carry toxins produced by some types of algae that are associated with excess nutrients. These can affect people who eat contaminated shellfish. Further, contaminants from manure can also affect human health through drinking water sources and can result in increased drinking water treatment costs. For example, nitrogen in manure and liquid waste can be transported to drinking water as nitrates, which are associated with human health risks and which EPA has identified as the most widespread agricultural contaminant in drinking water wells. Elevated nitrate levels can cause nitrate poisoning, particularly in infants (this is known as methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome”). Nitrate contamination of private wells that has been linked to nearby livestock and poultry operations has occurred in several areas, including Delaware, the Maryland Eastern Shore, and North Carolina.Agriculture subsidies negatively impact water quality Taxpayers for Common Sense (Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Impact of U.S. Agriculture Subsidies on Water Quality”, 4/29/18, Taxpayers for Common Sense, pg online @ ) As agribusinesses shift routine business risks onto taxpayers, perverse incentives often encourage producers to maximize short-term profits at the expense of long-term productivity. One means of maximizing profits is to increase plantings of crops with the highest rate of subsidy while decreasing plantings of crops with fewer or no subsidies. Federal subsidies for crops and corn ethanol have incentivized producers to become less diversified and plant more acres of corn while plantings of oats, barley, alfalfa, and others have declined. In addition up to six percent more acres are in production because of government intervention in the marketplace.11 It’s no surprise that the most heavily subsidized crops – corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat – are the most widely produced crops.12 But these crops also happen to be the most input- intensive (see Figure 1). USDA researchers found that “roughly two- thirds of all fertilizer nutrients are spread on [fields planted to these four crops].”13 Together, these changes have had a direct impact on water quality and land conservation. Researchers note that our agricultural policies (primarily misguided subsidies) have led to more soil erosion, plowing up native grasslands and draining wetlands, water pollution, and unnecessary costs for downstream users like higher water treatment costs, less recreational opportunities, and lower fishing revenues. More specific effects of federal agricultural policies on water quality are explored below.CAFOs are key to food security AgDaily, 2021, (AgDaily Reporters, "Booker-led anti-CAFO legislation introduced in Congress," 7-14, DDI) in point, from the news release put out today by the ASPCA: “The factory farm agricultural model, which dominates our country’s food system, fuels toxic air and water contamination, drives dangerous and unfair working conditions, wreaks havoc on independent farmers and rural communities and threatens food safety,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. If “factory farms” are intended to refer to the most highly efficient operations, then they are in fact a primary source of food security in the U.S. and help to centralize food-safety monitoring. The most recent data show that family farms — defined as any farm where the majority of the business is owned by the producer and individuals related to the producer — account for 96 percent of farms in the country, a stat that likely puts targets on the backs of many farmers who Booker, Khanna, and their allies consider to be too “factory-like.” “Ninety-five percent of cattle raised in the United States visit a feedyard. Feeding operations aren’t antithetical to small, family-owned farms and ranches — they’re part and parcel of the same, symbiotic supply chain that produces the most nutritious, sustainable beef in the world,” said Ethan Lane, Vice President of Government Affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “Cattle feeders respond efficiently to meet a wide range of consumer demands, and that efficiency is one of the main reasons why the United States has had the lowest beef GHG emissions intensity in the world for 25 years. As our food supply chain is taxed by a growing number of mouths to feed at home and abroad, this efficient production system will be more vital than ever.” His organization has called the Farm System Reform Act “misguided.” CAFOs and other large animal operations are strictly regulated, lending support for their environmental and nutritional role in the food system. State and national environmental agencies register, monitor, require extensive plans and structures to contain runoff, manage manure, and fine violators at these kinds of operations.Link -- Canals Regulation of water resources remove critical irrigation canalsWaskom, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University, and Cooper, Senior Research Scientist and Scholar Professor, Colorado State University, 2017[Reagan and David, “Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far”, The Conversation, 2/27, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]Western farms are laced with canals that provide critical irrigation water during the growing season. These canals and ditches divert water from streams and return the excess through a downstream return loop, which is fed by gravity. Because they are open and unlined, they also serve as water sources for wildlife, ecosystems and underground aquifers. And because they are connected to other water bodies, farmers fear they could be subject to federal regulation.The only way to surface-irrigate in western valleys without affecting local water systems would be to lay thousands of miles of pressurized pipes, like those that carry water in cities. This approach would be impractical in many situations and incredibly expensive.Link -- Cloud Seeding Cloud Seeding has faced backlash from several farmers.KBCD 14, "Cloud Seeding Controversy," 12-12-2014, //AKThe weather on the South Plains is always changing., and it's unpredictable. That's exactly why theres a group that's been trying to control it with what they call cloud seeding. A rain enhancement program that injects clouds with Silver Iodide, but some say this rain maker is just a money waster."It's inconclusive, we're spending a lot of taxpayer dollars, a lot of money on this project that I feel has been detrimental to my farming operation and to a lot of other farmers," says dry land farmer, Jerry Sowder. Dozens of concerned farmers and experts gathered Wednesday to hash out the issue. Sowder was one of them.Sowder says not only is the program not working but it's hurting his crop. He thinks it's thinning out the clouds and that's also thinning out his wallet. "Me being a dry land farmer, it's costing me some timely rainfall on our crops,"he says.The issue of cloud seeding has become so controversial, that the program was temporarily suspended on August 9th. The very next day, Sowder's farm finally received rain, and it has rained five times since then.Scotty Savage works with a New Mexico water agency that also experiments with cloud seeding. But, she says the program works, and thinks some rainfall is better than none. "We're so short of water in this part of the United States. I don't know how we can let emotions rule what we think," says Savage.Regardless of what both sides believe, one Meteorologist says it's unreasonable to think anyone can fool mother nature. "If we can't really predict what a cloud can do now in advance, it's absurd to think we can go in there and make it do what we want to do," says Meteorologist Researcher, Dr. Charles Doswell.Link -- EPA Farmers need self jurisdiction—key to avoid EPA overreachWaskom, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University, and Cooper, Senior Research Scientist and Scholar Professor, Colorado State University, 2017[Reagan and David, “Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far”, The Conversation, 2/27, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]More generally, farmers and ranchers want to be able to make decisions about managing their land and water resources without ambiguity or time-consuming and expensive red tape. In spite of EPA assurances, they worry the Clean Water Rule could include agricultural ditches, canals and drainages in the definition of “tributary.”They fear EPA will use vague language in the rule to expand its power to regulate these features and change the way they are currently operated. They also fear becoming targets for citizen-initiated lawsuits, which are allowed under the Clean Water Act. Moreover, they are skeptical the outcomes will significantly benefit the environment.Link -- Groundwater Regulations on groundwater decimate the industry – California provesKasler 19 – reporter at the Sacramento Bee since 1996, (Dale, “California farmers face ‘catastrophic’ water restrictions. Can they adapt to survive?,” The Sacramento Bee, 9-25-19, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)It was 2015 and, as far as John Konda knew, farming still had a viable future in the San Joaquin Valley. So he expanded. The Tulare County grower planted 75 acres of pistachios, adding to a farm he’s owned since 2003. Two years later, in order to augment his water supply, he drilled two new groundwater wells. Now he wonders whether the investments, totaling more than $1.5 million, will turn out to be a costly mistake. Stoking his anxiety is California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA. Starting next January, the law will require farmers to gradually rein in the amount of groundwater they can pump from their wells. It could devastate the economy of the entire San Joaquin Valley. In a region where agriculture is king — and the ability to extract the water beneath one’s soil has been practically a birthright — a difficult reckoning is coming. Farmers will have to start throttling back their pumps, dramatically altering how they cultivate one of the world’s most fertile valleys. Some land probably won’t survive as farms at all. Although the law will take 20 years to fully take effect, the impact on the San Joaquin Valley will be considerable. Water is in chronically short supply around the Valley to begin with, and the region’s groundwater basins — over-pumped for decades, especially during the drought — are in worse shape than anywhere else in California.’ To bring the Valley’s aquifers into balance, the Public Policy Institute of California says anywhere between 535,000 and 750,000 acres of Valley farmland will have to be retired eventually. That will mean a lot fewer pistachios, grapes, almonds and tomatoes — and tremendous upheaval in a region that already under-performs the rest of the state on a host of socioeconomic measures. In Tulare County, where unemployment is already 9.2 percent, the anxiety is growing week by week. Some growers are already curtailing planting, and land prices are tumbling as farmers unload their properties. “The stakes are dire,” said Bryce McAteer, who until recently ran the groundwater sustainability agency that will enforce pumping restrictions in the 160,000-acre Eastern Tule region of Tulare County. McAteer said as much as one-third of Eastern Tule’s land could go out of production eventually, and already the region’s farming industry is beginning to wither. “We’re hearing tales of folks having trouble getting their operating loans,” he said. “We’ve heard growers say they’ve not been planting wall to wall.” The SGMA law (pronounced “sigma”) says groundwater basins must be brought into “sustainability” — defined as cutting consumption to the point that they’re no longer causing “chronic lowering of groundwater levels” or other “undesirable results.” To implement the law, dozens of regional groundwater agencies have been set up. The January launch has managers scrambling to figure out just how much less water their farmers will have in the future. Eric Limas, who runs a groundwater agency in the Pixley area of Tulare County, says his water allotment will be downright frightening: Farmers on his turf will have to curtail their groundwater usage by 40 percent eventually. “You’re talking devastation here, in the catastrophe spectrum,” Limas said. Link -- US-Mexico The plan fuels an even more contentious relationship between the US and MexicoFelbab-Brown 2020(“Not dried up: US-Mexico water cooperation”, 10/26/2020, Brookings Institute, Vanda Felbab-Brown, -- MR)For weeks, a water dispute between the Mexican government and Mexican farmers and between the United States and Mexico was brewing and escalating. October 24 was the deadline by which Mexico was supposed to have provided the United States with all of the water from the Rio Grande it owes the United States every five years. But this year’s expected water delivery set off months-long protests in Chihuahua, where drought-stricken farmers took over the Boquilla dam and opposed the water disbursement to the United States, fearing that even more of their livestock and crops would perish. Unlike previous Mexican administrations that since mid-1990s habitually failed to deliver the Rio Grande water to the United States on time, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has been determined to send the water to the United States. He even deployed the Mexican National Guard to confront the farmers and protestors, with the Guard killing one of them. At the last minute, a deal was struck between the two countries to resolve the latest immediate water crisis. The recent tensions are merely the latest episode of accumulating water stress in the Rio Grande basin. Deep challenges of long-standing water overuse and depletion in the Rio Grande remain. The problem requires comprehensive and innovative solutions as well as major changes to agricultural and other water-use practices on both sides of the Rio Grande basin to preserve adequate water supply for people, food production, economic activity, and a vital biodiversity-rich ecosystem and to prevent the emergence of systematic theft and smuggling of water that plagues countries such as Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and Brazil. The U.S.-Mexico collaboration on innovative solutions for the Colorado River provides an important example. Two U.S.-Mexico treaties – one agreed to in 1906 and one in 1944 – govern the shares and distribution of water between the two countries from the Rio Grande River, known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo, and the Colorado River basins. The 1906 treaty deals with the northwest portion of the Rio Grande basin – until Fort Quitman – and specifies that the United States annually delivers 60,000 acre-feet (74 million cubic meters) of water to Mexico, but allows for reductions in drought years. Those reductions do not accumulate as a water debt the United States must pay up later. Between 1939 and 2015, there have been reductions in U.S. delivery one-third of the time, with only about 6 percent of the amount delivered to Mexico during a major drought in 2013. Southeast downstream from Fort Quitman, the sharing of water in the Rio Grande watershed is governed by the 1944 Treaty on Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. Administered by the binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), that treaty specifies that the United States must deliver a minimum of 1.5 million acre-feet of water to Mexico annually from the Colorado River. Meanwhile, Mexico must deliver to the United States a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Mexican tributaries of the Rio Grande. But the water deliveries are measured in five-year cycles, giving Mexico the flexibility of not always having to deliver the full 350,000 acre-feet each year, particularly in drought years, but being obligated to deliver the full 1.75 million acre-feet by the end of the five-year cycle. In practice, Mexico has repeatedly missed making the water payment during the five-year cycle, letting it slip into the following cycle and paying up only after large storms replenished the water supply. In contrast, the United States allocates the Colorado water delivery to Mexico first, before internal U.S. allocations are made each year. (But for decades Mexico has complained about the salinity of the Colorado River deliveries, getting the United States to adopt various remedial measures.) Related water theft, and environmental harms in the US and Mexico U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Mexico's president, left, listens during a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, July 8, 2020. Lopez Obrador has carefully built a rapport with Trump, even as the president lambasted Mexico for its drug cartels and crime rates, for migration flows into the U.S. and for allegedly taking advantage of America on trade. The water deliveries and their delays set off hot politics. In 2013, hammered by a major drought, Texan farmers were infuriated by the Mexican water disbursement delays – akin to the fury of the Chihuahua farmers suffering from the current drought there, with the difference being that international law was on the side of the U.S. farmers. Mexico then repaid the water debt in 2016, but has been running a major water deficit since. Yet because intense rainfall has brought plenty of water to Texas farmers this year, the U.S. pressure on Mexico has been nowhere as intense as during the 2013 drought (even though Texas governor Greg Abbott and a few other politicians tried to make political hay out of the approaching deadline). Nonetheless, with good justification, there were legal concerns about Mexico violating its treaty obligations for a second five-year cycle in a row. On the Mexican side, the politics were hotter and more surprising. Although a populist nationalist politician, President López Obrador not only maintained his approach of yielding to the United States on issue after issue, but also criticized and dismissed the protesting Mexican farmers and blamed the social strife on “big agriculture.” Big agriculture in Mexico is indeed a notorious thief of water, failing to pay water dues and depleting water in Mexico over allocated quotas. But small Mexican farmers are hurting from water stress and often have no voice in water policy decisions. Unlike in the United States where both surface and ground water is owned by many entities (including state and local governments) and private actors (including individual and corporate land owners), in Mexico, water is owned by the Mexican state. The extremely complex system of water rights and their wide variation across jurisdictions on the U.S. side create lengthy and often difficult policymaking and enforcement tangles, but they also force water decision-making processes that involve consultation and problem-solving with all stakeholders. On the Mexican side, water decision-making is set by one institution – Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua) – and is heavily centralized, top-down, and insufficiently consultative and respectful of the interests of the varied stakeholders. As a result, some Mexican farmers do not even know that the 1944 treaty exists or what it says: Instead, they talk of water belonging to all. Systematically ignoring the needs of small Mexican farmers can thrust them into the hands of “water mafias” — criminal groups that siphon off water in particular localities and illegally sell it at inflated prices to industries, big agriculture, and marginalized users, whether slum residents or small farmers. Such water mafias operate from South and Southeast Asia to Africa and the Middle East to Latin America. In Mexico, water theft has been more disorganized, but large Mexican criminal groups, particularly those with experience in oil theft and illegal sale of gasoline, can easily expand into water theft and smuggling. Despite the resolution of the current crisis, water stress is growing in the U.S.-Mexican border areas. The U.S. Southwest and Mexican states at the border have been experiencing water shortages for decades and will increasingly experience them as water availability plummets and becomes more unpredictable. Agriculture takes up 75 percent of water consumption in the U.S. Southwest and on the Mexican side. Energy production, industry and water-thirsty fracking are other major draws. Water is also needed for human consumption, with the population in the Rio Grande and Colorado River Basins expanding dramatically in recent decades. Global warming has reduced water flows, as replenishing snow packs in mountainous headwaters melt earlier and faster and accumulate less. Global warming has also resulted in decreased rain and increased evaporation, intensifying droughts. Cumulatively, these changes have reduced water supply while demand has grown much beyond what was envisioned in 1944. The depletion is putting enormous stress on the water basins and has decimated the river ecosystems that are necessary for sustainable hydrological functioning of the basins. In addition to being potentially in violation of the 1944 treaty prohibitions of unilateral erection of any obstruction of the Rio Grande’s flow, the building of the border wall by the Trump administration is further hurting the rivers and basins and threatens dangerous flooding. The wall construction can also damage some of the 20 pan-border aquifers (not regulated by any treaty), already massively under stress by poorly monitored, poorly regulated and excessive use. The damage the wall construction has caused to the environmentally precious San Bernandino Springs and aquifer is a case in point. The immediate resolution of the crisis is sound, and takes into account the needs of Mexican farmers: Mexico’s water delivery schedule has become even more flexible and there is also new flexibility permitting that water for the United States can be made from a wider set of water sources, thus taking pressure off Chihuahua. The United States will also help supply water to Chihuahua when needed in drought emergencies. Further collaboration and deep changes are needed. Much can be learned from the U.S.-Mexican collaboration on updating the water distribution from the Colorado River, known as Minute 323 of 2017 and Minute 319 of 2012 of the 1944 water treaty. They include a “Mexican Water Reserve” in Lake Mead through which Mexico can choose to delay the U.S. distribution of water to the country and store it in the United States, thus increasing water elevation at Lake Mead – an outcome beneficial to U.S. and Mexican users and the environment. With the water level at Lake Mead used as baseline for determining shortage conditions and cutbacks in distributions, Mexico now shares in the cutbacks along with Arizona, California, and Nevada. The negotiated Minutes also include a recognition of the natural environment as a water user ( a global breakthrough), and the provision of environmental flows to restore riverine habitats in Mexico, with the United States financing the flows and environmental restoration in exchange for water stored at Lake Mead. A Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan has also been established. In many ways, the Minutes are a hallmark of creative binational and subnational collaboration, and a non-zero-sum approach to commons issues. Beyond learning from the management of the Colorado River, long-term sustainable solutions to water supply from the Rio Grande require a set of policy actions: First, they require binational and subnational collaboration with all local, state, and federal stakeholders and establishment of common policy objectives and a joint understanding of ground realities. Second, they require identification and development of new water sources, such as through desalination or conduction of water from more humid areas. Locating new water sources is often the preferred solution of water users and some water managers. It is necessary, but insufficient. Related Books Bucharest Diary By Alfred H. Moses 2018 Energy & Transportation in the Atlantic Basin Edited by Paul Isbell and Eloy ?lvarez Pelegry 2017 Cover: Transatlantic Relations Transatlantic Relations By Xenia Wickett 2018 Third, and critically, water conservation and reuse must become key strategies at the Rio Grande and globally. This includes moving away from inefficient agricultural practices to water-savvy ones, such as the greater use of greenhouses and drip irrigation, and adopting Nature-Based Solutions. Fourth, groundwater must stop being the undervalued, underpriced fallback to and enabler of surface water overuse and unsustainable economic practices. On neither side of the border, whether Arizona or Chihuahua, it makes sense to grow water-thirsty crops like pecans in the desert by flooding desert soil in prime heat times with water pumped out of poorly monitored and likely rapidly shrinking aquifers. Fifth, studying, monitoring, and regulating aquifers and groundwater use, a domain in which California has taken initial baby steps, is necessary in each country separately and binationally. Sixth, explicitly recognizing the water needs of ecosystems and the hydrological services they provide to nature and people is critical. Seventh, to better align economic decisions with water sustainability, water must be adequately priced according to a pricing schedule escalating with water use; and serious, if very difficult, rethinking needs to be done about water rights allocation for groundwater. Finally, such a commons approach to the Rio Grande water sustainability needs dedicated enforcement on both sides of the border: Usage and payments need to be policed, and water use violating regulations punished. Enforcing water regulations in turn requires technological innovation, increased resources for enforcement, and greater will to enforce regulations domestically, including through stiffer and reliably frequent penalties – as well as problem solving. It also demands joint determination to make binational and local arrangements work.Agricultural and Manufacturing industry in Rio Grande region need ample water—plan risks too much restrictionVanNijnatten, Professor of Political Science & North American Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University 2020[Debora, “The potential for adaptive water governance on the US–Mexico border: application of the OECD’s water governance indicators to the Rio Grande/Bravo basin”, IWA Publishing, doi: 10.2166/wp.2020.120, accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]The political reality, then, is one where state-based rules for water rights – and entrenched local inter- ests focused on preserving their current allocation rights – cast a long shadow over binational attempts to manage shared water resources, or to pursue conservation measures. This reality, which is replicated across the American West (Hundley 2001), cannot be overstated. The largest user in the Rio Grande/ Bravo is – overwhelmingly – agriculture (Dagnino & Ward, 2012); more than 85% of water on the US side (Kort, 2013) and 76% of water on the Mexican side (Comisio?n Nacional del Agua 2018) is diverted for the purposes of irrigation. Consistent access to water is critical for a $1 billion agricultural sector (TWRI, 2012) that is particularly water-thirsty; popular crops in Texas and New Mexico such as alfalfa and pecans require larger quantities of irrigation water when compared to other, more water- efficient crops. Agricultural water use represents 82% of water withdrawals in New Mexico; the comparable Texas data show that agricultural water withdrawals as a percentage of total withdrawals are much smaller for the state as a whole (US Geological Survey 2015, 10–17), though irrigation with- drawals are concentrated in the border region. The Mexican state of Chihuahua is also a dairy industry centre, which uses large quantities of water; indeed, water concessions for agriculture in Chihuahua con- stitute a whopping 89% of total concessions (Comision National del Agua 2018, 82). Other border states such as Coahuila and Tamaulipas look similar in this regard (80 and 88%, respectively).Moreover, growing urban areas on both sides of the border are demanding an ever-increasing pro- portion of water (TCEQ n.d.). Along the Rio Grande/Bravo transboundary mainstem, there are seven ‘sister-cities’ which have been growing at high rates since 2000 (Kort, 2013). On the Mexican side of the southern border, the population has increased more quickly, as the region draws economic migrants from poorer parts of Mexico and, increasingly, Central America. In addition, the US– Mexico cross-border region is a centre of industrial activity; there are thousands of manufacturing plants in the Rio Grande region, most of them located around the basin’s largest cities that require sig- nificant quantities of water (Ibid). The Rio Grande region is essential to the US–Mexico cross-border economic partnership, acting as the hub of binational trade. In fact, the signing of the USMCA, the suc- cessor to NAFTA, has led to accelerated industrial development planning (Businesswire, 2020), despite the scarcity of water resources.The aff collapses already weak Texan farmersNusser 20 - a freelance writer and editor based in East Austin (Nancy, “A Water Treaty Has Aided Mexican and U.S. Farmers for Decades. This Year, It’s Wreaking Havoc.,” Texas Monthly, 10-2-20, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Trying to get U.S. officials to exert pressure has been a struggle for Valley farmers for years. Dale Murden, a citrus farmer and president of the Texas citrus growers’ association, talked at length about the farmers’ efforts as we drove to see orange groves on the outskirts of Mission. Around the turn of the century, he says, he and other Valley farmers traveled to Washington, D.C., with Texas officials to try to persuade the U.S. State Department to support their campaign to get Mexico to make more timely water deliveries. At a meeting, Susan Combs, Texas agriculture commissioner at the time, showed State Department officials a satellite photo of a green oasis in the middle of Chihuahua. “They took a desert, and used our water to build an agricultural heaven,” Murden says, recalling the meeting. England, who went on the trip, says officials were “fired up” to help the Valley farmers. But then a big storm blew in, filled up the reservoir, and ended the crisis that might have been a catalyst for change.In the early 2000s, England and Jones went on another D.C. trip, arranged with the help of then-senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Again, the Valley farmers met with State Department officials, but this time, Jones says, the officials suggested that RGV problems were not important compared with the stakes in a free trade treaty involving three nations. “They said, “Well, isn’t this a local problem?’ And I said, ‘Respectfully, if this was a local problem I wouldn’t have to fly all the way up here and go through two metal detectors to sit in this office.’”After that, the Valley farmers haven’t bothered returning to Washington, D.C.This year, the longstanding water conflict seems to be boiling over. In September, thousands of farmers and other residents dependent on agriculture for their living swarmed over La Boquilla in the state of Chihuahua in an attempt to take over the dam so that its water could not be released to the United States. A Mexican National Guard unit was deployed against the protesters, but farmers succeeded in occupying the dam and forcing the troops into retreat. By early October, hundreds of protesters were still holding the dam, replacing each other in shifts.“If the government sends our water to the United States, we will have less than half of what we need for the next year,” says a Chihuahua walnut grower who took part in the protests and asked that his name not be used. “That will affect fourteen towns and a half million people.”Link -- Significant Nexus Significant Nexus reform lacks clear definitions and risk overreach—farmer independence keyWaskom, Director, Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University, and Cooper, Senior Research Scientist and Scholar Professor, Colorado State University, 2017[Reagan and David, “Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far”, The Conversation, 2/27, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]Farmers and ranchers are independent by nature and believe they know what is best for the stewardship of their own land. They tend to be regulation-averse and believe voluntary approaches to water quality provide the flexibility needed to account for site-specific variations across the landscape. However, science shows that relatively minor effects at the edge of one field can aggregate across a watershed in cumulative impacts that are significant and sometimes serious.From an ecological perspective, scientists have long understood that surface water bodies and tributary groundwater within a watershed are connected over time. Even if it takes years, water will move across and through the landscape. Determining which tributaries have a “significant nexus” to traditional navigable waters depends on how you define “significant.”Even small wetlands and intermittent ponds provide ecosystem services that benefit the larger watershed. Wetlands and small water bodies that are geographically isolated from the floodplain may still impact navigable waters as either groundwater flows or surface runoff during heavy or prolonged precipitation events.Link -- WOTUS 2015 WOTUS ruling increases risks for farmersFatka, Policy Editor Farm Futures, 2018[Jacqui, “Farmers testify on impact of overregulation”, Feedstuff, 6/21, , accessed 7/12/21, DDI-AJ]Brunkow also highlighted flaws in the 2015 waters of the U.S. rule, which, if allowed to go into effect, would pose “tremendous risks and uncertainty for farmers, ranchers and others who depend on their ability to work the land.” He testified that the American Farm Bureau Federation is advocating for repeal of the 2015 rule in favor of a commonsense approach that ensures “clean water and provides clear, understandable rules.”Congress agrees---The 2015 rule sways overreach, uncertainty, and burdensome red tape.INS 19, Impact News Service delivers the latest news releases from around the world. Its coverage includes: leading government decisions. This is a press a press conference with Congress and the Cabinet, "What They Are Saying," US EPA, 9-13-2019, //AKYesterday,Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Department of the Army Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D James announced that the agencies are repealing a 2015 rule that impermissibly expanded the definition of 'waters of the United States' (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. Congress and stakeholders had the following to say:CabinetU.S Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue:'Repealing the WOTUS rule is a major win for American agriculture. The extreme overreach from the past Administration had government taking the productivity of the land people had worked for years. Farmers and ranchers are exceptional stewards of the land, taking great care to preserve it for generations to come. President Trump is making good on his promise to reduce burdensome regulations to free our producers to do what they do best - feed, fuel, and clothe this nation and the world.'SenateU.S Senator John Barrasso (Wyoming), chair of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: 'The WOTUS rule would have put backyard ponds, puddles, and prairie potholes under Washington's control. I applaud the Trump administration for working to remove this outrageous regulation. Americans deserve clean water and clear rules. We need rules that protect water and respect local authority.'U.S SenatorJohn Cornyn (Texas): 'Texans know better than most the importance of protecting water sources, but the 2015 ‘Waters of the U.S ' rule prevents farmers, landowners, and job creators from taking care of their land how they know best. Today's announcement represents another success in breaking down President Obama's misguided regulatory regime that harmed Texans of all walks of life.'U.S Senator Pat Roberts (Kansas): 'I'm glad to see EPA Administrator Wheeler continuing to alleviate regulatory burdens that farmers, ranchers, and landowners faced under the outrageous 2015 WOTUS rule,' said Roberts. 'This Administration has gone about this regulatory process the correct way - by listening to stakeholders. I look forward to reviewing the WOTUS replacement rule within the coming months.'U.S Senator Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma): 'Promises made, promises kept. Starting in 2015, as the Chairman of the EPW Committee, I led the fight against the flawed, Obama-era WOTUS rule-holding hearings and pushing legislation to highlight the negative impacts of the rule. I worked hand-in-hand with President Trump and EPA Administrator Wheeler to repeal the burdensome regulation because of what it has done to our farmers, ranchers and local landowners in Oklahoma - this has been their most significant regulatory burden.'States across the nation, particularly rural states like Oklahoma, have been severely harmed by the regulatory overreach of the Obama-era WOTUS rule, which has taken state and local land and unlawfully put it into the control of the federal government. Today's action to finally end the rule continues to prove how the Trump Administration and the EPA understand the needs of farmers and rural Americans. I look forward to the new rule, which clearly defines what constitutes WOTUS, ensures our waterways are protected and returns the federal government to its proper role.'U.S Senator Deb Fischer (Nebraska): 'I have long been an advocate for eliminating the 2015WOTUS, which represented an unprecedented overreach by the federal government at the expense of families, communities, and businesses. Nebraskans own the water in our state, and we take great care of this precious natural resource. After years of fighting WOTUS through legislative efforts, I'm pleased to see the Trump administration end this harmful rule once and for all. 'U.S Senator Mike Braun (Indiana): 'As a member of the Ag community, I know President Trump and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler are keeping their promise to repeal the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that gave unelected bureaucrats the power to regulate lakes, streams, ponds and ditches. To compliment Trump's deregulatory agenda, I have offered legislation that puts their work and a new definition into law so that no future administrations can treat our farmers like the previous administration did.'U.S Senator Joni Ernst (Iowa):'For years, Iowans have told me we need to get rid of the 2015 WOTUS rule-an egregious power grab by the Obama Administration that gave the federal government authority to regulate 97 percent of our land in Iowa. That's why I've fought hard to ensure we get Washington's hands out of Iowans' lives by scrapping Obama's burdensome rule. I'm thrilled to see the Trump Administration take decisive action that will remove this threat to Iowa's farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses, and get us one step closer to providing the predictability and certainty hardworking folks across the country deserve.'U.S Senator Kevin Cramer (North Dakota):'The Obama-era WOTUS rule was unlawful and an unconstitutional power grab that did nothing to advance good water management, and I applaud Administrator Wheeler for fulfilling President Trump's promise to repeal it. Today's action eliminates the inconsistent patchwork of implementation and paves the way for the Administration to complete its much-needed final rule. I look forward to continuing to work with them on a replacement that is legally sound and puts states back in the driver's seat.'U.S SenatorJosh Hawley (Missouri):'The Obama-era WOTUS rule was an example of the worst kind of regulatory overreach. It was the product of radical environmentalists seeking to impose their left-wing agenda on America's heartland-especially on the farmers and ranchers in places like Missouri. Their 2015 rule intended to heap heavy-handed regulations on every puddle of water and drainage ditch on private farm land.'Farmers take much better care of their own land than the bureaucrats in Washington ever could. As Attorney General of Missouri, I helped lead the effort to fight against the burdensome WOTUS rule. Now as a Senator, I'm proud to support President Trump in rolling it back and restoring the original intent of the Clean Water Act. With this step, we can create a more uniform system for local farmers and communities to move forward.'U.S Senator Ted Cruz (Texas): 'This announcement is yet another example of the administration's dedication to rolling back burdensome regulations for hardworking Americans and reining in federal overreach. The Obama-era WOTUS ruling placed red tape in the way of Texas farmers, ranchers, and landowners, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars by expanding the definition of federal water to include even a puddle. I applaud the administration's decision to return property rights to landowners who know how to manage their land and resources best.'U.S SenatorThom Tillis (North Carolina): “I applaud President Trump and Administrator Wheeler for finalizing Step 1 of the WOTUS repeal. Since I got to the Senate, I’ve been fighting against the Obama administration’s WOTUS rule, which would have imposed crippling red-tape on North Carolina’s farmers and small businesses. Step 1 will preserve our nation’s water quality and will place all states on the same playing field under the Clean Water Act – eliminating the patchwork of regulations that caused confusion and uncertainty for farmers and landowners across the country.“Under President Trump’s leadership, the EPA has saved the American people more than $3.7 billion dollars in regulatory costs by finalizing 46 deregulatory actions. I look forward to seeing Step 2 of the WOTUS repeal finalized so that we can provide flexibility to states, tribes, and localities to determine best water management practices. North Carolina’s farmers, landowners, and small businesses – not Washington bureaucrats— should be in charge of the land and water they own. This rule is a major win for rural North Carolina and I am thrilled to welcome the EPA Region 4 Administrator, Mary Walker, to North Carolina for the rollout of Step 1.”Repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule leaves Ag farmers in the darkAbbott 6/10("Biden administration wil replace Trump clean water rule", Chuck Abbott, 6/10/21, )Shortly after telling senators that he wanted a “long-term, durable solution,” EPA administrator Michael Regan said on Wednesday that the Biden administration would write a new definition of the upstream reach of clean water laws. The process would include repeal of the 2020 Trump-era rule that replaced 2015 Obama water regulations the farm sector decried as federal overreach. Trump’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule “is leading to significant environmental degradation,” said Regan in a joint statement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regan said the new “waters of the United States” definition would be based on Supreme Court precedent and “lessons learned from the current and previous regulations.” The Justice Department was expected to file a motion in federal court, where the Trump rule is under challenge, to return the Navigable Waters rule to EPA custody. The motion is a reflection of the administration’s “intent to initiate a new rulemaking process that restores the protections in place before the 2015 WOTUS implementation,” said the EPA. Farm groups and real estate developers were among the most vocal opponents of the 2015 WOTUS rule. The largest U.S. farm group said the rule would mean federal control over dry farm ditches, although the Obama administration insisted it would not alter long-standing agricultural exemptions. As a candidate, Donald Trump said the WOTUS rule was unconstitutional, and as president, he directed its replacement. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule said the clean water law applied to oceans, rivers, core tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. Environmentalists said it left half of U.S. wetlands and millions of miles of streams without protection from pollution. Under the Trump rule, “nearly every one of over 1,500 streams assessed” in Arizona and New Mexico “has been found to be nonjurisdictional,” said the EPA. Jaime Pinkham, acting assistant Army Corps secretary, said there had been a 25 percent decline in determinations of waters that qualified for protection. “I just think this rule was horribly written,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico Democrat, during a budget hearing with Regan. Heinrich said “major portions” of the Santa Fe River, a key source of drinking water for the city of Santa Fe, were not covered by the Navigable Waters rule because they flowed seasonally, during snowmelt. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski criticized the 2015 WOTUS rule as a confounding “showstopper” in Alaska, where “approximately two-thirds of the state … is already considered wetlands.” She warned against unduly intrusive water regulations. “We are evaluating the path forward,” replied Regan. He cited “complexities” in the Obama rule and “what I believe to be an abdication of some responsibilities for water-quality protection under the current rule. There are lessons to be learned from both.” Regan said he would work with all sides “to best understand how do we have a long-term, durable solution and not continue to have the ping-pong back and forth.” Clean Water Action, an environmental group, welcomed the plan for a new clean water rule and called for repeal of the Trump rule. “The Navigable Waters Protection Rule is not based on science and prioritizes shielding polluters over protecting impacted communities,” said the group. “This is a gut punch to Iowans,” said Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, who supports the “clearer, more flexible rule” written by the Trump EPA.WOTUS puts significant burdens on the ag industry AgDaily, 2021, (AgDaily Reporters, "Farmers & ranchers once again worried about WOTUS," 6-10, DDI) and ranchers are once again worried about the water rights on their land. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army announced their intent to revise the definition of “waters of the United States,” also known as WOTUS. The agriculture industry has been battling this fight for many years. The 2015 WOTUS Rule expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” and gave the federal government authority to regulate almost any waters; including streams, ditches, ponds, and creeks. After many years of discussions, court challenges, and a new administration, Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) was finalized. In April of 2020, the NWPR revised the definition of WOTUS and reversed this overreach, which finally brought clarity and certainty to clean water efforts. However, after yesterday’s announcement from the EPA, the sage continues. In the statement, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said, “After reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA and Department of the Army have determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental degradation.” Agriculture groups were disappointed to hear the intention to reverse the current Navigable Waters Protection Rule. American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said, “Administrator Regan recently recognized the flaws in the 2015 Waters of the U.S. Rule and pledged not to return to those overreaching regulations. We are deeply concerned that the EPA plans to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which puts the future of responsible protections at risk. We expected extensive outreach, but today’s announcement fails to recognize the concerns of farmers and ranchers. “We call on EPA to respect the statute, recognize the burden that overreaching regulation places on farmers and ranchers, and not write the term ‘navigable’ out of the Clean Water Act. On this issue, and particularly prior converted croplands and ephemerals, we also urge Secretary Vilsack to ensure that we don’t return to the regulatory land grab that was the 2015 WOTUS Rule.” Duvall emphasized that farmers and ranchers care about clean water and preserving the land, and should be allowed to do their job. “Clean water and clarity are paramount, and that is why farmers shouldn’t need a team of lawyers and consultants to farm.” According to the EPA, the agencies’ new regulatory effort will be guided by the following considerations: Protecting water resources and our communities consistent with the Clean Water Act. The latest science and the effects of climate change on our waters. Emphasizing a rule with a practical implementation approach for state and Tribal partners. Reflecting the experience of and input received from landowners, the agricultural community that fuels and feeds the world, states, Tribes, local governments, community organizations, environmental groups, and disadvantaged communities with environmental justice concerns.WOTUS tanks the ag industry Farm Bureau, 2021, ("Water Rule Reversal a Blow to Agriculture," 6-9, DDI) Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall commented today on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement of its intention to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. “The American Farm Bureau Federation is extremely disappointed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement of its intention to reverse the environmentally conscious Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which finally brought clarity and certainty to clean water efforts. Farmers and ranchers care about clean water and preserving the land, and they support the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. “Administrator Regan recently recognized the flaws in the 2015 Waters of the U.S. Rule and pledged not to return to those overreaching regulations. We are deeply concerned that the EPA plans to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which puts the future of responsible protections at risk. We expected extensive outreach, but today’s announcement fails to recognize the concerns of farmers and ranchers. “This is an important moment for Administrator Regan and will be pivotal to his ability to earn the trust of farmers on this and other administration priorities. He must keep his word to recognize the efforts of agriculture and not return to flawed, overly complicated and excessive regulations. “We call on EPA to respect the statute, recognize the burden that overreaching regulation places on farmers and ranchers, and not write the term ‘navigable’ out of the Clean Water Act. On this issue, and particularly prior converted croplands and ephemerals, we also urge Secretary Vilsack to ensure that we don’t return to the regulatory land grab that was the 2015 WOTUS Rule. “Clean water and clarity are paramount, and that is why farmers shouldn’t need a team of lawyers and consultants to farm.”Link -- WOTUS -- AT: Regs Now Regulations won’t be implemented now -- plan forces WOTUS on the ag industry => circumvention Washington Insider, 2021, ("Another Water Rule Coming," Progressive Farmer, 6-10, PAS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will once again seek to come up with a definition of waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) that will replace the Navigable Waters Protection Rule put in place by the Trump administration. But the effort also will not bring back the Obama-era WOTUS rule that was put in place in 2015. EPA said it will embark on a new rulemaking to generate the new rule after undertaking a review of the Trump-era rule. That review, EPA said, indicated it was causing “destructive impacts” to “critical water bodies.” The new regulatory effort, EPA said, would be built on protecting water resources consistent with the Clean Water Act, use the latest science and consider effects of climate change, create a rule that can be practically implemented, and reflects the “experience of and input received from landowners, the agricultural community that fuels and feeds the world, states, Tribes, local governments, community organizations, environmental groups, and disadvantaged communities with environmental justice concerns.” EPA has pledged there will be “meaningful stakeholder engagements” to develop the new rule, which would mean listening sessions or public hearings to generate information for the agency to draft the new regulation. The fact that we are seeing yet again another regulatory process coming on this topic is from an executive order signed by President Joe Bident his first day in office which directed the EPA and Army “to immediately review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations [including the Navigable Waters Protection Rule or “NWPR”] and other actions during the last four years that conflict with these important national objectives.” While touting the review of the NWPR, EPA did not offer much as to that review. They did note that the NWPR did result in several bodies of water in New Mexico and Arizona no longer being subject to the Clean Water Act provisions and that some 300 projects that were conducted after the Trump rule went into effect were ones that would have required some type of permitting or plan under the 2015 WOTUS rule. “After reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA and Department of the Army have determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental degradation,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “We are committed to establishing a durable definition of 'waters of the United States' based on Supreme Court precedent and drawing from the lessons learned from the current and previous regulations, as well as input from a wide array of stakeholders, so we can better protect our nation's waters, foster economic growth, and support thriving communities.” But therein lies perhaps EPA's most difficult task -- a durable rule. Presumably, the are likely intending that the rule they finalize after a rulemaking process will not be challenged in court as both the WOTUS and NWPR were. That will prove to be a tall order for EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But the replacement for the Trump-era rule will not come immediately. EPA has indicated they will initiate a new rulemaking process. That means we will first see public information gathering done either via public meetings or a request for information via a notice in the Federal Register. Then will come the process of developing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will also have a public comment period. It will have to first be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as well. Then will be the process of developing a final rule based on the input and feedback to the proposed version. Then another OMB review will be done before a final rule will be promulgated. In all, that process could take several years. And even then, expectations are already that whatever that final rule is, there will be court challenges that will come forth. So we will see. EPA clearly has their work cut out for them to develop a rule that is in their words “durable.” But it will also have to pass muster with the ag community, a constituency that fought the Obama-era plan and so this whole process will need to be watched closely, Washington Insider believes.IL IL -- Econ Agriculture collapse destroys the economy – results in mass migration and unemploymentKasler 19 – reporter at the Sacramento Bee since 1996, (Dale, “California farmers face ‘catastrophic’ water restrictions. Can they adapt to survive?,” The Sacramento Bee, 9-25-19, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)California’s groundwater law won’t affect all parts of the Valley equally. A sad truth is that it will hit hardest in places that are most reliant on groundwater and most fragile economically. “The further south you go into the Valley, the higher degree of agriculture dependence you have. And you also hit the more severely over-drafted basins as well,” said economist Jeff Michael of the University of the Pacific. John Corkins lives and works in one of those ground-zero areas — near Porterville in southern Tulare County, where the aquifers are in terrible shape and the fear factor is growing. “We’re scared to death down here,” Corkins said, pulling out of his desk drawer an economic report predicting billions of dollars in crop losses. Corkins runs an ag-consulting firm called Research for Hire. He also grows grapefruit and olives on 300 acres in Tulare and Kern counties. Some of the land gets water via canals from the area irrigation district; about 40 percent is dependent on groundwater, and Corkins believes the state law will bring economic misery to an area where the unemployment rate sits at 10 percent. In a few years, “we’re going to be starting to ratchet things down,” he said as he inspected a groundwater well and his grapefruit trees — a sweet variety called Melogold. “There will probably be fewer of us sitting around the coffee shops in 2040. “The number of jobs that are going to be lost in this area is going to be dramatic. People that don’t have a second skill are going to be losing their jobs.” Consuelo Andrade, 41, is not an expert in California’s arcane groundwater law — but she understands that her livelihood would be threatened if some of the farmland in Tulare County starts going idle. “Where are we going to get money? How are we going to survive?” she said through a translator. Life is hard enough as it is. Andrade, who came to the United States nine years ago, picks oranges, lemons, grapes and olives from November to April. She gets paid by the number of bins she fills; it works out to $40 to $60 a day, but she’s on food stamps now because it’s off season and she’s been caring for her 13-month-old daughter Guadalupe Ruby. Her husband, Manuel Cisneros, 55, also works in the fields but he’s been reduced to part-time labor because of diabetes and other health problems. They live in a $200-a-month rental in Strathmore. What if the farms dry up and their incomes vanish? Unable to speak English, they doubt they’d be able to find much work in Tulare County. One possibility is moving to Oregon, where they’ve picked cherries before and there don’t seem to be any water shortages. “There’s going to be an epidemic of people moving,” Andrade said.Strong agricultural industry key to strong economy USDA 6/21 [USDA "Early Months Suggest a Bright 2021 for United States Agricultural Exports," USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 6-25-2021, , wcLHU.S. agricultural exports in the first four months (January – April) of 2021 were a record $59 billion, exceeding the previous record set in 2014 by nearly $5 billion. Robust global demand, high commodity prices, and increased U.S. competitiveness have led to record exports of corn, sorghum, beef, food preparations, and other products. Others including soybeans, soybean meal, wheat, and dairy have also seen large increases during recent years and have contributed significantly to early-year export levels. At the current pace, there is a strong possibility of a record-breaking year for U.S. agricultural exports surpassing the 2014 mark of $154.5 billion.The agriculture, food, and related industries are vital parts of the U.S. economy, contributing an estimated $1.109 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product and providing employment for 22.2 million people in the United States in 2019,?according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service. Agricultural exports have grown significantly within the past decades, becoming an increasingly important component of the agriculture industry. From 2000 to 2020, U.S. agricultural exports grew from $56 billion to $150 billion. It is estimated that U.S. agricultural exports supported nearly?1.1 million full-time jobs in 2019. In 2020, exports increased by nearly $9 billion during 2019. A record in 2021 would drive this total even higher, likely supporting more U.S. jobs and making a larger positive impact on the U.S. ing out of a strong year in 2020, the United States appears to be well-positioned for an even stronger 2021. An August 2020?World Trade Organization report?examining the impact of COVID-19 on agricultural trade described the resilience of the sector as a whole, and highlighted the essential nature of food as a main factor. U.S. agricultural exports during the pandemic reinforce this idea. While the export value of a few products like tree nuts, beef, and cotton declined in 2020, total exports were up significantly. Record harvests causing low prices were the main drivers for the decline in tree nut export value (despite volume increases), but declines for beef and cotton could be partially attributed to COVID-19 due to reduced hotel, restaurant, and institutional sector demand and a slowdown of global apparel consumption. All other top export products performed as well as or better than 2019. In the first four months of 2021, exports of top products have met, exceeded, or in some cases greatly exceeded exports from the same period in 2020, contributing to an overall increase of more than $12 billion.Many upward trends from 2020 have continued into the new year. Global demand is rising, driven in part due to record purchases by China as it rebuilds its swine herd from African Swine Fever and demand for animal feed surges. The early 2020 signing of the Phase One agreement between the United States and China created a pathway for U.S. producers to step in and fill both the demand for pork, beef, and poultry products as well as the rising demand for animal feed. Production shortfalls reduced competition from feed exporters in South America, which also had an important effect on trade in the early months of 2021. The combination of increased global demand and reduced supply has led to price increases in the past year that look to benefit U.S. exporters. For more information on driving factors for U.S. bulk product and livestock product exports in early 2021, see additional?commodity trade reports.Two additional major trade agreements were also implemented in 2020. The U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement entered into force at the beginning of the year, providing tariff reductions for a wide range of agricultural products including beef, pork, and dairy, as well as preferential market access provisions for others including wheat and wheat products. While tariffs on many products were eliminated immediately, others will be gradually reduced in the coming years. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) entered into force in mid-2020, containing provisions to expand market access for U.S. exporters of dairy, poultry, eggs, and others while strengthening science-based trade rules and other processes. These agreements and the Phase One agreement with China serve to facilitate trade with four of the United States’ top trading partners and will have lasting positive benefits for agricultural producers in 2021 and beyond.Excellent agricultural export performance to date is not limited to bulk and meat products. For the period from January to April, 16 product groups reached record export levels in 2021:U.S. processed product exports are strongly represented on the list of high performers in early 2021. Food preparations, the largest processed product group which contains various ingredients for food manufacturing as well as some consumer-ready packaged and canned foods, had a notable increase of $125 million above the previous January – April record set in 2019. Other processed product groups like condiments & sauces, dog & cat food, and beer have also been high performers. The strongest markets for U.S. processed products are USMCA partners Canada and Mexico, but other markets have been growing in recent years. Countries with rapidly increasing numbers of middle-class households tend to show the most consumption growth for these products. For more information on consumption trends and opportunities for U.S. processed products, see recently published?International Agricultural Trade Reports focused on snack foods, confectionery, baked goods, and pet food in various markets. Another notable achievement is that not only are year-to-date exports up across product groups, they are also up across nearly all major U.S. partners. For each of the top 10 markets for U.S. products in 2020 (China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Colombia), total exports are higher in January – April 2021 compared to the same period in 2020. For 9 of these 10 markets (excluding the European Union), this sets a 4-month export record. This diversity of potential markets is a source of strength and stability and is an indicator of high overall competitiveness of U.S. products in 2021. This performance is reinforced by trade agreements with many of these top partners, including the recent agreements with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, as well as with South Korea and Colombia.Based on current performance, U.S. producers should look forward to a bright 2021 for agricultural exports. Global demand is high, and consumption habits for products that were affected by COVID-19 will continue to normalize. If U.S. exports continue to be as competitive as they have been in the early months of the year, 2021 has a great chance at becoming a record year, paving the way for more records to come. As income worldwide increases and more customers emerge, U.S. farmers, ranchers, and those employed in the industries driving agricultural trade should expect a large part of global demand to be met by the United States, fulfilling its role as one of the world’s largest suppliers of food and agricultural products.agricultural development improves the general economyKathleen Kassel and Anikka Martin, 2021-06-02, "USDA ERS," No Publication, U.S. agriculture sector extends beyond the farm business to include a range of farm-related industries. The largest of these are food service and food manufacturing. Americans' expenditures on food amount to 13 percent of household budgets on average. Among Federal Government outlays on farm and food programs, nutrition assistance far outpaces other programs. Agriculture, food, and related industries contributed $1.109 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019, a 5.2-percent share. The output of America’s farms contributed $136.1 billion of this sum—about 0.6 percent of GDP. The overall contribution of agriculture to GDP is actually larger than 0.6 percent because sectors related to agriculture rely on agricultural inputs in order to contribute added value to the economy. Sectors related to agriculture include: food and beverage manufacturing; food and beverage stores; food services and eating and drinking places; textiles, apparel, and leather products; and forestry and fishing. In 2019, 22.2 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors—10.9 percent of total U.S. employment. Direct on-farm employment accounted for about 2.6 million of these jobs, or 1.3 percent of U.S. employment. Employment in agriculture- and food-related industries supported another 19.6 million jobs. Of this, food service, eating and drinking places accounted for the largest share—13.0 million jobs—and food/beverage stores supported 3.2 million jobs. The remaining agriculture-related industries together added another 3.4 million jobs. With a 13.0-percent share, food ranked third behind housing (32.8 percent) and transportation (17.1 percent) among the expenditures of the average American household in 2019. Compared with 2018, shares for food, health care, savings, and transportation fell slightly in 2019, and shares for education, personal insurance/pensions, entertainment/alcoholic beverages, and “other” categories of spending rose slightly. In 2019, the U.S. food and beverage manufacturing sector employed 1.7 million people, or just over 1.1 percent of all U.S. nonfarm employment. In thousands of food and beverage manufacturing plants located throughout the country, these employees were engaged in transforming raw agricultural materials into products for intermediate or final consumption. Meat and poultry plants employed the largest percentage of food and beverage manufacturing workers, followed by bakeries, and beverage plants. USDA outlays increased by 48 percent from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2015 (fiscal years begin October 1 and end September 30), with the largest increase coming from food and nutrition assistance programs, which grew especially fast since fiscal 2008, reflecting higher recession-related participation and a temporary increase in per-person benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). An improving economy and expiration of the larger SNAP benefits caused growth of food and nutrition assistance program outlays to slow by fiscal 2012 and decrease in fiscal 2014. Outlays on Federal crop insurance also decreased in fiscal 2014 as extreme weather events subsided and crop prices declined. Commodity program outlays declined in fiscal 2015 with the passing of the new Farm Act in 2014. Food and nutrition assistance accounted for more than 73 percent of USDA outlays in fiscal 2015. Agricultural development improves the general economy and specifically prevents job insecurities (maybe find a card that talks about preventing job insecurities specifically) Kathleen Kassel and Anikka Martin, 2021-06-02, "USDA ERS," No Publication, U.S. agriculture sector extends beyond the farm business to include a range of farm-related industries. The largest of these are food service and food manufacturing. Americans' expenditures on food amount to 13 percent of household budgets on average. Among Federal Government outlays on farm and food programs, nutrition assistance far outpaces other programs. Agriculture, food, and related industries contributed $1.109 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019, a 5.2-percent share. The output of America’s farms contributed $136.1 billion of this sum—about 0.6 percent of GDP. The overall contribution of agriculture to GDP is actually larger than 0.6 percent because sectors related to agriculture rely on agricultural inputs in order to contribute added value to the economy. Sectors related to agriculture include: food and beverage manufacturing; food and beverage stores; food services and eating and drinking places; textiles, apparel, and leather products; and forestry and fishing. In 2019, 22.2 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors—10.9 percent of total U.S. employment. Direct on-farm employment accounted for about 2.6 million of these jobs, or 1.3 percent of U.S. employment. Employment in agriculture- and food-related industries supported another 19.6 million jobs. Of this, food service, eating and drinking places accounted for the largest share—13.0 million jobs—and food/beverage stores supported 3.2 million jobs. The remaining agriculture-related industries together added another 3.4 million jobs. With a 13.0-percent share, food ranked third behind housing (32.8 percent) and transportation (17.1 percent) among the expenditures of the average American household in 2019. Compared with 2018, shares for food, health care, savings, and transportation fell slightly in 2019, and shares for education, personal insurance/pensions, entertainment/alcoholic beverages, and “other” categories of spending rose slightly. In 2019, the U.S. food and beverage manufacturing sector employed 1.7 million people, or just over 1.1 percent of all U.S. nonfarm employment. In thousands of food and beverage manufacturing plants located throughout the country, these employees were engaged in transforming raw agricultural materials into products for intermediate or final consumption. Meat and poultry plants employed the largest percentage of food and beverage manufacturing workers, followed by bakeries, and beverage plants. USDA outlays increased by 48 percent from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2015 (fiscal years begin October 1 and end September 30), with the largest increase coming from food and nutrition assistance programs, which grew especially fast since fiscal 2008, reflecting higher recession-related participation and a temporary increase in per-person benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). An improving economy and expiration of the larger SNAP benefits caused growth of food and nutrition assistance program outlays to slow by fiscal 2012 and decrease in fiscal 2014. Outlays on Federal crop insurance also decreased in fiscal 2014 as extreme weather events subsided and crop prices declined. Commodity program outlays declined in fiscal 2015 with the passing of the new Farm Act in 2014. Food and nutrition assistance accounted for more than 73 percent of USDA outlays in fiscal 2015. US ag key to economyJEC 13 (Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress, “THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICA’S FARMERS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS,” September 2013, US Congress, URL: , //RN)U.S. farmers, ranchers and food producers are well positioned to capture an increasing share of the growing world market for agricultural products. The United States is the world’s leading exporter of agricultural products.3 At $141.3 billion, agricultural exports made up 10% of U.S. exports in 2012. 4 Since 1960, the United States has posted a trade surplus in agriculture. Last year, this surplus totaled $38.5 billion.5 Capturing a growing share of the world market for agricultural products will benefit the entire economy. Agricultural exports currently support nearly one million jobs across the country.6 Despite recent success, challenges remain for U.S. agriculture, including uncertainty about future farm policy. U.S. agricultural exporters often confront barriers imposed by countries that keep U.S. products from reaching their target markets. Small and beginning farmers, ranchers and processors may face added burdens in navigating the complexities involved in exporting their products. America’s deteriorating transportation infrastructure and uncertainty regarding the agricultural workforce because of unsettled immigration policy add to the challenges facing agricultural exporters. Addressing these challenges will benefit U.S. agriculture and the economy overall. The Economic Impact of U.S. Agriculture The United States has a robust farm economy. Last year, total farm cash receipts exceeded $390 billion, including $219.6 billion in cash receipts for crops and $171.7 billion in cash receipts for livestock and related products. 7 Some products such as wheat, coarse grains, cotton and soybeans are sold in bulk either in the United States or abroad, while most others undergo various levels of processing. Wheat flour, soybean oil, meats, cereals and dairy products are examples of products that receive additional processing prior to their final sale. After accounting for production expenses, net farm income totaled $112.8 billion in 2012, about 125% higher than a decade prior.8 SEPTEMBER 2013 THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICA’S FARMERS SEPTEMBER 2013 A successful agricultural sector supports economic growth overall. By producing a wide variety of foods inexpensively, including fruits, vegetables, grains, meat and dairy products, America’s farmers and ranchers ensure a safe and reliable domestic food supply. This sector also improves U.S. energy security and reduces dependence on foreign oil through the production of biofuels and the development of other alternative sources of energy. These new sources of energy can help reduce costs for businesses and consumers. For example, some studies have found that an increased supply of biofuels reduces gas prices, especially as biofuel production technology improves. 9 A healthy farm economy is especially important to small towns and rural areas. 10 Farmers and ranchers invest in their operations, supporting jobs in farm machinery manufacturing and other industries, and they purchase goods and services from local businesses. High levels of farm production, in turn, improve the prospects for downstream businesses such as food processing companies and biofuel refineries. Businesses up and down the agricultural product supply chain have benefited in recent years as a result of the strong agricultural economy.11 An increase in sales of organic, specialty and bio-based products, as well as a recent expansion of agritourism, has contributed to this success.12 The role of exports: Exporting is particularly important for agriculture, since growth in demand for agricultural products in the coming decades is expected to come largely from developing countries. U.S. agriculture has been successful in exporting its products, even as other industries have struggled recently in the global market. While agriculture comprised less than 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the 2007 to 2011 period, agricultural products as a share of total exports hovered around 10%.13 (Figure 1) According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) model, each $1 billion of agricultural exports supported 6,800 American jobs in 2011.14 These jobs include positions on farms, in the food processing industry, in the trade and transportation sector and in other supporting industries.15 In general, high-value (processed) exports supported more jobs and economic activity per dollar of exports than bulk exports of raw products.16 Assuming the number of jobs supported by each $1 billion of agricultural exports stayed within a range of the values estimated for 2010 and 2011, U.S. agricultural exports supported nearly one million jobs in 2012.17IL -- Food Security US ag is key to global security – only way to protect is securing resources such as waterNegroponte 15 (John, Former Ambassador; Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, “AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY”, 11-4-2015, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Serial No. 114-33, URL: , //RN)Before I focus on the agriculture and national security nexus, I wanted to look at some of the major trends affecting global agriculture to provide some background. With a pressing need to feed the future world of nine billion people and manage emerging national security challenges, we need to look at the big picture as we map our way forward. One trend is toward an increasingly globalized supply chain with our food supplies increasingly dependent on trade. While access to the world market has generally reduced food prices and improved access to food during local production shortfalls, it also highlights the need to secure market access for our agricultural exports while ensuring the safety and reliability of our imports. Looking further out, it may also necessitate consideration of how to secure food supplies for potentially vulnerable U.S. allies such as Japan. A second issue is the evolving relationship between food and resource scarcity. Over time, rising competition for limited resources such as water and arable land could affect political stability and shift military priorities. For example, this could fuel further instability in the Middle East, where water scarcity in particular has the potential to aggravate interstate conflict. Water scarcity plays a significant role in both Syria and Iraq, where rivers, canals and dams are military targets. Over time, these and other resource constraints along with pressures from climate change could slow down increases in productivity. The next trend is the rising global middle class, which is expected to double in size in the next decade. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the world must increase food production by 50 to 60 percent to satisfy expected global population growth and changing consumption patterns by 2050. This could transform markets for many food products. In East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, per capita meat consumption by weight is projected to increase by 55 percent and 42 percent by 2030. These changes will put pressure on the food production system, but will also create immense opportunities for U.S. and global agricultural producers. At the same time, changes in our food system have also driven the fourth trend, changes in consumption in rich and middle income countries. Consumers are increasingly looking for products that are not only healthier but also have other characteristics. This not only includes products that are lower in sugar, fat and salt but those that address environmental, animal welfare, labor and other concerns. These increasing demands on the food system could reduce productivity, but could also allow entrepreneurial farmers to get better prices for high- value and differentiated products. Rising consumer demand for value-added products has partially been driven by rising anxiety about and skepticism of science. While Western Europe has traditionally been least trustful of the food and agricultural industry, this trend of rejecting modern agricultural production technologies has spread elsewhere, including within the United States. This has been most evident in the deepening suspicion about agricultural biotechnology and support for mandatory labeling. If science skepticism accelerates, this could undermine our ability to increase production enough to feed the world. The sixth trend is driven by energy prices. Since energy prices are one of the largest expenses in agricultural production, food prices rise with energy costs. At the same time, energy demands also divert a substantial amount of agricultural production. In the United States, around 40 percent of corn production is used for ethanol. While energy markets are famously volatile, rising long-term energy prices could drive up production costs and divert more crops to fuel use. A seventh trend is the continuing exclusion of too many farmers from the global economy. According to the United Nations, 1.4 billion people cannot fulfil their most basic needs--and many are subsistence farmers. This continuing poverty makes millions vulnerable to weather, disease, price changes or other issues--and can drive many other problems, including refugee flows and political instability. Including poor farmers in development can increase resilience and prevent problems from worsening. The last trend is the changing world of agricultural trade policy. Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) is still in place, the organization may be overtaken in the future by a growing number of alternative bilateral or regional trade agreements--which numbered more than 600 in 2010. The number is higher now because of new agreements such as the recently completed free trade agreement between the European Union and Canada. These rules could complicate our ability to access markets globally--but also offer an immense opportunity if we open trade too. At the center of all of these worldwide and regional trends is U.S. agricultural production. The United States plays a critical role in global agriculture since we are world's largest producer of beef, soybeans, corn and poultry and a top exporter of products as diverse as almonds, apples, cotton, raisins, sorghum, pork and wheat. Even in our highly globalized economy, America is still often the world's swing supplier of food. The Agriculture-National Security Nexus All of these trends offer a mix of threats and opportunities for the United States--but with the right approaches we can minimize the former and maximize the latter. These issues can be clustered into the global security, homeland security and economic realms. On the global security front, energy security, access to natural resources, and continuing ability to trade food globally will be central to maintaining our security--and that of America's allies. Central to this will be the ability to move physical product through open sea lanes, the limitation of trade restricting measures, and ensuring access to reasonably priced energy and other resources. Homeland security is connected to agriculture because of the importance of America's global supply chains and food safety issues. Although these issues have not been front and center because of the strength of the U.S. regulatory system and our status as a major net exporter, the risks do exist. The economic dimension is tied to both farm income and to the effects on consumer prices. Domestically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that livestock and poultry production alone generates more than $100 billion a year in revenue. The U.S. food and agriculture sector has also benefited tremendously from trade is exports totaled $152.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2014. At the same time, Americans spend a little more than six percent of disposable income on food, one of the lowest levels in the world. The food and agriculture sector creates immense benefits for both producers and consumers--both in the United States and worldwide. Building our Future Security All of these topics raise the question of what is to be done. While there is not sufficient time to look at the issues in detail, I would like to offer a few thoughts--some of which were cited in documents such as the recently released Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Global Food Security, along with two Development of Homeland Security Presidential Directives: HSPD-7, ``Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protection'' and HSPD-9, ``Defense of United States Agriculture and Food.'' Infrastructure: Agriculture is extremely dependent on roads, rail, electricity, water and other physical infrastructure. As mentioned in HSPD-7, it is important for Federal departments and agencies to further advance efforts to protect critical infrastructure and key resources by preventing, deterring, and mitigating deliberate efforts to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them by working across agencies and with state and local governments and the private sector. Reducing the chances of attack will likely require increased investment in vulnerable or aged infrastructure and a continuing evaluation of new and emerging threats. Biodefense: One specific kind of threat is the theme of HSPD-9, which focuses on the risks of biological attack on U.S. agriculture. The consequences of a successful attack range from economic damage to threats to food safety and public health. Although there have been no large-scale attacks, it is important to strengthen surveillance, monitoring and tracking and to enhance nationwide laboratory networks to ensure food, veterinary, plant health and clean water. As Federal retirements continue apace, we need to build up talent for the future in these areas. Resource Strategy: Since agriculture is so tied to energy, water and other resources, we may consider these items themselves to be of strategic importance. In the decades to come, water could become to global strategy what petroleum is today, since declining food security could contribute to large-scale political instability and conflict. These problems could be aggravated by climate change--which may disrupt resource availability. To ensure that the United States, its allies and other strategically important countries have access to food, we may need to reimagine a grand strategy around these resource issues. The ICA mentions Africa, the Middle East and South Asia as particularly vulnerable to resource constraints.Agriculture is an essential part of many different markets States News Service. 21 (January 19, 2021 Tuesday). THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY.?States News Service.?, wcLHAgriculture?has been essential for human survival throughout history, and it remains the backbone of many nations'?economies. As the world has evolved and developed, the necessity of?agriculture?has also expanded far beyond the importance of farming to include key sub-sectors like forestry, beekeeping and more.Reasons Why?Agriculture?Is ImportantWhile most commonly associated with farming, the?agriculture?industry extends into food and related industries like forestry, fishing and hunting. This means the term?agricultural?industry can include any enterprise involved in growing crops, raising animals, logging wood or harvesting fish, such as dairy farms, ranches, hatcheries, orchards, greenhouses and more. As the main source of food supply, raw material and livelihood for so many,?agriculture?is an essential industry.Although many people in developed countries do not directly engage with the?agriculture?industry as much,?agriculture?still serves as the main source of raw materials for other key industries, such as:CottonSugarTextilesTobaccoEdible and non-edible oilsMany other food industries depend on?agriculture?as well. Specifically, industries involved in rice husking and the processing of vegetables and fruits look to?agriculture?for their raw material.As the world continues to change and advance technologically,?agricultural?practices are being used in even more industries and areas of study like food science, packaging and?agricultural?engineering. For example, knowledge of how soil responds to its environment can be used to improve the quality of sports fields. Additionally,?agriculture?has become especially important within the realm of sustainability and climate regulation, which will be discussed further in later sections.Agriculture's Everyday ValueWhether you notice it or not,?agriculture?is a crucial part of everyday life. The most important aspect of the?agriculture?industry may be that it is the source of the world's food supply. Considering that?agriculture?is responsible for everything from harvesting crops to raising livestock, the?agriculture?industry meets the daily food needs of vegetarians and carnivores alike. Whether your milk came from a dairy farm or your salmon came from a hatchery, everything you consume can be traced back to?agriculture?in some way.Because?agriculture?has such a profound impact on?food security, a nation with a stable?agricultural?sector has a reliable food supply and generally better health.?Food security?is essential because it guards against malnourishment, which is one of the biggest issues facing developing countries. Countries struggling with food insecurity and severe malnourishment typically have weaker?agriculture?sectors. When a nation's?agriculture?sector is thriving, however, fewer of its citizens go hungry.Most countries also depend on?agricultural?products and?agriculture's associated industries as their main source of income.?Agriculture?is also a major provider for many individuals' sources of livelihood. Along with providing food and proper nourishment,?agriculture?grants about 1 billion people worldwide employment each year. Specifically, more than 22 million Americans are employed in the?agriculture?industry, which means one in 12 American?jobs?is rooted in?agriculture.With about 28% of the world's population working in?agriculture, the industry is vital for keeping the international?economy?operating smoothly each day. As a reliable source of life and an honest source of income, the importance of?agriculture?in everyday life can hardly be overstated.Environmental BenefitsAs?agriculture?is deeply connected with natural resources, the?agriculture?industry has the power to heal the environment when operating responsibly. One of the primary ways farmers and other?agriculture?industry workers can protect the environment is through practicing?agricultural?biodiversity.Agricultural?biodiversity refers to the variety and variability of animals, plants and other organisms in regard to genetics, ecosystem and species. Because?agriculture?biodiversity involves managing biological resources wisely, it benefits both farmers and the Earth.Greater biodiversity supports the natural cycle of life and leads to healthier soil, better water conservation, less erosion and healthier pollinators. Along with these advantages, genetic diversity through?agricultural?biodiversity increases organisms' tolerance to high temperatures, drought, frost and water-logging, which is?key to?equipping organisms with the ability to evolve and adapt to shifting environments. In fact, research has shown that farms with more crop diversity are more resilient to climate change than single-crop farms.By providing?agricultural?workers with more stable, adaptable and resilient soil,?agricultural?biodiversity can support sustainability and bolster?food security. If farmers prioritize?agriculture?biodiversity, they can protect the ecosystem and their growing environment to maximize soil fertility and produce a greater harvest. For instance, planting crops that require different nutrients at different times allows the land to organically replenish itself between seasons.Overall, maintaining?agricultural?biodiversity is critical for the sustainable production of?agricultural?goods and maintaining natural resources,?food security?and livelihoods. Taking care of the environment ensures the availability of resources and healthy ecosystems for future farming and?agricultural?practices. In this sense, our existence relies on environmentally conscious?agricultural?biodiversity.Economic?Benefits of?Agriculture?IndustryThe?agriculture?industry offers an expansive range of?economic?benefits, both domestically and internationally. By playing a major role in a nation's revenue and international trade prospects, raw materials from?agriculture?generate a significant portion of the national income for any country. For example,?agriculture?and related industries contributed over $1 trillion to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the?United States?in 2017.A thriving?agricultural?sector leads to marketable surplus and a reliable source of food for those engaged in non-agricultural?industries that advance the nation's development. Those not in the?agriculture?industry can get their food supply from the nation's marketable surplus, which will increase as the?agricultural?sector continues to develop. As the marketable surplus expands even further, the?agricultural?goods will be able to be exported to other countries.While developed countries don't rely on?agriculture?quite as much as they have in the past, developing countries still bring in the majority of their national income from?agricultural?exports. By providing desirable?agricultural?products for international trade, developing countries can increase foreign exchange and gain imports like machinery and other materials to help them further develop.?Agricultural?products such as tea, coffee, spices and sugar are some of the main exports from countries that depend on?agriculture.A growing?agricultural?sector also offers a greater amount of solid employment opportunities to improve a country's?job?market. The many types of activities required to keep the?agriculture?industry up and running, such as constructing irrigation schemes, put more?jobs?on the market that help decrease the unemployment rate. An abundance of?job?opportunities is especially beneficial for developing countries with a fast-growing population a stable?job?market can increase the national income level and elevate people's standard of living. In this sense, a nation's?economic?development depends on its?agricultural?sector's growth rate.Become a Member of AED to Learn More About the?Agriculture?IndustryIf you deal with the?agriculture?industry, take a step toward being a leader in your field by becoming a member of Associated Equipment Distributors (AED). Because?agriculture?equipment manufacturers play a significant role in shaping the?agriculture?industry, it's important for equipment manufacturers to stay current on industry developments. AED members receive a wide variety of services and business development opportunities at a reduced rate.As an AED member, you can experience enhanced profitability and success thanks to the high-quality products AED provides such as industry education and training, career development and public policy advocacy. One of the most valuable resources AED offers is Construction Equipment Distribution (CED) Magazine, the best industry magazine for learning what is going on with your industry peers. By helping individual businesses succeed, AED creates a strong community of equipment manufacturers to make a positive and lasting impact on the industry.agricultural development – especially livestock (good against CAFOs but needs better link) – sustains population and prevents food insecurityHLPE, 2016-07, " SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION: WHAT ROLES FOR LIVESTOCK?", (The High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on food security and nutrition was established as part of the 2009 reform of the international governance of food security, to advise the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) which is the foremost intergovernmental and international platform dealing with food security and nutrition.)Agricultural development plays a major role in improving FSN (food security and nutrition): by increasing the quantity and diversity of food; as a driver of economic transformation; and, because agriculture is the main source of income for a majority of the people who live in the most extreme poverty. Earning sufficient income from agriculture is key for the 1.3 billion people who work in the sector, and directly determines their food security. Extensive experience across many countries over many years shows that both agricultural development and economy-wide growth are needed to improve FSN, and that the former can reinforce the latter. Given the breadth of the topic, and as reflected in its title, we focus on the livestock sector because it is a powerful engine for the development of the agriculture and food sector, a driver of major economic, social and environmental changes in food systems worldwide, and a uniquely powerful entry point for understanding the issues around sustainable agricultural development as a whole. Livestock production is central to food systems’ development and is a particularly dynamic and complex agricultural subsector, with implications for animal-feed demand, for market concentration in agricultural supply chains, for the intensification of production at the farm level, for farm income, land use, and for nutrition and health. Livestock has often set the speed of change in agriculture in recent decades. Livestock is strongly linked to the feed crop sector, generates co-products including manure and draught power, and in many countries acts as a store of wealth and a safety net. It is integral to the traditional practices, values and landscapes of many communities across the world. Livestock has significant effects on the environment, both positive and negative, particularly when indirect land-use changes and feed crop production effects are taken into account. As highlighted by numerous contributions to the electronic consultation on the V0 Draft of the report, the focus on livestock, while legitimate as a way to illustrate the complexity of SAD, should not hide the critical importance of the crop sectors. The common approach proposed in this report, to define pathways to SAD in different livestock systems, and the attention paid to crop–livestock interactions can also be used for the wider agriculture sector. Changes in consumption and dietary patterns will be critical in shaping SAD for FSN. Those subjects will be looked at in a specific HLPE report on Nutrition and food systems to be published in 2017. Taken together, these two reports will provide a significant contribution to informing debates on sustainable food systems along the food chain from production to consumption. Agricultural development is critically important to improving food security and nutrition. Its roles include: increasing the quantity and diversity of food; driving economic transformation; and providing the primary source of income for many of the world’s poorest people. Numerous empirical studies across many countries over many years show that both agricultural development and economy-wide growth are needed to improve food security and nutrition, and that the former can reinforce the latter. The livestock sector is a powerful engine for the development of agriculture and food systems. It drives major economic, social and environmental changes in food systems worldwide, and provides an entry point for understanding the issues around sustainable agricultural development as a whole. As reflected in its title, this report is focused on livestock because of the importance and complexity of its roles and contribution to sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition. The livestock sector is central to food systems’ development. It is a particularly dynamic and complex agriculture sector, accounting for around one-third of global agricultural GDP, with implications for animal-feed demand, for market concentration in agricultural supply chains, for the intensification of production at the farm level, for farm income, for land use, and for human and animal nutrition and health. Livestock has often set the speed of change in agriculture in recent decades. Livestock is the largest user of land resources; permanent meadows and pastures represent 26 percent of global land area and feed crops account for one-third of global arable land. Livestock is strongly linked to the feed-crop sector, generates co-products including manure and draught power, and in many economies acts as a store of wealth and a safety net. It is integral to the cultural identity, traditional practices, values and landscapes of many communities across the world. Livestock has also profound effects on the environment, particularly when indirect land-use changes and feed-crop production effects are taken into account. There is increasing evidence that some of the major challenges to which agriculture is confronted depend upon the evolution of the livestock sector. This is the case for human health through both the burdens of under- and overnutrition. This is also the case for the environment. The pressure on the agriculture sector, and the consequences for changes in land-use patterns, will strongly depend on the evolution of animal-sourced food (ASF) demand. Livestock production takes place in a wide range of farming systems: extensive (e.g. grazing in the case of ruminant livestock or foraging in the case of poultry and pigs); intensive (in which thousands of animals are fed with concentrated feed rations in confined facilities); and in the many intermediate systems that exist between the two. Defining pathways for minimizing the harmful and enhancing beneficial environmental, economic and social impacts of livestock is therefore essential. Based upon this assumption, the livestock sector can also serve as an illustration for the wider agriculture sector to explore possible pathways of sustainable agricultural development for FSN, with a view to recommending appropriate actions by policy-makers and stakeholders in different contexts. Consumption is critical in shaping the feasibility of sustainable agricultural development pathways, locally and globally. Consumption is considered, in this report on sustainable agricultural development, as a key driver of agricultural production and agricultural development. Assumptions about future food consumption patterns are crucial and nutrition and consumption issues will be more specifically considered in an HLPE report on Nutrition and food systems to be published in 2017. Taken together, these two reports aim to provide a significant contribution to informing debates on sustainable food systems, along the food chain from production to consumption. Agricultural development is key to food security in several ways, contributing to food availability, access and stability and – through the diversity of foods produced – food utilization. It has accompanied population growth providing a threefold increase in global agricultural production in 50 years, with an increase in the area of land farmed of only 12 percent (FAO, 2014a), thanks notably to the “Green Revolution”, although with significant variations across countries and regions. The Green Revolution built on the work of crop scientists and, targeting specific crops, involved the use of high-yielding varieties, expanded irrigation and application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, as well as improved management techniques. It is access to food, the effective demand for food (meaning demand by people who can pay for it) and how food is distributed across and within countries, as well as within households and across genders, that ultimately matter (Grafton et al., 2015). A significant part of the world population produces food for self-consumption. Population growth, income growth, urbanization and changing diets are seen as the main drivers of increased demand for agricultural production over the coming decades. Chapter 2 provides an elaboration of these drivers. Some livestock products – in particular poultry – could show much greater growth than this aggregate average figure. Which production systems and market access arrangements will provide for rising food demand in different regions of the world is a central issue for the future of agriculture and the global food system. Absolute increases in production of the magnitude projected by FAO will not be achieved without difficulty as land, water and other resources come under greater pressure. A shift in diets, as a contribution to healthier diets, and a reduction of food loss and waste could also dampen the projected rate of demand increase. According FAO, the evidence cautiously suggests that, globally, there are sufficient resources to satisfy the additional demand projected to 2050, but that resource availability, income and population growth are unequally distributed and local resource scarcities are likely to remain a significant constraint in pursuing food security for all (FAO, 2012a). The relationship between agricultural development and access to food is a central issue, due to the paradox that most of the 792 million hungry people worldwide are found among farmers and rural people. As recognized by the 2008 World Development Report (WDR), Agriculture for development, (IBRD/World Bank, 2007) three out of four poor people in developing countries live in rural areas and most depend on agriculture directly or indirectly for their livelihoods. The WDR report showed how agriculture and associated industries are essential to reduce mass poverty and food insecurity and will require a productivity revolution in smallholder farming, a sector that in these countries tends to be dominated by women. In “transforming” countries, the WDR suggests extreme rural poverty must be addressed by providing multiple pathways out of poverty, including through a shift to higher-value agriculture, more rural-based non-farm economic activity and assistance to people transitioning out of agriculture. In “urbanized” countries too, agriculture can help reduce the remaining rural poverty if smallholders can be connected to modern food market chains and if jobs can be created in agriculture and agroindustry along with the creation and application of markets for environmental services. The WDR proposes a revitalization of the agriculture sector by tackling underinvestment and mis-investment in agriculture, reducing poverty, ensuring economic growth, improving livelihoods and strengthening food security across the developing world (Box 1). Continued agricultural development key to global food securityCIDA No Date Canadian International Development Agency, Increasing Food Security, No Date, Page 6, food-security-strategy-e.pdf, DDI-FGilbardAs investments in agricultural research and development have declined over the past 30 years, so too have global agricultural productivity and global food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations () estimates that global food production must increase by 70 percent by 2050 to keep pace with increasing demand. Given resource scarcity, the overall complexity of food security, and the unprecedented challenges brought about by shifts in natural and economic forces, investment in agricultural research and development is essential for meeting current and future demand. Agricultural development – especially livestock (good against CAFOs but needs better link) – sustains population and prevents food insecurityHLPE, 2016-07, " SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION: WHAT ROLES FOR LIVESTOCK?", (The High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on food security and nutrition was established as part of the 2009 reform of the international governance of food security, to advise the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) which is the foremost intergovernmental and international platform dealing with food security and nutrition.)Agricultural development plays a major role in improving FSN (food security and nutrition): by increasing the quantity and diversity of food; as a driver of economic transformation; and, because agriculture is the main source of income for a majority of the people who live in the most extreme poverty. Earning sufficient income from agriculture is key for the 1.3 billion people who work in the sector, and directly determines their food security. Extensive experience across many countries over many years shows that both agricultural development and economy-wide growth are needed to improve FSN, and that the former can reinforce the latter. Given the breadth of the topic, and as reflected in its title, we focus on the livestock sector because it is a powerful engine for the development of the agriculture and food sector, a driver of major economic, social and environmental changes in food systems worldwide, and a uniquely powerful entry point for understanding the issues around sustainable agricultural development as a whole. Livestock production is central to food systems’ development and is a particularly dynamic and complex agricultural subsector, with implications for animal-feed demand, for market concentration in agricultural supply chains, for the intensification of production at the farm level, for farm income, land use, and for nutrition and health. Livestock has often set the speed of change in agriculture in recent decades. Livestock is strongly linked to the feed crop sector, generates co-products including manure and draught power, and in many countries acts as a store of wealth and a safety net. It is integral to the traditional practices, values and landscapes of many communities across the world. Livestock has significant effects on the environment, both positive and negative, particularly when indirect land-use changes and feed crop production effects are taken into account. As highlighted by numerous contributions to the electronic consultation on the V0 Draft of the report, the focus on livestock, while legitimate as a way to illustrate the complexity of SAD, should not hide the critical importance of the crop sectors. The common approach proposed in this report, to define pathways to SAD in different livestock systems, and the attention paid to crop–livestock interactions can also be used for the wider agriculture sector. Changes in consumption and dietary patterns will be critical in shaping SAD for FSN. Those subjects will be looked at in a specific HLPE report on Nutrition and food systems to be published in 2017. Taken together, these two reports will provide a significant contribution to informing debates on sustainable food systems along the food chain from production to consumption. Agricultural development is critically important to improving food security and nutrition. Its roles include: increasing the quantity and diversity of food; driving economic transformation; and providing the primary source of income for many of the world’s poorest people. Numerous empirical studies across many countries over many years show that both agricultural development and economy-wide growth are needed to improve food security and nutrition, and that the former can reinforce the latter. The livestock sector is a powerful engine for the development of agriculture and food systems. It drives major economic, social and environmental changes in food systems worldwide, and provides an entry point for understanding the issues around sustainable agricultural development as a whole. As reflected in its title, this report is focused on livestock because of the importance and complexity of its roles and contribution to sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition. The livestock sector is central to food systems’ development. It is a particularly dynamic and complex agriculture sector, accounting for around one-third of global agricultural GDP, with implications for animal-feed demand, for market concentration in agricultural supply chains, for the intensification of production at the farm level, for farm income, for land use, and for human and animal nutrition and health. Livestock has often set the speed of change in agriculture in recent decades. Livestock is the largest user of land resources; permanent meadows and pastures represent 26 percent of global land area and feed crops account for one-third of global arable land. Livestock is strongly linked to the feed-crop sector, generates co-products including manure and draught power, and in many economies acts as a store of wealth and a safety net. It is integral to the cultural identity, traditional practices, values and landscapes of many communities across the world. Livestock has also profound effects on the environment, particularly when indirect land-use changes and feed-crop production effects are taken into account. There is increasing evidence that some of the major challenges to which agriculture is confronted depend upon the evolution of the livestock sector. This is the case for human health through both the burdens of under- and overnutrition. This is also the case for the environment. The pressure on the agriculture sector, and the consequences for changes in land-use patterns, will strongly depend on the evolution of animal-sourced food (ASF) demand. Livestock production takes place in a wide range of farming systems: extensive (e.g. grazing in the case of ruminant livestock or foraging in the case of poultry and pigs); intensive (in which thousands of animals are fed with concentrated feed rations in confined facilities); and in the many intermediate systems that exist between the two. Defining pathways for minimizing the harmful and enhancing beneficial environmental, economic and social impacts of livestock is therefore essential. Based upon this assumption, the livestock sector can also serve as an illustration for the wider agriculture sector to explore possible pathways of sustainable agricultural development for FSN, with a view to recommending appropriate actions by policy-makers and stakeholders in different contexts. Consumption is critical in shaping the feasibility of sustainable agricultural development pathways, locally and globally. Consumption is considered, in this report on sustainable agricultural development, as a key driver of agricultural production and agricultural development. Assumptions about future food consumption patterns are crucial and nutrition and consumption issues will be more specifically considered in an HLPE report on Nutrition and food systems to be published in 2017. Taken together, these two reports aim to provide a significant contribution to informing debates on sustainable food systems, along the food chain from production to consumption. Agricultural development is key to food security in several ways, contributing to food availability, access and stability and – through the diversity of foods produced – food utilization. It has accompanied population growth providing a threefold increase in global agricultural production in 50 years, with an increase in the area of land farmed of only 12 percent (FAO, 2014a), thanks notably to the “Green Revolution”, although with significant variations across countries and regions. The Green Revolution built on the work of crop scientists and, targeting specific crops, involved the use of high-yielding varieties, expanded irrigation and application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, as well as improved management techniques. It is access to food, the effective demand for food (meaning demand by people who can pay for it) and how food is distributed across and within countries, as well as within households and across genders, that ultimately matter (Grafton et al., 2015). A significant part of the world population produces food for self-consumption. Population growth, income growth, urbanization and changing diets are seen as the main drivers of increased demand for agricultural production over the coming decades. Chapter 2 provides an elaboration of these drivers. Some livestock products – in particular poultry – could show much greater growth than this aggregate average figure. Which production systems and market access arrangements will provide for rising food demand in different regions of the world is a central issue for the future of agriculture and the global food system. Absolute increases in production of the magnitude projected by FAO will not be achieved without difficulty as land, water and other resources come under greater pressure. A shift in diets, as a contribution to healthier diets, and a reduction of food loss and waste could also dampen the projected rate of demand increase. According FAO, the evidence cautiously suggests that, globally, there are sufficient resources to satisfy the additional demand projected to 2050, but that resource availability, income and population growth are unequally distributed and local resource scarcities are likely to remain a significant constraint in pursuing food security for all (FAO, 2012a). The relationship between agricultural development and access to food is a central issue, due to the paradox that most of the 792 million hungry people worldwide are found among farmers and rural people. As recognized by the 2008 World Development Report (WDR), Agriculture for development, (IBRD/World Bank, 2007) three out of four poor people in developing countries live in rural areas and most depend on agriculture directly or indirectly for their livelihoods. The WDR report showed how agriculture and associated industries are essential to reduce mass poverty and food insecurity and will require a productivity revolution in smallholder farming, a sector that in these countries tends to be dominated by women. In “transforming” countries, the WDR suggests extreme rural poverty must be addressed by providing multiple pathways out of poverty, including through a shift to higher-value agriculture, more rural-based non-farm economic activity and assistance to people transitioning out of agriculture. In “urbanized” countries too, agriculture can help reduce the remaining rural poverty if smallholders can be connected to modern food market chains and if jobs can be created in agriculture and agroindustry along with the creation and application of markets for environmental services. The WDR proposes a revitalization of the agriculture sector by tackling underinvestment and mis-investment in agriculture, reducing poverty, ensuring economic growth, improving livelihoods and strengthening food security across the developing world (Box 1). agricultural development prevents food insecurity *find an in the US card unlike the last oneUS agriculture is key to economic stability and global food security USDA, no date, "Food Security," USDA, supports global food security through in-country capacity building, basic and applied research, and support for improved market information, statistics and analysis. With 870 million people around the world who do not have access to a sufficient supply of nutritious and safe food, establishing global food security is important not only to hundreds of millions of hungry people, but also to the sustainable economic growth of these nations and the long-term economic prosperity of the United States. As we help countries become more food secure and raise incomes, we also expand markets for American producers. U.S. agricultural exports to developing countries in Southeast Asia, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa have grown at more than twice the annual rate as compared to developed countries. U.S. poultry meat exports to Sub-Saharan Africa expanded 180 percent from 2009 to 2011. Building Local Capacity, Increasing Productivity, and Improving Markets and Trade: USDA is strategically placed in over 80 countries constantly monitoring agricultural matters globally. Since 2010, USDA has aligned appropriate programs to Feed the Future plans to support agriculture development in target countries and regions: Ghana, Kenya, East Africa, Bangladesh, Haiti, Guatemala and Central America. Our international food aid programs benefited about 34 million individuals globally with assistance valued at nearly $1.6 billion. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program supported the education, child development, and food security of more than 16 million of the world's poorest children. The program provides U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects. The Borlaug Fellowship Program brought 272 scientists to the U.S. and focuses on research topics such as food safety, soil fertility, post harvest technology, biotechnology, animal health, and rural development. The Cochran Fellowship Program trained 1,732 individuals worldwide in topics such as regulatory and certification systems, agricultural production, biotechnology, and plant and animal disease control. In 2011, the annual Food Security Assessment was expanded to include 77 countries; completed assessments of agricultural statistics and market information in 10 Feed the Future countries and identified key areas where improvement is needed; and conducted in-depth assessments of the capacity of the statistical systems of Ghana, Haiti, Tanzania, and Bangladesh. We have undertaken significant efforts to build local in-country capacity to confront food security, including: Training small farmers and foreign officials on plant and animal health systems, risk analysis, and avoiding post harvest loss; Completing assessments on climate change; Increasing agricultural productivity. In the targeted Feed the Future countries and regions, nearly 60,000 individuals have received USDA agricultural productivity or food security training, 7 critical policy reforms have been adopted with USDA assistance, and $20 million in microloans have been disbursed. In 2009, G8 nations committed to "act with the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable global food security" and to be accountable and coordinate with country development plans. In the subsequent three years, the United States invested over $3.7 billion to address global food security, exceeding the President's commitment, and launched his Feed the Future Initiative. In 2010, the U.S. helped launch the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, an international, multilateral trust fund that has already awarded $658 million to finance country development plans in 18 low-income countries, with 8.2 million beneficiaries. Under Feed the Future, research investments specifically designed for global food security have more than doubled, from $50 million in 2008 to $120 million in 2011. The Feed the Future Research Strategy (PDF, 2.8 MB), developed by USAID and USDA, focuses on the four agro-climatic zones where global poverty and hunger are concentrated, and targets two-to-four major problems in each zone to maximize impact on poor families. In 2010, the USDA and USAID Norman Borlaug Commemorative Research Initiative launched a new era of partnership on research. Under this initiative, USDA is conducting research on wheat rust, a major threat to wheat production worldwide, and on aflatoxin, a toxic fungus that infects groundnuts and other crops, and causes illness in humans. Other research includes developing a vaccine for East Coast fever, a major killer of cattle in East Africa, and supporting research to enhance animal, grain and legumes production. In Guatemala, Haiti, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Ghana, USDA has a number of new technologies under research, 12 of which are being field tested and 4 have been introduced locally. USDA researchers sequenced the genome of the wheat, as well as the wheat stem rust pathogen which threatens to destroy wheat crops worldwide and distributed new wheat germplasm globally to ensure productive harvests. USDA researchers have also released 1,575 genetic variations in beans. Learn more about agriculture and food security efforts underway at the U.S. Agency for International Development.IL -- Urbanization The ag industry is key to development and a laundry list of impactsYvette Tan, 2019-11-30, "There would be no cities without agriculture," Agriculture Monthly, lot of people take agriculture for granted. They think that it’s an old and boring lifestyle, and one that doesn’t make money to boot. It’s true that we’re not giving our farmers enough credit, or paying them enough for their efforts. This is unfortunate, because without agriculture, we wouldn’t be enjoying the modern comforts we have today. You see, without agriculture, cities would not have been able to exist. The simplest argument for this is that if our ancestors hadn’t discovered how to till the fields, humans might still be hunter-gatherers to this day. While this may be an exaggeration, it’s not false. Anthropologists and archaeologists continue to find links between the proliferation of agriculture and the rise of civilization. Farming made human settlement and trade possible. Planting crops and looking after livestock meant a fairly steady (barring calamity or foul play) food supply, as well as the possibility of stocking up for the leaner months. This meant that there was little to no need to hunt and forage, which meant that people could settle in one place instead of living nomadically according to their quarries’ migration habits. Farmers were respected because they controlled the food supply. A good harvest meant the community didn’t starve. The law of supply and demand also meant that the farmer got rich. Farmers did more than just till fields and feed livestock. They didn’t know it, but they were also informal geneticists. Wanting to produce the very best crops or animal products meant they were always propagating the ones with the most desirable traits. This is why a lot of the fruit and vegetables today look nothing like they did when they were first cultivated. For example, bananas, which were cultivated long before rice, used to have large seeds. Corn, apparently, used to look like fat grass and not the usually sweet and golden ears everyone knows today. It was genetic modification without a laboratory; all it took was some good old fashioned selective breeding. But farmers did (and still do) more than just grow the food that made it to everyone’s table. Agriculture also provided raw materials for what have become essentials such as cloth (from cotton plants and silkworms), candles and soap (formerly from animal fat), and fuel (from ethanol). Even cosmetics have agriculture to thank for their existence. The process was made even easier every time someone came up with an innovation to make processes less labor-intensive. The more fields available to sustain a city, the bigger the chances of it prospering. Agriculture also encouraged trade because now, there was a surplus that could be traded for items from other areas. Things haven’t changed. Cities needed, and still need, agriculture to thrive. The difference is that there are a lot more people who have forgotten this. There are people who don’t know that coffee comes from a tree, or even that it could be served black (they thought coffee automatically came in 3-in-1); there are people who think that pechay takes only one day to grow; and most alarmingly, there are people who don’t realize that what we grow in the farms is what ends up on our plates! These are all true stories about young people, and they are symptoms of a dangerous problem. We need a massive overhaul with our relationship to food. We need to actively educate everyone-not just kids-on how our food is grown and what it takes to get from farm to market, grocery, restaurant, or kitchen. Not enough people can imagine the real possibility of food insecurity, which means that not enough people are scared enough to try to prevent it. It’s simple. Without farmers, cities, even those with urban farms, would starve. This is a very simplistic look at the relationship between agriculture and urbanization, but the message is clear: if we continue to disregard the agriculture industry and look down on farmers, cities may be the first to suffer. IL -- Warming Ag innovation key to mitigating climate changeFreshFruitPortal 2021 ("Bill Gates says ag innovation is necessary to deal with climate change impacts", 615/21, , Accessed 7/15/21, DDI-FGilbard)U.S. business magnate and philanthropist Bill Gates has said that innovation in agriculture is necessary to deal with the effects of climate change.Speaking at a special event during the?42nd Session?of the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Gates, who is co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explained that helping smallholder farmers, especially in low-income countries, invest in results-oriented climate-resilient agriculture is essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and avoiding a "catastrophic economic crash"."Smallholder farmers are accustomed to overcoming incredible adversity and are constantly innovating based on changing weather and market demands," Gates said. "But they can't solve this alone."Gates delivered the?McDougall Memorial Lecture, which takes place every two years and honors the legacy of Frank Lidgett McDougall, an Australian agricultural expert who was instrumental in creating FAO.The iconic technology entrepreneur who co-founded the Gates Foundation has a?long-standing relationship with FAO. Last year, the Gates Foundation donated?$10 million?to the FAO-led fight against the Desert Locust upsurge in Africa. The two organizations also collaborate on a number of issues central to their missions.In his lecture, Gates warned that climate change has already reduced growth in agricultural productivity and is expected to cut harvest yields by as much as 30 percent, raising food prices and increasing farmers' exposure to droughts and floods and plunging millions more people into hunger.Agriculture is innovating to sustain itself throught climate changeUSDA 21 [USDA, "Launching Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate," No Publication, 4-23-2021, , wcLH]At President Biden’s Leaders Summit on Climate on April 23, 2021, the United States and United Arab Emirates, with endorsement from the United Kingdom’s COP 26 Presidency, and with support from Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Israel, Singapore, and Uruguay, announced plans to launch the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate). The goal of AIM for Climate, which will be advanced at the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021 and launched at COP26 in November 2021, is to increase and accelerate global innovation research and development (R&D) on agriculture and food systems in support of climate action.Once officially launched, AIM for Climate will catalyze greater investment in agricultural R&D and innovation to help to raise global ambition and underpin more rapid and transformative climate action in all countries, including by enabling science-based and data-driven decision and policy-making. Investments in agricultural innovation and R&D can enhance existing approaches and deliver new ways to sustainably increase agricultural productivity, improve livelihoods, conserve nature and biodiversity, and adapt and build resilience to climate change, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon.“The United States is proud to be pioneering the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate initiative along with the United Arab Emirates and several other supportive partners. I was impressed by the ingenuity being applied to food and climate challenges during my recent trip to the UAE, and know that we all stand to benefit by sharing best practices and raising innovation ambition when it comes to climate-smart agriculture. AIM for Climate can serve as a unique platform for cooperation among many countries on these shared challenges,” said U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry.“I am pleased to see the United States co-leading the creation of the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate initiative. The goal of the initiative is important, to accelerate global agricultural innovation through increased research and development, as it highlights agriculture, science-based solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Together we can address our shared climate challenges and the U.S. Department of Agriculture looks forward to working with others to advance the AIM for Climate initiative,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.The world’s growing population is increasingly dependent on vulnerable food production as the climate crisis undermines longstanding agricultural practices – threatening to damage the sector and keep millions of people in poverty. Innovative climate-smart technologies and approaches are urgently required to improve food security and drive economic growth.By COP26, AIM for Climate will:Demonstrate collective commitment to investment in agricultural innovation and R&D for climate-smart food systems by its participants over the next five years;Outline a framework to discuss and promote priorities across international and national levels of innovation, in order to amplify participants’ investments; andIdentify chief scientists as key focal points for international cooperation on climate-related agricultural R&D, drawing on their unique insights and equities across governmental bodies.AIM for Climate will focus on, and promote coordination between, three main investment channels:Scientific breakthroughs via basic agricultural research through national-level government agricultural R&D and academic research institutions;Public and private applied innovation and R&D for development through support to international research centers, institutions, and laboratory networks;Development and deployment of practical, actionable research and information to producers and other market participants, utilizing national agricultural research extension systems.The innovation and R&D areas targeted through AIM for Climate will include: sustainable productivity improvements; land, water, carbon, and other input use efficiency; resilient crop and livestock production; enhanced digital tools; and inclusive, equitable and sustainable food systems.AIM for Climate underscores the Biden-Harris Administration’s strengthened commitment to the agricultural sector and will help to deliver jobs and economic growth alongside climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits.US Key US is a huge component of the global food supply chainLin et al. 19 (Xiaowen, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Megan Konar, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Paul Ruess, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Landon Marston, “Food flows between counties in the United States,” 7-26-2019, IOP Science, URL: , //RN)The United States is a key country in the global food system (Xu et al 2011). The US produces over 30% of the world's corn and over 50% of the world's soybeans (USDA 2013). The US also accounts for large shares of the world export market for several staples: about 60% for corn, 40% for soybeans, 25% for wheat, and 70% for sorghum (USDA 2013), making the US an important contributor to global grain supplies (FAO 2013). The ability to grow and transport agricultural products enables the US to provide both domestic and global food security (Lin et al 2014). The US is able to maintain its role as a key agricultural producer, consumer, and trade power largely due to its supporting institutions (e.g. agricultural subsidies, crop insurance, etc) and infrastructure (e.g. irrigation systems, food distribution infrastructure, etc) (Deryugina and Konar 2017, Marston et al 2018, Rushforth and Ruddell 2018). Supply chains in the US are also responsible for a large national carbon (Weber and Matthews 2008, Cuéllar and Webber 2010, Liang et al 2016), water (Dang et al 2015, Vora et al 2017, Wang et al 2017), and chemical pollution footprint (Nesheim et al 2015).US is among the top producers of the global food supplyBajpai 19 (Prableen, founder of FinFix and Analytics Private Limited, 10+ years of experience as a finance, cryptocurrency, and trading strategy expert, “Who Produces the World's Food,” 6-25-2019, Investopedia, URL: , //RN)The United States is the world’s largest and most powerful economy with a GDP of $17 trillion. The agricultural sector in the US is highly mechanized, which has resulted in it being among the top producers despite the fact that just 1% of the total employed population is employed by agriculture. And while agriculture contributes only about one percent to the GDP, the US is the world’s largest producer of maize (corn), the third-largest producer of wheat, fifth-largest producer of potatoes, tenth-largest producer of sugarcane, and twelfth-largest producer of rice.US ag is the world’s largest food exporter and key to promote national strategic interestsPark 19 (Katrin, development expert and freelance writer, “The Great American Food Aid Boondoggle,” 12-10-19, Foreign Policy, URL: , //RN)The United States is the food bank of the world. It’s a fitting role for the world’s largest food exporter and corn producer. Between 2016 and 2017, it produced 430 million tons of corn, which amounted to one-third of global corn production. The United States provides half of all global food aid. Since the Dwight D. Eisenhower era, U.S. taxpayers have fed 3 billion hungry people in some 150 countries, attesting to an enduring bipartisan commitment to the issue. But U.S. leadership on this is floundering. President Donald Trump, cracking down on federal food aid at home in the United States, has shown little concern for the hungry abroad. In a crowded field of Democratic primaries where immigration reform is a hot-button issue, Julián Castro, a former secretary of housing and urban development, has been the lone voice calling out the link between migration and hunger. Vice President Joe Biden, the previous administration’s standard-bearer for development assistance to Central America, hasn’t uttered a word about it. Yet, hunger is on the rise. Exacerbated by climate change, the problem will only grow worse without a new and smarter food aid policy from the world’s largest donor. U.S. food aid was born out of the humanitarian principle of saving lives. When a catastrophic famine struck Soviet Russia in 1921, Congress appropriated funds to send aid, even though it had no formal diplomatic relations with the country. Shortly after, $20 million worth of corn and wheat seed poured into the country, saving 20 million Russian lives. Today’s food aid began in 1954 as a way to dispose of excess crops resulting from generous agricultural subsidies. It was cheaper to give away surplus grain to hungry people overseas, the thinking went, than store it. Food aid also emerged out of efforts to sustain the U.S. shipping industry. To ensure ships had sufficient cargo, it was mandated that food should be sourced in the United States, and half of it should be delivered on U.S. vessels. More than half a century later, these priorities are as relevant as soda fountains in pharmacies. Today, food aid accounts for only a fraction of 1 percent of U.S. agriculture production and of U.S. freight cargo. Programs that heap benefits on farmers have not been uncommon, but U.S. food aid is not one of them. In 2013, even the National Farmers Union called for modernizing food aid. But ship owners have mounted a fierce fight to keep their piece of the pie. This is in the face of evidence that shows that reforming food aid will not affect the shipping industry, as it is far too small to boost mariners’ incomes. The shipping lobby argues that eliminating the requirement would undermine national security because it would negatively affect the availability of mariners to crew U.S.-flag ships. The Defense Department said that it wouldn’t. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both tried and failed to fix this. The latest bipartisan bill introduced last year that would lower the U.S.-based sourcing requirement to 25 percent has not been heard from. Americans dole out $2.5 billion annually in food assistance; about 75 percent of that money is used to cover the cost for processing and shipping U.S.-grown food overseas. The food aid is then distributed by the United Nations’ World Food Program. Flooding the developing world with food aid is both expensive and undercuts local farmers. Decades of delivering heavily subsidized U.S. crops to Haiti devastated local farmers’ ability to grow food and feed themselves. For years, experts and officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the government agency that administers food aid, have urged Congress to simply send cash as an alternative, which could feed up to 4 million more people. A 2013 study found that buying grains locally in recipient countries resulted in 50 percent savings and shortened the delivery time from about six months to three. Sudanese dockworkers unload a U.S. aid shipment organized by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Food Programme at Port Sudan, Sudan on the Red Sea coast, on May 5, 2016. How to Save Foreign Aid in the Age of Populism The idea of development assistance is under attack in western democracies. Pursuing economic justice at home and abroad, launching a new freedom agenda, and framing aid as innovation rather than charity can help end the backlash. Europeans switched to cash donations in 1996. Canada did the same in 2010. The United States is the only major donor that still sends food, and it’s inefficient. With 70 million people displaced globally, 80 percent of whom live in cities and struggle to find shelter, these victims need cash, not a 100-pound bag of bulgur wheat. In Jordan and Lebanon, aid agencies give refugees ATM cards to buy food and clothes. Like all governments, Washington doesn’t send food aid simply for moral or humanitarian reasons. Food aid is a tool to promote national strategic interests. Food security—that is, access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food—can improve health and education and grow the economy, which opens up new markets for donor countries. So food aid is driven by supply, not demand. In 2003, demonstrating an utter lack of awareness of real humanitarian needs, the United States sent raisins to Iraq because there was a surplus in California. In 2008, when the demand for biofuels led to higher food prices, driven by policies that pandered to Iowan corn growers, the United States reduced the quantity of food aid, hitting the world’s poor the hardest.Impact ! -- Food Security -- War Food insecurity causes war - empirics prove National Geographic 2020 ("Hunger and War", 1/15/20, , Accessed 7/15/21, DDI-FGilbard)Armed conflict can certainly bring about dangerous conditions of food insecurity, but some scholars argue the reverse is also true: Food insecurity can?precipitate?violent political conflict. Most often, it is only one among several causal factors, but a sudden change in the availability or price of basic foodstuffs can trigger an explosion of social unrest. A famous example is the French Revolution of 1789, which was fueled in large part by poor grain harvests and economic pressures that led to sharp increases in the price of bread. More recently, the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 took place during a period of historically high food prices in North Africa and the Middle East.Food insecurity linked to violent conflict Koren 2016 (Ore, "Food scarcity causes conflicts - but so can food abundance. Here's why.", Washington Post, 11/23/16, , Accessed 7/15/21, DDI-FGilbard)The fact that prolonged food shortages can lead to drastic, violent behavior is becoming increasingly evident. The relationship between food and war is both complex and multidimensional, though.The links between food scarcity and warWarmer countries are more war-prone — that’s what?researchers?studying the relationships between environmental factors and civil war argue. As global temperatures increase, prolonged heat waves reduce crop yields. The impact is strongest in tropical regions, which are more likely to experience the harshest effects of global warming.Lower crop yields increase the competition for remaining crops. And rising prices mean that many people cannot afford to buy food to compensate for resources lost because of?climatic shifts. In countries that lack a social “safety net,” the only alternative in many cases is to obtain food through stealing, looting and — frequently — fighting over fertile land.Anecdotal evidence from?eastern Africa?and the?Middle East, at least, supports this theory. Attempts to measure the linkages between climate change and armed conflict, however, have yielded?mixed results, with some studies at least partly?reaffirming?these connections and others?debunking?them.! -- Food Security -- Root Cause Food insecurity root cause of warFrankelius 2019 (Per, "Back to the root causes of war: food shortages", The Lancet, 3/9/19, (19)30018-2/fulltext, Accessed 7/15/21, DDI-FGilbard)War is often preceded by tensions, of which there are many potential sources. Tensions can arise from shortages of water, energy, and, not least, food. For example, as Torreon Creekmore, 3 of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity in the USA, reflected: “When crops fail and prices rise, people don't have the money to purchase food, which can lead to stealing, then riots, social unrest, and mass migrations.”Agricultural production in relation to need is a security factor, and future forecasts indicate challenges. The world's population is expected to increase to 9·6 billion by 2050, 4 and many people will also change their diet. According to the UN, 5 society needs to increase food production radically until 2050; this at a time when increasing food production will become more difficult. Soil degradation and climate change are two reasons. Therefore, to reduce the number of victims of conflict, society must ensure food production and the supply of water and energy. Innovation in agricultural methods is one approach that could be taken.! -- Food Security -- LL Food insecurity causes a litany of impacts – low health, poverty, hunger, diseaseAPHA 18 (American Public Health Association, “International Food Security and Public Health: Supporting Initiatives and Actions,” 11-13-2018, APHA, URL: , //RN)APHA champions the health of all people, striving to improve health and well-being at the individual and population levels and to bring about the change needed to shape a more prosperous and sustainable future. International food security is critical to ensuring the health and productivity of the world’s people, to maintaining the economic viability and political stability of communities around the world, and to fulfilling a fundamental human rights principle that the guarantee of sufficient amounts of nutritious food can enable individuals to achieve a standard of living that will maximize their health and well-being.[1] Achieving food security continues to be a challenge. After almost two decades of decline, the number of chronically undernourished people in the world has begun to rise, largely because of increased conflict situations, climate-related shocks, and economic downturns.[2] APHA calls for a commitment to initiatives, policies, and programs that promote international food security, support for country-based food and nutrition surveillance activities, and the equitable distribution, supply, and accessibility of nutritious, adequate, and affordable food. Scope of the problem: Despite important gains over the past two decades in combating hunger, it remains an everyday challenge for more than 815 million people worldwide.[2] The majority are chronically undernourished people living in low- or middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeastern and western Asia, with smaller numbers in Latin America and the Caribbean.[2,3] Certain groups are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity, including children younger than 5 years (and especially those younger than 3 years), pregnant and lactating women, migrants, older adults, and people living with HIV/AIDS. Fifty-two million children younger than 5 years suffer from wasting, and 155 million are stunted due to chronic malnutrition.[2] Given that undernutrition is a significant contributor to child mortality resulting from fetal growth restriction, stunting, wasting, micronutrient deficiencies, and suboptimal breastfeeding and child feeding practices, children in this age group are at especially high risk. Stunting is estimated to be an underlying cause of 45% of child mortality and anemia, largely owing to dietary deficiencies, which also contribute to 20% of maternal mortality.[3–5] Food insecurity among children may result in increased risks for hospitalizations, asthma, depression, suicide, and oral infections. In addition to the day-to-day hunger experienced by so many, more than 2 billion people worldwide are affected by micronutrient deficiencies, leading to premature death, poor health, blindness, stunting, reduced cognitive development, and low productive capacity.[4,5] Although a lengthier discussion is beyond the scope of this policy statement, it bears mentioning that household food insecurity is a persistent problem in high-income and upper-middle-income countries.[2] For example, in the United States alone, more than 41 million people experience food insecurity.[6] Social dimensions of food security: Food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to safe and nutritious food in sufficient amounts to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.[7] The World Food Programme identifies three elements that are essential to food security: availability, access, and utilization.[8] These tenets align closely with the four key components—availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability—of the “right to food” advanced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.[9] Food should be available in sufficient quantities and on a consistent basis from natural resources and for sale in local markets. People in any location must be able to have physical and economic access to the food they need in sufficient amounts, whether by home production, purchase, food aid, or other means. Food must satisfy nutritional needs based on an individual’s age, living conditions, gender, and occupation; also, it must be safe for human consumption and culturally acceptable.[8,9] In addition, food consumed must have a “positive nutritional impact” by providing not only adequate calories but also sufficient protein and micronutrients to counter malnutrition. Food should be accessible for current and future generations, and supplies should account for events that can disrupt the availability of food, such as wars, internal conflicts, and climatic events.[8] Food security and social determinants of health: Food security is associated with the social determinants of health, which are “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age.”[10,11] Social determinants are typically the source of health inequities, or the “the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries.”[11] Food security in the context of social determinants of health is interconnected with population growth, political instability, economic development, urbanization, migration, agricultural policy, and environmental factors such as land use, water scarcity, and climate change. For example, worsening food security conditions and hunger are seen in areas of economic slowdown, civil strife, urbanization with limited markets or inadequate housing to prepare and store food, and diminishing food access due to rising domestic food prices or lower import capacity.[2] At the same time, food security is only one of several factors that can determine nutritional outcomes. Other such factors include women’s educational level; resources allocated to national policies and programs related to maternal, infant, and young child nutrition; access to clean water; explicit support for breastfeeding and timely introduction to appropriate weaning foods; basic sanitation and high-quality health services; lifestyles; the food environment; and culture.[2] Hunger, poverty, and disease are interlinked and are a direct result of the lack of a sustainable and accessible food supply.[12] People living in poverty often cannot produce or buy enough high-quality food to eat. As a result, they are frequently hungry, susceptible to widespread disease, and unable to work, resulting in lost labor productivity. Hunger is a major constraint to a country’s immediate and long-term economic, social, and political development.[12] With an anticipated world population of 9.5 billion people by 2050, attention must be given to food and agricultural production and sustainable food systems for people living in developing countries with anticipated growth. Such is the case for countries in Africa, where the population is expected to double by the year 2050, reaching 2.0 billion people. Another example is the increasing migration to urban areas, with more than 2.5 billion people in the developing world expected to reside in urban locales by 2050.[13,14] In addition to deeply entrenched poverty in many parts of the world, conflict and displacement, resulting in large-scale migration of populations attempting to escape violence, have caused international food security to diminish. For example, more than 100 million people faced crisis-level food insecurity in 2016, and more than 2 billion people live in areas disrupted by violent conflicts.[2] The majority of the world’s undernourished people are living in conflict settings. Moreover, “food insecurity itself can become a trigger for violence and instability” in places with “pervasive inequality and fragile institutions.”[2]! -- Econ -- Turns SV Ecomonic collapse causes violence, riots and famine.World Food Programme 11 [World Food Programme, 07-2011, , wcLH]Throughout history higher food prices have contributed to or triggered violent riots. Protests and rioting occurred in response to sharp increases in world food prices in the 1970s and 1980s (Waltonand Seddon, 1994). Record-high world food prices triggered protest and violent rioting in 48 countries in 2007/08 (see Figure 1). The ratio of violent to non-violent protest was higher in low-income countries and in countries with lower government effectiveness (von Braun, 2008). Recent research links higher world food prices for the three main staple grains (wheat, rice and maize) to more numerous protests and riots in developing countries, though this relationship can be mitigated by policy interventions designed to shield consumers fromhigher prices (Arezki and Brückner, 2011; Bates, 2011). International market prices are not the only source of food-related protests. The lifting of government subsidies can lead to rioting as well. Until recently, the biggest demonstrations in modern Egyptian history were the three-day “bread riots” in 1977 that killed over 800 people, which were a response to the Egyptian government’s removal of state subsidies for basic foodstuffs, as mandated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (AFP, 2007). “IMF riots” can be traced to popular grievances over withdrawn food and energy subsidies (Walton and Seddon, 1994; Abouharb and Cingranelli, 2007). However, the relationship between “IMF riots” and food insecurity is more complicated. Generalized food and energy subsidies are regressive, meaning that wealthy and middle-class households generally capture more of the benefits. As such, it may be real income erosion, rather than acute food insecurity, that is driving participation in protest.*** AFF Answers N-UQ -- BidenFarmers are skeptical about Biden’s climate change plans. Jacob Bunge 5/1 Writes about agriculture from The Wall Street Journal's Chicago bureau. Covers seed and technology companies. Joined Dow Jones in September 2008, covering exchanges, market structure and high-frequency trading. Written since 2001 about various business and financial topics. Graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a bachelor's degree in journalism and resides in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood, "U.S. Farmers Look for Government Help to Support Biden’s Climate Plans ," WSJ, 5-1-2021, //AKA White House goal to slash U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions hinges in part on farmers and agriculture companies changing the way they manage fields and feedlots. The farm sector says it will need the government’s help to make it happen.The Biden administration effort outlined in April has drawn support from agribusiness giants including Tyson Foods Inc., TSN +0.01% JBS SA, JBSAY 0.97% Cargill Inc. and CF Industries Holdings Inc., CF -2.72% which have been pursuing their own environmental commitments. Individual farmers, whose participation is critical to meeting the administration’s goals, are weighing the potential costs and benefits to their bottom lines, and say government support will be needed.Near Loyal, Okla., farmer Clay Pope for years has followed some of the carbon-reduction practices being promoted by the Biden administration, including keeping vegetation on his fields even when his usual crops, such as wheat, aren’t growing. While his harvests have increased, he said, so have his costs.“It’s not cheap,” Mr. Pope said.Big agricultural companies, responding to consumer and investor pressure, have made voluntary commitments to cut emissions. Executives said they are using more renewable power, funding climate-friendly farming and overhauling parts of their operations, such as wastewater lagoons and fertilizer-production plants. They said the efforts put the Farm Belt in position to help the Biden administration achieve its target.“The importance of having that goal out there cannot be discounted, so everybody is working toward the same thing,” said John R. Tyson, chief sustainability officer for Tyson Foods, the biggest U.S. meat company by sales.With often-thin profit margins, individual farmers have tended to be wary of regulations that add costs and complexity to their operations. Concern about tighter environmental rules was one reason some farmers said they backed Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.Farmers generally support emissions-reduction efforts but need more specifics on the Biden administration’s strategy, said Andrew Walmsley, director of congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for farmers.Agricultural businesses unsatisfied by Biden’s approach to aidCarpenter 21 [Leisl Carpenter, "Why I’m suing to stop Biden’s blatantly anti-white farm aid bill," New York Post, 6-15-2021, , wcLH]In March, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act to uplift those hit hard by COVID-19 and the lockdowns, including farmers and ranchers. But there was a catch: White farmers and ranchers like me needn’t apply. Last week, a federal judge?temporarily?put the brakes?on Biden’s race-based payouts, giving us hope that this injustice can still be made right in the courts.?Under the ARPA, COVID relief can only go to “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. The definition of “socially disadvantaged,” found elsewhere in federal law, is brazenly racial. It includes blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders — just about every race and ethnicity you could imagine, except those who happen to be white.I’m a sixth-generation rancher and a proud female ranch owner. Biden’s law is seemingly designed to racially humiliate Americans like me.To qualify under the bill, an applicant or his farm needn’t have experienced racial discrimination. There is not even a requirement that the applicant have suffered any direct economic loss due to the lockdowns. Skin color is the most important consideration. ?Those who qualify are eligible for up to 120 percent debt relief on their farm loan through the Farm Service Agency. You might notice that 120 percent is higher than 100 percent. Yes, the bill offers a windfall to many farmers who might never have personally suffered discrimination in the course of their agricultural business or any serious financial damage from COVID-19. ?Meanwhile, thousands of farmers and ranchers who were badly hurt by the pandemic but don’t have the “correct” skin color are excluded, despite the fact that the nation depends on the food we produce.Agricultural life is hard, extremely so. We face blizzards, droughts, wildfires, floods and predators, plus market volatility that can wipe out our livelihoods. When times get hard, you tighten your belt and pray next year will be better.???When my grandparents died, they left behind the ranch and a mountain of debt. We were on the verge of foreclosure. I was only 18 when I applied for a Farm Service Agency loan. As a young single woman, I had nothing to my name and no credit history. An FSA loan was the only source of credit I could access. ?Thanks to that loan, I’m still here. I now run more than 500 head of cattle and grow hay on my 2,400 acres. But COVID-19 took the bottom out of the market.I was a new mom when the pandemic hit, and I worried about making ends meet. I resorted to selling down some of the herd in a low market. I know many other ranching families who’ve had to do the same. Others have lost their farms, ranches and homes.?We’re all the same on the inside. But if you treat people differently based on their outward appearance, you’re making assumptions about who they are and where they come from — and what they’ve had to overcome. ?Part of the government’s rationale for this discrimination is that the vast majority of prior COVID-19 farming aid in last year’s CARES Act went to white farmers. But?according to the US Census Bureau, 95.4 percent of agricultural producers in the United States are white. And no one disputes that the bipartisan CARES Act was enacted on race-neutral terms.Unfortunately, that isn’t the case with Biden’s law.?It’s true that many minority-owned farms are struggling. But my family’s struggles are no less real, and my family is no less deserving of aid. We’ve worked just as hard, and our contributions to our nation’s critical food supply are just as important.In past decisions, the Supreme Court has made it clear that discriminating in favor of members of a minority group is no more constitutional than discriminating against them. But you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to know Biden’s law violates fundamental American notions of fairness. That’s why I went to court to challenge Biden’s plan to exclude whites from aid.You can’t fight past discrimination with more discrimination. But sadly, the president has used this bill as an opportunity to further divide our country. Let’s hope the courts see through Biden’s disordered notion of “social justice,” behind which lies nothing but bigotry.Ag Farmers are still wary about funding from infrastructure billRook 4/19 ("Biden administration infrastructure bill gets mixed reaction from farm groups, farm state law makers", Michelle Rook, 4/19/2021, -- MR)The Biden administration’s $2.25 trillion infrastructure package has received mixed reviews from farm groups and farm state lawmakers. Most have long been supportive of infrastructure investment and improvements to fix the nation’s aging infrastructure and keep U.S. farmers' competitive global edge. The catch is the high price tag and how to pay for the plan. However, farm state lawmakers are fighting against the price tag and the additions in the act that are not infrastructure related. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., are both opposing the measure due to what they see as waste in the bill. They say President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan should focus on core and traditional infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, ports, locks and dams, and rural broadband. “Only about a quarter of the $2.25 trillion program he put forth is actually infrastructure," Grassley said. "The rest is a wish list of items that they would not otherwise be able to get passed.” He said the money should be an investment in long-term projects that will have a long-term impact on the economy. The breakdown of the American Jobs Act includes $621 billion for repair and construction of the nation’s transportation system. $115 billion was allocated for roads and bridges, including upgrades on the worst 10,000 small bridges, and another $20 billion for road safety improvements. $80 billion is earmarked for passenger and freight rail upgrades and another $17 billion for inland waterways. Farm groups have had infrastructure investments on the top of their political wish list for many years as they have watched roads, bridges, and the nation’s locks and dams age and fall into disrepair. Townships and counties rarely have the money needed to maintain, let alone build new stretches of road or replace bridges, and the cost climbs every year. Farmers also understand that when there are failures in the transportation system, and they can’t get product to market, it hurts their bottom line and they get less for their goods. Jeff Thompson, immediate past president of the South Dakota Soybean Association, said, on face value, the investment is critical. “Infrastructure is huge, you know, it is just getting the stuff in you know, like the fertilizer coming up to our farms and getting the soybeans and the corn and the crops out,” he said. Chandler Goule, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers in Washington, D.C., said they want to make sure agriculture is a priority as the plan moves forward. “Highways are going to be there because people drive a lot, but rail and waterways — that is going to be agriculture's job to make sure that stays at the forefront,” he said. Biofuels groups are disappointed in the $174 billion that was carved out for electric vehicles and to support development of charging stations, while there was no mention of any infrastructure support for biofuels. The omission goes against the idea that biofuels are a ready solution to climate change and getting to carbon neutral status as a country. Meanwhile, other farm groups are concerned about the proposed hike in corporate taxes to pay for the infrastructure plan. However, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled the bill can use the same legislative process that was used for Biden’s coronavirus assistance package. This would expand the reconciliation process that allows bills to be passed by a simple majority. With the 50-50 split in the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris would break the tie on a party-line vote. Grassley said the most honest way for the Democrats to proceed is to work in a bipartisan fashion and reach some sort of middle ground. However, the Iowa senator concedes that with the Republicans essentially in the minority, they have no leverage in working out a compromise that would take the traditional infrastructure projects and put them in a separate bill. As the administration rolled out the American Jobs Plan, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was also trying to drum up support in farm country by touting the importance of transportation to agriculture and getting products to market. He said it's critical for a strong and healthy agricultural economy, and the American Jobs Act is the key to achieving that goal.Biden prioritizing climate and environment means that he will prioritize the aff either way Jeff Dahdah, 01-21-2021, "Biden Puts Climate High on Priority List, Encouraging Scientists," No Publication, (ec) (Dahdah is a reporter and a Utah State University Graduate.) MADISON, Wis. — Second on the list of priorities on the new White House Website is the climate. “President Biden will take swift action to tackle the climate emergency,” the website reads. 'The Biden Administration will ensure we meet the demands of science, while empowering American workers and businesses to lead a clean energy revolution.” Biden talked a lot about climate on the campaign trail, and as president he's already taken action to mitigate climate change. Among a set of executive orders he signed on his first day, was one putting the United States back into the Paris Climate Accord. “That was one very specific step that Biden thought would be important to take to symbolize to the world community that we're back in the climate change game in terms of negotiations with the rest of the world,” said Stephen Vavrus, a climate scientist with the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Vavrus said the step was largely symbolic, but it could be substantive depending on the type of commitment the U.S. Makes. “It's done more or less voluntarily, so each country can decide for itself how much and in what way they'll cut carbon emissions,” Vavrus said. Biden has spelled out similar goals to other countries, states and companies when it comes to carbon emissions. His campaign set a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Vavrus said the difference between outgoing President Donald Trump and Biden could not more stark when it comes to climate policies. He said that's only in part because of Trump's position. “It's also because Biden is taking climate change more seriously than any other president by far,” Vavrus said. “That's a reflection of the times, climate change is becoming more and more acute and the impacts are becoming more severe.” 2020 tied the record for hottest year on record globally. It also resulted in a record amount of billion dollar natural disasters in the U.S. — 22 — according to NOAA. Vavrus co-authored a report by the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) that was submitted to Governor Tony Evers' Task Force on Climate Change. The report detailed impacts Wisconsin is seeing from climate change for the Task Force to consider as it worked on policy recommendations. Vavrus said that Biden's climate strategy and Evers' are complementary. “On paper they look very similar,” Vavrus said. “There's a strong emphasis on reducing energy consumption, becoming more energy efficient, upgrading infrastructure to withstand climate change impacts.” Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes chaired the Task Force on Climate Change — which recently released its recommendations — and he applauded Biden's climate policies. “As chair of the Governor’s Task Force on Climate Change, I am excited to partner with the new administration on advancing state-level policies to address the climate crisis and its disproportionate impacts on communities of color, low-income communities, and rural communities,” Barnes wrote on Twitter. Vavrus said racial justice and environmental justice are connected, which is something both the Evers administration and Biden administration appear to be on the same page about. “Recognition that a lot of environmental problems hit low income and people of color more so than others,” Vavrus said. When it comes to agriculture Vavrus said it remains to be seen what Biden will do. Though he did talk about the nation's food and agriculture systems on the campaign trail, suggesting policies like paying farmers for carbon sequestration. “I think carbon sequestration could be one benefit,” Vavrus said. “Other ideas could be paying farmers to grow cover crops which can reduce runoff from heavy rainfalls that are increasing with climate change.” Many in Wisconsin would like to see the Biden administration offer support for local food systems over large agriculture businesses. Tory Miller, a chef and owner of several Madison restaurants like Graze and L'Etoile, puts an emphasis on local food from smaller farm operations in his restaurants. He said it's partially seeking the best food, it also is to support local economies, but buying local food is also a climate conscious act. Miller said it's partially to cut down on emissions from transporting commodes around the country, but it's more than that. “It's also the commercialization,” Miller said. “The way that the economy works as far as how much small family farms contribute versus huge industrial farms, and obviously huge industrial farms contribute more.” For a lot of reasons, Miller said the change in administration at the White House is a relief for him. He's looking forward to seeing how the Biden administration will tackle climate change and hopes it will be with an emphasis on environmentally conscious farming practices. N-UQ -- TrumpThe sector is deregulated now due to Trump**maybe don’t use this card b/c it’s a bit outdated for n-u/q? and if you put it on the neg it can just be turned w/ n-u/q claimsBoudreau and Snider 19 (Catherine, sustainability policy reporter for POLITICO Pro and POLITICO, Annie, covers water issues for POLITICO Pro, including battles over the scope of the Clean Water Act, drought, water pollution and efforts to restore large ecosystems, “Environmental rollbacks give Trump rare win with farmers,” 9-19-2019, Politico, URL: , //RN)Farmers have long seen the Environmental Protection Agency as one of their chief adversaries, but it may now be one of the best friends they have in the federal government. Amid President Donald Trump's ever-deepening trade wars, immigration crackdown and controversial approach to ethanol policy, deregulation has provided a rare bright spot for farmers and ranchers over the past two and a half years. EPA delivered its latest win this month when it repealed an Obama-era water pollution rule that had sparked years' of fierce opposition from the farm lobby, and is in the midst of an even more sweeping effort to shrink the scope of the Clean Water Act. Trump’s EPA has also defended the safety of two pesticides that some research has linked to cancer and damage to children’s developing brains. And the agency tried to revise rules aimed at protecting farm workers from excessive exposure to pesticides, an effort Congress ultimately blocked. The rollbacks won’t mean much to farmers' bottom lines, at least not right away. Agriculture was already exempt from many of the Clean Water Act's mandates, although industry lawyers fear that could eventually change because current programs have largely failed to clean up the country’s polluted waterways without tackling agricultural runoff. For now, the value of the rollbacks are more ideological. Scaling back environmental rules has been one of the only promises kept by the Trump administration to American agriculture. The rollbacks are part political, part philosophical — a way for the White House to blunt political fallout among hard-hit farmers who were key to Trump’s election, while capitalizing on the Republican party’s calls for smaller government. "While Democrats are pushing radical policies like the Green New Deal that would cripple America’s economy and crush rural communities, President Trump is supporting our great farmers, ranchers, and producers every day by rolling back harmful, unnecessary regulations, fighting for fair and reciprocal trade, and securing our energy independence," a White House spokesperson said in an email.The agricultural industry took hit after hit during the Trump administrationHeld 20 [Lisa Held, "How Four Years of Trump Reshaped Food and Farming," Civil Eats, 11-2-2020, , wcLH]In the midst of a global pandemic, a rushed Supreme Court confirmation, and a reckoning with racial justice, food and farming have been on the back burner in the 2020 presidential election.And yet, many of the policies that determine how we produce and access food are inextricably linked to the issues that are in the spotlight. COVID-19 has had devastating impacts on farm and meatpacking workers, for example, and its effects on the economy have?increased food insecurity, especially in communities of color, to unprecedented levels.Although Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue described the Trump administration’s efforts as “fighting for our farmers, ranchers, and rural America” in his recent?Fox News op-ed?(an effort that appears to be a violation the?Hatch Act), one thing is clear:? President Trump’s agenda, focused primarily around deregulation and increasing aid to commodity farmers while cutting food aid to needy families, will have long-lasting implications.With Election Day upon us, Civil Eats reviewed the most important actions the Trump administration has taken on food and farming over the past four years. No matter who wins the presidency, most of these issues will be on the agenda for the next four years.Farmers—especially?commodity farmers?and large?agribusiness companies—overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Since then, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Sonny Perdue has been one of the president’s most vocal advocates, so much so that he was recently?fined for violating the Hatch Act, after urging attendees at a government event to vote for Trump.But soon after his election, Trump started a trade war with China and other countries. In retaliation, many of those countries placed tariffs on U.S. agricultural products. Most of the tariffs have since been lifted, but not before they?significantly decreased profits?for farmers. For example, between 2017 and 2018, U.S. exports of agricultural products to China decreased by 63 percent, from $15.8 billion to $5.9 billion. In 2019, the agricultural sector had record high levels of debt and the most bankruptcies since 2011.To offset the effects of the tariffs, in 2018, USDA began?distributing cash payments?through the Commodity Credit Corporation at unprecedented levels, with?no appropriations or oversight from Congress. In 2020, as the pandemic hit the farm economy, it added another source of government payments via the?Coronavirus Food Assistance Program?(CFAP). Overall, Trump’s USDA has?handed out more government dollars?to farmers than any administration prior. In both 2019 and 2020, more than?40 percent?of farm incomes came from federal assistance—the?only thing keeping farm incomes afloat.Those payments have been controversial because they?have almost exclusively benefited?the largest farms and agriculture companies. Two-thirds of the trade aid payments went to agriculture producers in the top 10 percent, including corporations, such as the?$67 million paid to JBS USA, a subsidiary of the Brazilian-owned meatpacking giant. Small farms, especially diversified operations and those run by socially disadvantaged Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers, have?largely been unable to access?CFAP assistance.Meanwhile, throughout Trump’s time in office,?family dairy farms?have continued to go out of business at a fast clip, with Wisconsin alone losing?500 in 2017, nearly 700 in 2018, and over 800 in 2019. During a visit to Wisconsin last fall, agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue?told?dairy farmers, “In America, the big get bigger and the small go out.”Ethanol is also an important economic issue for commodity farmers. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took action in 2019 to allow a higher?ethanol?blend of gasoline to be sold around the country, an action that would increase demand for corn-derived ethanol, the agency?then angered farmers?and others in the industry by issuing an unprecedented number of waivers to oil companies, allowing them to skirt the ethanol mandate. Soon after,?the industry took a hit?due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In September, the EPA?reversed course?on the waivers, but it is?postponing a larger decision?on blending until after the election.Finally, President Trump has moved forward initiatives to open up federal waters to fish farming—most significantly with?an executive order—in the name of stimulating the American economy.N-UQ -- Ag Down Ag is already low – COVID thumpsZippy Duvall, 4-1-2020, "Yes, There are COVID-19 Impacts on Agriculture," FB News, // ec (Duvall writes for FB News, and is a poultry, cattle, and hay producer from Greene County, Georgia.) Most people are focused on businesses such as restaurants or airlines, which certainly have experienced a sharp and sudden decrease. What they may not be thinking about is the cumulative impact on agriculture. Most hospitality and travel industries were doing well before the virus. Farmers and ranchers were not. Coronavirus is just the latest in a string of misfortunes that have kept the farm economy down for several years: weather disasters, a trade war and, even before that, commodity prices have been below the cost of production. Which is worse: a sudden blow or a prolonged downturn? The answer is whichever one you and your industry are facing. But none of us can afford to lose farms and ranches, especially now that we’re more focused than ever on the security of our food supply chain. Consumers understandably might think that farmers and ranchers are doing well, given the empty shelves we’re all seeing at grocery stores. But those buying habits could slow down, and we’ve already seen a dramatic drop in demand from food service, restaurants and schools and universities. There are unofficial estimates that the current market price of milk is down 40% compared to January. Prices for cattle, corn and other farm goods also are falling. People are driving less, and that has driven down demand for ethanol made from corn at the same time as oil production has increased. Ethanol plants are idled, corn prices are down, and livestock producers who relied on distillers dried grains—a byproduct of ethanol production—are scrambling to replace that source of animal feed. Agricultural futures, which many farmers and ranchers depend on to lock in better prices later on, are down as well. That shows a concern that consumers will buy less in the coming weeks and months, as the economy slows and unemployment worsens. It also reflects worries about whether our overseas markets will return if product can’t move and as economies around the world are reeling from the virus outbreak and restrictions to contain it. Each spring tens of thousands of farm workers make their way to the United States to do the hard work many American citizens don’t want to do: pruning, plowing, planting, and picking produce. Farm Bureau and others worked overtime to ensure that processing of visa applications submitted by farm workers would not be adversely affected, and the State Department at the end of March made changes to make available more seasonal farm workers, while also protecting public health. Our farmers and ranchers are committed to feeding our country now and in the future, and we need workers to do it. About 20% of farm workers in the U.S. come through the H-2A program. They play a critical role in ensuring Americans have access to the food we need. Now we are monitoring to make sure the visa process operates smoothly as more government agencies move to telework. We’re also working to share guidance developed by state Farm Bureau organizations, state Departments of Agriculture and university Extension services to help farmers and ranchers know how to protect their workers, their families, their consumers and themselves. Farmers and ranchers wear many hats even under the best of conditions, and now more than ever. The guidance for farmers as employers will help them do what we always want to do: feed and take care of people. You can find a collection of those resources on our COVID-19 webpage. Another impact we’re watching is the availability of farmers markets as some local governments order that they be suspended. Many farmers depend on farmers markets for most of their sales. With restaurant business severely cut, farmers who sell meat and produce directly to restaurants are more dependent on direct-to-consumer sales. Ag industry suffering from tariffs even under the Biden adminKatie Lobosco, 2021-03-25, “Biden has left Trump’s China Tariffs in place. Here’s why,” CBS58, //ec (Lobosco is a writer from CNN who focuses on how economic policy decisions made affect people across the country.) (CNN) -- Former President Donald Trump started a controversial trade war with China three years ago, putting tariffs on roughly $350 billion of Chinese-made goods -- and despite the change in administration, those duties remain in place. President Joe Biden disagreed with Trump's approach to US-China relations, but an immediate thawing of trade restrictions is unlikely after the first face-to-face meeting between US and Chinese officials grew heated, sparking an unusually public exchange of diplomatic barbs. "China is simultaneously a rival, a trade partner, and an outsized player whose cooperation we'll also need to address certain global challenges," Katherine Tai, now Biden's US trade representative, said at her Senate confirmation hearing. Taking a hard line on China has support from both Republicans and Democrats, who acknowledge that China engages in unfair trade practices that need to be addressed. A bipartisan group of senators is pushing to pass legislation as soon as next month to try to rein in China's economic influence.The US still has tariffs on 66% of Chinese exportsThere is currently a tariff on the majority of the goods being shipped from China into the United States. The average rate is 19% -- more than six times higher than before the trade war began in 2018, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. American importers pay those duties. The taxes have raised the price for items such as baseball hats, luggage, bicycles, TVs, sneakers and a variety of materials used by American manufacturers. China has put tariffs on American-made goods, too. About 58% of US exports to China are affected, with an average rate of 21%. That means Chinese buyers have an incentive to buy certain items from other countries where they might be cheaper without the cost of the tariff.Tariffs have cost Americans billionsThe tariffs on Chinese-made goods have cost American importers more than $82 billion so far, according to US Customs and Border Protection. A report from Moody's Analytics found that the tariffs cost 300,000 jobs and 0.3 percentage points in US GDP during the first year they were in effect. Trump's constant threats to put more tariffs on or escalate the rate of existing duties created an extremely uncertain environment for imports, discouraging business investment. Economists also assume that some of that cost is passed on to the consumer. An estimate from JPMorgan Chase found the tariffs cost the average household about $600 a year and a separate study from researchers at the NY Fed, Princeton, and Columbia University, estimated the cost at just north of $800 per household each year.A 2020 agreement didn't lift tariffsTrump and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached what they called a Phase One agreement in early 2020. It reduced the rate of some of the tariffs, but left them in place. As part of the deal, China pledged to step up its purchases of American-made goods and agricultural products. But China fell more than 40% short of purchasing what it had committed to in 2020, according to Peterson Institute of International Economics. Even at the time, experts were skeptical China would be able to meet its pledge to double the amount it bought from US farmers before the trade war started. The pandemic also played a role, slowing trade around the globe. Still, farmers were pleased to see China buying more in 2020 that they did the year before -- even if the lofty goal was missed. The deal also includes a 2021 purchase goal. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is optimistic about the progress China has made, telling CNBC recently that "China seems to be living up to its responsibilities." "The bad news is: At any point in time, because of the complex nature of the China-U.S. relationship, things can happen that might affect those purchases," he added.Trade deficit growsThe trade deficit was one of Trump's favorite metrics he used to argue that China was undercutting American businesses. He pledged to narrow the gap between exports and imports but the trade deficit between the United States and all other countries grew from $481 billion to nearly $682 billion during his tenure. The trade gap totaled $311 billion in 2020, down from a record high of $419 billion in 2018. Agriculture purchases plummeting now Mike Dorning, Bloomberg, 4-26-2019, "Farm Equipment Purchases Plummet as Trade War Hits Rural America," IndustryWeek, (ec) Purchases of farm equipment plunged by an annualized $900 million in the first quarter of the year, the sharpest drop in three years, as U.S. producers struggle with falling commodity prices and the fallout of President Donald Trump’s trade wars. The Commerce Department cited the drop in agricultural machinery purchases as a contributor to the paltry 0.2% quarterly rise in overall business spending on equipment, also the weakest performance since 2016. The softness in the category came despite promises by Trump and Republican leaders that tax breaks for equipment purchases in the party’s signature tax law would boost investment by farmers and manufacturers. The reluctance of farmers and other business owners to invest in equipment flashed a cautionary signal in a report on the U.S. economy that overall surprised forecasters with stronger-than-expected results. The Commerce Department reported Friday that U.S. growth accelerated to an annualized 3.2% rate in the first quarter. The fresh signs of financial pressure on farmers, local tractor dealers and the other suppliers that support them underscore the rising political danger the trade war presents to Trump as a negotiating team heads to Beijing next week for another round of trade talks. Lopsided support from rural areas was a key driver for Trump’s narrow 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Prices of key commodities such as corn and soybeans have declined while the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has cut into migrant labor. Midwestern states were hit with historic floods this spring. The trade war struck another blow, as key importers of U.S. agricultural products such as China, Canada and Mexico have retaliated against Trump’s tariffs with duties targeting American farmers. Brent Norwood, manager of investor relations for Deere & Co., pointed to the trade war in a Feb. 15 call to discuss the Moline, Illinois-based agricultural machinery manufacturer’s earnings. “U.S. farmer sentiment remains fluid and continues to erode the longer trade uncertainty persists,” Norwood said. That, he added, “has resulted in some U.S. farmers temporarily pausing equipment investment decisions.”N-UQ -- Worker Surplus Lack of worker surplus abruptly decks businesses.Patrick W. Watson 6/15, Senior Contributor at Forbes specializing in Markets, "The Labor Shortage May Be Permanent," Forbes, 6-15-2021, //AKAccording to some business owners and Wall Street pundits, US employers can’t hire enough people because unemployment benefits are too high. We’re paying people not to work, they say. Certainly, some people who could work are milking the system. That’s sad, but is it the only reason all those jobs are unfilled? Probably not. Nonetheless, several governors have decided to end the federally funded enhanced benefits. Instead of the planned September expiration, they will now disappear as soon as next week in some states. If, in fact, benefits are what’s keeping people from working, labor shortages should ease in the states that end them. I think there’s more to the story, though. This problem was already there before those extra benefits. It’s more the result of larger trends that aren’t stopping. If anything, they are getting worse. Shrinking Pool The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just launched a new “America Works” initiative. In their words… The U.S. Chamber is advocating for—and rallying the business community to push for—federal and state policy changes that will help train more Americans for in-demand jobs, remove barriers to work, and double the number of visas available for legal immigrants. And the U.S. Chamber Foundation is expanding its most impactful employer-led workforce and job training programs and launching new efforts to connect employers to undiscovered talent. All good ideas, as far as they go. But the Chamber assumes there is a large pool of unused labor, ready to fill all these job openings once some barriers fall. That’s not necessarily so. Consider this chart from the U.S. Chamber’s own report. Source: US Chamber of Commerce Comparing Labor Department data on the number of available workers with the number of job openings, there are now 1.4 available workers per job. This, according to the Chamber, is insufficient. But notice a couple of things. First, the ratio was even lower before the pandemic—around 1.0 in 2018─2019. Worker availability is actually higher now. Second, the ratio has been falling for years. What’s different now is it has reached a point where workers and jobs are roughly in balance. No more worker surplus means employers don’t get the luxury of picking from multiple candidates. That’s new to them and, naturally, some find it difficult.Link N-UQ -- Biden Regs Biden’s advancing environmental policy---thumps the link’s UQ.Juliet Eilperin et. al 6/18, Pulitzer Prize-winning senior national affairs correspondent, covering federal environmental policy and the agencies that oversee it, Brady Dennis, national correspondent covering the environment, John Muyskens, graphic editor specializing in data reporting, “Tracking Biden’s environmental actions,” Washington Post, 6-18-2021, //AK In the early months of his tenure, President Biden has moved quickly to undo the environmental track record of his predecessor, and to place climate action at the heart of his agenda. His administration already has begun to transform the nation’s energy and environmental landscape, according to a Washington Post analysis, by overturning dozens of Donald Trump’s policies and enacting a growing list of his own.The Post is tracking key U.S. environmental policy shifts, following the successes and failures of a president who has vowed “a whole-of-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic, national security and foreign policy.”From?pausing new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters?to rejoining the Paris agreement, Biden has elevated the issue of climate change across the U.S. government and tried to accelerate the nation’s shift away from fossil fuels. He has pledged that the United States would?cut its greenhouse gas emissions between 50 and 52 percent?by the end of the decade compared with 2005 levels, a commitment that will require major changes in the ways Americans live, work and travel. Biden’s imposed regulations on the EPA, fossil fuels, and warming---thumps.Emma Newburger 5/13, Climate Change reporter, “Biden administration to roll back Trump-era rule on clean air regulations,” CNBC, 5-12-2021, //AKThe Biden administration moved Thursday to repeal a?Trump-era regulation that made it harder for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue strict standards and public health protections on air pollution.The so-called?Benefit-Cost Rule, which was adopted weeks before former President?Donald Trump?exited office, changed the way the agency assessed the cost and benefits of regulations on pollution.The EPA said the previous rule?imposed restrictions on cost-benefit analyses for Clean Air Act rulemaking without explaining why those requirements were necessary.The agency also said the restrictions by Trump would have limited the EPA’s “ability to use the best available science in developing Clean Air Act regulations,” a move it argued would be “inconsistent with economic best practices.”“EPA has critical authority under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from harmful air pollution, among other threats to our health,” the agency’s administrator, Michael Regan, said in a statement. “Revoking this unnecessary and misguided rule is proof positive of this administration’s commitment to science.”The move is the latest push by the Biden administration to aggressively combat?climate change?and undo more than 100 Trump-era environmental regulations that favored the fossil fuel industry.Trump EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler had argued that that administration’s costs and benefits?rule allowed the agency to conduct its work in a “transparent fashion.” The administration’s move was largely supported by the fossil fuel sector, which is directly affected by federal pollution regulations.But environmental groups argued that the Trump administration’s change was designed to weaken climate protections and further support rollbacks on rules governing planet-warming emissions from power plants, automobiles and other sources. The agency said the interim final rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and will be followed by a final rule that responds to public comments.“We will continue to fix the wrongs of the past and move forward aggressively to deliver on President Biden’s clear commitment to protecting public health and the environment,” Regan said.In his first days in office, Biden signed a series of executive orders, from directing the EPA to review all regulations and policies by the Trump administration to?halting new oil and gas leases on federal land and waters?and?bringing the U.S. back into the Paris climate accord. Various arbitrary regulations and sticking points deck business confidence. Isabella Mourgelas & Melanie C. Nolen 6/14, Isabella Mourgelas is research analyst with Chief Executive Group, Melanie is research director for Chief Executive Group and research editor for Corporate Board Member and Chief Executive magazines. She has two decades of experience writing for the corporate and financial industry, "CEO Optimism Falls Back To Pre-Vaccine Levels," , 6-14-2021, //AKCEO optimism in an improving business landscape continues to fade in June on concerns over soaring materials and labor costs, supply-chain snarls, inflationary pressures and increasing taxes and regulations, which they say they expect will stall the economic recovery—and growth in their businesses. Those are the key findings from Chief Executive’s latest poll of 233 U.S. CEOs, fielded from June 8-10. After 5 months of expansion, our leading indicator of CEO confidence declined for the second month in a row in June, to 6.9 out of 10, on our 10-point scale. It is now down more than 5 percent from its April peak of 7.3 and back to December levels, before vaccination efforts began. This rating is in-line with CEOs’ rating of current conditions (6.9/10), indicating that America’s business chiefs no longer expect conditions to improve over the coming months. “It is clear that we will be dealing with Covid-19 for a while yet,” says Karim Chichakly, co-president of NH-based software company isee systems. While he expects the reopening of business and lifting of Covid restrictions to support growth, “If we cannot manage it, inflation may exert some strong downward pressures,” he says. “Demand in residential new construction and repair and remodeling remains strong. However, it is being held back by the rapid increases in prices for materials coupled with shortages of product,” says Bob Merrill, CEO of Interbuild Distribution, a global manufacturer of countertops and panels. “Imports have also slowed significantly due to container shortages and slowdowns at the ports,” he says. For Jeff Chandler, CEO and president of Hopdoddy Burger Bar, an Austin-TX-based burger joint chain with more than 20 locations across the country, “inflation, labor shortage, commodity and supply chain disruption, [and] lack of confidence in our government” justify his forecast for worsening conditions (from 7/10 to 5/10) over the coming months and why he projects his company’s revenues to be down by this time next year. Pete Barile, president and CEO of Tennessee-based furniture manufacturer Daniel Paul Chairs, says the “uncertainty of material costs, availability and lack of labor over the next 12 months” are what’s driving his forecast for the months ahead. Siemens chairman and former CEO Joe Kaeser agrees that inflation is a concern, to which he adds “lacking execution of the stimulus packages” as another reason why he expects muted growth this year, rating his outlook for the economy 12 months out a 6 out of 10. Overall, only 36 percent of CEOs participating in our June poll expect conditions to improve in the next year—down from 42 percent the month prior and from 63 percent at the beginning of the year, when Covid-recovery hopes were highest.Link Turn -- Mining Mining hurts agPhillips 17 (Lloyd, Senior Journalist with a demonstrated history of working in the national and international agricultural journalism sectors, "Can mining and agriculture co-exist?," 3-15-2017, Farmer's Weekly, URL: , //RN)What negative impact has mining had on South African agriculture? Agri SA: Mining has had a significant negative impact on agriculture. Conflict between mining and agriculture often occurs when, for example, crop yields are limited or impeded by pollution, and water quality and availability deteriorates, or health hazards are posed to humans and farm animals due to increased air pollution. Other issues include the deterioration of roads and other infrastructure, increased criminal activities in mining areas, and, in some cases, a total lack of rehabilitation of mined land after mine closures. TAU SA: Mining has various material impacts on agriculture. Water pollution is an ongoing problem; acid mine drainage, already at unacceptable levels, has led to the contamination of groundwater reserves. Air pollution results in acid rain, which reduces the quantity and quality of crops. The rehabilitation of mined soils is often never fully achieved. There are cases where 6t to 8t maize/ ha were achieved pre-mining, and only 1t/ha to 1,2t/ ha could be harvested after mining and rehabilitation. Other negative impacts include dust and noise pollution, as well as increased crime around mines. What are your concerns about mining’s impact on agriculture in 2017? Agri SA: We’re concerned that the number of prospecting and mining licence applications in most provinces indicates that the situation is getting worse. TAU SA: While we appreciate the need for, and importance of, mining, there are too many reports of illegal mining activities and cases where mines are not properly rehabilitated. Only about 13% of South Africa’s arable land is considered high-potential, with the balance having marginal potential. Food production is crucial, and the conservation and correct utilisation of agricultural land should be viewed from a strategic point of view to achieve maximum food production. Food security and the availability of clean water must be prioritised. What is your farmers’ union’s official stance on existing and potential mining operations’ impact on agriculture? Agri SA: Government should apply applicable legislation to existing and potential mining operations. Although the environmental impact assessment (EIA) dispensation of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) has been delegated to the Department of Mineral Resources, the dispute mechanism still remains with NEMA. Given the lasting impact of mining on the environment and specifically agriculture, it cannot take place in a haphazard manner. TAU SA: Mining now and in the future will have a negative impact on agriculture – in some cases more than others – and agricultural production will thus be affected. While there are many requirements, such as EIAs, to be carried out before mining activities can commence, the credibility of these requirements is questionable given the results that we have seen so far. We realise that mining has its rightful place and that it plays an important role in the economy. However, is it fair that one sector is allowed to prosper to the detriment of another? We also want to know to what extent corruption and personal benefit play a role in the mining industry. Has your farmers’ union taken any action to oppose the impact of existing and potential mining on agriculture? Agri SA: We’ve developed guidelines on the rights of landowners and mineral rights holders, for use by our affiliates, that explain each stakeholder’s responsibilities. We were also included in the Process Custodians Group of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) study conducted by the Department of Environmental Affairs on shale gas development, and we specifically contributed to Chapter 8, which is dedicated to agriculture. We were assisted by the International Erosion Control Association South Africa. The SEA study was completed in November last year.Link Turn -- Innovation Regulations force agriculture to innovate King et.al., UT Austin Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, 2013, (Carey W., Ashlynn S. Stillwell, Kelly Twomey, Michael Webber, "PROFESSIONAL ARTICLE: Coherence Between Water and Energy Policies," 53 Nat. Resources J. 117, Spring, PAS) Accessed on NexisAgriculture accounts for approximately 70 percent of global water use, so policy choices regarding the agriculture-energy-water nexus are especially critical in crafting sustainable resource policy. 208 Policies designed to increase agricultural production have historically increased the use of energy and water resources because high market prices and governmental support for agricultural inputs tend to give farmers incentive to maximize yield and excessively use water and energy. 209 Reducing or eliminating support for farm inputs such as water, diesel fuel, fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation systems give farmers incentives to increase resource efficiency, rather than to withdraw fossil resources to maximize crop yields. Although the cost of rain-fed agriculture rises with energy prices because it requires a lot of energy to transport agricultural products and inputs, the cost of irrigated agricultural production incurs additional cost spikes to pump water and run irrigation systems when energy prices rise. 210 Thus, higher water and/or energy prices tend to lead farmers to use more efficient farming practices to reduce costs. 211 Consequently, decoupling financial support for agriculture from commodity production to reduce energy and water inputs for agricultural production has become a popular policy tool in many OECD countries 212 for the past 20 years. 213 This approach has proven to be an effective policy mechanism to reduce the energy and water allocated to agricultural practices in many countries, including many European Union member states. 214 Link Turn -- Regulations Environmental regulations neutralize job losses, gains, and competition in industries.Alana Semuels 17, Senior Economics Correspondent Reporter specializing in how public policy and economics affect everyday Americans, “Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?,” The Atlantic, 1-19-2017, //AKIn some cases, the politicians do have a point: Regulations that seek to make air and water cleaner can also cause concentrated job losses in certain industries and locations. These losses are painful for the people they affect, who often have a hard time finding new employment, especially in regions where a newly-regulated industry is concentrated.The idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research. Many of the academic studies that have explored the question find that regulations don’t decrease jobs in the overall economy. They sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they create new jobs in others. A factory that makes lead additives for gasoline might be shut down because regulations have banned lead additives. But new jobs will then be created at a factory that makes catalytic converters, which are emissions-control devices for cars. Some workers, then, benefit from regulation, while others lose. That doesn’t mean that the losses aren’t real and painful for the people who held those jobs, but the overall picture is not one that can be accurately characterized by the phrase “job-killing.”“If you look across the entire economy and you look in the aggregate as to jobs lost as well as jobs gained by regulation, it’s generally speaking a wash,” Coglianese said.Job loss and creation is also a normal part of any economy; some companies go out of business because their goods or services are no longer in demand, while other jobs are created as new companies emerge to fill new demands. This is not the fault of regulations, but is rather a result of business conditions, Coglianese said. That doesn’t mean companies don’t try to blame regulations for their failures. A well-known case of a copper smelter outside of Seattle highlights this point. The company, ASARCO, complained that the smelter closed because of regulations, but the factory actually went out of business before the regulations were implemented, Coglianese said.Often, regulations affect all companies in an industry, so although businesses may have to spend more money on installing pollution-controlling devices, for example, their competitors have to spend that money too. That means they can continue to compete, because everyone is experiencing the same rise in costs.A well-known study by the economists Eli Berman and Linda T.M. Bui of Boston University looked at the aftermath of new regulations governing air quality in Los Angeles. The South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles enacted some of the country’s most stringent air quality standards in the 1980s, and Berman and Bui compared Los Angeles firms with those in Louisiana and Texas to see if the more regulated firms cut jobs as a result. They found that the local air quality regulations were not responsible for a large decline in employment, and that the regulations might have actually increased labor demand since firms need to hire people to help them deal with the new regulations. They argued that because all firms in a region were affected by the same regulations, they were still able to compete against one another while facing the same costs. “We find no evidence that local air quality regulation substantially reduced employment,” they concluded.In another oft-cited study, the economist Richard Morgenstern, a former EPA administrator who is now at the nonprofit Resources of the Future, looked at Census data between 1979 and 1991 to determine whether regulation of some pollution-causing industries destroyed jobs. Morgenstern and the economist Anna Belova of the research firm Abt Associates updated the paper in 2013 with more data. They found that over 30 years in industries including petroleum, plastics, pulp and paper, and iron and steel, there were some net job increases, and no significant job losses as a result of regulation. “A million dollars of additional…[regulation] expenditure is associated with an insignificant change in employment,” Morgenstern writes.Sometimes, regulations may cause jobs to shift from one area of the country to another. A well-known study by Michael Greenstone looked at the effects of the Clean Air Act, which set a minimum level of air quality that counties were required to meet, and further regulated polluters in areas that did not meet the standards. Greenstone found that the regulations might have led to 40,000 job losses a year in facilities in parts of the country that had “dirty” air. But it’s possible that those losses were offset by job gains in cleaner areas, if factories relocated there, or if new businesses were created there. Still, even if there were jobs created in other states, it’s not easy for people to uproot their families and move to those other jobs, even if they can find them.Of course, the purpose of environmental regulation is not merely to avoid killing jobs, and there are real society-wide benefits in protecting the environment that must be taken into account as well. Often those gains far outweigh any economic damage the regulations may cause. For example, in a 2013 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Berkeley economist W. Reed Walker followed what happened to workers at firms impacted by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which required polluting firms to obtain operating permits. He wanted to know whether workers who left newly-regulated companies were able to easily find other jobs (he did not know whether the workers were fired or quit, just that they left). He found that the many workers in the regulated sectors left their firms, and that the average worker saw an earnings loss equivalent to 20 percent of their pre-regulatory earnings. This amounted to $5.4 billion in lost earnings—no small sum. Yet the EPA has calculated that the health benefits of the amendments between 1990 and 2010 are between $160 billion and $1.6 trillion. “In light of these benefits, the earnings losses borne by workers in newly regulated industries are relatively small,” Walker concluded. “Benefits from environmental policy far exceed the costs.”So why do politicians persist in echoing the decades-old sentiments of Ronald Reagan that environmental regulations kill jobs? Perhaps because regulations are something elected officials can control. Coglianese has shown that mentions of “job-killing regulations” peak in times of economic uncertainty, such as during the 2007-2009 recession. Often, when the economy goes sour, there’s not a whole lot politicians can do except pledge to repeal laws that they scapegoat for killing jobs—laws, it should be noted, that many of their supporters and donors already do not like. “Even the word sounds dreadful,” Coglianese said. “It would be different if you said we want to get rid of job-killing clean air policies.”Turn – constraining agricultural usage of fertilizer and other water degradation frees funds to increase innovationOECD, 2021[ “Government support to agriculture is low on innovation, high on distortions”, 6/22, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]Just 6% of all budgetary transfers to the sector, or USD 26 billion per year, was spent on agricultural innovation systems, despite their high social returns. Investments in agricultural innovation, biosecurity and infrastructure accounted for only USD 76 billion, or 17% of support to agriculture, despite their strong potential to boost sustainable productivity growth and improve resilience – key channels for ensuring food security, viable livelihoods and sustainable resource use.In contrast, half of support to agriculture is market distorting, inequitable and harmful to both the environment and global food security, according to the report. In addition to the USD 272 billion of market price support, this includes USD 66 billion of annual budgetary transfers linked to output or to the unconstrained use of variable inputs, such as energy or fertiliser.“Only one in six dollars of budgetary support to agriculture globally is spent in ways that are effective in promoting sustainable productivity growth and agricultural resilience,” said OECD Director for Trade and Agriculture Marion Jansen. “Most support is either ineffective in improving the performance of food systems, or even harmful. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, governments should make agricultural innovation central to their support for the sector.”The OECD report underlines that much of the support offered today is inefficient at transferring income to farmers; inequitable, as benefits are weighted toward large producers; and environmentally harmful, as it often damages water quality and biodiversity and increases resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Market price support - and the associated use of border measures - also harms food security at the global level by impeding the efficient allocation of resources, undermining the role of trade in moving food from surplus to deficit regions and contributing to increased price volatility in international food markets.Further distortions to global markets also come from policies in small number of countries that suppress prices for some or all commodities. This negative price support amounts to USD 104 billion per year transferred away from producers.Food systems around the world face the formidable “triple challenge” of providing safe, nutritious food to a growing world population, providing livelihoods along the food chain, and improving sustainability, by protecting natural resources such as land, water and biodiversity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Regulating water is key to agriculture OECD, no date, "Water and agriculture," OECD, (OECD is the Organiziation for Economic Cooperation and Development, it’s an intergovernmental economic organization that aims to stimulate economic progress and world trade.) Agriculture production is highly dependent on water and increasingly subject to water risks. It is also the largest using sector and a major polluter of water. Improving agriculture’s water management is therefore essential to a sustainable and productive agro-food sector.Agriculture is expected to face increasing water risks in the futureIn recent years, agricultural regions around the globe have been subject to extensive and increasing water constraints. Major droughts in Chile and the United States have affected agricultural production while diminishing surface and groundwater reserves. These and other extreme weather events, like floods or tropical storms, are also expected to be more frequent. Climate change is projected to increase the fluctuations in precipitation and surface water supplies, reducing snow packs and glaciers and affecting crop’s water requirements. Coupled with these changes, farmers in many regions will face increasing competition from non-agricultural users due to rising urban population density and water demands from the energy and industry sectors. In addition, water quality is likely to deteriorate in many regions, due to the growth of polluting activities, salination caused by rising sea levels and the abovementioned water supply changes. These water challenges are expected to strongly impact agriculture – a highly water-dependent sector – undermining the productivity of rain-fed and irrigated crops and livestock activities particularly in certain countries and regions. These changes could in turn further impact markets, trade, and broader food security. An OECD assessment of future water risk hotspots projects that without further action, Northeast China, Northwest India, and the Southwest United States will be among the most severely affected regions, with domestic and global repercussions.Agriculture both contributes to and faces water risksFor as much as agriculture is impacted by these changes, it also contributes to the problem as a major user and polluter of water resources in many regions. As such, agriculture has a central role to play in addressing these challenges. Irrigated agriculture remains the largest user of water globally, a trend encouraged by the fact that farmers in most countries do not pay for the full cost of the water they use. Agriculture irrigation accounts for 70% of water use worldwide and over 40% in many OECD countries. Intensive groundwater pumping for irrigation depletes aquifers and can lead to negative environmental externalities, causing significant economic impact on the sector and beyond. In addition, agriculture remains a major source of water pollution; agricultural fertiliser run-off, pesticide use and livestock effluents all contribute to the pollution of waterways and groundwater.What should governments do to confront water issues?The challenges that lie ahead are both extremely complex and locally diverse. It will be important for policymakers to focus on efforts that increase the overall efficiency of water use by the agricultural sector, reduce the sector’s impact on freshwater resources, and improve its resilience to water risks. To this end, the OECD advocates for multiple policy responses at different levels, each adapted to specific water resource systems. In order to facilitate a transition to a more sustainable and productive agricultural sector that is resilient to water risks, governments should act at the farm, watershed and national levels to (1) strengthen and enforce existing water regulations, (2) create incentives for farmers to improve their water use and better manage the use of polluting agricultural inputs; and (3) remove policies that support excessive use of water and polluting activities. To assist policy makers in addressing this challenge, OECD analysis and indicators contribute to formulating policy responses, defining pathways to make the necessary policy changes, and facilitating their implementation to move agriculture towards the sustainable management of water. OECD's work on agriculture and water is also highlighted in the 2016 OECD Council Recommendation on Water. Water regulations are key to agriculture (even better if applied for dams)Jason R. Rohr et al, 2019-06-11, Nature, (Rohr works at the department of Biological Sciences at the Eck Institute for Global Health, and for the Environmental Change initiative at the University of Notre Dame, and the department of integrative biology at the University of South Florida.) Economic development, especially agricultural development, has historically driven reductions in both infectious diseases and poverty across many settings. In fact, the poor financially benefit more from economic growth in the agricultural sector than in industrial or service sectors43,44. The early stages of economic development often involve the construction of infrastructure to facilitate food production and distribution, including roads, dams and irrigation networks43,44. More recently, the early stages of rural development often include rapid expansion of telecommunication, and to a lesser degree, electrification, both of which are promising but underutilized resources for disease monitoring and control in the developing world45. Other rural infrastructure that is more crucial to infectious disease prevention, such as safe water, sanitation and energy supplies, often follows or is developed concurrently43,44. In 43 developing countries, rural infrastructure that provided access to sanitation and safe water explained 20% and 37% of the difference in the prevalence of malnutrition and child mortality rates between the poorest and richest quintiles, respectively46. Moreover, clean water, sanitation and electricity can also facilitate the construction of schools and health clinics that can help to further reduce disease through education, prevention and treatment. Hence, if the history of the developed world repeats itself in the developing world, then it seems plausible that agricultural development necessary to feed 11 billion people might help to reduce infectious diseases by promoting economic development and rural infrastructure. The ag industry exacerbates gender equality, and specifically, that is hurting the ag industry itself in the squo*for soft left affs Bymaryellen Kennedy, no date, "Empowering female farmers to feed the world," National Geographic, (ec)In much of the world, the face of farming is female. Globally, reports the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the majority of economically active women in the least-developed countries work in agriculture. And, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (the latest data available), 30 percent of farmers in the U.S. are women. The problem? Gender-specific obstacles—such as lack of access to land, financing, markets, agricultural training and education, suitable working conditions, and equal treatment—put female farmers at a significant disadvantage before they ever plow a field or sow a seed. Arguably, the biggest roadblock is land rights. In developing countries, only 10 to 20 percent of landholders are women, and in some parts of the world, women still cannot legally own or control land. When a female farmer isn’t empowered to make decisions about the land she works, it is impossible for her to enter contract farming agreements that could provide higher earnings and reliable sources of income. In addition, entrenched gender roles in developing countries can prevent women from bringing their crops to market or even leaving their villages without their husband’s permission. While female farmers in the U.S. don’t face the same restrictions, Lorie Fleenor, 33, an eighth-generation Bristol, Tennessee, farmer, says persistent gender bias in agriculture makes it “easier” to have her husband, Ben, handle business transactions and phone calls for the family’s Magna Vista Farm. “Even though I run the farm and make the decisions, they [male farmers] don't want to talk to me about when to cut hay, or when to sell cattle, or how much rain we've gotten. They want to talk to a man,” she explains. “I guess being a woman, you have to go above and beyond to prove yourself.” Yet, even with female farmers expending extra effort (worldwide, women work more hours per year than men), they substantially lag behind their male counterparts when it comes to crop yields and earnings. On average, women-run farms produce 20 to 30 percent less than farms run by men. The reasons for this “crop gap,” according to the FAO, have nothing to do with an aptitude for farming and everything to do with the gender-specific obstacles. Inherent gender bias in the economic system, for example, regularly limits a woman’s access to credit. That’s especially true for smallholder female farmers in developing countries where cultural norms and lack of collateral often prevent women from borrowing money. Without adequate funds for capital investments, female farmers are less likely than men to buy and use fertilizer, drought-resistant seeds, sustainable agricultural practices, and other advanced farming tools and techniques that increase crop yields. Abolishing gender-specific barriers in farming, the FAO reports, would not only empower women to achieve their highest economic potential, it could help feed a hungry world. According to the FAO, most of the approximately 820 million people worldwide who are currently undernourished live in developing countries—the same places where women are key to food production. Giving females access to the same resources and education as males could increase food production by women by up to 30 percent, potentially eliminating hunger for 150 million people. In addition, the FAO asserts, earning extra income would enable women to spend more money on health care, nutrition, and education for their children—investments that could produce long-term, positive results for farm families and their neighbors. “Women are the fastest growing group of new farmers, and I believe that is good for everyone because women tend to be community oriented,” Coulter says. “There’s a quote that really reaches out to me that goes something like, ‘If you teach a man to farm, his family will eat. If you teach a woman to farm, the community will eat.’” Link Turn -- Cloud Seeding Statewide study finds cloud seeding to create meaningful boost in ag revenue.Bangsund and Leistritz 9 (Dean, M.S. and Research Scientist for Agribusiness and Applied Economics for North Dakota State University, Larry, Dr. Distinguished Professor of Agribusiness & Applied Economics at North Dakota State University, “Economic Impacts of Cloud Seeding on Agricultural Crops in North Dakota”, February 2009, North Dakota State University, , //RN)The economic impacts of cloud seeding in North Dakota were evaluated from 1998 through 2007. Two separate assessments were conducted: a statewide assessment assuming the entire state was included in a cloud seeding effort and an assessment of the North Dakota Cloud Modification Project counties. Within each major assessment, two scenarios were used to evaluate the economic effects of different assumptions on the amount of additional growing season rainfall attributable to cloud seeding. The last study to examine the economic impacts of the North Dakota Cloud Modification Project was conducted in 1998 (Sell and Leistritz 1998). In that study, a statewide cloud seeding program was estimated to have an average annual gross business volume of $332 million in real terms (2007 dollars), based on eight of the state’s top nine crops. By comparison, the statewide assessment in this study estimated an average annual gross business volume of $294 million to $414 million, depending upon assumptions for added growing season rainfall. Some notable differences exist between the two studies. First, the Sell and Leistritz study was based on eight crops, with one of the state’s largest crops omitted (i.e., canola) – this study contained the state’s largest eight crops and included alfalfa as a ninth crop. Second, price adjustments related to increased production were only included for wheat in the Sell and Leistritz report – this study included price adjustments for all crops except soybeans and corn. Adding price adjustments produced more conservative estimates of the value of added growing season precipitation. The added growing season rainfall estimates in the Sell and Leistritz study would approximate a 15 percent increase in actual growing season rainfall – by contrast, the largest change in growing season rainfall used in this study was a 10 percent increase. Considering the differences between the two studies, the value of cloud seeding efforts in the state would appear to have increased substantially from the assessments conducted 10 years ago. Despite using more conservative estimates for added growing season rainfall, the value of a statewide cloud seeding effort appears to have paralleled changes in the overall value of the state’s top eight crops. From a producer’s perspective, the direct economic value of cloud seeding, averaged across the state, was estimated to range from $4.87 to $6.86 per planted acre. Those values would represent a meaningful boost in revenues to producers. The North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board estimated the expected annual cost of implementing a statewide cloud seeding program to be nearly $3 million. The most conservative of the two scenarios evaluated in this study indicated that collections of state taxes would be nearly double the anticipated cost ($3 million cost versus $6 million in state revenues). The benefit to the state would be substantial, especially considering the economic impacts in this study did not include all crops, nor did the impacts include avoided hail losses to personal, commercial, and industrial property. The state could reap tremendous economic benefits from a modest investment if the North Dakota Cloud Modification Project was implemented statewide.Cloud seeding increases crop production and has a huge positive economic impact.Smith 9 (Nick, Staff Writer for Williston Herald, "Cloud seeding helps area farmers," 9-13-09, Williston Herald, URL: , //RN)A small investment in a method of increasing rainfall and reducing hail in a number of western North Dakota counties has made for a large benefit economically to the region.This conclusion can be drawn from the results of a recent study released by economists at North Dakota State University. The study was conducted to learn the benefits of what is known as the North Dakota Cloud Modification Project.Workers who conduct the cloud modification project do what is known as cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is when particles are introduced into clouds to aid in the formation of precipitation.The purpose of cloud seeding is to increase the amount of precipitation while reducing the risk of hail. This is done to attempt to improve agricultural production.Darin Langerud is the director of the N.D. Atmospheric Resource Board in Bismarck. The board oversees the cloud modification project. Langerud said the study proves the economic impact goes far beyond the money budgeted for the project.He said the impacts of the cloud seeding are calculated based on having a reduction in hail and increases in precipitation of five to 10 percent."The study found, based on numbers from the top eight crops by acreage that the crop output saved from hail suppression is about $3.7 million per year.The value of increased crop production from between the five to ten percent ranges from $8.4 million to $16 million," said Langerud.He said adding the $3.7 million to the increased crop production makes for an annual direct economic impact of roughly $12 million to $19.7 million.Langerud said the amount of money put into cloud seeding each year is small compared to the economic output."The budget we passed with the counties is $768,000," said Langerud.He said based on 2009 costs, the amount of money put into cloud seeding makes for a $16 to $26 return on each dollar invested.Williams County is one of four counties in District Two, in northwest North Dakota, that are involved in the program. The others are McKenzie, Mountrail and Ward counties.Link Turn -- Mining Aff mining turnValerie Volcovici 17 ["U.S. court upholds Grand Canyon uranium mining ban, but allows mine nearby," 12-12-2017, U.S., URL: ] RNWASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower-court ruling keeping a ban on uranium mining around the Grand Canyon, but also upheld a separate decision allowing a uranium mine nearby to open.The decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, related to cases argued last December, come as Congress and the Trump administration seek to expand mineral extraction on public lands.The U.S. Department of Agriculture last month proposed lifting the Obama-era mining ban on land near Grand Canyon National Park, an area of natural beauty in the western United States that also historically served a number of uranium mines.Earlier this month, President Donald Trump reduced the size of the nearby Bears Ears National Monument in Utah by 85 percent.That decision came after lobbying by the uranium mining industry, the Washington Post reported.The National Mining Association had sought to upend the 20-year moratorium on new uranium mines near the Grand Canyon, which was put in place in 2012 by President Barack Obama’s administration. But the court ruled that the ban should stay in place.“Withdrawal of the area from new mining claims for a limited period will permit more careful, longer-term study of the uncertain effects of uranium mining in the area and better-informed decision making in the future,” the court ruling said.The Obama administration had imposed the ban amid concerns about threats to groundwater supplies, Native American cultural resources and scenic views in Grand Canyon National Park.In the other case, the appeals court sided with the lower court to allow Energy Fuels’ Canyon Mine near the south rim of the Grand Canyon to open, despite a challenge by the Havasupai Tribe and environmental campaigners that the mine would threaten the watershed.The House subcommittee on energy and mineral resources is set to hold a hearing on the previous administration’s restrictions on mining on Tuesday. In a hearing memo, the panel said withdrawal of lands from mining makes the United States too dependent on foreign countries for minerals.Roger Clark, Program Director at the Grand Canyon Trust, said while the group welcomed the decision to uphold the ban it was disappointed that the court did not support the argument that a decades-old uranium mining permit for Canyon Mine needed to be updated.Aff mining turnLloyd Phillips 17 ["Can mining and agriculture co-exist?," 3-15-2017, Farmer's Weekly, URL: ] RNWhat negative impact has mining had on South African agriculture?Agri SA: Mining has had a significant negative impact on agriculture. Conflict between mining and agriculture often occurs when, for example, crop yields are limited or impeded by pollution, and water quality and availability deteriorates, or health hazards are posed to humans and farm animals due to increased air pollution.Other issues include the deterioration of roads and other infrastructure, increased criminal activities in mining areas, and, in some cases, a total lack of rehabilitation of mined land after mine closures.TAU SA: Mining has various material impacts on agriculture. Water pollution is an ongoing problem; acid mine drainage, already at unacceptable levels, has led to the contamination of groundwater reserves. Air pollution results in acid rain, which reduces the quantity and quality of crops.The rehabilitation of mined soils is often never fully achieved. There are cases where 6t to 8t maize/ ha were achieved pre-mining, and only 1t/ha to 1,2t/ ha could be harvested after mining and rehabilitation. Other negative impacts include dust and noise pollution, as well as increased crime around mines.What are your concerns about mining’s impact on agriculture in 2017?Agri SA: We’re concerned that the number of prospecting and mining licence applications in most provinces indicates that the situation is getting worse.TAU SA: While we appreciate the need for, and importance of, mining, there are too many reports of illegal mining activities and cases where mines are not properly rehabilitated. Only about 13% of South Africa’s arable land is considered high-potential, with the balance having marginal potential.Food production is crucial, and the conservation and correct utilisation of agricultural land should be viewed from a strategic point of view to achieve maximum food production. Food security and the availability of clean water must be prioritised.What is your farmers’ union’s official stance on existing and potential mining operations’ impact on agriculture?Agri SA: Government should apply applicable legislation to existing and potential mining operations. Although the environmental impact assessment (EIA) dispensation of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) has been delegated to the Department of Mineral Resources, the dispute mechanism still remains with NEMA. Given the lasting impact of mining on the environment and specifically agriculture, it cannot take place in a haphazard manner.TAU SA: Mining now and in the future will have a negative impact on agriculture – in some cases more than others – and agricultural production will thus be affected. While there are many requirements, such as EIAs, to be carried out before mining activities can commence, the credibility of these requirements is questionable given the results that we have seen so far.We realise that mining has its rightful place and that it plays an important role in the economy. However, is it fair that one sector is allowed to prosper to the detriment of another? We also want to know to what extent corruption and personal benefit play a role in the mining industry.Has your farmers’ union taken any action to oppose the impact of existing and potential mining on agriculture?Agri SA: We’ve developed guidelines on the rights of landowners and mineral rights holders, for use by our affiliates, that explain each stakeholder’s responsibilities. We were also included in the Process Custodians Group of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) study conducted by the Department of Environmental Affairs on shale gas development, and we specifically contributed to Chapter 8, which is dedicated to agriculture. We were assisted by the International Erosion Control Association South Africa. The SEA study was completed in November last year.Some interventions by our affiliates have resulted in the downscaling of, for example, uranium mining applications in the Western Cape and Northern Cape, while other prospecting applications for a variety of minerals were also successfully prevented or curtailed.TAU SA: We were instrumental in establishing the Water Quality and Food Security unit under the leadership of Prof Paul Oberholster at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). In 2009, we helped establish a National Water Forum to address the growing problem of water pollution, identify the major contributors, and find solutions to the problem.Our ongoing concern is that too many role players are focused only on the short-term and don’t contribute their expertise, resources and other support. However, there have been successes, and the CSIR has launched a number of projects, such as the rehabilitation of Mpumalanga’s Zaalklapspruit Wetlands, aimed at improving water quality in the Olifants River for agricultural use.What advice do you have for farmers who are currently or potentially negatively affected by mining?Agri SA: Farmers should make sure that mining developers adhere to the legal requirements prescribed in the legislation. Agri SA’s guideline document contains basic compliance requirements to assist farmers. Farmers should preferably not engage mining developers individually, but as a group. It may be necessary to seek legal advice or use independent EIA consultants to verify and validate EIA studies.TAU SA: Farmers should negotiate with mining companies to ensure that their operations have as little impact as possible on farming operations and adhere to all legal requirements pertaining to the protection of natural resources in the area.What should government do to minimise conflict between mining and agriculture?Agri SA: State governance of mining is poor. Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries currently does not have enabling legislation to effectively preserve high-potential agricultural land. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act is outdated and the Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill (PD-ALB) is still in its infancy. This has resulted in agriculture being at a disadvantage in terms of other mining legislation. Completing the PD-ALB is thus of paramount importance.The time has come to comprehensively calculate the real cost of mining, including water and air pollution, soil destruction and infrastructure demands. Similar calculations for the agricultural sector will be needed to do a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine the optimal approach in the best interest of the country as a whole.TAU SA: Government should take the agricultural sector into account when making decisions about mining. Regular meetings between mines and local farmers’ associations, where concerns can be raised and solutions found, should be a statutory requirement. Mines that don’t meet legal requirements and agreed-on procedures should be heavily penalised.But mining is not the only threat to agriculture. Other industries and poorly managed sewage treatment plants also contribute to pollution of natural resources. Proper coordination must take place between role players tasked with conserving these resources.****Defense Industrial Base DA 1NC 1NC -- DIB DA A. Uniqueness -- Biden’s executive orders have revived the defense industry base amidst the pandemic.Bade, '21 (Gavin Bade; Gavin Bade is a reporter on the Pro Energy team covering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, electricity markets and state policy. He was previously senior reporter and editor at Utility Dive, an energy trade publication. Gavin is a graduate of Georgetown University, where he edited the campus alt-weekly, the Voice; "Biden orders supply chain review for 4 industries;" POLITICO; ; 2-24-2021, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCPresident Joe Biden will sign an executive order on Wednesday to review the global supply chains used by four key industries in an effort to avoid the shortages in medical equipment, semiconductors and other goods seen as critical during the pandemic.China reliance targeted: Biden’s order will institute 100-day reviews of the global producers and shippers for: computer chips used in consumer products; large-capacity batteries for electric vehicles; pharmaceuticals and their active ingredients; and critical minerals used in electronics.The reviews will seek to determine whether U.S. firms in these sectors are relying too much on foreign suppliers, particularly those in China, a senior administration official told reporters. They will also consider other vulnerabilities, like extreme weather and environmental factors.“Clearly we are looking at the risks posed by dependence on competitor nations, but that is only one of a range of risks we are looking at,” the administration official said.The order will also direct yearlong reviews for six sectors: defense, public health, information technology, transportation, energy and food production.Those reviews will be “modeled after the process the Defense Department uses to regularly evaluate and strengthen the defense industrial base,” the official said.Remedies unclear: If risks are identified in the supply chains for critical sectors, the administration will aim to push those companies to move their suppliers out of countries like China and back to the U.S. mainland or allied nations.“Resilient supply chains are not the same thing as all products being made in America,” said a second senior official. “That’s not our intention here.”B. Link -- Strict environmental laws deck REM production—decks tech industryBensaid, deputy producer at TRT World 2020 [Adam, “Why are the US and China competing for rare earth minerals?”, TRT World, 6 OCT, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]The US isn’t the only country that sees a potential faceoff over these rare minerals, or another trade war. China also knows their worth. In May 2019, China’s top economic planning agency made a statement suggesting that Beijing may stop exporting these materials, a commodity item believed by many trade experts to be China’s “secret trade war weapon” against the US. This threat comes amid Trump’s continued escalation of economic and tech conflicts with China. Chinese state media has called America’s dependence on Chinese rare earths “an ace in Beijing’s hand.” Rare earth minerals are called the ‘vitamins of chemistry’. Even the smallest amounts can have a significant effect. For instance, a little bit of cerium and a touch of neodymium makes TV screens brighter, battery life longer, and magnets stronger. If China cut off access to any of these 17 elements, the entire tech industry would go back a few decades. At that point, it would be goodbye to your smooth liquid crystal touchscreen, and back to a phone with an actual keyboard. Rare earth materials are a group of 17 elements on the periodic table. True to their name, they are quite rare. While they’re more common than precious metals like gold, their uniqueness comes because they’re usually stuck to other metals and compounds. A big part of mining rare earth minerals is being able to refine them in a cost effective way. In countries with strict environmental laws against pollution, this is incredibly difficult to do, making them a precious commodity.C. Internal Link -- REM production key to DIB—ensures Military primacyCRS, 2021 [ “Defense Primer: Acquiring Specialty Metals and Sensitive Materials”, February 3, , accessed 7/15/21, DDI-AJ]Some metals (such as titanium and tungsten) and metal alloys, as well as strong permanent magnets known as rare earth magnets, are critical to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) operations. These materials are frequently integrated into components (e.g., integrated circuits, electrical wiring, or optoelectronic devices) or structures (e.g., aircraft fuselages or ship hulls) of the military platforms and weapon systems that enable warfighting capabilities. There are few, and, in some cases, no known alternatives for many of these materials, which often have unique physical properties, such as high material strength coupled with low density, or resistance to various forms of corrosion. Many of these materials are subject to sourcing restrictions or prohibitions in DOD acquisitions. Congress established these restrictions or prohibitions to protect the domestic materials industry and ensure the United States maintains critical production capabilities and capacity within the defense industrial base. Statutory restrictions establish that some items that incorporate certain metals and metal alloys known as specialty metals generally must be produced or manufactured in the United States. Other statutory prohibitions establish that some items that incorporate certain sensitive materials may not be acquired from specified sources.D. Impact -- Decline in primacy causes US China warReich, Scholar in International Relations, and Dombrowski, chair of the Strategic Research Department at the US Naval War College 2020 [Simon and Peter, “The consequence of COVID-19: how the United States moved from security provider to security consumer”, PMC, Sept 1, , accessed 7/15/21, DDI-AJ]American national security experts are likely to engage in a long, full-throated debate about the contours of national security. Many commentators have echoed the inevitable mantra that ‘everything has changed for ever’—a recurrent common refrain among American commentators in 1989 (the end of the Cold War), 1991 (globalization), 2001 (9/11) and 2008 (the Great Recession). We commonly hear references to ‘the new normal’. But should the pandemic subside, the early evidence suggests that the focus of the national security establishment will return to traditional kinetic concerns. Meanwhile, American adaptation to being a security consumer, even in one sphere, will be a painful process, requiring it to come to terms with its own dependence in the face of a series of increasingly menacing threats. Finally, in broader terms, US mismanagement of COVID-19 will consolidate the view that the era of American primacy is ending, despite the country's outsized military capability. Global favourability ratings of the United States have generally declined under Trump. New forms of conflict, such as cyber and misinformation campaigns, have dented a sense of American impregnability. As Michèle Flournoy—former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy and likely senior national security appointee in a Biden administration—pointed out in an interview, America's lack of leadership (and, we would add, exposed reliance and vulnerability) generates profound concerns.110 One spillover effect of this new identity as security consumer has already become evident. With America's reputation sullied in one domain by its new-found dependency, one predictable compensatory response has been for American forces to become even more proactive and assertive in the traditional military domain, with large-scale unilateral military exercises and other public demonstrations of power. These have, notably, taken place in Europe, in the Arctic and in the South China Sea in the midst of America's COVID-19 crisis. This is arguably defensible. American activity in the South China Sea, for example, has been designed to address what has been characterized as provocative Chinese military territorial claims in several theatres of potential conflict across the Indo-Pacific.111 But, in a period of heightened bilateral tensions, it increases the possibility of mishap and military conflict. The consequences of America's new dependency, then, in both the short to medium term and the long term, are disconcerting. Structural arguments about power transition leading to inevitable conflicts with revisionist powers have historically been shown to have limited validity, however fashionable their underlying assumptions may be in current Washington national security circles. But, beyond any prospective unintended conflict, the combination of evident American pandemic vulnerability, internal discord, governance incapacity and economic distress is a potentially incendiary combination given the possibility that its leadership may feel compelled to demonstrate a show of force. The longer-term question is whether American policy-makers will learn from this painful experience and, in the vocabulary of national security makers, learn to fight the last (pandemic) war.1NC -- REM DA A. Uniqueness -- The Biden administration has placed new emphasis on reinvigorating REM supply chains Subin, 4-19, 2021, ("The new U.S. plan to rival China and end cornering of the market in rare earth metals", Samantha Subin, 4/19/21, )The United States has made previous attempts to reemerge as a dominant player in a rare earths supply chain that is responsible for some of the most important materials involved in electric vehicle production, battery making, renewable energy systems and technology manufacturing. Under the Biden administration, the effort is receiving renewed focus, with massive investments planned in climate change technology and a hard line being taken on geopolitical rivalries and the national security threat posed by China. In 2019, China was responsible for 80% of rare earths imports, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, although exports fell last year in part due to Covid-19. President Biden’s sweeping $2 trillion infrastructure legislation seeks to remake the power and transportation markets in the U.S. and rebuild the country’s semiconductor industry. It follows Biden signing an executive order in February designed to review gaps in the domestic supply chains for rare earths, medical devices, chips and other key resources, and in March the Department of Energy announcing a $30 million initiative that will tap into researching and securing the U.S. domestic supply chain for rare earths and other important minerals in battery-making such as cobalt and lithium. ‘Cornering of the market’ “It’s absolutely correct there is a cornering of the market with lithium and other rare earths,” Biden climate envoy John Kerry recently said at a CNBC Evolve summit on the future of energy innovation. But efforts in the recent past to rival China in the rare earths market and rebuild a domestic industry have been stymied. “It’s technically possible to try and rebuild the entire supply chain because we once had it,” says Jane Nakano, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic International Studies’ Energy Security and Climate Change Program. “It’s not that we’re not experienced, it’s not that we have no idea of what the domestic supply chain may look like,” Nakano said, but she added that business, environmental and political factors may make the effort difficult to achieve, especially over a short-time frame. Success is dependent on whether the U.S. can quickly scale up processing and refining after the mining of the resources, and compete on cost with a magnet-making and processing market that’s heavily dominated by China. Once extracted from mines, rare earths are shipped to separation facilities, where they are separated from other minerals. Then rare earths are individually separated into oxides, metals and finally magnets that are used in everything from missiles to wind turbines, medical devices, power tools, cellphones and motors for hybrid and electric vehicles. China’s rare earths dominance Rare earth metals are actually more abundant than their name suggests but extracting, processing and refining are tricky for a myriad of technical and environmental reasons. These 17 elements — which are subdivided into the light rare earths and heavy rare earths subsets based on their atomic weights — exist in natural deposits globally. Heavy rare earths are often harder to source. They include metals like dysprosium and terbium, which play a critical role in defense, technology and electric vehicles. Neodymium and praseodymium are some of the most sought-after light rare earth elements crucial in products such as motors, turbines and medical devices. Demand for them exploded in recent years with the growth of technology and will continue to climb amid the ongoing race to create a large electric vehicle market. While China is dominant now, in the decades before the 1980s it was the U.S. that held a majority stake in this metals market. That changed as production growth abroad and mounting environmental pressures at home shifted production overseas and also offered cheaper labor costs. According to one 2018 report from the Department of Defense, China “strategically flooded the global market” with rare earths at cheaper prices to drive out and deter current and future competitors. “If the material specification fits, and the price is a dollar better, then you go for the dollar better,” said Koray Kose, senior director of supply chain research at Gartner. The three most important materials used in magnets include neodymium, dysprosium and terbium. Terbium is one of the toughest to come by because production, extraction and magnet-making are focused on China. Trade wars and retaliatory tariffs can leave many companies sourcing these crucial materials in limbo, even if they make up just a small portion of a product. Market dynamics can escalate so quickly that companies without a diversified supply chain bid aggressively, materials get scarce and prices go up, Kose said. In 2011, for example, rare earth prices shot up when China restricted exports to maintain supplies for domestic industries, which was the case again during the 2019 trade war. Rebuilding a domestic supply chain Domestic efforts to extract rare earths are taking place in states including Wyoming, Texas and California, but the recent past provides cautionary tales, such as Molycorp, which reopened the longstanding Mountain Pass mine in California in the early 2000s, only to go bankrupt in 2015. MP Materials bought the mine and restarted production in 2017. The Las Vegas-headquartered company is vying to restore the domestic rare earths supply chain from mine to magnet, and is hedging its bets on neodymium-praseodymium, with the hope of becoming the lowest-cost producer. In recent years, the Las Vegas-headquartered company received a myriad of grants and contracts from the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to research and improve domestic capabilities. One of the company’s largest customers is Shenghe Resources, a Chinese company responsible for processing, distributing and refining, which also owns a stake in the company. The connection raised some concerns among DOE scientists, according to Reuters, but government funding has continued for a rare earths separation facility. Shenghe Resources distributes the concentrate produced at Mountain Pass to refiners in Asia, “capabilities that simply do not exist at scale in the West,” according to an MP Materials spokesman. The company plans to reinvest the free cash flow generated from operations into expanding MP’s U.S. capabilities, including a restoration of domestic refining capability at Mountain Pass by next year. Ultimately, the company, which went public last year through a SPAC merger, plans to “restore the full rare earth supply chain” to the U.S., the spokesman said, including refining and separation, and magnet-making by 2025, as the domestic electric vehicle market ramps up production. “This is happening and I think it’s happening much much faster than I think anybody had anticipated,” said Ryan Corbett, the company’s chief financial officer. “We can compete and we’re going to continue to do it.” Another key player in the space is Lynas Corporation, one of the largest processors of rare earths outside China. The Australian mining company, which operates a separation facility in Malaysia, recently received $30.4 million in funding from the Pentagon to build a Texas light rare earths processing facility and earned another contract, in partnership with Blue Line Corp., also based in Texas, to build a heavy rare earths separation facility. A Lynas spokeswoman referred to the new facilities in an email to CNBC as an “essential foundation” for renewing downstream metal making and implementing magnet manufacturing into the U.S. She wrote that diversifying outside the Chinese magnetic materials supply chain is important to create competitive markets and meet the growing demand for 21st-century technologies. Resource extraction and the environment While companies like Lynas and MP Materials are eager to ramp up the domestic supply chains, extracting rare earths is a difficult process due to a combination of environmental, technical and political factors. Many regions, including the European Union, have an abundance of these resources but lack the expertise that other countries like China have in the processing and magnet production, Nakano said. The rare earths industry has come under fire for environmental concerns. Many rare earth elements reside among mineral deposits with radioactive materials that can leach into the water table. Mining, processing and disposal can also contribute to ecosystem disruption and release hazardous byproducts into the atmosphere. Although the U.S. is making strides to advance the rare earths supply chain and develop alternatives to mining rare earths, environmental regulations are often more stringent than inside China. In recent years, Lynas came under scrutiny from activists and the Malaysian government for radioactive waste that it produces as part of its enrichment process. Lynas has said that the low-levels of radioactive waste were not dangerous and the Malaysian government ultimately renewed the license and green-lighted a construction plan for a permanent disposal and waste treatment facility in August 2020. Some companies have proposed extracting rare earths from coal, while others suggest setting up a system for recycling old batteries or disk drives. Suggestions include calls to utilize shipping services like Amazon or USPS to set up a recycling system, but these endeavors can be costly, Nakano says. Recycling of key raw materials used in the EV space is receiving greater investment focus. Some emerging battery recycling leaders include Redwood Materials, a start-up from former Tesla CTO JB Straubel, and Li-Cycle, which recently announced plans to go public through a SPAC-merger. The Ames Laboratory in Iowa is one of the many Department of Energy’s national laboratories working on projects aimed at substituting rare earths or finding new, more eco-friendly methods to recover them. One initiative by researcher Ikenna Nlebedim is a rare-earth magnet recycling process designed to recover rare earth oxides, without the hazardous acids or fumes associated. Scientists are also using the process to recover byproducts like copper and nickel. Another laboratory in Idaho is looking at how potato wastewater can be used as a cheap food source for a bacterium that can assist in recycling rare earths. “We already have the magnets here,” says Tom Lograsso, director of DOE’s Critical Materials Institute at Ames. “Why can’t we just retain that and close the circle domestically rather than throwing them in a landfill.” Limits to countering China In a recent interview with CNBC following the UAE’s Regional Climate Dialogue, Kerry addressed the president’s $2 trillion infrastructure proposal in relation to rivalry with China. The legislation includes $35 billion for climate research and innovation, $46 billion in renewable energy manufacturing and $174 billion to boost the electric vehicle market. China, which accounts for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide emissions globally, claims it plans to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2060 and outspent the U.S. roughly 2-to-1 on energy transition-related investments in the last decade, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data. “I think that this is a huge economic opportunity, not just for the United States, with people all around the world,” Kerry said. “This is not about China, this is not a counter to China. This is about China, the United States, India, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Australia, a bunch of countries that are emitting a pretty sizable amount, the United States and China the most.” On April 17, Kerry and his Chinese government counterpart issued a joint statement on climate change cooperation. WATCH NOW VIDEO01:49 Tackling climate change is not about countering China, John Kerry says While the U.S. aims for raw materials self-sufficiency, any drastic move away from China and other Asia-based supply chains would dramatically affect American consumers as domestic demand for batteries and electric vehicles ramps up. The pace of demand growth is expected to rise rapidly over the next few years as sales of electric vehicles are slated to reach 12.2 million in 2025, according to data from IHS Markit. Building a strong U.S. supply chain can increase competition in the market, and the market is becoming more focused on the price impacts of rising demand for EVs across raw materials, which could drive up battery prices by 18% and more than double the cost of commodities like cobalt and lithium, Goldman Sachs analysts noted last month. To meet rare earths demand without global supply chains, though, would require the U.S. to reach “massive levels of production,” and build out an extraction and production chain that could take up to a decade, Nakano said. The best course, for now, is to work with allies, such as the European Union, to reduce reliance on dominant players like China. “Once you achieve that, let’s say ten, twenty years from now, then everyone can start looking at making a truly domestic supply chain,” she said.B. Link -- Strict water protections hurl a wrench in REM investment – regulations increase uncertainty and cost.Helenius et al., '14 (Kristina S?derholm, Patrik S?derholm, Maria Pettersson, Nanna Svahn, Roine Viklund, and Heidi Helenius; Lule? University of Technology; "Environmental Regulation and Mining Sector Competitiveness;" Lule? University of Technology; ; 2014, Accessed 7-15-2021)//ILake-NoCIn some respects, the environmental requirements for mining operations in Russia may be stricter than in other developed mining countries such as Canada (e.g., dry-stacked gold tailings in some jurisdictions) (Cervantes et al., 2013). However, as illustrated in Figure 1 the perceived uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the environmental regulations is likely to be a more significant impediment to mining investment in the country (than stringent conditions). One reason for this is that occasionally the authorities may implement less stringent regulations to avoid disruptive social impacts (e.g., lay-offs etc.), although this is more prevalent in the case of small companies. For the mining industry a more important concern is that although the regional governments have the mandate to decide on the local regulatory requirements and how these should be applied, the federal state system adds additional complexity (e.g., Beare, 2009). In general significant consultations with regional authorities are needed, and the staff members from different authorities are not always well-coordinated. Moreover, the regulations in this area are fairly recent. As a result of this, regulators still have not fully adapted to the new rules, and in some cases the Russian authorities have not been sure about how the environmental legislation should be implemented. In Sweden, Finland, Canada and Australia there have also been calls for increased cooperation across jurisdictions. In Western Australia, for instance, the lack of such coordination has led to overlaps and duplication, and the mining companies may be exposed to a complex and time-consuming permitting process (e.g., Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia, 2013). For these reasons, in 2013 a proposal for an amendment of the environmental permitting process has been put forward (i.e., the so-called Mining Legislation Amend-ment Bill 2013). The aim of the proposed changes is to create a process that is risk-based, transparent and clear for the applicants (Barton, 2013).Similar reforms have been called for – and in part announced – also in New South Wales, Queensland (Heber, 2013) and in Canada (Davies, 2011). In British Columbia (Canada) the main piece of legislation regulating the environment is the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). It was introduced to complement the environmental assessment process necessary according to the CEAA at the federal level (see section 4). According to Wilson et al. (2013) this has increased the uncertainties and costs surrounding the permitting process.C. Internal Link -- Rare earth minerals are crucial to the defense industry and countering Chinese influence – US is playing catch-up with China now.Carrell, '20 (Raeanna L. Carrell; "Putting the “Us” Back in the U.S. Defense Industrial Base: The Case of Rare Earths;" Journal of Public and Environmental Affairs; ; 04-2020, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCEnsuring that the defense industrial base has a secure and adequate supply of rare earth elements is a matter of national security. Between 2016 and 2017, the United States did not mine any rare earth elements domestically after the Mountain Pass mine in California was put on care and maintenance status in the fourth quarter of 2015 (U.S. Geologicial Survey 2018). Consequently, the U.S. was entirely reliant on foreign nations for the procurement and supply of rare earth elements. In 2018, the Mountain Pass mine restarted and the U.S. produced 15,000 metric tons of rare earths (United States Geological Survey 2019); however, most of those rare earths had to be sent overseas to be refined and processed into usable product (Gabriel 2019). In particular, the United States is almost entirely reliant on China—a strategic competitor, as China has captured 90-95% of the world’s market for mining and refining rare earths (Grasso 2013). Rare earths are critical components in more than 200 high-tech electronics and devices produced both for consumer and military use (Grasso 2013), and are critical for the functionality of several defense applications such as lasers, guidance systems, and radar and sonar systems (American Geosciences Institute 2018). They are critical in every domain—air, land, sea, space and cyberspace.THE 2010 SENKAKU ISLAND DISPUTEShould China choose to flex its soft power by restricting rare earth element (REE) exports, the U.S. defense industrial base could be significantly disrupted in the near term. Such concern is based on history: the Japanese and Chinese governments have long disputed which of the two countries is the rightful sovereign over a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands. In 2010, China embargoed REE’s to Japan in response to a maritime dispute over jurisdiction of the Senkaku Islands in the South China Sea (Grasso 2013). This supply disruption had spillover effects in the U.S. as well. The United States relied—and relies still—on Japan for the procurement of permanent magnets and other REE components (Bradsher 2010). The 2010 embargo lasted for nearly two months. In that time, Japan experienced significant shortages, China refused to increase REE exports to any other country to make up for the gap in supply, and the price of REE experienced a global price spike of nearly ten times greater than pre-embargo prices (Bradsher 2010).The price spike, initiated by Chinese action and driven by market speculation, was temporary. By the end of 2010, prices tumbled as the market adjusted and other nations reclaimed the ability to produce their own supply of rare earths. Starting in the 1980s, China scale up its rare earth mining capabilities dramatically. By the 1990s, the strategy had paid off. China essentially controlled the global rare earth market (Plumer 2012). Vekasi (2019) attributed China’s dominant market share in rare earths to low production costs (e.g., labor costs), lower environmental standards, and its state-directed investment strategy.D. Impact -- Collapse of defense causes US-China war – China preys on receding US influence. Rudolf, '21 (Peter Rudolf; Peter Rudolf is a Senior Fellow at Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin; "China targets rare earth export curbs to hobble US defence industry;" Survival, 63:2, 87-114; ; 03-30-2021, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoC The US–Chinese relationship is perhaps best interpreted as a complex ‘strategic rivalry’. Both countries are not only competitors for power and influence, but also potential military opponents.74 Their intensifying strategic rivalry, rooted in incompatible goals and mutual threat perceptions, has a regional dimension, a global dimension and a technological dimension. The regional dimensionChina has been expanding its military options to counter US intervention capabilities on its periphery and to project its own military power into the East Asian region and beyond. In conjunction with increased economic influence, this might enable China to ‘decouple’ the United States from Asia and thereby to gain supremacy in the region.75 The US–China conflict is especially pronounced in the Western Pacific.76 In ‘maritime Asia’, the relationship is antagonistic, imbued with military threat perceptions.77 In the United States, it is widely believed that China intends to establish an exclusive ‘maritime sphere of influence’ in the South China Sea.78In Chinese discourse, the prevailing self-perception seems to be that China does not intend to exclude non-regional actors from the region as is often assumed in the United States. Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea, however, can be taken as an indication that China is moving towards a South China Sea, China’s claims to some islands, rocks, reefs and low-tide elevations clash with those of four other littoral states (Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam). In addition, China’s sovereignty claims within what it calls the ‘nine-dash line’ (an area encompassing most of the South China Sea) conflict with the exclusive economic zones of these states and Indonesia. Moreover, China’s interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (an interpretation that is shared by some other governments) is that states have the right to regulate and prohibit the military activities of other states in their exclusive economic zones, which extend up to 200 nautical miles from the coast. The United States firmly rejects this interpretation.80The South China Sea is where the two sides’ incompatible interpretations of the law of the sea are most apparent.81 The US claims to be upholding the freedom of the seas, while the Chinese have been asserting a claim to a sphere of influence. The conflict is heightened by the mutual perception that in a crisis the other side could block important maritime lines of communication. If China were to block them, the economic costs would probably be bearable if shipping traffic to Australia, Japan and South Korea could be diverted, for example via the Sunda or Lombok straits. However, a large proportion of the goods shipped across the South China Sea come from China or go there. It is therefore in China’s interest to ensure maritime transport remains unhindered in the region. The Chinese fear that the US military could block the Strait of Malacca in the event of a crisis, thus severely affecting China’s energy supply.82The geopolitical conflict over the South China Sea also has a nuclear dimension.83 China seems to be fortifying the South China Sea as a protected bastion for ballistic-missile submarines as part of a survivable second-strike capability. According to information from the United States, at least four ballistic-missile submarines are already in service, and construction of a follow-on class, with a more advanced design, is expected to begin in the early 2020s.84 China still has no sea-based ballistic missiles in service that could reach the continental United States from the South China Sea. The new missile (JL-3) in development for the planned next generation of submarines will have a significantly greater range than the current design, but even this may not be enough.85 Due to the limited range of the sea-based nuclear missiles currently in service, in the event of a serious international crisis, China may try to relocate ballistic-missile submarines to the deeper and thus safer waters of the Pacific, through the bottlenecks of the ‘first island chain’ (which extends from the Kuril Islands via the principal Japanese islands and Taiwan to Borneo). Securing the South China Sea against US anti-submarine forces is already an enormous challenge, a consideration that is relevant to China’s expansion of its artificial islands.86While the East–West conflict was stabilised to a significant degree by the establishment of clear spheres of influence in Europe, the geostrategic situation in East Asia is less stable. There is no clear demarcation between spheres of influence in Asia, and there are no acknowledged buffer zones. China’s efforts to establish a kind of security zone within the first island chain are regarded as highly provocative in the United States as the region’s leading sea power.87A worsening crisis between the United States and China poses a considerable risk of military instability in Asia. US military planners assume that China will pursue offensive pre-emptive options in a crisis. Certainly, there are significant incentives for pre-emptive action against US armed forces in the region – for example, in the form of massive missile salvoes. Since the termination of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Washington has been free to deploy medium-range systems in Asia. These could be based on the island of Guam, or – should America’s allies agree – in the north of Japan, the southern Philippines or the northern part of Australia. With conventionally equipped medium-range systems, the US military could destroy Chinese forces in the South and East China seas without sending naval units into these risk zones. This would also obviate the need to initially eliminate missile systems on the Chinese mainland that would endanger US surface ships. Such an attack could inadvertently neutralise Chinese nuclear forces or their command-and-control faciliies since, according to available information, China’s conventional and nuclear forces seem to be entangled. It cannot be ruled out that, in the event of a serious confrontation, China will be tempted to use nuclear weapons before they are put out of action.88Uniqueness UQ -- DIB High Biden’s executive order saves the DIB but sustaining the supply chain for rare earth mining is key—upholds military primacy.Clark, '21 (Maiya Clark; Research Associate, Center for National Defense; "Biden’s Supply Chain Executive Order Doesn’t Boost the Defense Industrial Base—And That’s OK;" Heritage Foundation; ; 2-24-2021, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoCWhat brings these diverse firms and sectors under the title of “defense industrial base” is their criticality to the country’s ability to defend itself and its interests. In a conflict, the United States would depend on all of these firms and its government installations to supply the tools the military needs.But trends in the defense industrial base are weakening its ability to meet the current needs of the U.S. military, let alone respond in an armed conflict. Domestic infrastructure for the manufacture and maintenance of defense items is often outdated, creating risks for both service members and for workers in these facilities. Some defense components are available from only one supplier. Others are only produced overseas—in some cases by America’s competitors, like China. For example, 84 percent of the Defense Department’s electronics components suppliers are located overseas.Policymakers in Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon all need to respond to these threats to U.S. national security. But in order to fix the problem, they need a clearer idea of what the problem is.This is where Biden’s new executive order comes in. The supply chain review for rare earth elements should create a better understanding of the weak links in that chain, which in turn will help make efforts to shore up those weak links more targeted and effective. The review of the semiconductor supply chain will hopefully provide similar information for a predominantly commercial sector that is also vital to defense systems.The larger benefit in the new executive order is the requirement that the Secretary of Defense “shall submit a report on supply chains for the defense industrial base that updates the report provided pursuant to Executive Order 13806 of July 21, 2017.” Here, the Biden administration wisely chose to continue with a Trump administration initiative.>>> Rare Earth Elements Aren’t That Rare, but They’re Vital to National SecurityDonald Trump’s Executive Order 13806 brought together over three hundred subject matter experts to produce a report on the macro forces and risks impacting the defense industrial base. This effort dovetailed nicely with the Pentagon’s own Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, which gives an in-depth description of trends in each sector of the defense industrial base.Of course, Trump was not the first president to attempt to assess the defense industrial base. The Obama administration also worried about supply chains and responded with the Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier assessment initiative. Indeed, the federal government has been concerned with the state of the defense industry since the birth of the nation; beginning when the first Secretary of the Navy had to decide whether public or private shipyards were the most effective way to build and maintain the U.S. naval fleet.With this new executive order, Biden wisely opted not to start from scratch, but instead to build upon the Trump report. That report provided highly useful information, presented in a logical manner. Should the Biden administration use the same framework (as the executive order implies), policymakers can better track the progression of the issues initially described in that report and see where progress has since been made, which problems have become more urgent, and how best to use finite resources to mitigate these risks. The breadth of Biden’s latest supply chain executive order is concerning to a free-market country that values limited government. But when it comes to defense industrial base assessments, Biden is following precedent—and in doing so, making his efforts more effective. In politics, where many things are broken and few seem to be fixed, it’s refreshing to see the adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” taken to heart. Recent DOD investment has boosted DIB investor confidence and set the industry on a trajectory for improvement. Sacknoff, 7/12 (Scott Sacknoff; Scott Sacknoff began his career developing and testing next generation Space Shuttle engine components before shifting to policy, finance, and commercial space assignments for NASA, DoD, private sector contractors, and the investment community; "Even in a challenging period, publicly traded defense stocks thrive;" Defense News; ; 7-12-2021, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCAs firms struggled to maintain a healthy workforce and sustain operations during a slowing economic environment, they also had to manage a global supplier base with similar problems. The U.S. Department of Defense, recognizing that defense production capacity is vital to readiness, took multiple actions to assist the defense-industrial base, and should be commended for doing so.Much of the sector was deemed to have essential workers, and many manufacturing plants were declared critical infrastructures. This enabled the agency to allocate more than $10 billion from COVID-19 economic support packages provided by Congress to assist manufacturers experiencing hardship from the aerospace slowdown and to accelerate contract payments to prime contractors who, in turn, accelerated payments to their subcontractors.As 2020 moved into 2021, the outlook for defense sector firms improved. Global regulatory agencies approved the 737 Max to return to flight, commercial air traffic began an uptrend and new commercial aircraft orders were placed. Additionally, the White House budget proposal for fiscal 2022 shows continued support for the Pentagon and a willingness to invest in new technologies, which will enable defense firms to better compete on a global scale.The stability and support from the defense industry’s largest customer have encouraged companies to maintain their strategy for growth. The announcements of mergers and acquisitions that will impact the Top 100 list continue. High-profile deals for Cubic Corporation, FLIR Systems, Perspecta and DynCorp International have already closed. A proposed deal for Lockheed Martin to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne awaits regulatory approval later this bined, these recent positive actions have been reflected in stock prices. During 2020, the SPADE Defense Index was flat on the year, while its constituent stocks provided returns to investors that ranged from a gain of 146 percent (Maxar Technologies) to a loss of 55 percent (Viasat).This year, through June 15, 2021, the index gained 14 percent, outperforming the broader U.S. market. Such performance is not atypical: Over the past 21 years, the sector outperformed in 17 of them, many times by double digits. It is one reason why funds, such as Invesco’s Aerospace & Defense ETF, have invested a collective $5 billion in assets in the sector.DIB survived and thrived during the pandemic – but maintaining a stable source of investment is key.Mehta and Insinna, '21 (Aaron Mehta and Valerie Insinna; ; "Chaos, cash and COVID-19: How the defense industry survived — and thrived — during the pandemic;" Defense News; ; 3-15-2021, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCOverall, the Pentagon injected $4.6 billion into the defense-industrial base between the start of the pandemic and Jan. 31, 2021, according to Department of Defense spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell. That included roughly $4 billion in increased progress payments, $73.2 million in reimbursements for industry and $700 million in funds from the Defense Production Act, she said. That legislation provides presidential authorities to expedite and expand the supply of materials and services from private industry for the purpose of national defense.Some acquisition efforts began suffering delays. According to department figures provided to Defense News, between June 2020 and February 2021, a monthly average of 40 programs experienced delays related to COVID-19, with a median impact of two months.“Of the 54 programs that had a delay and have now recovered, 20 were granted schedule relief. Most relief was for three or more months,” Maxwell said in a statement. “The average delay experienced was about two months, which could take several months to recover for any given program.”Overall, there have been 48 major defense acquisition programs, or MDAPs, that suffered from pandemic-related delays. Of those, 22 MDAPs continue to experience delays, Maxwell said. Some of the delays were reported at the time: For several weeks in March and April, Boeing halted work at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Seattle-area facilities, pausing production of the KC-46 tanker, P-8 maritime aircraft, V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, H-47 cargo helicopter and MH-139 helicopter. And due to slowdowns within its global supply chain, Lockheed Martin ultimately fell short of delivering 141 F-35 fighter jets in 2021, delivering only 120 planes after having to decelerate its production line.Despite those delays, the defense industry is overall doing fine, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.“Financially, it’s great. Companies have positive cash flow and no company suffered major trauma,” Callan said. “There are a lot of congratulations to go around for the department and industry for managing this thing. Within its own little environment of defense contracting, things went very well.”The major contractors are “swimming in excess cash” thanks to a mix of government efforts, including increased progress payments and payroll tax deferrals under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, added analyst Jim McAleese, of McAleese and Associates.UQ -- DIB Brink DIB under stress now but DoD is picking up the slackLord 10-1-2020 [Ellen, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, “BEFORE THE READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRITY”, Lord_ 10-01-20.pdf ()]Since 2017, A&S has created acquisition-focused Munitions War Rooms to improve Department readiness. We conduct deep dives into weapon system supply chains to identify and then mitigate production constraints and inventory shortfalls for existing systems. These War Rooms are also designed to ensure that industry has the capability and capacity to produce our new weapons. Our War Rooms have enabled us to increase production for key munitions by mitigating supply chain constraints. For example, this year, we established the Hypersonic Weapon System War Room, to ensure we can produce these weapons once they pass the current prototyping phase. We also created the Strategic Systems War Room to ensure industry can accommodate the large ramp in weapons and platforms associated with nuclear modernization, while sustaining the existing systems until new systems become available. The DIB is and will be stressed as multiple new hypersonic weapons systems transition to production at the same time that DoD’s nuclear modernization systems are also ramping up production. These War Room activities will help alleviate that stress and enable the Department and industry to make informed strategic decisions on investments to increase capability and capacity where necessary. For strategic systems, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed the need for a modernized nuclear triad. DoD’s FY 2021 budget request contains $28.9 billion to sustain and modernize all three legs of the triad, with key investments in the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent missile, the Long-Range Stand-Off missile, the B-21 stealth bomber, the Columbiaclass submarine, and enhanced nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. With its core mission of ensuring the United States maintains a safe, secure, effective, and reliable nuclear stockpile, our partners at the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) require secure and resilient supply chains to support timely deployment of U.S. nuclear warheads. As the chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council – the joint DoD and DOE/NNSA body responsible for alignment, coordination, and prioritization of nuclear stockpile modernization and sustainment activities – I work with NNSA to ensure the safety, security, and robustness of their supply chains, as they are critical to meeting the demands of these activities.UQ -- REM Biden’s Buy American XO continues Trump legacy of prioritizing domestic REM productionHui, reporter for Quartz 2021[Mary, “The US is taking steps towards breaking China’s rare earths monopoly”, Quartz, February 5, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]Meanwhile, US president Joe Biden’s “Buy American” executive order—part of a raft of directives he has signed in the first days in office—explicitly mentions investing in clean energy and critical supply chains. That comes shortly after former president Donald Trump, in his last days in the White House, signed a $2.3 trillion spending package that included $800 million for rare earths programs, in a move that earned support from US miners. And there are currently several bills being considered that would provide tax incentives for the domestic production and purchase of rare earths. Dan McGroarty, a member of the USA Rare Earth advisory board, said he hopes to see “a mosaic of actions” from the Biden administration with regards to rare earths, from allocating more federal funding to collaborating with other countries like Australia, Canada, and Japan to secure the global supply chain. “There’s going to be a significant degree of continuation and acceleration” from Trump to Biden on critical mineral policies, he said.REM production high now—serves a proxy conflict between China and USPistilli 3/23 (Melissa Pistilli, “10 Top Countries for Rare Earth Metal Production”, 3/23/21, Rare Earth Investing News, pg online @ ) Rare earth metal production was on the rise again in 2020, jumping to 240,000 metric tons (MT) worldwide — that’s up from 220,000 MT in 2019 and 190,000 MT in 2018. Demand for the metals is increasing as renewable energy becomes more important across the globe. Rare earths like neodymium and praseodymium, which are important in clean energy applications and high-tech industries, are in the spotlight, particularly as electric vehicles and hybrid cars gain popularity. Other factors, like the ongoing tensions between the US and China, are also putting the spotlight on rare earths. Since China is the world’s largest producer of the materials by far, the fraught relationship between the countries is directing attention to supply chain issues in the rare earths industry.REM demand high despite COVID—continued support key to reduce dependence on CHinaBarrera 1/20("Rare Earths Outlook 2021: REE Magnet Supply to Remain Tight", Priscila Barrera, 1/20/2021, -- MR)Rare earths, used in the high-strength magnets found in much of the latest tech, from smartphones to wind turbines to electric vehicles (EVs), will be a primary focus for the resource sector well into the next decade as more countries in the west work to create supply chains less dependent on China. As 2021 begins, what is the rare earths outlook for the year ahead? The Investing News Network (INN) reached out to analysts in the space to find out. Rare earths trends 2020: The year in review In the first few months of 2020, the resource space was shaken by the impact of COVID-19, with most metals hitting yearly lows across the board — however, the rebound during H2 was sharp. The pandemic had a huge, mostly negative impact on the rare earths market in 2020, but there were also some unexpected upsides that emerged, Ryan Castilloux of Adamas Intelligence told INN. “Prices performed as expected for the first three quarters of the year, but soared unexpectedly higher in the fourth quarter due to upstream bottlenecks and a strong resurgence of demand in China,” he said. David Merriman of Roskill agreed, telling INN the surge in pricing in Q4 came as a bit of a surprise. “(The rise was) mainly linked to market sentiment; speculation regarding trade restrictions of rare earths out of China in December — which didn’t materialize — and a surge in orders for wind turbines in domestic China in time to meet subsidy packages, which ran out at the end of 2020,” he said. As mentioned, the rare earth element (REE) space felt the impact of COVID-19 most strongly during the first half of the year, as lockdowns and containment measures in China impacted the shipping of products domestically and to the rest of the world. “We have seen demand from most REE end-use sectors fall back in 2020, with the exception of REE magnets, which continued to show growth in the year supported by increased use in wind turbines, EV/hybrid EV drivetrains and consumer electronics,” he said. “In H2 2020, the REE market recovered well, with supply returning and trade of materials returning to normal levels (and above).” Adamas Intelligence estimates that global consumption of NdFeB permanent magnets fell by approximately 10 percent last year on account of the pandemic’s negative effects on demand for everything from automotive micromotors and sensors, to wind power generators, consumer appliances, cordless powertools and a number of other end uses and applications. “However, on a more positive note, we estimate that global NdFeB magnet consumption for consumer electronics jumped 10 percent year-over-year,” Castilloux said. “(This was the result of) an expected surge in sales of laptops, tablets, smart speakers and smart displays due to millions of employees and students now working from home.” Adamas Intelligence also recorded a 21 percent jump in global NdFeB consumption for passenger EV traction motors in 2020, spurred higher by a rapid pandemic recovery in Asia and the introduction of attractive EV buyer incentives in parts of Europe in the second half of the year. Speaking about the REE space in 2020, Luisa Moreno of Tahuti Global told INN she was surprised with the performance of REE companies on the stock market — in particular MP Materials (NYSE:MP), which recently listed on the New York Stock Exchange. “MP is operating the rare earth Mountain Pass mine in California and not yet processing and separating rare earths, yet the valuation of the company is higher than that of Lynas (ASX:LYC,OTC Pink:LYSCF), (which is) is a miner and producer of refined rare earths,” she said. For Moreno, the market may be entering a new bullish phase for rare earths companies, perhaps fueled by the global green agenda. “The new US administration will likely join the Paris Agreement and have promised support for EVs,” she said. “These are important drivers for rare earths considering that permanent magnet motors are the preferred motors for EV automakers.” Rare earths outlook 2021: Supply and demand With the coronavirus pandemic still around, the dynamics for rare earths supply and demand are uncertain, but most analysts remain optimistic. “In 2020, we saw demand from rare earth magnet applications continue to grow, forming 29 percent of demand volumes,” Merriman said. “Whilst the breakdown of this demand is still fairly diverse, we are seeing the EV drivetrain and wind turbine segments of demand growing strongly.” REE chart Chart via Roskill — Rare Earths Market Outlook Report, 2021. In 2021, REE demand from all automotive applications, including drivetrains for EV/hybrid EV models, is forecast to reach 34.3 kilotonnes of NdFeB containing roughly 12.75 kilotonnes of rare earth oxides, increasing about 26.5 percent year-on-year. “This increase in drivetrains using rare earth permanent magnets is the main factor in the demand growth, a trend which is expected to continue throughout the remainder of the decade,” Merriman said. Moreno also highlighted the EV market as the main driver for rare earths in the coming years. “I expect EV sales to increase dramatically in the next five to 10 years,” she said. “Approximately 85 percent of automakers are using permanent magnet motors, which is very positive for rare earths.” In 2021, Adamas Intelligence is expecting demand to rebound strongly for nearly all end-use categories for rare earths, in particular permanent magnets, which drive around 90 percent of the rare earth oxide market’s overall value. “In 2021, we’re expecting global passenger battery EV, plug-in hybrid EV and hybrid EV sales to collectively increase by 20 to 40 percent year-over-year, translating to a 30 to 50 percent year-over-year increase in NdFeB permanent magnet demand,” Castilloux said. Looking over to supply, Moreno said any new supply is likely to come from China. “The projects outside Asia are still struggling with metallurgical issues, and public markets financing has not been easy,” she said. “If the financing market improves this year and governments (particularly the US, Canada, Australia, Europe) start offering aggressive monetary and fiscal incentives to REE companies, we may see an acceleration in the development of some of the REE projects and production after 2025.” For its part, Roskill expects new supply to remain limited in 2021 as the investment and development time for new rare earth projects remains significant. “Despite tight neodymium supply in 2021, this is expected to be met in future via expansions at existing producers, or those which are constructing/commissioning new production capacity currently, so there will be limited market space for new market entrants,” Merriman said. “We do see some success for companies providing raw material to the China domestic market, particularly in the form of monazite concentrates, which Roskill sees as a main area of growth within the REE industry.” By 2028, Adamas Intelligence projects that global demand for freshly mined NdPr oxide will be increasing at a rate of approximately 7,000 tonnes per annum, requiring the addition of a new, fully ramped up Mountain Pass or new Mount Weld mine every year to keep up. “I’m confident we will continue to see much-needed new supply come to market in the years ahead, but I’m not necessarily confident that we’ll see enough new supply come to market as fast as it is needed,” Castilloux said. Markets for the magnet rare earths — neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium — are expected to remain tight in 2021, exceptionally so if China’s State Reserve makes stockpile purchases in the near term, according to Adamas Intelligence. For non-magnet rare earths, such as cerium and lanthanum, the firm expects the market to remain largely oversupplied in 2021, translating to little if any upward momentum in prices. Roskill is also expecting to see a small deficit in neodymium supply in 2021, though this will likely be met by stockpiles and inventory held by producers, consumers and state authorities. “All other REEs are expected to remain in surplus during 2021, though many are experiencing a tightening market over the coming years,” Merriman said. Rare earths outlook 2021: US-China trade tensions to remain Looking at trade relationships between China and the US, Roskill expects tensions to remain, though it is not likely that restrictions on REEs exported from China to the US will be observed. “We expect the situation to remain similar in 2021, with a slight easing in tensions overall,” Merriman said. Europe and North America have started to take tangible steps toward the buildout of resilient rare earths supply chains that depend less on China, but these efforts are still in their infancy, as per Castilloux. “It’s important that governments bear in mind that rare earth mines coupled with EV manufacturing do not collectively constitute a rare earth supply chain. There are many critical value-adding steps in between that also need to be addressed for an alternative supply chain to be resilient and sustainable,” he explained to INN. For Merriman, the support that has been provided so far to build out resilient supply chains has been mixed, and has often been aimed at developing novel ways of extraction or new sources of materials; these will undoubtedly take longer to develop as commercial sources of REEs than traditional sources. “The most important part for REE producers is ensuring that there will be an end market for their products in the region they are targeting,” he said. “Any gaps in the supply chain will likely result in material being shipped into China as the main center of existing refining/metal/alloy-making capacity.” In terms of building out supply chains for REEs, Moreno highlighted European and Australian efforts. “It seems the EU is prepared to invest directly in the rare earth supply chain, from exploration companies to metal and magnet producers,” she said. “In Australia, the government has announced that it will provide financial solutions, loans, guarantees and bonds to companies in the strategic metals space via the Export Finance Australia agency.” For the expert, these announcements are very important steps that governments are taking. “Hopefully they will actually start making sizeable investments in rare earths projects and along the supply chain,” she added. Moreno explained that access to reagents and affordable electricity is important when deciding where to locate a rare earths chemical processing plant. “(This is why) proximity to industrial sites is important,” she said. “Access to expertise in chemical processing and metal making is key for the development of the supply chain for magnets.” Rare earths outlook 2021: What’s ahead As 2021 begins, there are a number of factors to keep in mind, in particular for prices. Going into 2021, magnet rare earths prices have largely held onto their 2020 gains, Castilloux said. “In some cases (they’ve) increased further as the Chinese market awaits potential stockpile purchases from the State Reserve,” he said. “If these purchases do not go through, as is often the case, we believe prices may give up some gains by the end of Q1.” In 2021, Roskill sees prices remaining strong in the first quarter before starting to fall back towards the end of the year. “Overall we do expect REE prices for magnet materials to settle at higher levels than in 2019 and 2020, as a result of underlying demand growth and a tight market for neodymium oxide remaining,” Merriman noted. Commenting on where she sees prices going in 2021, Moreno pointed out that the prices of neodymium, praseodymium and terbium have continued to trend higher despite the deterioration of the COVID-19 situation this winter. “If governments are able to control the virus in 2021 through vaccination, we may see an economic rebound this year, which should be positive for rare earths demand and prices,” she said. Looking ahead, China’s five year plan will be a crucial event for the REE industry, and may bring some surprises, Merriman said. “Progress at MP Materials and the construction/commissioning of refining capacity will also be an interesting story in 2021, and may cause some short-term price disruption,” he said. For Moreno, a key factor investors should pay attention to going forward is developments in the EV sector, which is the main driver for rare earths. “They should follow EV sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales and monitor government efforts to accelerate adoption,” she said.UQ -- REM AT: Shortage Even if there is a slight strain on REE’s, the availability of raw materials is not a cause for concernPenrod 6/17(" As Us aims to boost clean energy supply chain, critical minerals gap largely human-caused, analysts say", Emma Penrod is an independent journalist following energy, agriculture, and environmental justice, 6/17/21, )For many American businesses — and consumers — the onset of COVID-19 was an unexpected wake-up call as supply chains collapsed and store shelves emptied. But potential for supply-chain logjams existed before the pandemic. The International Energy Agency issued a report last month that IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said revealed a "looming mismatch between the world's strengthened climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals that are essential to realizing those ambitions." This isn't exactly new information, according to Jordy Lee, program manager of the Supply Chain Transparency Initiative at the Colorado School of Mines' Payne Institute for Public Policy. Experts have known the U.S. faced a minerals shortage for decades, if not longer, he said. How Utilities Are Delivering A Customer-Centric Experience Learn how leading utilities are delivering a seamless multichannel customer experience to increase retention. Learn more COVID-19, Lee said, alongside trade tensions between the U.S. and China, has finally brought the issue to the forefront, triggering political concern and an executive order from President Biden on supply chain research. Preliminary results from the task force assembled by that executive order noted that demand for lithium will grow by more than 4,000% by 2040 if the world achieves its climate goals, and demand for graphite, also used to build large batteries, will grow by 2,500%. While the U.S. assumed certain dynamics of global markets to be inevitable, "especially the fear that companies and capital will flee to wherever wages, taxes and regulations are lowest," other countries made key policy decisions that allowed them to capture ever-greater market share of these budding industries, according to the June 8 preliminary report. As a result, while China controls 60% of the world's lithium production, U.S. battery production is expected to fall far short of its needs over the next few years. "COVID kind of made people realize that even if you have the money and the demand for something, it doesn't mean you will get it," Lee said. "And that was kind of shocking for the U.S. because ... the U.S. can go anywhere in the world and has a ton of money. Why shouldn't it be able to source these things?" But Lee and other experts agree there's some misconception about the nature of the problem: there is no global shortage of critical materials needed to produce renewable energy. The world has sufficient natural resources. The real challenge, they say, is figuring out how to extract those materials from the ground, and how to address the environmental, economic and social ramifications of doing so. Not so rare earth metals Substances such as rare earth metals are, Lee said, perhaps unfortunately named because they're not actually rare. These 17 elements, as well as other critical materials such as lithium, cobalt and even gold, are found in soils and rocks all over the world — they're just extremely difficult to to extract. Small amounts may be diffused across a wide area, and they may need to be separated from other elements, producing large amounts of waste materials. There is reason to be concerned about materials supply chains, Lee said, but the availability of raw materials isn't one of them. "We've never, in the history of ever, stopped extracting a resource because we ran out of it," he said. "It's always been for social reasons, economic reasons or environmental reasons. Even with oil and gas." The world may have ample natural resources, but that doesn't mean the U.S. won't suffer shortages of critical materials in the future, according to Robbie Diamond, founder, president and CEO of the nonprofit Securing America's Future Energy, or SAFE, which advocates for clean energy resilience. The materials might exist in nature, but the U.S. — and the world — need to achieve an unprecedented scale of production in a short period of time to enable the energy transition, he said. The primary reason for this need is the materials-intensive nature of renewable energy, said Paul Saunders, president of the Energy Innovation Reform Project. The average electric car, according to IEA, requires six times the mineral inputs as a conventional car; an onshore wind farm will use nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant of the same size. The problem isn't just lithium, Saunders said. The world also needs to produce far more copper, aluminum and silicon than is currently available. And while recycling is a good idea for improved sustainability down the road, it won't get U.S. industry out of its current predicament, Diamond said. "It's estimated that we're going to need two times the amount of copper in the next 20 years, than we have used in the last 5,000 years of human history," Diamond said. "There's not enough to recycle." Decline in U.S. mining and processing At least part of how the U.S. came to face potential materials shortages in the clean energy sector, Lee said, can be explained by relatively recent history. With the rise of the environmental movement, mining fell out of favor culturally and politically in the 80s and 90s, Lee said. The U.S. Bureau of Mines closed in 1996. China, instead, seemed to sense an opportunity to grow its economy and gain political prestige — and control — by expanding its own mining and processing capacity rapidly while other nations withdrew from the industry. China doesn't necessarily have a great wealth of mineral resources, Lee said, so they began to buy up mineral rights in other countries. When their mine-buying spree began to raise questions, they switched to offering to help other nations with mineral processing capacity. It is this processing capacity that has proven especially critical to today's supply chains, Lee said. The U.S. can produce its own lithium — there's a good amount of lithium brine available for the taking in Nevada — but any lithium extracted in the U.S. must be shipped overseas for processing. Even if the U.S. built a lithium processing plant, it's not clear who would be qualified to run it — the U.S. has a mere few thousand students who study metallurgy each year, compared to the tens of thousands of metallurgy graduates in China, Lee said. "We don't have the intellectual capital. We don't have the mining industry. We don't have processing," he said. "It's not really clear how the U.S. is going to compete." Economic factors compound this, Saunders said. Americans may have expressed intolerance for offenses against labor and the environment since the social movements of the 70s and 80s began, but by pushing mining operations to other regions of the world, what the U.S. really demonstrated was its willingness to tolerate those very offenses elsewhere, Lee said. Much of the cobalt that goes into lithium-ion batteries comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where it is often mined from small, poorly-regulated operations that employ or enslave children. China, Lee said, didn't necessarily create this dynamic. It was simply ambitious and willing to get its hands dirty by working directly with the DRC. U.S. companies, in turn, were willing to buy product from China, taking advantage of low prices so long as they weren't directly connected with what was happening in the DRC. Read More in Solar & Renewables Now, U.S companies have few incentives to develop the natural resources that exist outside these problematic dynamics. "If I were a mining company," Lee asked, "why would I want to get involved in critical minerals? Why produce a few thousand tons of cobalt when I have to compete with China that is using literal child slave labor and getting it for pennies on the dollar?" Chinese businesses have also enjoyed a more stable policy environment than the U.S., according to Jason Burwen, interim CEO of the Energy Storage Association, which has encouraged more of the long-term investment required to support the large-scale manufacturing required to process and extract rare minerals. "If you're going to place billions of dollars into manufacturing facilities, you want to know there are years and years of demand for your product," Burwen said. "In China, that's clear. Until recently, it's not been as clear in the U.S." The challenge of China There is nothing inherently problematic about global markets, or even about sourcing materials from China, Saunders said. But decades of allowing China to come to dominate the minerals processing and refining sectors has created the potential for political conflict. China has used its control over minerals supply chains to retaliate against political rivals in the past, including against Japan in 2010, Saunders said. But U.S. lawmakers, Saunders said, seem more spooked by the shortages of medical supplies and PPE that occurred during COVID-19 when China imposed mandatory customs inspections for exports. "It's clear there was a great deal of disruption across the board" during COVID, Saunders said. "The point about the PPE was not just that there were disruptions, but there was a perception that there was a possibility of malicious disruptions." To avoid supply disruptions that could bring energy development to a halt, Diamond said he believes the U.S. must work with its allies to create global human rights and environmental standards that apply "from provenance to product" to create a more equal playing field. At the same time, he said, the U.S. should begin to evaluate the 500,000 abandoned mines that already exist within its borders for the presence of rare and critical minerals. It may be necessary for the U.S. government to subsidize the creation of new facilities to process these materials, Diamond said. "Ultimately our markets fail when it comes to certain things that are low margin, high capital," he said, "and the government is going to have to help business over the line." But there is precedent for it, he said, dating back to World War Two and as recent as funding companies to manufacture PPE and ventilators for COVID. The U.S. could try to stand up domestic manufacturing — which Burwen said may not be strictly necessary but would bring more of the job-related benefits of the energy transition home to the U.S. But it could also take the approach used to address the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s by coordinating with allies to create more stable international markets and stockpiles of critical materials, according to Saunders. A third option could involve using government labs to accelerate research on how to replace rare earth materials — or to sidestep the issue entirely by investing in other forms of clean energy, such as advanced nuclear power, Saunders said. The most effective policy, Saunders said, likely isn't a single approach, but a variety of tactics — including those generated by private markets themselves. Free market solutions Burwen, for his part, argued that the free market will inevitably address current supply chain challenges. As scarcity drives up prices, he said, U.S. companies will want to find a way to convert rapidly growing demand into dollars. "I know that, for example, Steven Chu, the former secretary of energy, has apparently been working on a project associated with lithium recovery from the ocean," he said. "I heard that and I was fascinated because the only reason people would be thinking about that and doing that is because they see a massive demand for lithium." Others, including Peter Perrault, senior manager of circular economy and sustainable solutions for Enel North America, also see reason to believe the free marketplace will eventually restore balance to materials supply chains. Consumer demand, Perrault said, is driving energy companies to address the economic and social impacts of their supply chains. Enel, he said, has determined it's not enough to just eliminate carbon emissions. To be the environmentally conscious company they strive to be, Enel must also curtail the impact of extracting minerals and other resources from the earth by reducing waste, increasing recycling and researching alternative materials with less environmental impact. Still, Perrault noted a need for innovative policy to enable this free-market dynamic to fully take hold. "We're driven by the sustainability ethos in the company, but there are some challenges that haven't been fully figured out," Perrault said. One of those challenges, Lee said, is the opaque nature of materials supply chains. A company may want to try to calculate their carbon footprint, Lee said, but in reality, they likely have no idea where or how their raw materials were extracted because they don't buy copper from a mine. They buy it from suppliers who collected copper from multiple mines and melted it all down in the same vat to produce copper cathode, which is then sold to another supplier who makes copper wire and other copper-based products. The same dynamic means mine companies have little incentive to establish environmental goals of their own, Lee said. Many do want to make good environmental decisions, he said, and there are cleaner processes that could be implemented. But why should they do that when the commoditized nature of materials means all copper sells for essentially the same price? Policy initiatives to create greater supply chain transparency would go a long way toward enabling mine and metals companies to differentiate their products, offering green steel, copper or aluminum to downstream markets where demand for such options is already emerging, Lee said. This, Diamond said, is what makes him feel optimistic about the current state of materials supply chains. Preliminary results from Biden's supply chain task force identified many of the same problems as industry and academic experts, and expressed strong support for reducing dependence on China. Private companies have expressed growing demand for green metals. Potential solutions exist. All that's left, Diamond said, is to put all the pieces together. "We have everything at our disposal to make it happen," he said.UQ -- AT: China Inevitable REM production key to multiple industries—China production not sustainable—makes domestic markets competitiveANI 2021[ “China's dominance of rare earth elements worries the West”, April 26, , accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]Rare earth elements are produced in a handful of countries and play an essential role in technology, from microchips to speakers to X-ray imaging.According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), China provides more than 85 per cent of the world’s rare earth and is home to about two-thirds of the global supply of scarce metals and minerals like antimony and baryte.The South China Morning Post (SCMP) in its latest report said that China dominates solar PV manufacturing and is home to more than 90 per cent of the world’s wafer manufacturing capacity.China had most of the world’s capacity for key components used in lithium-ion battery manufacturing and 80 per cent of global battery cell manufacturing capacity, CSIS said.According to the Hong Kong-based newspaper, the United States and European countries fear that any disruption to their supply chains for such products will hurt key industries.In February, EU President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen had said that the European Union must wean off its over-reliance on imports from abroad to drive its technological development, such as China’s dominance in providing rare earth elements.“Green and digital technologies currently depend on a number of scarce raw materials. We import lithium for electric cars, platinum to produce clean hydrogen, silicon metal for solar panels, 98 per cent of the rare earth elements we need come from a single supplier - China - and this is not sustainable,” von der Leyen said.China dominance not inevitable—new regulations decrease efficiencyHui, reporter for Quartz 2021[Mary, “Why rare earth permanent magnets are vital to the global climate economy”, Quartz, MAY 14, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]China also presents the benefit of lower costs. It’s about 20% cheaper to produce a rare earth magnet in China than in Europe, according to Nabeel Mancheri, secretary-general of the Brussels-based Rare Earth Industry Association, thanks to lower labor and energy costs. But as the Chinese government tightens environmental and land-use rules, production costs will go up and Mancheri expects it’ll cost the same to produce a rare earth magnet in China and Europe within 15 years.Links Link -- General Strict environmental laws deck REM production—decks tech industryBensaid, deputy producer at TRT World 2020[Adam, “Why are the US and China competing for rare earth minerals?”, TRT World, 6 OCT, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]The US isn’t the only country that sees a potential faceoff over these rare minerals, or another trade war. China also knows their worth. In May 2019, China’s top economic planning agency made a statement suggesting that Beijing may stop exporting these materials, a commodity item believed by many trade experts to be China’s “secret trade war weapon” against the US. This threat comes amid Trump’s continued escalation of economic and tech conflicts with China. Chinese state media has called America’s dependence on Chinese rare earths “an ace in Beijing’s hand.” Rare earth minerals are called the ‘vitamins of chemistry’. Even the smallest amounts can have a significant effect. For instance, a little bit of cerium and a touch of neodymium makes TV screens brighter, battery life longer, and magnets stronger. If China cut off access to any of these 17 elements, the entire tech industry would go back a few decades. At that point, it would be goodbye to your smooth liquid crystal touchscreen, and back to a phone with an actual keyboard. Rare earth materials are a group of 17 elements on the periodic table. True to their name, they are quite rare. While they’re more common than precious metals like gold, their uniqueness comes because they’re usually stuck to other metals and compounds. A big part of mining rare earth minerals is being able to refine them in a cost effective way. In countries with strict environmental laws against pollution, this is incredibly difficult to do, making them a precious commodity.Biden supports REM production now by laxing environmental regulations, BUT strict protections slows growth of industry—Obama provesScheyder, Reporter for Reuters, 2020[ Ernest, “Exclusive: Biden campaign tells miners it supports domestic production of EV metals”, Reuters, October 22, , accessed 7/15/21, DDI-AJ]The Obama administration enacted rigorous environmental regulations that slowed U.S. mining sector growth during its time in office. Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president and is well-regarded in conservation circles, has been expected to continue in that vein.The U.S. Democratic presidential candidate also supports bipartisan efforts to foster a domestic supply chain for lithium, copper, rare earths, nickel and other strategic materials that the United States imports from China and other countries, the sources said.President Donald Trump, Biden’s Republican opponent in the Nov. 3 election, has issued executive orders to encourage U.S. mining.In a sign that miners are betting on a friendly reception from Biden, executives at Glencore Plc, which controls PolyMet Mining Corp, view its Minnesota copper mine project as a long-term investment and have no plans to scale back if Biden wins, a source familiar with the company’s thinking told Reuters.The project had been considered one that could have been hurt in a Biden administration that mirrored Obama’s environmental stance.PolyMet, Glencore and the Biden campaign declined to comment.Washington has been forced to rethink its long-term U.S. sourcing strategy as China has become the world’s largest producer or consumer of nearly all the metals used to make EVs, cell phones, weapons and other high-tech equipment.“A Biden administration would emphasize green energy, and in order to get more solar panels, you need more raw materials,” said one of the sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “These materials don’t come out of a test tube.”Balancing environmental protections and REM production key—Aff overstepsDuesterberg, '18 (Thomas Duesterberg; He is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. Previously, he was executive director of the Manufacturing and Society in the 21st Century Program at the Aspen Institute; "Trump Administration Gets Serious About Defense Industrial Base;" Forbes; ; 10-16-2018, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCWhile many of these issues have been chronicled before, the study marks the first systematic effort to link the growing global competitive environment to the national security needs of the world’s leading superpower. The report minces no words that the rise of China, with its mercantilist and often illegal actions (in terms of agreed international trade rules), is one of the most important factors behind the looming loss of technical leadership so vital to national security. The text states quite unambiguously:China’s capture of foreign technologies and intellectual property, particularly the systematic theft of U.S. weapons systems and the illicit and forced transfer of dual-use technology, has eroded the military balance between the U.S. and China…. China’s aggressive industrial policies have already eliminated some capabilities with critical defense functions…. China’s actions seriously threaten other capabilities…."The Administration’s report helps gives substance and specificity to its trade policy. It identifies key sectors and key technologies important to defense capabilities, and the actions by the Chinese which threaten them. The catalogue of industries and technologies also provides guidance to the recently strengthened CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) law which allows U.S. authorities to review and block, if necessary, foreign acquisitions of key parts of the defense industrial base. The report’s emphasis on skills training in both the scientific and production jobs in industries like nuclear power, shipbuilding and large metal forging also is helpful to the work of the President’s new National Council for the American Worker. The group is charged with leading an interdepartmental, government-wide effort to find ways to overcome gaps in essential skills. Finally, the report outlines a series of additional Federal actions to address the problems outlined in the report. These include improving procurement strategies, strengthening and broadening the domestic supply chain for domestic production, and using Department of Defense programs to support specific defense-critical industrial production and technology development.In an opinion piece accompanying the release of the report, Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro rightly argued that the President’s tax reform and deregulatory agenda is also important in helping renew American manufacturing. There is always some danger that the clarion call to rebuild specific industries, especially in a time of heightened global competition from a rising superpower, will be carried too far and the hand of government will weigh too heavily on the traditional dynamism of the American private sector. Finding the right balance among all the government tools—including trade, education, regulation and industrial support programs—is never easy, but the new report gives urgency to addressing the problems and clarity about the industries that are essential to national security. The complacency of recent decades needs to be replaced by a new determination to find the right balance of more activist policies in support of a 21st-century Arsenal of Democracy.Link -- Ban NukesUncertainty generated by the aff reverberates through supply chainsInteragency Task Force 18 – (“Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” September 2018, in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASA-AH)Markets thrive on predictability, allowing businesses to make informed decisions and invest in the future. Defense spending inherently fluctuates with the arming for conflict and subsequent drawdown and decrease of program funding. But as illustrated in Figure 8, these swings in funding can be very dramatic, particularly in the funding streams for weapon systems procurement and research, design, test, and evaluation. A. Impacts of Budget Uncertainties At the macroeconomic level, defense spending uncertainty makes predicting the overall market size difficult, impeding forecasting across every tier in the supply chain. Uncertainty in spending inhibits investment in capabilities even where the overall sector market size is increasing, impacting defense suppliers and leading to revenue fluctuation, capital investment shortfalls, and suboptimal investment in R&D. Over time, spending instability also creates peaks of surge and valleys of drought – a pernicious, ambiguous pattern in which suppliers who build for scale production are left with excess capacity when programs end, creating long-term market distortion. The decade-long reliance on Congressional continuing resolutions11 has exacerbated uncertainty, both for DoD and across the supply chain. Combined with the adverse impacts of the Budget Control Act,12 these fluctuations challenge the viability of suppliers within the industrial base by diminishing their ability to hire and retain a skilled workforce, achieving production efficiencies, and in some cases, staying in business. Without correcting or mitigating this U.S. Governmentinflicted damage, DoD will be increasingly challenged to ensure a secure and viable supply chain for the platforms critical to sustaining American military dominance. At the microeconomic level, DoD’s budget within a specific sector does not imply uniform, stable, or even predictable funding for suppliers. Such uncertainty creates negative ramifications within specific industrial base sectors, even in periods with overall growth in spending. For example, when the Navy is unable to provide consistent orders for ships, niche suppliers of components such as controllers and actuators for nuclear powered ships cannot accurately project workloads, creating inconsistency and increasing risk for production capabilities. Wrought aluminum plate, and specifically cold-rolled plate, is essential for armoring U.S. ground combat vehicles, constructing Navy ships, and building military aircraft. Unlike other more common forms of rolled aluminum materials, thick cold-rolled aluminum production capabilities and capacities are unique. DoD relies on domestic producers as well as capabilities available from ally countries in Europe. Due to U.S. Government budget uncertainties, unpredictable DoD demand, and other commercial market factors, the defense industrial base can face challenges when trying to balance diverse demands for cold-rolled plate production capacity while also informing long-term internal capital investment decisions.Link -- Mining Mining directly strengthens America’s security and defense industry.NMA 21, National Mining Association is U.S. mining’s advocate and the only national trade organization that represents the interests of mining before Congress, the administration, federal agencies, the judiciary and the media. NMA’s mission is to build support for public policies that will help America fully and responsibly utilize its coal and mineral resources. "Enhancing National Security Archives," 6-7-2021, //AKDespite being home to one of the world’s leading minerals reserves, cumbersome permitting processes contribute to the U.S. remaining import-dependent for 46 key metals and minerals –100 percent import-dependent for 17 of those. Import reliance subjects our supply chains to geopolitical instability and supply disruption.Our Armed Forces rely on domestic metals and minerals for sophisticated weapons systems and safe transport of our troops. Our abundant supplies of metals and minerals minimize our reliance on foreign countries for these vital resources used in tanks, aircraft carriers, jets and submarines.For example, beryllium is used to reduce weight and improve guidance performance in fighter jets and NASA technologies such as the mirrors on the James Webb Space Telescope. And metals such as copper, lead and nickel are used in military gear, weapons systems and other defense technologies.America’s security depends on our ability to access and utilize the domestic energy and minerals resources that are abundant in the U.S.Minerals furnish key military vehicles, armor, and innovative treatment.MML 17, Minerals Make Life, Acclaimed and rewarded employees with high expertise on the valuable mining industry, "The Top Eight Minerals that Support National Defense," Minerals Make Life, 5-24-2017, //AKThis Memorial Day, we are taking a moment to express our gratitude for the brave men and women who have served our country. The minerals mining industry takes pride in serving those who serve by providing the raw materials that protect and support our troops when they are deployed and after they have returned home.From the vehicles that transport our troops to the body armor that keeps them safe, minerals are essential to our nation’s defense. The U.S. Department of Defense uses 750,000 tons of minerals annually to build the technologies that ensure our national security. And minerals continue to play a role in our soldiers’ lives after they return home by improving quality of life for wounded vets.Did you know?Minerals Keep our Troops SafeThe U.S. military relies on a diverse supply of minerals to defend our nation. For example, copper is used to make military vehicles like aircrafts, naval vessels and Coast Guard ships because of its ability to resist corrosion. Because copper is also a highly flexible metal, it is often combined with lead and nickel to produce military gear and body armor that can withstand impact and degeneration. And 80 percent of aircrafts are made from aluminum as this metal is lightweight, improving fuel efficiency, but also strong enough to carry heavy loads.Molybdenum is the key ingredient in stainless steel that gives the material its strength and longevity. This metal’s durability, high melting point and resistance to corrosion also make it an ideal mineral to support armored vehicles, missiles and aircrafts.The remarkable strength of silver makes it another ideal mineral for defense tech. That’s why it’s trusted by the U.S. military to construct Apache helicopters and Airforce C17 transport, ensuring troops get from point A to B unharmed.Beryllium is six times stronger than steel yet lighter than aluminum. Naturally found within bertrandite ore, this metal is abundant in the U.S. In fact, 90 percentof the world’s bertrandite ore is found in Utah. This metal’s lightweight properties make it the perfect material to enhance the speed of fighter jets. Beryllium is also an excellent heat conductor, making it a critical component of U.S. surveillance technology.Minerals Support Medical Technology for Wounded VeteransMinerals are vital to making modern medical technologies that our troops and veterans rely on. Copper and silver are essential to modern medicine because of their ability to resist bacterial growthand expedite the body’s natural healing process. Uranium supports our troops through its use in military technologies and medical treatments. Without this mineral, X-rays and MRIs would be unable to assist and aid the recovery process.Nickel and titanium are used to construct innovative medical technologies like stentrodes and prosthetic limbs. Strentrodes are devices that are inserted non-surgically into a blood vessel that connects to the brain. This procedure restores mobility to wounded veterans, allowing them to move a prosthetic limb or exoskeleton using neurological signals. Titanium is a key resource thanks to its antibacterial properties. Nickel is not only hygienic but also maintains its strength in extreme temperatures.Uranium undergirds nuclear power production.WNA, ‘20 (World Nuclear Association; The Association’s mission is to promote a wider understanding of nuclear energy among key international influencers by producing authoritative information, developing common industry positions, and contributing to the energy debate; "Uranium and Depleted Uranium;" WNA; ; 11-2020, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoCThe basic fuel for a nuclear power reactor is uranium – a heavy metal able to release abundant concentrated energy.Uranium occurs naturally in the Earth's crust and is mildly radioactive. It is the only element with a naturally-occurring fissile isotope.Depleted uranium is a by-product from enriching natural uranium to use in nuclear power reactors.Most of the uranium used in nuclear reactors can be recycled.The health hazards associated with uranium are much the same as those for lead.The Earth's uranium (chemical symbol U) was apparently formed in supernovae up to about 6.6 billion years ago (see information page on The Cosmic Origins of Uranium). Its radioactive decay provides the main source of heat inside the Earth, causing convection and continental drift. As decay proceeds, the final product, lead, increases in relative abundance. Uranium was discovered by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist, in 1789 in the mineral pitchblende, and was named after the planet Uranus. It occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million and is as common in the Earth's crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum and about 40 times as common as silver. Being relatively soluble (in contrast to thorium), it is also found in the oceans, at an average concentration of 3 parts per billion. There are a number of locations in different parts of the world where it occurs in economically-recoverable concentrations. When mined, it yields a mixed uranium oxide product, U3O8. Uraninite, or pitchblende, is the most common uranium mineral. Natural uranium is a mixture of isotopes, including a small proportion of one that is fissile – readily able to fission (split) to yield vastly more energy than any combustion process. In the past, uranium was also used to colour glass (from as early as 79 AD) and deposits were once mined in order to obtain its decay product, radium. This element was used in luminous paint, particularly on the dials of watches and aircraft instruments up to the 1950s, and in medicine for the treatment of disease. For many years from the 1940s, virtually all of the uranium that was mined was used in the production of nuclear weapons, but this ceased to be the case in the 1970s. Today the only substantial use for uranium is as fuel in nuclear reactors, mostly for electricity generation. Uranium-235 is the only naturally-occurring material which can sustain a fission chain reaction, releasing large amounts of energy. While nuclear power is the predominant use of uranium, heat from nuclear fission can be used for industrial processes. It is also used for marine propulsion (mostly naval). And small nuclear reactors are important for making radioisotopes.The Army is easing mining operations BUT the AFF cuts it---weakens U.S. competitiveness against China.Ernest Scheyder 19, Journalist at Reuters covering the future of energy and transportation, with a focus on lithium, copper, cobalt, rare earths and other minerals powering the electrification trend reshaping our global economy "Exclusive: U.S. Army will fund rare earths plant for weapons development," U.S., 12-11-2019, //AKThe U.S. Army plans to fund construction of rare earths processing facilities, part of an urgent push by Washington to secure domestic supply of the minerals used to make military weapons and electronics, according to a government document seen by Reuters.The move would mark the first financial investment by the U.S. military into commercial-scale rare earths production since World War Two’s Manhattan Project built the first atomic bomb.It comes after President Donald Trump earlier this year ordered the military to update its supply chain for the niche materials, warning that reliance on other nations for the strategic minerals could hamper U.S. defenses.China, which refines most of the world’s rare earths, has threatened to stop exporting the specialized minerals to the United States, using its monopoly as a cudgel in the ongoing trade spat between the world’s two largest economies."The U.S. rare earths industry needs big help to compete against the Chinese," said Jim McKenzie, chief executive officer of UCore Rare Metals Inc UCU.V, which is developing a rare earths project in Alaska. "It's not just about the money, but also the optics of broad support from Washington."The Army division overseeing munitions last month asked miners for proposals on the cost of a pilot plant to produce so-called heavy rare earths, a less-common type of the specialized minerals that are highly sought after for use in weaponry, according to the document.Responses are due by Dec. 16. UCore, Texas Mineral Resources Corp TMRC.PK and a joint venture between Lynas Corp LYC.AX and privately-held Blue Line Corp are among the expected respondents, according to company officials and sources familiar with the matter.The Army said it will fund up to two-thirds of a refiner’s cost and that it would fund at least one project and potentially more. Applicants must provide a detailed business plan and specify where they will source their ore, among other factors.This latest move by the Army, a division of the Pentagon, comes after a military study earlier this year on the state of the U.S. rare earths supply chain.The rare earths tension between the U.S. and China goes back to at least 2010, when China limited exports to Japan after a diplomatic dispute, sending prices for the niche metals spiking and fueling concerns across the U.S. military that China could do the same to the United States.The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center and the U.S. Army headquarters did not respond to requests for comment.The request does not give a specific financial amount the Army could fund, though it is derived in part from the Defense Production Act (DPA), a 1950s-era U.S. law that gives the Pentagon wide financial latitude to procure equipment necessary for the national defense.A rare earth processing pilot plant could cost between $5 million and $20 million, depending on location, size and other factors, with a full-scale plant potentially costing more than $100 million to build, industry executives said."It's great to see interest in financially supporting the industry from the Department of Defense," said Jon Blumenthal, CEO of Blue Line Corp, which earlier this year signed a memorandum of understanding to build a rare earth processing facility in Texas with Australia-based Lynas Corp LYC.AX.Blumenthal declined to comment when asked if Blue Line will respond to the Army’s request. Lynas declined to comment.It is not clear how the Army will rank the responses given that much of the rare earths industry expertise is now located in China, though the modern rare earths industry itself had its genesis in the United States decades ago.“Instead of providing funds for yet another study, this allocates money toward establishing a U.S.-based rare earth supply chain,” said Anthony Marchese, CEO of Texas Mineral Resources, which is developing the Round Top mine in Texas with USA Rare Earth.After processing, however, rare earths need to be turned into rare earth magnets, found in precision-guided missiles, smart bombs and military jets and China controls the rare earths magnet industry, too.The Pentagon has not yet launched an effort to finance domestic magnet manufacturing.“Closing the magnet gap would do more to address the nation’s defense needs, and as well the needs of electric vehicle makers and others,” said Ryan Castilloux, managing director with Adamas Intelligence, a research firm that closely tracks the rare earths industry.Specifically, mining is key to emerging technology that fuels the defense sector.Bernard Ash 19, 20 years in defence programs, business strategy, tech investment, leadership and innovation. His involvement with Land, Aerospace and Maritime defence programs has led to a great understanding of how digital transformation can change the effectivity and efficiency of the design, manufacturing and operations of defence platforms. Focused on manufacturing and bringing innovation to grow the industry, "What could mining learn from aerospace and defence?," linkedin, 7-9-19, //AKThere is no doubt that when it comes to emerging technology more often than not it emerges from military applications. Technologies such as radar, the internet, satellites, nuclear power, GPS, microwaves and even duct tape were all invented based on military requirements. Recently my kids suggested that I am too old to get into augmented reality at which point I decided to educate them on the fact AR evolved from Head-up-display (HUD) used on aircraft as early as the 1950s. So common is this military to civilian technology transfer that predictive roadmaps like the one I created below are often quite accurate.And if I was to suggest an industry outside of Aerospace and Defence (which essentially manufacturing) who would be a prime beneficiary of technology developed for military applications it would most likely be mining. Although the link might not be obvious, once you write down some of the problem statements in mining they are similar to those in aerospace and defence. Let's list a few:Vehicle AutonomyProblem Statement: "Human operators of vehicles can introduce fatigue and medication based errors and therefore impact safety. Human operators also follow instinct rather than what is factually the best possible route between two points"Autonomy is a technology that both defence and mining now employ. There was however a gap of over a decade between defence's use of the technology (arguably the MQ-1 Predator in 1996) and mining (circa 2008 when Rio Tinto implemented their Mine of the Future program). There is however so much more to come with autonomy and the basis of that statement lies in the amount of processing horsepower we still have to throw at it. The evolution of autonomy has primarily come down to three factors, a) advances in artificial intelligence, b) advances in sensory hardware and c) advances in high performance computing. The difference however between a UAV, like Predator, gracefully roaming at 40,000 feet and Boeing's newly unveiled Loyal Wingman which will effectively be an unmanned fighter, is the amount of compute power and therefore AI that can be thrown at it. In order for these next generation supersonic autonomous fighter aircraft to do what they need to do and not just glide, a lot more compute needs to be added. With more compute comes the ability to make decisions faster and react accordingly. In a mining scenario this would result in vehicles moving at an average of 60kmh accelerate to maybe an average of 70kmh, the net result being more earth moved without compromising safety.DronesProblem Statement: "Obtaining aerial views of the mine site is expensive and time consuming and assessing damage to or inspecting certain infrastructure can be dangerous"Despite a lot of bad press due to amateur enthusiasts who don't understand the often serious consequences of flying drones in the wrong places, this technology can be incredibly valuable. Not only can drones make previously challenging tasks easy they can also significant reduce safety risk. In fact the primary objective of introducing drones into the Vietnam war was to remove humans from battle. It certainly wasn't to reduce cost as hundreds of drones were lost at a significant price and as harsh as this sounds, sending in humans was cheaper.Drones have been used for military applications for a long time and as such have evolved beyond ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) applications and into weapon platforms. However they are also still used extensively to inspect equipment in hard to reach places like on the top of an aircraft carrier or frigate. What used to require hours or even days to plan can now be done with a drone fitted with a high-res camera. This capability can and has been used on mine sites to undertake surveillance, equipment inspection and even for imagery to create a digital twin of an area.In the image below you will see a digital twin of an open cut mine in Western Australia as viewed through an AR headset (with a virtual dashboard showing relevant analytics) . This digital twin was built using pictures taken by a drone.Image 2. AR view of a digital twin of an open cut mine with associated asset dashboard (displaying truck statistics)Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)Problem Statement: "Current methods of breaking up rock and earth such as blasting with explosives are inherently dangerous and hard to confine"Directed energy weapons are fairly new and fairly controversial. Controversial from the perspective that unlike conventional projectiles, DEW do not reach a certain distance and fall to the ground. So theoretically a DEW could be aimed at a plane in the sky, completely miss the target and continue on into space where it could destroy a satellite.In a nutshell, DEW focus super amplified forms of energy (microwave, particles, light, etc.) at objects with such intensity they could potentially cut through rock. In fact the Japanese have fired what is purported to be the most powerful laser on Earth releasing a 2 petawatt pulse which is equal to 2 quadrillion (2,000,000,000,000,000) watts. And even though that beam is only fired for a tiny fraction of a section (one trillionth), the output could power 500 houses for a second.The application in defense is obvious, everything from taking out aircraft and missiles which has already been demonstrated on warships to satellite mounted versions aimed at terrestrial targets. Mining on the other hand is not so obvious until you consider the potential for high powered lasers to cut, drill and blast through rock. The energy exerted will need to be further amplified to around 10 petawatts to cut through even soft rock however this is quite achievable as the technology is evolving fast. Due to the ability to focus these beams on very specific areas of rock, safety will ultimately also improve.Link -- Mining AT: No Link Mining operations are water intensive and regulations like the aff decks US ability to mine for REMsSophie Thomashausen (et Al), Nicolas Maennling , Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye, (Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, USA) 2017-11-28, ScienceDirect, “A comparative overview of legal frameworks governing water use and waste water discharge in the mining sector”, (ec) Mining operations require access to a secure and stable water supply. Obtaining water use and discharge licenses has become increasingly challenging for mining companies in many resource rich jurisdictions. This can be attributed in part due to competing water uses in water scarce regions and pollution caused by existing and legacy mines. This report provides a comparative review of the water management regulatory frameworks of some of the largest gold and copper producing jurisdictions. The jurisdictions reviewed include Australia (Western Australia), Canada (British Columbia), Chile, China, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United States (Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico). Interviews of mining company representatives working on water management issues complement the legal review to highlight the perceived regulatory risk by investors of the analyzed jurisdictions. Mining is increasingly associated with water risk – both in terms of water access and surrounding water quality. This is especially so where mines operate in water scarce regions, or upstream of communities that rely on the same water source for consumption or agriculture. Water impacts are also increasingly at the center of social conflicts between local communities and mining companies. In turn, the civil unrest surrounding mines has begun to shape legal frameworks governing water use and waste discharge to varying degrees. As part of a three-year project – in collaboration with the Water Center at Columbia University and support by Norges Bank Investmnet Management (NBIM) – to assess water related risks in the copper and gold mining sector, the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) has reviewed the laws and regulations governing water use and discharge by mining operations in 12 jurisdictions in 8 countries, namely Australia (Western Australia), Canada (British Columbia), Chile, China, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United States (Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico). The jurisdictions reviewed were chosen for two reasons: 1) they each produce significant volumes of gold and/or copper, and 2) together, they provide a diverse and comprehensive basis for comparison from both a geographical and a legal perspective. In this regard, note that while Russia is a top gold and copper producing country, it was excluded due to language barriers. To conduct the review process, a standard template was designed and completed for each jurisdiction on the basis of desk research and interviews with legal, mining and water experts. The main categories assessed in each review included the legal framework governing: wateruse, water quality and discharge, monitoring requirements, post-mine closure requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. Readers interested to learn more about a particular jurisdiction reviewed for this project can access all jurisdictional reports.1 This paper provides a comparative summary of these legal frameworks in the Annex. In so doing, it provides insight into the different approaches jurisdictions have taken to manage their water resources. The quality of a law alone is not necessarily indicative of the level of risk associated with water use in any one country. Political or administrative discretion, respect for the rule of law, and the capacity of a state to monitor and enforce water and environmental regulations are often crucial factors for determining investment risk related to water use by mining companies. To incorporate some of these factors, the study also included interviews of ten mining company representatives working in water-management or related positions within the jurisdictions analyzed. The interview questions broadly followed the categories of the legal template. They aimed to understand how these regulations translate into practice and what these practices’ consequences are for mining companies. The interviewees all worked for large international gold and copper companies at the time of the interview – a prerequisite for the selection process – with some having worked in multiple countries. Key points from the interviews are summarized in text boxes throughout this paper. The aim of this comparative study is to provide insights for both mature and nascent mining jurisdictions on how others manage similar water related issues. The remainder of the paper is divided into four sections. The first section provides an overview of how jurisdictions allocate water to mines, what the water permitting process is, terms of the water licenses, and other measures implemented to encourage more efficient water use. Section two focuses on water discharge and water quality, comparing the various discharge permit regulations, rules around tailings storage, and post mine closure obligations. The third section outlines enforcement rules of the various jurisdictions and the reporting obligations. Section four summarizes the findings. Access to a reliable source of water is critical for mining operations. Large volumes of water are required for each stage of the mining process to suppress dust, process ore, cool and wash mining equipment, and manage waste tailings. Hard rock mineral mining is particularly water intensive because of the extensive processing and beneficiation of minerals that is required to separate the minerals from hard rock and other matter. 2.1. Allocation of water as a function of state constitutional structure The constitutional structure of a country determines at which level of government and from whom the water allocation permits are obtained. For example, in centralized countries like China, Chile, Peru, the Philippines, and South Africa, a national water department or ministry operating centrally, or through a provincial or local branch determines whether to grant a water allocation permit. In more decentralized countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, the power to allocate water has been devolved to the state or provincial government. All jurisdictions reviewed use a water authority approach – based on political or administrative divisions – to allocate water based. None use a water basin approach, whereby all water allocation decisions are made by a separate water basin authority. Only in China do the water drainage authorities, which regulate water use from water basins that span more than one province, become involved in a water allocation decision when a water source spans provincial lines. A mine permit and water license can be approved before an EIA is approved, though the findings of the EIA, once available, can later result in a reduction in the quantity of water originally allocated to the project. In Alaska and some other resource-rich U.S. states, the permits required for a mining project, including water permits, are consolidated in a single procedure and application process.Link -- Mining -- Certainty IL Certainty and predictability are key to a sustainable mining industryThomashausen et al. 18 - Authorized House Counsel and Practices Law, (Sophie, Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye is an Aryeh Neier Open Society Justice Initiative Fellow, Nicolas Maennling is the Principal Advisor of Regional Cooperation for the Sustainable Management of Mineral Resources in the Andean Region, “A comparative overview of legal frameworks governing water use and waste water discharge in the mining sector,” Science Direct, May 2018, , Accessed 7-13-21, LASA-AH)based in Sierra LeoneThe interviews with the mining company representatives suggest that there is not necessarily a link between the complexity of the water regimes and the perceived regulatory risk, but rather the main determinant of perceived regulatory risk is predictability: are the rules for water rights allocation and monitoring clear? Will they be complied with? A positive answer to these two questions is more important than the time it takes to receive water rights. If a company knows that the granting of the water allocation/discharge license takes three years and the deadline will be complied with, the company can plan for this in the project design timeline. Lack of clarity and inconsistency are more problematic.The overall regulatory water risk of a mining jurisdiction from a company's perspective can be summarized as being a combination of (1) the predictability of the timeline for the processing of water requests, (2) the probability of the water permits being approved, and (3) the likelihood of having this permit being contested or revoked.For governments looking to reduce regulatory risks related to water rights, this suggests that sufficient and certain time frames should be allocated to review water impact assessments (also to be performed on a cumulative basis where several mining projects are operating in the watershed), and community consultations should be built into the process at an early stage. Furthermore, there should be clear guidelines that outline the decision-making criteria, and such criteria should be applied in a consistent manner. Such predictability needs to be balanced with the changing water dynamics in the region that may require water right review mechanisms on a regular basis to assess their suitability to the evolution of the mining water demand, hydrology, and competition with other users.Link -- TribesTribal lands provide the highest concentration of rare earth minerals in the US – existing operations are the backbone of weapons production.The World, '13 (The World; The World is a public radio program and podcast that crosses borders and time zones to bring home the stories that matter; "Alaska tribal community worries about pending rare earth element mine;" ; 7-10-2013, Accessed 7-12-2021)//ILake-NoCHigh DemandBecause the Department of Defense needs dysprosium for weapons production, it has recently shown interest in Bokan Mountain — dysprosium was discovered there in early 2010 — as a domestic source of the mineral. Dysprosium is also highly sought-after by the Department of Energy (DOE) for its applications in renewable energy technology.David Shuh, a senior scientist in the Chemical Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), says dysprosium is currently essential in hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius.“Without dysprosium, actually, the motor overheats rather easily and dysprosium is used to keep that heating down and keep the magnet together so it doesn’t literally explode at operational temperature," he said. "So it turns out it’s tremendously important.”One Prius requires approximately 3.5 ounces of dysprosium. Toyota plans to sell one million of the hybrid cars per year over the next decade. That’s nearly 10 tons of dysprosium per year used by Toyota on the Prius line alone — or roughly one percent of China’s annual export of 992 tons. In 2010, partly to demonstrate its dominance in the global market for rare earth elements, China began stockpiling its dysprosium, raising tariffs and reducing exports — moves that left the U.S. defense and energy sectors in a bind.As a result, the U.S. government is desperate to tap a domestic supply of dysprosium. In December 2011, the Department of Energy published a report saying dysprosium is of strategic national importance and national security.Since the discovery of dysprosium here, political support for the mine has been increasing. In March 2012, then presidential candidate Mitt Romney referenced the issue in an open letter to the state of Alaska.“Rare earth minerals found in Alaska can help free our country from monopolies abroad,” he wrote.But environmentalists and locals like Bell worry the government’s thirst for the element will result in a lack of adherence to EPA regulations for mining. And their concerns appear to have merit: The mining project is eligible to apply for a streamlining of the environmental review process due to its national security importance.Because one of the rare earths to be mined, dysprosium (used in cell phones, hybrid cars and wind turbines), is “considered of strategic national importance, normal environmental protections may be disregarded,” according to a report by the Southeastern Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC).The EPA declined to comment on the project, on the grounds that it had not yet been asked for air and water permits by mining company Ucore Rare Metals and did not want to speak in hypotheticals.A preliminary 2010 mineral study indicated that the Bokan Mountain site holds 5.3 million tons of heavy rare earths, with 207,000 tons of that being dysprosium -- effectively making it the largest known dysprosium deposit in the United States. Jim McKenzie, CEO of Ucore, says they plan to be in production “by late 2015 (or) early 2016.”Fine-tuning tribal regulations pervades uncertainty among businesses and causes withdrawal.ABA, '17 (The American Bar Association; Mission to serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession; "Conducting Business with Tribes in the Aftermath of the Dollar General Supreme Court Split: What You and Your Clients Need to Know;" ABA; ; 4-27-2017, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoCNotwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, much uncertainty remains as to the scope of tribal jurisdiction over nonmember individuals and organizations conducting business on tribal land. This uncertainty carries the ability to adversely impact both tribes and their business partners. One result of this jurisdictional uncertainty is the potential withdrawal of businesses from operating and transacting on tribal land. For tribal communities “in which unemployment is already high and access to commercial services (like low-cost merchandise stores) is low,” this may be a very real negative consequence of continuing jurisdictional uncertainty. ConclusionThe Supreme Court’s decision is quite impactful on business relationships between tribes and companies and individuals seeking to do business with tribes. Dolgencorp’s petition for a writ of certiorari even anticipated the serious implications of the Supreme Court’s future decision, noting that it affects “tens of thousands of nonmember corporations and individuals who do business on tribal reservations.” Dollar General serves to solidify tribal courts’ jurisdiction and ability to protect members from intentional torts committed within the context of an employer/employee relationship when the business is located within tribal land. Because Indian tribes “generally [do not] have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians,” this affirmation of a tribe’s ability to seek a civil remedy serves as “the only deterrent to unlawful actions committed by non-Indians who are working or doing business on the reservation.” The suit will now continue in tribal court for a hearing on its merits.Uranium mining on native lands is key – empirics proveINTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY 01 - an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons, (“Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050,” 2001, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASA-AH)The discussion in Section 4.1.1 assumes there are no constraints to implementing the resource utilization model, and resources are assumed to be brought into production as they are needed and cost justified. However, this is a very simplistic approach, and there are many potential obstacles to implementation of the model. Perhaps the most serious of these obstacles is that of the potential for environmental and/or political opposition. Western uranium mining and processing in recent times has an exemplary safety and environmental record, and programmes in the developing countries continue to adopt stronger environmental standards. Nevertheless, the world’s environmental community continues to dwell on past mistakes, and to emphasize those mistakes in resisting uranium project development. A good example of the effect of environmental opposition on project development is the state of New Mexico in the USA. Up until 1983 New Mexico was the leading uranium producing state. Today, however, an informal coalition of environmental groups and Native American tribes has reversed what was once a pro-mining attitude, and New Mexico now has a strongly anti-uranium mining philosophy. An example of the effect that this philosophy has on project development is the permitting process for the Church Rock and Crown Point ISL projects, which has been underway for about nine years at a cost of US $10 million — and there are still regulatory hurdles to overcome before either project can be put into production.The aff’s a sudden regulation that inject uncertainty into the market – empirics proveSuperfund Report 09 – (“RULING SPARKS UNCERTAINTY OVER EPA, STATE OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN LANDS,” Washington Publishers, 5-4-09, , Accessed 7-13-21, LASA-AH)A precedent-setting federal appellate ruling backing EPA's determination that it has jurisdiction over some Indian lands outside of reservation boundaries could create significant uncertainty over whether states, tribes or EPA will regulate scores of resource development activities, including uranium mining, carbon storage and others in key energy and resource development states.The ruling is especially significant because it was issued by the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which oversees Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, all of which are important energy and mineral-producing states but which also have large and non-contiguous swaths of tribal lands.Oklahoma, for example, includes 38 different tribes while portions of New Mexico are known as a "checkerboard" where federal land grants created a pattern of mixed Indian and non-Indian lands.The court ruled April 17 in Hydro Resources, Inc. [HRI] v. EPA, et al. that EPA, not the state of New Mexico, has jurisdiction over mining company land even though the land falls outside the Navajo Nation's boundaries where the tribe has authority to issue underground injection control (UIC) permits required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The ruling is available on .The court held the federal government has jurisdiction because the land falls within the "geographic bounds" of the Church Rock Chapter of the Navajo Nation, a "dependent" Indian community which is considered "Indian land" under section 1151 of the U.S. Code and subject to federal jurisdiction.The ruling will force the company to seek an EPA-issued UIC permit even though the State of New Mexico has already issued a permit under its delegated authority.While the ruling pertains to a dispute over a proposed in-situ leach (ISL) mine for uranium, other practices regulated by the UIC program will also be at issue, including carbon storage -- a practice that is considered essential to address looming rules to control greenhouse gases (GHGs). "It's a federal definition [of Indian land] and therefore applies to any regulatory or statutory program that utilizes it," an industry source familiar with the case says.The court's holding will likely further complicate existing disputes between industry and environmentalists over ISL mining for uranium, a process that relies on injection of chemical leach agents into subsurface groundwater aquifers, which are then injected through wells into the subsurface ore body in order to dissolve the uranium. The practice is widely used to help extract low-grade ore, but its regulation is complicated with EPA overseeing leach injection under its UIC program, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulating the mines as milling facilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.The ISL practice is expected to increase in the coming years as scores of industry officials seek to take advantage of booming uranium prices -- driven by high demand for new nuclear power generation as a response to GHG controls. Already, many industry officials and nuclear regulators are seeking to open a slew of new uranium mines across the country, including at sites in traditional mining areas in Western states, such as Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas, as well as non-traditional areas in Michigan and Virginia.But the industry source, along with a dissenting judge in the case, is warning the outcome could result in significant uncertainty for determining whether EPA or states oversee extractive and other activities on the land, especially because of the "checkerboard" nature of much of the land."States would like to know where their jurisdiction lies," says the industry source.The National Mining Association also argued in an amicus brief that uncertainty over Indian country jurisdiction has broader policy implications and that regulatory certainty is a must for the industry if it is to secure capital investments for resource projects.Similarly, Judge D.J. Frizzell wrote in his dissenting opinion that the ruling "runs counter to congressional intent and may cause great jurisdictional uncertainty and disruption in those states where Indian country consists of original allotments and/or trust lands interspersed with non-Indian land holdings."The aff forecloses mining on lands that are rich in unmined uraniumGreen 19 – Former employee of The Hill, (Miranda, “Trump administration signals support for uranium mining that could touch Grand Canyon,” The Hill, 6-12-19, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASAThe uranium around the Grand Canyon is considered some of the highest grade in the U.S. But it’s not a seller’s market. The average price of uranium last year was about $30 a pound, down from about $100 in 2007. Approval of the 2018 petition, however, would benefit struggling uranium mining companies by forcing the defense industry and power sector to purchase the element domestically instead of from foreign sources like Australia and Canada. “The companies have been pushing for a number of things to get the prices up, like including uranium in the list of critical minerals. It’s definitely an effort by companies like Energy Fuels — which has lands around the Grand Canyon — to get those uranium prices,” said Sandy Bahr at the Sierra Club. “There is no royalty on hard rock mineral,” Bahr added. “There is almost nothing that is returned to the public from these mines on public lands.” Paul Goranson, chief operating officer of Energy Fuels, the largest uranium producer in the U.S., defended uranium's inclusion on the list of critical minerals. “Uranium has always been a key part of our national security organization and priorities,” he told The Hill. “We built the massive Manhattan Project to take that material for military uses and nuclear power generation — we think it aligns.” Energy Fuels holds 84 claims on mines within the Grand Canyon mining ban boundary and aims to gain immensely if the Obama-era moratorium is lifted. Environmentalists view the administration’s support for mining as a move toward reversing the 20-year moratorium on uranium withdrawals from 1 million acres of land surrounding the Grand Canyon that was instituted in 2012. The U.S. Geological Survey in 2009 estimated that the area eventually affected by the moratorium held about 326 million pounds of uranium, or 12 percent of the total undiscovered uranium in Northern Arizona. Goranson said a green light from Trump could also lead to new employment. The company estimates that around 1,180 mining jobs could be created if their petition is approved. “We’ve seen a dramatic decline in the robustness of the nuclear infrastructure — we no longer have U.S. technology in enrichment, our sole conversion plant shut down and the uranium mining industry has been in decline,” said Goranson. “That is what is creating what we see as a real gap in our industrial base.” Uranium mining, like all forms of mining, poses a risk to neighboring ground water sources. Critics worry that renewed mining around the Grand Canyon would lead to uranium leaching that could contaminate drinking water for both park visitors and the Native American tribes who live in the surrounding area. “The legacy there is pretty toxic, sadly. You’ve seen water contamination as a result of the mining of uranium in the region. There are some serious public health threats and contamination to water. From soup to nuts, this is a real threat to public health and the well-being of those communities,” said Bahr. The mining industry has long argued the water would not be significantly affected.Native lands are populated with vital rare earth mineralsGrogan et al. 11 - an independent consultant to a variety of non-profit organizations and tribal governments in the U.S. and Canada, (Maura, Rebecca Morse, who specializes in U.S. policy, is a program associate at Revenue Watch, April Youpee-Roll, a member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe, is a Fellow at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development “Native American Lands and Natural Resource Development,” Revenue Watch Institute, 2011, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASA-AH)Rare Earth Minerals A number of rare earth minerals are found on Indian lands, and according to one DOI employee interviewed for this study, the federal government is interested in further exploration.11 Yttrium, an element used in lasers, high-temperature superconductors and microwave filters, is known to exist on lands of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Montana, on Mescalero Apache lands in New Mexico, and on lands of the Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota (Fort Berthold). The Rocky Boy’s Reservation also has deposits of cerium, which can be used as a chemical oxidizing agent, polishing powder, coloring agent in glass and ceramics, catalyst for self-cleaning ovens, and a fluid cracking catalyst in oil refineries. Fort Berthold has known quantities of ytterbium, used in infrared lasers and as a chemical reducing agent. Tribes with unspecified rare earth minerals include the Oglala Sioux Tribe (South Dakota), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (South Dakota), Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Idaho), Hopi Tribe (Arizona), Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation (Idaho), Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (Montana), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (South Dakota), and the Blackfeet Nation (Montana).12Tribal reserves make up a vast portion of the mining industryGrogan et al. 11 - an independent consultant to a variety of non-profit organizations and tribal governments in the U.S. and Canada, (Maura, Rebecca Morse, who specializes in U.S. policy, is a program associate at Revenue Watch, April Youpee-Roll, a member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe, is a Fellow at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development “Native American Lands and Natural Resource Development,” Revenue Watch Institute, 2011, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASA-AH)Significance to the United States The pursuit of mineral wealth has played a key role in the country’s history of westward expansion, and helped define its relationship with the Indian people. As one academic has noted: “If mining has been crucial to national growth, tribal mineral resources have been crucial to the mining industry.” 7 Today, the Indian component of U.S. energy resources is anything but trivial. The precise extent of nonrenewable resources on American Indian lands is a matter of debate, but most estimates fall within a fairly consistent range. It appears fair to say, based on a number of reports, that Indian lands contain about 30 percent of the coal found west of the Mississippi, up to 50 percent of potential uranium reserves, and as much as 20 percent of known natural gas and oil reserves.8 Robert Middleton, former director of the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, estimated, “These lands contain over 5 billion barrels of oil, 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 53 billion tons of coal that are technically recoverable with current technologies.”9 Turns Case - TribesThe link alone turns case – energy resources provide economic opportunity for tribesGrogan et al. 11 - an independent consultant to a variety of non-profit organizations and tribal governments in the U.S. and Canada, (Maura, Rebecca Morse, who specializes in U.S. policy, is a program associate at Revenue Watch, April Youpee-Roll, a member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe, is a Fellow at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development “Native American Lands and Natural Resource Development,” Revenue Watch Institute, 2011, , Accessed 7-12-21, LASA-AH)Significance to Tribes Lands containing substantial energy resources are distributed unevenly among Indian nations. The western United States contains not only the vast majority of Indian lands in the lower 48 states but also the majority of both the country’s and Native American nations’ energy and mineral assets. While some tribes have potentially meaningful coal, oil and gas deposits in Florida, New York, the Midwest, California and Washington, the major concentrations of tribes with significant quantities of these resources are in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.3 For those Indian nations with substantial energy-resources endowments, development can have a transformative economic potential. Native Americans living on Indian reservations are the most economically disadvantaged people in the country. In 2000, the most recent year for which U.S. Census data is available, Indians on reservations had real per capita income of $7,942 compared with $21,587 for the average U.S. resident; 39 percent lived in poverty compared with 9 percent of white Americans; and the Indian unemployment rate was nearly four times greater than the U.S. average.4 Living on land that often is isolated from educational and economic opportunities, Indians residing on reservations too often have been forced to rely on subsistence living and federal support in order to survive. In this context, accessible energy resources can be a lifeline to prosperity and opportunity. For a handful of tribes, minerals extraction already has had a substantial financial impact. As one example, coal revenues accounted for 88 percent of the Hopi Tribe’s budget for 2009.Internal Link IL -- Uranium K2 Nuclear Power Uranium mining is key to nuclear energy – their sources are unqualifiedLovelock 06 - an English independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist, (James, “StockInterview: Environmentalist James Lovelock Calls Navajo Uranium Mining Ban 'Absurd',” Stock Interview, 5-25-06, , Accessed through Nexis Uni on 7-13-21, LASA-AH)Lovelock told , "Had there been no mining at all in the Navajo Nation, and they wanted to keep the deposits pristine as part of a natural ecosystem, I could understand their rejection to any mining. But if they allow coal mining, then it's absurd to reject uranium mining." The Navajo Nation reportedly receives about $100 million annually in coal mining royalties. In April 2005, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley, Jr. led a vote to ban uranium mining on tribal reservation lands in the Four Corners four-state area of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado.During his tape-recorded telephone interview with , Lovelock also criticized some environmentalists for embracing renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power, saying, "It's mostly made up of urban people, who know almost nothing about the countryside and still less about the ecosystem. Their solutions are basically urban-political solutions." Instead, Lovelock advocates nuclear energy as the most important solution to global warming and climate change, saying, "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization."Lovelock's featured articles in Reader's Digest (March 2005) and London's Independent newspaper have strongly urged other environmentalists to follow his lead in endorsing nuclear power, saying, "Nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective." His recent book, which discusses the current energy crisis, has caused a stir in the British Isles. While discussing his book with , Lovelock remarked, "By the end of this century, there is a high probability that the bulk of our species on the planet will be eliminated. There may be something, plus or minus, on the order of a billion left."IL -- REM K2 China Rare earth metals are key to US-China competitionSubin 21 - a Spring 2021 news intern at CNBC, (Samantha, “The new U.S. plan to rival China and end cornering of market in rare earth metals,” CNBC, 4-17-21, , Accessed 7-13-21, LASA-AH)'Cornering of the market'"It's absolutely correct there is a cornering of the market with lithium and other rare earths," Biden climate envoy John Kerry recently said at a CNBC Evolve summit on the future of energy innovation.But efforts in the recent past to rival China in the rare earths market and rebuild a domestic industry have been stymied."It's technically possible to try and rebuild the entire supply chain because we once had it," says Jane Nakano, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic International Studies' Energy Security and Climate Change Program. "It's not that we're not experienced, it's not that we have no idea of what the domestic supply chain may look like," Nakano said, but she added that business, environmental and political factors may make the effort difficult to achieve, especially over a short-time frame.Success is dependent on whether the U.S. can quickly scale up processing and refining after the mining of the resources, and compete on cost with a magnet-making and processing market that's heavily dominated by China. Once extracted from mines, rare earths are shipped to separation facilities, where they are separated from other minerals. Then rare earths are individually separated into oxides, metals and finally magnets that are used in everything from missiles to wind turbines, medical devices, power tools, cellphones and motors for hybrid and electric vehicles.China's rare earths dominanceRare earth metals are actually more abundant than their name suggests but extracting, processing and refining are tricky for a myriad of technical and environmental reasons. These 17 elements — which are subdivided into the light rare earths and heavy rare earths subsets based on their atomic weights — exist in natural deposits globally.Heavy rare earths are often harder to source. They include metals like dysprosium and terbium, which play a critical role in defense, technology and electric vehicles. Neodymium and praseodymium are some of the most sought-after light rare earth elements crucial in products such as motors, turbines and medical devices. Demand for them exploded in recent years with the growth of technology and will continue to climb amid the ongoing race to create a large electric vehicle market. While China is dominant now, in the decades before the 1980s it was the U.S. that held a majority stake in this metals market. That changed as production growth abroad and mounting environmental pressures at home shifted production overseas and also offered cheaper labor costs. According to one 2018 report from the Department of Defense, China "strategically flooded the global market" with rare earths at cheaper prices to drive out and deter current and future competitors. "If the material specification fits, and the price is a dollar better, then you go for the dollar better," said Koray Kose, senior director of supply chain research at Gartner. The three most important materials used in magnets include neodymium, dysprosium and terbium. Terbium is one of the toughest to come by because production, extraction and magnet-making are focused on China. Trade wars and retaliatory tariffs can leave many companies sourcing these crucial materials in limbo, even if they make up just a small portion of a product.Domestic REM production challenges China tech dominance and increases national securityHui, reporter for Quartz 2021[Mary, “The US is taking steps towards breaking China’s rare earths monopoly”, Quartz, February 5, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]Another rare earths company may soon be going public in the US, presenting new opportunities for private investment in the domestic critical metals industry—a sector that Washington has signaled strong interest in reviving. Rare earths, a group of 17 metals, are increasingly regarded as an urgent matter of national security given their crucial role in the manufacturing of high-tech products, from weapons to magnets for electric vehicles. While the US used to be a major global producer of the metals, China now dwarfs the US in rare earths production, and is the source of 80% of US rare earth imports (pdf). USA Rare Earth, which is developing the Round Top rare earths mine in Texas, is exploring a New York listing this year that could value the company at over $1 billion. According to the company, the Round Top project has over a century’s worth of rare earth supplies. With only one mining firm currently producing rare earths in the US, Round Top—which the company hopes to have in operation by 2023—would play a significant role in helping diversify supplies.Domestic production of REMs challenge China resilience and stabilize global supply chainsHui, reporter for Quartz 2021[Mary, “The US is taking steps towards breaking China’s rare earths monopoly”, Quartz, February 5, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]With China declaring rare earths a “strategic resource” and recently tightening regulations on the metals, the US faces heightened pressure to secure its supplies. Beijing has not ruled out cutting rare earth exports as a trade weapon. Meanwhile, demand for the metals is projected to increase, propelled by the growing electric vehicle market. Indeed, since 2018 China has been a net importer of rare earths, and is scrambling to even keep up with its own domestic needs—its exports last year dropped to a five-year low. That’s all the more reason to ensure the US has diverse and reliable sources of rare earths, according to Pini Althaus, CEO of USA Rare Earth. “We’ve got to start doing something immediately to secure the supply chain,” he says. “This is not a trade war, this is simply supply and demand.” There are also unexpected geopolitical developments that can trigger supply shocks. This week’s military coup in Myanmar, which accounts for roughly 10% of global rare earths production, temporarily sent shares of Chinese rare earth companies surging, driven by fears that instability and US sanctions could disrupt exports. No one company will singlehandedly revive the US’s rare earths industry, but a growing patchwork of firms and policy initiatives is helping the country reduce its reliance on China.Rare earth minerals are vital to defense production – current dependence on China sacrifices leverage and risks military confrontation.Green, '19 (Jeffery A. Green; 20 years of experience in the Department of Defense; "What will the US defense industry do when China cuts off rare earth supplies?"; Defense News; ; 7-5-2019, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoC For years, supply chain experts warned about the potential for China to cut off access to the critical materials found in almost every major weapon system, from fifth-generation fighters to precision-guided munitions. Even a modest decrease in the availability of rare earth materials results in increasing prices for the elements, but severe and sustained shortages could threaten the ability of American defense contractors to produce systems vital to our national security.These concerns were often downplayed by free-trade theorists and policymakers who claimed that China would not take such aggressive action to upset the market. However, the NDRC statement shows that China is sophisticated enough to target critical sectors and supply chains in order to gain leverage in the ongoing U.S.-China trade negotiations.The Chinese strategy is based on a harsh calculus: Depriving only defense contractors of rare earth supplies will drive costs and production lead times up for the U.S. military and cause concern within the U.S. government, but it will not lead to widespread public discontent. Any student of Clausewitz can see the targeting of a particular center of gravity in the U.S. with this move. The strategy threatens U.S. military supplies rather than cheap consumer goods in what may be an attempt by China to force U.S. policymakers to abandon efforts to counter abusive Chinese trade practices in favor of addressing greater national security concerns.Reportedly, the NDRC has held three meetings with industry experts on future rare earth element regulations, just weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping pointedly toured a rare earths production facility. This follows the “Don’t say we didn’t warn you” statement from official Chinese media. That phrase has previously been used in reference to disputes significant enough to the Chinese government to warrant military action. None of these statements or events are coincidence.Fortunately, the U.S. government is already taking steps to secure supplies of rare earths and other critical materials. The June 4 Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals, which follows on last year’s report on the defense-industrial base, begins operationalizing the identification and mitigation of supply chain gaps.A shift to domestic rare earth minerals is key to combat a belligerent china.Green, '20 (Jeffery A. Green; Jeff most recently served as Staff Director to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness; "The collapse of American rare earth mining — and lessons learned;" Defense News; ; 10-6-2020, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoC **edited for ableist languageRecently there have been stirrings of interest in repatriating rare earth production to the United States. The U.S. military has become acutely aware of its dependence on China, due in part to belligerent Chinese threats to cut rare earth exports. American companies, too, are realizing how dependent they are on this single supplier, a country that is becoming more expensive to work with as trade tensions rise. However, those in the private sector know all too well how difficult it is for companies to take proactive supply chain steps. Therefore, it is the government’s responsibility to set the stage for increased American rare earth production.There are a number of steps the U.S. government can take to establish a more certain future for domestic rare earth production. Reducing red tape and bureaucratic inertia will lower costs and reduce risk — there is no reason that permitting a mine in the United States should take five times longer than it does in Canada or Australia.The government can also protect the market, at little cost, from Chinese manipulation by agreeing to purchase rare earths from American producers when such materials are intended for military systems. Instead of funding substitution technologies to reduce demand for rare earths, the U.S. should invest in production technologies to increase its supply.The Department of Defense has taken note, having recently solicited industry for options on rare earth separation capability, which could result in direct investment. These fixes, properly executed, represent the best chance the U.S. has at revitalizing a crippled [weak] industry essential to our national security.China is weaponizing REE supply now to create global geo-economic zones of influence.Stavridis, '21 (James Stavridis; James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also chair of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation and vice chairman of Global Affairs at the Carlyle Group; "U.S. Needs a Strong Defense Against China’s Rare-Earth Weapon;" Bloomberg; ; 3-4-2021, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoCChina controls roughly 80% of the rare-earths market, between what it mines itself and processes in raw material from elsewhere. If it decided to wield the weapon of restricting the supply — something it has repeatedly threatened to do — it would create a significant challenge for manufacturers and a geopolitical predicament for the industrialized world.It could happen. In 2010, Beijing threatened to cut off exports to Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands. Two years ago, Beijing was reportedly considering restrictions on exports to the U.S. generally, as well as against specific companies (such as defense giant Lockheed Martin Corp.) that it deemed in violation of its policies against selling advanced weapons to Taiwan. President Donald Trump’s administration issued an executive order to spur the production of rare earths domestically, and created an Energy Resource Governance Initiative to promote international mining. The European Union and Japan, among others, are also aggressively seeking newer sources of rare earths.Given this tension, it was superficially surprising that China announced it would boost its mining quotas in the first quarter of 2021 by nearly 30%, reflecting a continuation in strong (and rising) demand. But the increase occurs under a shadow of uncertainty, as the Chinese Communist Party is undertaking a “review” of its policies concerning future sales of rare earths. In all probability, the tactics of the increase are temporary, and fit within a larger strategy.China will go to great lengths to maintain overall control of the global rare-earths supply. This fits neatly within the geo-economic approach of the One Belt, One Road initiative, which seeks to use a variety of carrots and sticks — economic, trade, diplomatic and security — to create zones of influence globally. In terms of rare earths, the strategy seems to be allowing carefully calibrated access to the elements at a level that makes it economically less attractive for competitors to undertake costly exploration and mining operations. This is similar to the oil-market strategy used by Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for decades.Chinese strategic use of REE to gain soft power further incentivizes military aggression.Lambert, '20 (Claude Lambert; Claude A. Lambert is a Strategic Planner at U.S. Army Materiel Command; "Rare Earth Elements: Rarer In The United States;" War Room - U.S. Army War College; ; 1-28-2020, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoCConversely, U.S. policymakers posit that imports of strategic and critical materials such as rare earth elements have increased, causing tension between supply dependency and lower costs. Additionally, China has great leverage in downstream products made with rare earth elements. For example, in 2018, having had few alternatives, the United States purchased around $193 million of rare earth magnets from China. Such control of the rare earth market illustrates a potentially dangerous nexus between Chinese economic and military aggression toward the United States. China has strategically flooded the global market with rare earth elements at subsidized prices, driven out competitors, and deterred new market entrants. Without competitors, China can flex its soft power muscles by embargoing rare earth elements, as Japan learned in 2010. Washington is now learning the same lesson.Chinese authorities largely ignore the environmental and human costs of using acid, heat, and pressure to mine and process rare earth elements.Beyond economic costs, there are also environmental ones for China’s rare earth market dominance. Chinese authorities largely ignore the environmental and human costs of using acid, heat, and pressure to mine and process rare earth elements. These methods poison vast tracts of land, livestock, and water in China’s mineral-rich regions, and there are reports of abnormally high cancer rates in villages from which impoverished residents cannot afford to move. In Ganzhou, Longnan, and other areas in China’s Jiangxi Province, large, rare earth wastewater ponds sit exposed. Satellite images show many toxic lakes dotting the mountains. Apparently, there are efforts across China to address such pollution, but it seems for now that the Chinese Communist Party is willing to trade severe environmental damage for a leading market share.To prevent China from brandishing rare earth elements as an economic weapon, the United States should develop and implement a number of actions now, to buy-down risk to its manufacturing and defense industrial base, and to avert a reliance on competitor states as its sole sources for processed rare earth elements and materials.Specifically, REE-made permanent magnets undergird weapons systems in the military.Davey, '11 (Justin C. Davey; Lieutenant Colonel, USAF; "Enduring Attraction: America’s Dependence on and Need to Secure its Supply of Permanent Magnets;" Air War College; ; 02-16-2011, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoCPermanent MagnetsNdFeB and SmCo magnets are ingrained in the US’s commercial high-technology, automotive, and energy markets. For instance, miniaturized multi-gigabyte disk and DVD drives, a mainstay in portable computers, are not possible without such magnets.16 Those electronics are also used in automobiles for pollution-controlling catalytic converters and hybrid car engines—high-temperature environments where regular magnets would rapidly fail. Moreover, the use of REE magnets reduces the overall weight of a vehicle, making it more energy efficient. A typical Toyota Prius uses 2.2 pounds of neodymium, one tenth the mass of corresponding iron magnets.17 Americans will buy approximately 180,000 Priuses this year, resulting in a 198 ton US consumption of neodymium merely for this one model of vehicle. NdFeB magnets are also increasingly in demand in the renewable energy market as more wind turbines come on line. The generators used in newer wind turbines require up to two tons of these magnets. However, neodymium magnets lack the extreme temperature resistance qualities of their SmCo counterparts and initially presented challenges in the larger turbine applications. The answer: more rare earths. Scientists discovered the addition of other REEs (terbium or dysprosium) to the NdFeB alloy help to increase its coercivity. This makes for a better product, but is indicative of the US’s increasing dependence on the availability of rare earth metals, especially from foreign sources. Nowhere is this trend more unsettling than in the field of national security.Miniature high-temperature resistant permanent magnets are a key factor in developing state-of-the-art military technology. They pervade the equipment and function of all service branches, starting with commercial computer hard drives containing NdFeB magnets that sit on nearly every Department of Defense (DOD) employee’s desk. Precision-guided munitions depend on SmCo magnets as part of the motors that manipulate their flight control surfaces. Without these advanced tiny magnets the motors in “smart bombs” like the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) would require a hydraulic system that is more expensive and three times as large. The generators that produce power for aircraft electrical systems also rely on samariumcobalt magnets, as does the stealth technology used to mask the sound of helicopter rotor blades by generating white-noise concealment. Other permanent magnet applications include “jet engines and other aircraft components, electronic countermeasures, underwater mine detection, antimissile defense, range finding, and space-based satellite power and communications systems,” according to USGS.18 Market Forces The Army relies on REE magnets for the navigation systems in its M1A2 Abrams battle tank and the Navy is developing a similarly-dependent electric drive to conserve fuel for its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Air Force’s F-22 fighter uses miniaturized permanent magnet motors to run its tail fins and rudder. While REE applications, especially products dependent on NdFeB and SmCo permanent magnets, have given the US a tremendous technological advantage, the increasing reliance on these metals coupled with dramatically decreased domestic mining and the international export of American refining and manufacturing capability puts the US in a precarious position. IL -- REM K2 DIB REM key to multiple industries—increase production of arms and treat multiple diseases Bensaid, deputy producer at TRT World 2020[Adam, “Why are the US and China competing for rare earth minerals?”, TRT World, 6 OCT, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]Rare earths are used in rechargeable batteries for electric and hybrid cars, electric car motors advanced ceramics, computers, wind turbines, catalysts in cars and oil refineries, monitors, televisions, lighting, lasers, fibre optics, superconductors and glass polishing, to name a few. Some of its uses are altogether strategic, and used extensively in militaries. Their presence is essential in jet engines, missile guidance and defence systems, satellites, and lasers. Lanthanum, for instance, is needed to manufacture night vision goggles. Defence giants like Raytheon, Lockheed and BAE Systems use rare earth metals for guidance systems and sensors in their missiles. Apple uses rare earth elements in their speakers, cameras and the ‘haptics’ that make your phone vibrate. These minerals cannot be recycled either, because they’re used in such small amounts. Scandium is used in televisions, and fluorescent lamps. Yttrium is used in drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. They’re also used in spaceship parts, jet engines, and drones. The glass industry is also a heavy user of rare earths, making use of them in polishing, or to add colour or special optical properties. What about magnets? While we don’t immediately think of magnets as being a strategic resource, they are essential to hard drives, speakers, headphones, and generators. These are all reliant on a number of rare earth minerals. With modern industry’s deep reliance on rare earth minerals, governments and companies around the world try to limit their use of them, or build up stockpiles. Neither are long-term solutions to the chokehold China enjoys on them.REM production key to DIB—ensures Military primacyCRS, 2021 [ “Defense Primer: Acquiring Specialty Metals and Sensitive Materials”, February 3, , accessed 7/15/21, DDI-AJ]Some metals (such as titanium and tungsten) and metal alloys, as well as strong permanent magnets known as rare earth magnets, are critical to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) operations. These materials are frequently integrated into components (e.g., integrated circuits, electrical wiring, or optoelectronic devices) or structures (e.g., aircraft fuselages or ship hulls) of the military platforms and weapon systems that enable warfighting capabilities. There are few, and, in some cases, no known alternatives for many of these materials, which often have unique physical properties, such as high material strength coupled with low density, or resistance to various forms of corrosion. Many of these materials are subject to sourcing restrictions or prohibitions in DOD acquisitions. Congress established these restrictions or prohibitions to protect the domestic materials industry and ensure the United States maintains critical production capabilities and capacity within the defense industrial base. Statutory restrictions establish that some items that incorporate certain metals and metal alloys known as specialty metals generally must be produced or manufactured in the United States. Other statutory prohibitions establish that some items that incorporate certain sensitive materials may not be acquired from specified sources.REM key to DIB – continued support keyBen-Achour 4/30("The US is trying to reclaim its rare-earth mantle", Sabri Ben-Achour is a correspondent for Marketplace, 4/30/2021, -- MR) “Is your right arm OK?” asks the radiology nurse as she tapes an IV to my arm. “Yes,” I say through clenched teeth, bracing for the needle. I’m about to get an MRI of my brain as part of a study I volunteered for, but first they have to inject me with something. “So we are about to give you gadolinium contrast, which kind of makes the arteries pop up better in the image so we see smaller veins and arteries as well,” I’m told. Around 30 million doses of this agent are administered each year worldwide. Gadolinium is one of 17 so-called rare-earth elements. They have their own separate section in the periodic table and have names like neodymium, praseodymium, europium, promethium. “They are so special because they have chemical and physical properties that are very useful for a very wide range of technologies,” explained Rebecca Abergel, assistant professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, and a faculty scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. How we use rare-earth elements Some rare earths can make things glow in the dark (strontium aluminates), some are supermagnetic (neodymium), some are radioactive (promethium). They’re used in cancer treatment and electric engines, telescope lenses and TVs, cellphones and fighter jets. And many are extracted and refined almost entirely in China. “Chinese mining and processing operations now control about 80% of the world’s global output in processed rare-earth metals,” said Eric Chewning, a partner at consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for industrial policy. The U.S. was 100% net import reliant on rare-earth elements in 2018, importing an estimated 11,130 metric tons of compounds and metals valued at $160 million. Eighty percent of those imports were sourced from China, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Latest Stories on Marketplace With child tax credit payments coming, FDIC wants more people to use banks China’s crackdown on Didi may signal tougher curbs on tech As people start flying again, more are exploring the first-class cabin Ironically, rare earths aren’t actually rare in most cases, they’re just difficult and expensive to extract and purify. “We call them rare earth, but we produce a lot of them,” said Gauthier Deblonde, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the nuclear and chemical sciences division. “Global production is about 250,000 tons, so if you compare them to something actually rare, like gold, we produce about a thousand times more rare earths than gold every year. The name is very misleading.” Rare earths are chemically very similar, which is why purifying them is so difficult. “It’s a very harsh process that involves a lot of separation steps,” Abergel explained. The final step involves using organic compounds that can somewhat discriminate between rare earths and then attach to the elements and form a sort of cage around them to make them easier to manipulate. “You need to repeat this process many times so you can achieve good enough separation and purities.” At scale, it requires large quantities of acids, bases and solvents. “The key here isn’t the access to the concentrate in the ground, it’s the processing that’s the bottleneck [that China has] been able to get scale around,” Chewning said. China has made use of its rare-earth dominance before, he said. It cut off exports of the materials to Japan in 2010 during a diplomatic disagreement. From 2010 to 2014, China restricted global exports, sending prices of rare earths surging until it lost a case challenging the practice at the World Trade Organization. The U.S. argued at the time that the export controls were to boost Chinese industries and hurt foreign competitors. And in February, the Financial Times reported China was assessing whether a rare-earth export ban would hobble U.S. production of fighter jets. “Everyone’s keenly aware of the leverage that control over this important global commodity has,” Chewning said. U.S. was once a world leader The U.S. used to be a leader in mining and refining rare-earth elements into finished products. “And now we produce none,” lamented Curtis Moore, referring to the finished product. Moore is vice president of marketing and corporate development at Energy Fuels, the largest uranium producer in the United States. Many reasons are given for the evaporation of the U.S. supply chain. “The U.S. does have very stringent regulations concerning human health and environment — as we should have — but that often makes our production more expensive,” Moore said. With more lax regulations, China has paid a steep environmental price for its perch atop the global supply chain. “We also have a chicken-and-egg issue,” Moore said. The U.S. hasn’t produced a great deal of rare earths because there’s not a lot of manufacturing demand, Moore argued. “There’s lots of demand in end-use consumer products — renewable energy, cellphones, cars, computers — but there’s not a whole lot of manufacturing demand for rare earths in the U.S. We’ve offshored our manufacturing base to China.” The last U.S. company making rare-earth supermagnets was Magnequench, which was controversially sold in 1995 to a consortium with close ties to the Chinese government. Its operations were moved to China and Singapore over the following decade. Molycorp, a now-defunct group that at one point owned the Mountain Pass rare-earth mine in California, went bankrupt in 2015. China made supply chain a priority But ultimately, in the pyramid of reasons for America’s loss of the rare-earth supply chain, one reason sits at the top. China made developing the rare-earth supply chain a strategic national priority. The U.S. did not. Until recently. “President Biden and this Administration recognize rare earth minerals are essential to American industry and to American’s defense base,” a National Security Council spokesperson said in an emailed statement this week. “It is why we directed an immediate 100-day review across federal agencies to address vulnerabilities in our supply chains, including for rare earths.” The White House says it’s coming up with ways to incentivize domestic production. President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13817 directing the government to adopt a strategy for critical materials. The Department of Defense has, as a consequence, offered tens of millions of dollars in grants to help bring processing capacity to the U.S. Last year, Congress ordered the Department of Defense to eliminate all Chinese sources from the national defense supply chain of rare-earth magnets. Funding U.S. research The Department of Energy is funding research to make separating rare earths easier and more efficient, and to promote recycling. It’s office of Basic Energy Sciences is adding five new national laboratory-led projects focusing on separation science totaling $6.7 million per year. The DOE is investing $25 million per year in the Critical Materials Institute, focusing on securing supply chains for critical materials, largely focusing on rare earths and lithium. BES is also announcing $10 million per year in grants for basic research beginning this summer. “The government is investing in new capability trying to establish every element of the supply chain,” said Jeff Green, president of lobbying firm J.A. Green & Co. “The question is whether we can do this economically.” Several private producers are trying to do so. “Our mission as a company is to restore the full supply chain,” said James Litinsky, CEO of MP Materials, the new owner of the U.S.’s only rare-earth mine, located in Mountain Pass, in California’s Mojave Desert. “We are probably further ahead than people realize.” MP Materials restarted the mine in 2017; the previous owner, Molycorp had declared bankruptcy a few years prior. “It was mismanaged for some time,” Litinsky said. Mountain Pass’ reserves are particularly rich in rare earths and now supply, in unpurified form, 15% of the rare earths consumed globally each year. “We have a sustainable site, we operate proudly in the state of California, 95% of the water is recycled, we have dry tailings, which is unique in the mining materials industry,” Litinsky said. “We actually do have the means to lead economically and environmentally.” Supplying the green economy Litinsky said the mine can cover all of the U.S. military’s rare-earth needs, and they’re developing a processing plant to purify the most important rare earths for electric vehicles — a looming source of demand. “The military demand is single digit. The bigger demand is gonna be the electrification of the global economy as we focus on climate change,” he said. Energy Fuels, the uranium miner, is also building a refining facility in Utah. “The industry has come a long way,” said Moore, the company’s vice president. Energy Fuels extracts radioactive uranium and thorium from a mineral called monazite, which also contains rare earths. “We are producing a clean rare-earth product that we are selling to a separation facility in Europe.” Eric Chewning at McKinsey said there are still two things he sees as threats to this resurgent American rare-earths industry. One is its small size, compared to the scale of Chinese production. “The second challenge is the Chinese control the global price through export quotas, so if they wanted to, they could just flood the market with additional rare-earth metals and then wait for you to exit,” he said. Litinsky with the Mountain Pass mine is adamant the U.S. can compete with China no matter what. “This idea that we cannot compete with China is just flawed,” he said. There is a clock ticking in the background of this race for a rare-earth supply chain. There is a danger that the electric vehicle market, which will demand large quantities of critical minerals including rare earths, may move faster than the rare-earth supply chain, which would feed it. “Look at EVs, and globally you’re looking at more than 10, 15% growth year on year throughout the whole of the next decade,” said Andrew Miller, product director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. “You can build a new electric vehicle factory in a couple years, you introduce new models in three or four years in the timeline of most automotive companies. To fund, to start and to refine the processing from a new raw material facility, you’re looking at five to seven years.” The raw materials side of the supply chain will have to work especially quickly, Miller said, to catch up to the trajectory of demand if a domestic supply chain is going to work. And thus the race is on to assemble a supply chain upon which national fortunes and the green economy will be built.IL -- REM K2 Heg Rare earth minerals sustain tech and military dominance – pushing out China is keyBensaid 20 - a deputy producer at TRT World, (Adam, “Why are the US and China competing for rare earth minerals?,” TRT World, 10-6-20, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)How are they used? In nearly every field of technology you can imagine. Rare earths are used in rechargeable batteries for electric and hybrid cars, electric car motors advanced ceramics, computers, wind turbines, catalysts in cars and oil refineries, monitors, televisions, lighting, lasers, fibre optics, superconductors and glass polishing, to name a few. Some of its uses are altogether strategic, and used extensively in militaries. Their presence is essential in jet engines, missile guidance and defence systems, satellites, and lasers. Lanthanum, for instance, is needed to manufacture night vision goggles. Defence giants like Raytheon, Lockheed and BAE Systems use rare earth metals for guidance systems and sensors in their missiles. Apple uses rare earth elements in their speakers, cameras and the ‘haptics’ that make your phone vibrate. These minerals cannot be recycled either, because they’re used in such small amounts. Scandium is used in televisions, and fluorescent lamps. Yttrium is used in drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. They’re also used in spaceship parts, jet engines, and drones.The glass industry is also a heavy user of rare earths, making use of them in polishing, or to add colour or special optical properties. What about magnets? While we don’t immediately think of magnets as being a strategic resource, they are essential to hard drives, speakers, headphones, and generators. These are all reliant on a number of rare earth minerals. With modern industry’s deep reliance on rare earth minerals, governments and companies around the world try to limit their use of them, or build up stockpiles. Neither are long-term solutions to the chokehold China enjoys on them. One mineral to rule them all When the rare earth industry was still primarily dominated by the US, China took active measures to ensure it came out on top. It began mining the minerals in the 1950s, and only in the1980s did the country begin to focus on fully exploiting its resources. In 1992, on a visit to the Rare Earths site in Inner Mongolia, China’s leader Deng Xiaoping said, “The Middle East has its oil, China has Rare Earths.” After nearly two decades of heavy investments and a centralised push to dominate global markets, China finally had its ace in the hole. In 2010, China curbed the delivery of rare earths to the US, Japan, Europe - they showed the world its control over vital resources. This came after a diplomatic incident, where a Chinese fishing trawler collided with a Japanese patrol boat. The limit on supply was intended to hit Japanese car makers like Toyota and battery makers like Panasonic’s ability to produce electric cars. Meanwhile, the US’s only mine was shut down in 2015, and was sold to an American group funded by China’s Shenghe Resource Holding two years later. It has since resumed production, and it now ships minerals to China’s refineries. Is it really all that bad? While China’s hold over rare earth minerals definitely posed a risk to global supply chains and modern industries, countries around the world have rallied to find alternatives and solutions. Not long after China limited its export capacity, other countries started to develop their own mining and refining capacities. This was possible because rare earth minerals aren’t actually ‘rare’. China was only able to increase its production massively and kill off competition by neglecting environmental concerns, which can cause deep damage to ecosystems. As a result, China’s market share has declined from 97 percent to nearly 70 percent today. Technology companies have also reduced their reliance and rare earths. Hitachi patented a way to use less dysprosium in an important electric car magnet. Panasonic has also found a way to recycle neodymium from old electronics. Even China’s execution of restrictions on exports weren’t fully effective. For rare earths like dysprosium and europium, a number of Chinese producers found their way around the ban, resolving shortages in years. But that doesn’t mean the world still doesn’t rely on China for this. While Trump’s administration has threatened to place tariffs on China’s rare earths, it has so far avoided doing so. Instead, the US military is entering the rare earth production market for the first time since it built the atomic bomb in World War II, trying to ensure mining and processing capabilities that won’t be affected by the global shortages that China could trigger. For China however, coming to terms with the loss of its trump card may still be a while in the making.REM production is the focal point of broader geopolitical competitionKalantzakos 21 - Global Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Public Policy, New York University/NYU Abu Dhabi and author of China and the Geopolitics of Rare Earths, Oxford University Press, 2018, (Sophia, “Rare earths, the climate crisis, and tech-imperium,” 3-24-21, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)Given their highly concentrated supply chains, critical minerals, including rare earths, which are of immense importance for high-tech, renewables, and defence applications, have become a focal point of geopolitical competition between China, the EU and the US While COVID-19 has put China’s dominance of critical minerals’ supply chains and the resulting potential to create strategic dependencies back on the agenda of European and U.S. policymakers, policy responses have been far from concerted and are couched in excessive rhetoric of geopolitical competition Any long-term and sustainable policy approach to rare earths and critical minerals must include the developing world as equal stakeholder and should prioritise the preservation of the global commons, most importantly concerning climate change Two seismic economic and technological shifts taking place in a climate of fraught geopolitics have again spotlighted the criticality of rare earths that are indispensable inputs for high tech, renewables, and defence applications. First, the decarbonisation of the global economy is no longer in question. Political will and rapidly declining production costs have accelerated the shift in response to the worsening climate crisis. As of 2019, major economies (the EU, China, Japan, Korea) have announced their goals to reach climate neutrality mid-century. Even the United States has now rejoined the Paris Accord and laid out its plans for net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050. Second, spurred on by the need to respond to the global pandemic, the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and 5G networks have ushered in the fourth industrial revolution earlier than initially anticipated. Both of these monumental shifts are happening in an atmosphere of geopolitical upheaval. China’s rise, its growing global impact, and increased assertiveness under Xi Jinping have triggered an increasingly aggressive response by the United States that has framed power re-alignments in terms of bipolar Sino-American competition. Moreover, China’s global Belt and Road Initiative that unites Eurasia and Africa and loops in South America forms a novel network of land, maritime, and digital connectivity. China is thus re-imagining the map and creating new spheres of influence. Alarmingly, in a spillover effect, the geopolitics of contention have polarised the transition to a decarbonised global economy and have made digitalisation a battleground over who will control the tech-imperium. As a result, these transitions are no longer confined to the normal parameters of trade competition. They constitute an open and heated rivalry over influence, economic power, supply chains, information, norms, values, and governance. An uninterrupted access to critical minerals (CRMs) that include rare earths (but also lithium and cobalt) are a sine qua non for this transition and because there is a new race to control the resources themselves and their extensive globalised supply chains. The problem is that rare earths and other critical minerals are all highly geographically concentrated and vulnerable to disruption. Moreover, the amounts needed will skyrocket moving forward. According to a 2020 World Bank report the production of lithium and cobalt may increase by 500% by 2050 to meet clean energy demand alone. In accessing these resources, China seems to hold the upper hand. It still controls, for instance, the production of rare earths (REEs) and the supply chains from mine to market. Moreover, other critical minerals mostly originate from developing countries where China has over time consolidated its strong relationships and secured its dominant position. This has left China’s competitors, that had previously dominated industrial innovation and production, feeling exceedingly vulnerable. What’s striking is that the 2010 rare earth crisis had offered industrial economies a unique opportunity to plan ahead in light of changing technologies; though the lessons went largely unheeded. A trawler incident, in 2010, involving a Chinese vessel and the Japanese coast guard quickly turned into a geopolitical bras-de-faire provoking an “unofficial” and short-lived embargo of rare earths to Japan. It was a wake-up call for major industrial actors that for the first time recognised an important vulnerability that could be exploited if China decided to flex its muscles. The 2010 crisis, therefore, provides a salient case study of how resource competition impacts geopolitical rivalries. It also spotlighted the fact that most of China’s competitors were largely dependent on the market to deliver solutions, whereas China had developed its rare earths sector openly, yoking private and public partnerships to meet its goals. Dependency on China for rare earths, however, was never fully tackled because prices normalised quickly enough. Companies returned to China to purchase the rare earths they needed because it made economic sense in the context of the need to maintain their competitive share prices and protect their bottom line. Mining for rare earths elsewhere and rebuilding global supply chains was, in the end, too cumbersome, too expensive, and necessitated long lead times. Moreover, global power relations at that juncture, while increasingly competitive, were not as fraught, nor had persistent impediments to global trade reared their head. Over a decade later, the most advanced economies are once again scrambling for ways to build up their stocks, find alternatives sources of REEs, and diversify supply chains.REMs key to national security Valerie Bailey Grasso, specialist in defense acquisition, 2013-12-23, “Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress”, (ec) According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),20 there are 17 rare earth elements on the periodic table. The first 15 elements begin with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extend through element number 71 (lutetium); two other elements, yttrium and scandium, have similar properties. Rare earths are not particularly rare but are found in low concentrations in the earth’s crust. The economics of locating and retrieving them are challenging. Rare earths are divided into two groups: light rare earth elements (LREE) - lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, and samarium, and heavy rare earth elements (HREE) - europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium. Rare earth elements are found in two types of commercially available, permanent magnet materials. They are samarium cobalt (SmCo), and neodymium iron boron (NdFeB). NdFeB magnets are considered the world’s strongest permanent magnets and are essential to many military weapons systems. SmCo retains its magnetic strength at elevated temperatures and is ideal for military technologies such as precision-guided missiles, smart bombs, and aircraft. The superior strength of NdFeB allows for the use of smaller and lighter magnets in defense weapon systems. The following illustrations (Figures 1-5) show the use of rare earth elements in a variety of defense-related applications: fin actuators in missile guidance and control systems, controlling the direction of the missile; disk drive motors installed in aircraft, tanks, missile systems, and command and control centers; lasers for enemy mine detection, interrogators, underwater mines, and countermeasures; satellite communications, radar, and sonar on submarines and surface ships; and optical equipment and speakers. IL -- REM K2 Manufacturing Environmental protections deck REM production—hurts domestic manufacturing industriesBen-Achour, Correspondent & Host at Marketplace 2021[Sabri, “The U.S. is trying to reclaim its rare-earth mantle”, Marketplace, Apr 30, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]The U.S. used to be a leader in mining and refining rare-earth elements into finished products.“And now we produce none,” lamented Curtis Moore, referring to the finished product. Moore is vice president of marketing and corporate development at Energy Fuels, the largest uranium producer in the United States. Many reasons are given for the evaporation of the U.S. supply chain. “The U.S. does have very stringent regulations concerning human health and environment — as we should have — but that often makes our production more expensive,” Moore said. With more lax regulations, China has paid a steep environmental price for its perch atop the global supply chain. “We also have a chicken-and-egg issue,” Moore said. The U.S. hasn’t produced a great deal of rare earths because there’s not a lot of manufacturing demand, Moore argued. “There’s lots of demand in end-use consumer products — renewable energy, cellphones, cars, computers — but there’s not a whole lot of manufacturing demand for rare earths in the U.S. We’ve offshored our manufacturing base to China.”The last U.S. company making rare-earth supermagnets was Magnequench, which was controversially sold in 1995 to a consortium with close ties to the Chinese government. Its operations were moved to China and Singapore over the following decade. Molycorp, a now-defunct group that at one point owned the Mountain Pass rare-earth mine in California, went bankrupt in 2015.IL -- REM K2 Warming REM key to climate change and US hegHui, reporter for Quartz 2021[Mary, “Why rare earth permanent magnets are vital to the global climate economy”, Quartz, MAY 14, , accessed 7/13/21, DDI-AJ]*NdFeB/NdPr= neodymium-iron-boronPowerful permanent magnets made of rare earth materials are critical components of climate economy products such as electric vehicles and wind turbines, as well as other technology like phones, refrigerators, and missiles and jets. They form an important part of the global rare earth supply chain, turning the processed minerals into inputs that are valuable for electronics and weapons manufacturers.China is by far the world’s top producer of these magnets, responsible for 87% of global production in 2018, according to Ping An Securities. The remainder are mostly produced by Japan, which sources most of its neodymium and praseodymium from the Australian rare earth giant Lynas, the world’s largest miner and processor of rare earths outside of China.Beijing’s dominance in the production of such a critical input has significant geopolitical implications. As MP Materials, which operates the only active rare earths mine in the US put it, “NdPr magnets are a single point of failure for national security, the economy and the environment.”Thanks to NdFeB magnets’ high magnetic strength, they are able to produce a lot of energy relative to their weight and size. That makes them ideal for products that require a high energy-to-weight ratio, like electric vehicle motors. A big, heavy magnet would cost more energy to move around, hindering the vehicle’s range. Tesla, for example, has used NdFeB magnets in its motors.The magnets are also used in wind turbines. NdFeB magnets containing the heavy rare earth dysprosium and sometimes terbium are particularly useful, because the presence of heavy rare earths improves the magnet’s ability to withstand high temperatures. The higher durability means lower maintenance costs, which can rapidly add up for offshore wind farms.Consistent production of REMs is key to clean energy productionBarnard 20 - the national policy director at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), (Christopher, “US dependence on China for rare earth minerals is a disaster waiting to happen,” The Hill, 12-09-20, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)In May 2019, amid the escalating U.S.-China trade war, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper published a warning that its government might cut off all exports of rare earth minerals to the United States. In 2010, it had already followed up on a similar threat, that time temporarily cutting off Japan over a minor diplomatic dispute. The United States Geological Survey reports that China not only holds 35 percent of the world’s entire rare earth supply, but it’s also been turbocharging production, now accounting for 70 percent of global production. Crucially, China directly supplies 80 percent of the U.S.’s rare earth imports. The geopolitical, economic and environmental risks of this status quo can no longer be ignored. The inclusion of a “proposal to make us less dependent on China and other unstable, unreliable and hostile regimes for critical minerals” in the most recent Senate Energy Committee COVID-19 relief package offer is therefore very welcome. This is why the U.S. must preempt Chinese threats. When China briefly blocked all rare earth exports to Japan in 2010, the policy backfired because Japan retaliated by building a new supply chain outside of China and expanding domestic mineral research and development. As a result, China’s global market share dropped from 95 percent to 70 percent. The U.S. now finds itself in a unique position to further dent China’s control of the global market, and move toward rare earth independence. Of particular importance is ensuring that the U.S. military does not continue its reliance on Chinese rare earth imports, which are now used for lasers, night vision systems, missile guidance, radar and sonar and more. The rare earth industry is also crucial to the United States’ clean energy future. As Manish Negam, an analyst at Credit Suisse, emphasizes clean technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines, as well as electric vehicles, would be the worst hit by any supply chain disruptions.If the U.S. is serious about transitioning to a low-carbon economy, as it should be, then we must realize that doing so without a reliable supply chain of rare earth minerals is literally impossible. Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute recently published a study outlining the material requirements of the clean energy transition; he found that any major expansion of clean energy technologies will require an unprecedented increase in rare earth mining, yet the U.S. is 100 percent reliant on imports for some 17 critical minerals, and 50 percent reliant for a further 29. Impact ! Decline In Military PrimacyDecline in primacy causes US China warReich, Scholar in International Relations, and Dombrowski, chair of the Strategic Research Department at the US Naval War College 2020 [Simon and Peter, “The consequence of COVID-19: how the United States moved from security provider to security consumer”, PMC, Sept 1, , accessed 7/15/21, DDI-AJ]American national security experts are likely to engage in a long, full-throated debate about the contours of national security. Many commentators have echoed the inevitable mantra that ‘everything has changed for ever’—a recurrent common refrain among American commentators in 1989 (the end of the Cold War), 1991 (globalization), 2001 (9/11) and 2008 (the Great Recession). We commonly hear references to ‘the new normal’. But should the pandemic subside, the early evidence suggests that the focus of the national security establishment will return to traditional kinetic concerns. Meanwhile, American adaptation to being a security consumer, even in one sphere, will be a painful process, requiring it to come to terms with its own dependence in the face of a series of increasingly menacing threats. Finally, in broader terms, US mismanagement of COVID-19 will consolidate the view that the era of American primacy is ending, despite the country's outsized military capability. Global favourability ratings of the United States have generally declined under Trump. New forms of conflict, such as cyber and misinformation campaigns, have dented a sense of American impregnability. As Michèle Flournoy—former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy and likely senior national security appointee in a Biden administration—pointed out in an interview, America's lack of leadership (and, we would add, exposed reliance and vulnerability) generates profound concerns.110 One spillover effect of this new identity as security consumer has already become evident. With America's reputation sullied in one domain by its new-found dependency, one predictable compensatory response has been for American forces to become even more proactive and assertive in the traditional military domain, with large-scale unilateral military exercises and other public demonstrations of power. These have, notably, taken place in Europe, in the Arctic and in the South China Sea in the midst of America's COVID-19 crisis. This is arguably defensible. American activity in the South China Sea, for example, has been designed to address what has been characterized as provocative Chinese military territorial claims in several theatres of potential conflict across the Indo-Pacific.111 But, in a period of heightened bilateral tensions, it increases the possibility of mishap and military conflict. The consequences of America's new dependency, then, in both the short to medium term and the long term, are disconcerting. Structural arguments about power transition leading to inevitable conflicts with revisionist powers have historically been shown to have limited validity, however fashionable their underlying assumptions may be in current Washington national security circles. But, beyond any prospective unintended conflict, the combination of evident American pandemic vulnerability, internal discord, governance incapacity and economic distress is a potentially incendiary combination given the possibility that its leadership may feel compelled to demonstrate a show of force. The longer-term question is whether American policy-makers will learn from this painful experience and, in the vocabulary of national security makers, learn to fight the last (pandemic) war.! – Sino-Russia War Collapsed military and economic strength causes war with Russia and China.Mitchell & Grygiel, '16 (A. Wess Mitchell & Jakub Grygiel; Jakub Grygiel; Jakub Grygiel is a senior fellow and A. Wess Mitchell is the President of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), Washington, DC; "Predators on the Frontier;" American Interest; ; 02-12-2016, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoCHow should the United States respond to these dynamics? As our rivals grow more aggressive and our military edge narrows, we must look to other methods for waging and winning geopolitical competitions in the 21st century.The most readily available but underutilized tool at our disposal is alliances. America’s frontline allies offer a mechanism by which it can contain rivals—indeed, this was the original purpose for cultivating security linkages with small states in the world’s rimland regions to begin with. In coming years, the value of strategically placed allies near Eurasia’s large land powers will grow as our relative technological or numerical military strength shrinks. The time has come for the United States to develop a grand strategy for containing peer competitors centered on the creative use of frontline allies. It must do so now, before geopolitical competition intensifies.Predatory PeersProbing has been the strategy of choice for America’s modern rivals to challenge the existing order. Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed that the United States is retreating in their respective regions—whether out of choice, fatigue, weakness, or all three combined. But they are unsure of how much remaining strength the United States has, or of the solidity of its commitments to allies. Rather than risking direct war, they have employed low-intensity crises to test U.S. power in these regions. Like past revisionists, they have focused their probes on seemingly secondary interests of the leading power, either by humbling its weakest allies or seizing gray zones over which the United States is unlikely to fight. These probes test the United States on the outer rim of its influence, where the revisionist’s own interests are strongest while the U.S. is at its furthest commitments and therefore most vulnerable to defeat. Russia has launched a steady sequence of threatening military moves against vulnerable NATO allies and conducted limited offensives against former Soviet satellite states. China has sought out low-intensity diplomatic confrontations with small U.S. security clients, erected military no-go zones, and asserted claims over strategic waterways.When we wrote about this behavior in The American Interest in 2011, it was composed mainly of aggressive diplomacy or threatening but small military moves. But the probes of U.S. rivals are becoming bolder. Sensing a window of opportunity, in 2014 Russia upped the ante by invading Ukraine—the largest country in Eastern Europe—in a war that has so far cost 7,000 lives and brought 52,000 square kilometers of territory into the Russian sphere of influence. After years of using unmarked fishing trawlers to harass U.S. or allied naval vessels, China has begun to militarize its probes in the South China Sea, constructing seven artificial islands and claiming (and threatening to fight over) 1.8 million square kilometers of ocean. Iran has recently humiliated the United States by holding American naval vessels and broadcasting photos of surrendering U.S. sailors. In all cases, revisionist powers increased the stakes because they perceived their initial probes to have succeeded. Having achieved modest gains, they increased the intensity of their probes.The strategic significance of these latest probes for the United States is twofold. First, they have substantially increased the military pressure on frontline allies. The presence of a buffer zone of some sort, whether land or sea, between allies like Poland or Japan and neighboring revisionist powers, helped to reduce the odds of sustained contact and confrontation between allied and rival militaries. By successfully encroaching on or invading these middle spaces, revisionists have advanced the zone of contest closer to the territory of U.S. allies, increasing the potential for a deliberate or accidental military clash.Second, the latest probes have significantly raised the overall pressure on the United States. As long as Russia’s military adventures were restricted to its own southern periphery, America could afford to shift resources to the Pacific without worrying much about the consequences in Europe—an important consideration given the Pentagon’s jettisoning of the goal to be able to fight a two-front war. With both Ukraine and the South China Sea at play (and with a chaotic Middle East, where another rival, Iran, advances its reach and influence), the United States no longer has the luxury of prioritizing one region over another; with two re-militarized frontiers at opposite ends of the globe, it must continually weigh trade-offs in scarce military resources between geographic theaters. This disadvantage is not lost on America’s rivals, or its most exposed friends.Frontier FrenzyThe intensification of probing has reverberated through the ranks of America’s frontline allies. In both Europe and Asia, the edges of the Western order are inhabited by historically vulnerable small or mid-sized states that over the past seven decades have relied on the United States for their existence. The similarities in the geopolitical position and strategic options of states like Estonia and Taiwan, or Poland and South Korea, are striking. For all of these states, survival depends above all on the sustainability of U.S. extended deterrence, in both its nuclear and conventional forms. This in turn rests on two foundations: the assumption among rivals and allies alike that the United States is physically able to fulfill its security obligations to even the smallest ally, and the assumption that it is politically willing to do so.Doubts about both have been growing for many years. Reductions in American defense spending are weakening the U.S. military capability to protect allies. Due to cuts introduced by the 2009 Budget Control Act, the U.S. Navy is smaller than at any point since before the First World War, the U.S. Army is smaller than at any point since before the Second World War and the U.S. Air Force has the lowest number of operational warplanes in its history. Nuclear force levels are static or declining, and the U.S. technological edge over rivals in important weapons types has diminished. The Pentagon in 2009 announced that for the first time since the Second World War it would jettison the goal of being able to conduct a two-front global war.At the same time that U.S. capabilities are decreasing, those of our rivals are increasing. Both Russia and China have undertaken large, multiyear military expansion and modernization programs and the technological gap between them and the United States is narrowing, particularly in key areas such as short-range missiles, tactical nuclear weapons, and fifth-generation fighter aircraft.Recent American statecraft has compounded the problem by weakening the belief in U.S. political will to defend allies. The early Obama Administration’s public questioning of the value of traditional alliances as “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” shook allied confidence at the same time that its high-profile engagement with large rivals indicated a preference for big-power bargaining over the heads of small states. The U.S.-Russia “reset” seemed to many allies both transactional and freewheeling, and left a lasting impression of the suddenness with which U.S. priorities could shift from one Administration to the next. This undermined the predictability of patronage that is the sine qua non of effective deterrence for any Great Power. As the revisionists’ probes have become more assertive and U.S. credibility less firm, America’s frontier allies have started to reconsider their national security options. Five years ago, many frontline states expressed security concerns, began to seek greater military capabilities, or looked to offset risk by engaging diplomatically with revisionists. But for the most part, such behavior was muted and well within the bounds of existing alliance commitments. However, as probing has picked up pace, allied coping behavior has become more frantic. In Europe, Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania have initiated military spending increases. In Asia, littoral U.S. allies are engaged in a worrisome regional arms race. In both regions, the largest allies are considering offensive capabilities to create conventional deterrence. Their willingness to build up their indigenous military capabilities is overall a positive development, but it carries risks, too, spurring dynamics that were absent over the past decades. The danger is that, absent a consistent and credible U.S. overwatch, rearming allies engage in a chaotic acquisition strategy, poorly anchored in the larger alliance. Fearing abandonment, such states may end up detaching themselves from the alliance simply by pursuing independent security policies. There is also danger on the other side of the spectrum of possible responses by frontline allies. Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of offshore balancers, not all frontline allies are resisting. Some are choosing strategies of accommodation. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia in Europe and Thailand and Malaysia in Asia are all examples of nominal U.S. allies that are trying to avoid antagonizing the stronger predator. Worsening regional security dynamics create domestic political pressures to avoid confrontation with the nearby revisionist power. Full-fledged bandwagoning in the form of the establishment of new alliances is not yet visible, but hedging is.Seeds of DisorderThe combination of intensifying probes and fragmenting alliances threatens to unravel important components of the stability of major regions and the wider international order. Allowed to continue on their current path, security dynamics in Eastern Europe and the Western Pacific could lead to negative or even catastrophic outcomes for U.S. national security. One increasingly likely near-term scenario is a simmering, simultaneous security competition in major regions. In such a scenario, rivals continue probing allies and grabbing middle-zone territory while steering clear of war with the United States or its proxies; allies continue making half-measure preparations without becoming fully capable of managing their own security; and the United States continues feeding greater and greater resources into frontline regions without achieving reassurance, doggedly tested and put in doubt by the revisionists. Through a continued series of probes, the revisionist powers maintain the initiative while the United States and its allies play catch up. The result might be a gradual hardening of the U.S. security perimeter that never culminates in a Great Power war but generates many of the negative features of sustained security competition—arms races, proxy wars, and cyber and hybrid conflicts—that erode the bases of global economic growth.A second, graver possibility is war. Historically, a lengthy series of successful probes has often culminated in a military confrontation. One dangerous characteristic of today’s international landscape is that not one but two revisionists have now completed protracted sequences of probes that, from their perspective, have been successful. If the purpose of probing is to assess the top power’s strength, today’s probes could eventually convince either Russia, China, or both that the time is ripe for a more definitive contest. It is uncertain what the outcome would be. Force ratios in today’s two hotspots, the Baltic Sea and South China Sea, do not favor the United States. Both Russia and China possess significant anti-access/area denial (A2AD) capabilities, with a ten-to-one Russian troop advantage in the Baltic and massive Chinese preponderance of coastal short-range missiles in the South China Sea. Moreover, both powers possess nuclear weapons and, in Russia’s case, a doctrine favoring their escalatory use for strategic effect. And even if the United States can maintain overwhelming military superiority in a dyadic contest, war is always the realm of chance and a source of destruction that threatens the stability of the existing international order. Having failed a series of probes, the United States could face the prospect of either a short, sharp war that culminates in nuclear attack or an economically costly protracted two-front conflict. Either outcome would definitely alter the U.S.-led international system as we know it.! -- US-China War Extinction – waning US influence spurs a US-China war over the SCS, which escalates to nuclear use.Rudolf, '21 (Peter Rudolf; Peter Rudolf is a Senior Fellow at Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin; "China targets rare earth export curbs to hobble US defence industry;" Survival, 63:2, 87-114; ; 03-30-2021, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoC The US–Chinese relationship is perhaps best interpreted as a complex ‘strategic rivalry’. Both countries are not only competitors for power and influence, but also potential military opponents.74 Their intensifying strategic rivalry, rooted in incompatible goals and mutual threat perceptions, has a regional dimension, a global dimension and a technological dimension. The regional dimensionChina has been expanding its military options to counter US intervention capabilities on its periphery and to project its own military power into the East Asian region and beyond. In conjunction with increased economic influence, this might enable China to ‘decouple’ the United States from Asia and thereby to gain supremacy in the region.75 The US–China conflict is especially pronounced in the Western Pacific.76 In ‘maritime Asia’, the relationship is antagonistic, imbued with military threat perceptions.77 In the United States, it is widely believed that China intends to establish an exclusive ‘maritime sphere of influence’ in the South China Sea.78In Chinese discourse, the prevailing self-perception seems to be that China does not intend to exclude non-regional actors from the region as is often assumed in the United States. Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea, however, can be taken as an indication that China is moving towards a South China Sea, China’s claims to some islands, rocks, reefs and low-tide elevations clash with those of four other littoral states (Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam). In addition, China’s sovereignty claims within what it calls the ‘nine-dash line’ (an area encompassing most of the South China Sea) conflict with the exclusive economic zones of these states and Indonesia. Moreover, China’s interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (an interpretation that is shared by some other governments) is that states have the right to regulate and prohibit the military activities of other states in their exclusive economic zones, which extend up to 200 nautical miles from the coast. The United States firmly rejects this interpretation.80The South China Sea is where the two sides’ incompatible interpretations of the law of the sea are most apparent.81 The US claims to be upholding the freedom of the seas, while the Chinese have been asserting a claim to a sphere of influence. The conflict is heightened by the mutual perception that in a crisis the other side could block important maritime lines of communication. If China were to block them, the economic costs would probably be bearable if shipping traffic to Australia, Japan and South Korea could be diverted, for example via the Sunda or Lombok straits. However, a large proportion of the goods shipped across the South China Sea come from China or go there. It is therefore in China’s interest to ensure maritime transport remains unhindered in the region. The Chinese fear that the US military could block the Strait of Malacca in the event of a crisis, thus severely affecting China’s energy supply.82The geopolitical conflict over the South China Sea also has a nuclear dimension.83 China seems to be fortifying the South China Sea as a protected bastion for ballistic-missile submarines as part of a survivable second-strike capability. According to information from the United States, at least four ballistic-missile submarines are already in service, and construction of a follow-on class, with a more advanced design, is expected to begin in the early 2020s.84 China still has no sea-based ballistic missiles in service that could reach the continental United States from the South China Sea. The new missile (JL-3) in development for the planned next generation of submarines will have a significantly greater range than the current design, but even this may not be enough.85 Due to the limited range of the sea-based nuclear missiles currently in service, in the event of a serious international crisis, China may try to relocate ballistic-missile submarines to the deeper and thus safer waters of the Pacific, through the bottlenecks of the ‘first island chain’ (which extends from the Kuril Islands via the principal Japanese islands and Taiwan to Borneo). Securing the South China Sea against US anti-submarine forces is already an enormous challenge, a consideration that is relevant to China’s expansion of its artificial islands.86While the East–West conflict was stabilised to a significant degree by the establishment of clear spheres of influence in Europe, the geostrategic situation in East Asia is less stable. There is no clear demarcation between spheres of influence in Asia, and there are no acknowledged buffer zones. China’s efforts to establish a kind of security zone within the first island chain are regarded as highly provocative in the United States as the region’s leading sea power.87A worsening crisis between the United States and China poses a considerable risk of military instability in Asia. US military planners assume that China will pursue offensive pre-emptive options in a crisis. Certainly, there are significant incentives for pre-emptive action against US armed forces in the region – for example, in the form of massive missile salvoes. Since the termination of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Washington has been free to deploy medium-range systems in Asia. These could be based on the island of Guam, or – should America’s allies agree – in the north of Japan, the southern Philippines or the northern part of Australia. With conventionally equipped medium-range systems, the US military could destroy Chinese forces in the South and East China seas without sending naval units into these risk zones. This would also obviate the need to initially eliminate missile systems on the Chinese mainland that would endanger US surface ships. Such an attack could inadvertently neutralise Chinese nuclear forces or their command-and-control faciliies since, according to available information, China’s conventional and nuclear forces seem to be entangled. It cannot be ruled out that, in the event of a serious confrontation, China will be tempted to use nuclear weapons before they are put out of action.88! -- Security DilemmaThe security dilemma makes miscalculation inevitable – escalates quicklyRudolf 21 – political scientist, (Peter, “The Sino-American World Conflict,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 3-30-21, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)Security dilemma Although the ideological element in the Sino-American rivalry is not its dominant feature, an increasing emphasis on the ideological differences between the two sides can be expected to influence their threat perceptions, thus reinforcing the security dilemma between them.55 In an anarchic inter- national system, no state can be certain that it will not be attacked, dominated or even extinguished. Measures to strengthen one’s own security, however, whether through arms, territorial expansion or alliances, can reduce the security of other states, and thus lead to a competition for weaponry and power.56 In its classical form, a security dilemma arises when offensive mili- tary doctrines and capabilities pose a threat to a state’s territorial integrity, either in the form of an invasion or a nuclear first strike. In the context of the US–China rivalry, the United States has not accepted mutual nuclear vulner- ability as the basis of its strategic relationship.57 This could, it is feared, be understood as a lack of American resolve to defend its allies and interests in Asia. Moreover, Beijing would probably not be convinced by any US state- ments that it does not have plans to eliminate China’s nuclear capability in the case of an escalating crisis.58 Similarly, China does not trust American assurances that the development of missile-defence systems is not directed against China’s strategic nuclear potential.59 China has rejected the first use of nuclear weapons in its declaratory nuclear doctrine; it relies on a minimum-deterrence strategy and thus on the ability to retaliate.60 Beijing fears that Washington’s development of recon- naissance, surveillance and conventional prompt global-strike capabilities, as well as missile-defence systems, could jeopardise China’s second-strike capability. China maintains a relatively small nuclear arsenal of an esti- mated 290 warheads.61 However, there are plans to expand this arsenal by acquiring a greater number of missiles with multiple warheads. The United States is faced with the question of whether to accept its nuclear vulnerabil- ity in relation to China, which may result from the deployment of mobile intercontinental and sea-based ballistic missiles, or to pursue a damage- limitation strategy that at least opens up the possibility of limiting its own losses should deterrence fail. In accordance with the traditional logic of American deterrence policy, the US would need options for pre-emptively eliminating the enemy’s nuclear arsenal.62 According to fears voiced in the US debate, a secure Chinese second- strike capability could lead to a greater Chinese willingness to take risks in crises. In the debate on nuclear strategy, this is referred to as the ‘stability– instability paradox’.63 This means that stability at the strategic level could tempt one side to use limited force in the expectation that the other will shy away from a massive nuclear strike, as this would lead to mutual destruc- tion. According to this scenario, a secure Chinese second-strike capability threatens to raise doubts among America’s Asian allies about the credibility of extended deterrence. If the United States follows the traditional line of its operational deterrence strategy by pursuing pre-emptive damage-limiting ‘counterforce’ options as a prerequisite for credible extended deterrence, the result will probably be an intensified arms competition.64 The US nuclear posture, which is geared to limiting damage in the event of war, must be perceived as threatening by China – irrespective of the defensive motives of the American side.! -- Trade China will leverage Rare Earths to impair the US economy which escalates the trade war.Finley, '19 (Klint Finley; Klint Finley is a contributing writer for WIRED covering tech policy, software development, cloud computing, and more; "Are Rare Earths the Next Pawn in the US-China Trade War?;" Wired; ; 06-17-2019, Accessed 7-15-2021)//ILake-NoCPreviously, the trade conflict between the US and China centered on escalating tariffs. While tariffs make things more expensive; they don't cut off supplies entirely. But when the US Department of Commerce effectively forbade US companies from providing US-made technologies, including chips and crucial software like the Google Play app store, to Huawei, it was a major blow to one of China's highest-profile companies.One possible arena for retaliation, in the minds of analysts: rare earth elements. China is the leading producer and processor of rare earths, with about 37 percent of the world's reserves, according to a US Geological Survey report. The substances are used in a wide range of products including smartphones, airplanes, and medical devices, as well as military gear such as stealth technologies, radar, and night vision goggles. Neodymium, for example, is used to make magnets found in smartphone speakers and haptic feedback devices, while terbium is used to make solid state hard drives.There’s not a lot of money in the rare earth trade. The Geologic Survey report put the value of US imports at $160 million in 2018. But their key role in many products means China could strike a blow against the US without great harm to its own economy. "From a purely dollar standpoint, these exports don't generate a lot of revenue, so Beijing might be calculating that they could do some harm to the US economy," says Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the think tank Center for a New American Security.To drive home the possibility, Chinese President Xi Jinping last month toured a rare earth processing facility. A few days later, the People’s Daily, the official paper of the Chinese Communist Party, floated the idea of an export ban. Such a ban “would cause significant economic pain [to the US], and be an acute national security threat as well," Rasser says. A Commerce Department report earlier this month included rare earths on a list of materials considered critical to the US economy and national security.WHAT ARE RARE EARTHS?The rare earths are 17 elements with similar magnetic and electrochemical properties that are useful for a range of products, particularly magnets and lasers. Although most appear in relative abundance in the Earth's crust, they're less often found in usable concentrations.The elements are cerium, dysprosium, erbium, europium, gadolinium, holmium, lanthanum, lutetium, neodymium, praseodymium, promethium, samarium, scandium, terbium, thulium, ytterbium, and yttrium.It's possible that China wouldn’t go so far as to cut off supplies entirely. "China would lose revenue, and their reputation as a global supplier would be severely tarnished," Rasser adds. But as the trade conflict wears on, the possibility for more drastic retaliation from Beijing increases.That culminates in US-China war and goes nuclear – extinction.Scaggs, '19 (Alexandra Scaggs; Alexandra Scaggs is a senior writer at Barron's covering markets, with a focus on fixed income. She previously wrote news and commentary about markets, the economy and social issues for the Financial Times and FT Alphaville. Before that she covered markets for Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal; "How the Trade War Could Become a Real War;" Barron’s; ; 8-13-2019, Accessed 7-15-2021)//ILake-NoCThere is a new, troubling question on Wall Street: Just how far could the conflict between the U.S. and China escalate?BCA Research thinks it could stretch beyond trade and financial markets and become a new Cold War. The firm’s geopolitical strategy team first raised the possibility of that type of military conflict between the U.S. and China back in 2012, years before tariffs even sounded like a possibility.Now, “after tariffs and currency depreciation, the next likeliest manifestation of strategic tensions lies in the military sphere,” writes BCA in a Monday note.In other words: The conflict started as a trade war and recently escalated into a currency war. The next step would be military war, cold or hot.That helps explain why the Treasury market—a global haven—is rallying and pushing yields toward record lows. It also explains why strategists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Academy Securities have been citing North Korea and Iran as potential trouble spots for the U.S. (Both countries are subject to heavy U.S. sanctions, so it’s tough to imagine how they would cause economic trouble.)There are a few different ways the conflict between the U.S. and China could escalate into a military war, BCA says.One potential hot spot is Hong Kong, where anti-government protests have been happening for weeks. Mainland Chinese officials have stepped up the intensity of their opposition to the demonstrations, and state-owned television seems to be hinting at the possibility of military intervention.“The deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries that would have common cause on this issue,” the firm writes.The response from the region would be more important, however—a Chinese crackdown on Hong Kong could provoke more civil unrest in Taiwan.“Unrest in Hong Kong has already galvanized opposition to the mainland’s policies in Taiwan, where the presidential election polling has shifted in incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen’s favor,” BCA writes.Taiwan could be a potential flashpoint for military conflict because of its unusual relationship with China. The Chinese government sees the island as a province, but it has been independently governed since 1949.What’s more, Taiwan has had a robust unofficial relationship with the U.S. for more than 40 years, and has maintained strong ties with U.S. ally Japan. That raises the stakes significantly if the island does become a site of conflict.Taiwan also has laid claim to a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that both China and Japan have claimed as well. (The islands, which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands, were at the center of a diplomatic spat six years ago.)Those islands are another source of potential military conflict. If China steps up the intensity of its challenges against the claims by Japan—again, a U.S. ally—that could end up escalating the conflict as well.Potential trouble could pop up in the South China Sea, too, because it is a “vital supply line for all of the countries in the region,” says BCA, and China has been “asserting itself” in the area.“Even if the [U.S.] washed its hands of Beijing’s efforts to control the sea lanes, U.S. allies would still face a security threat that would drive tensions in these waters,” the firm writes. “This is a formidable group of Asian nations that China fears will seek to undermine it. And of course the Americans are not washing their hands of the region but actually reasserting their interest in maintaining a western Pacific defense perimeter.”And last but not least, North Korea has been testing short-range missiles even as the White House remains upbeat about talks to contain its nuclear program. China has offered to cooperate in sanctioning North Korea for nuclear test programs, BCA says, which means it could withdraw that cooperation if the relationship between the U.S. and China deteriorates.! -- Warming Clean energy is key to stave off climate change.Long & Steinberger, '16 (Noah Long & Kevin; Director, Western Region, Climate & Clean Energy Program; "Renewable Energy Is Key to Fighting Climate Change;" NRDC; ; 7-26-2016, Accessed 7-15-2021)//ILake-NoCIn the longer term, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan to establish the first national limits on carbon pollution from power plants will continue to drive renewable energy growth. Wind and solar energy will play a central role in achieving the emissions cuts required, and carbon policies like the Clean Power Plan will be critical to ensuring that low-carbon resources are prioritized over higher-emitting power plants.The benefits are hugeIn addition to the climate benefits that they will help deliver, renewables already provide a wide range of market and public health benefits that far outweigh their costs. A recent report from the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National (LBNL) Laboratory found that renewable portfolio standards—state policies that mandate that a specific amount of the state’s electricity comes from renewables—provide a wide range of economic, health, and climate benefits. The report concluded that in 2013 alone, renewable standards across the country saved customers up to $1.2 billion from reduced wholesale electric prices and $1.3 billion to $3.7 billion from lower natural gas prices (as a result of lower demand for natural gas across the power sector).The non-market benefits of renewable energy also are considerable. The LBNL researchers estimated that renewables supported nearly 200,000 jobs, provided $5.2 billion worth of health benefits through improved air quality, and resulted in global climate benefits of $2.2 billion. At the same time, according to a separate report by DBL Investors, the top 10 leading renewable states experienced lower electricity price increases than the bottom 10 states between 2002 and 2013.The United States must continue—and accelerate—its clean energy growth and the transition to a low-carbon electric grid. There will be technical challenges to completing this transformation, but study after study concludes that integrating high levels of renewables into our electric grid is achievable. This is also being demonstrated in practice, as many states are already incorporating wind and solar, including in Texas, where wind has now supplied over 45 percent of the state’s total energy demand on multiple occasions, and in Iowa, as the state now generates 31 percent of its total annual power from wind.Climate change causes extinction.Sprat & Dunlop, ‘19 (David Spratt and Ian Dunlop; Spratt is a Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action. Dunlop is a member of the Club of Rome and formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, Chairman of the Australian Coal Association, Chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and Chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading; "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach;" Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration; 5-30-2019; ; Accessed 07-15-2021) //ILake-NoC2050: By 2050, there is broad scientific acceptance that system tipping-points for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a sea-ice-free Arctic summer were passed well before 1.5°C of warming, for the Greenland Ice Sheet well before 2°C, and for widespread permafrost loss and large-scale Amazon drought and dieback by 2.5°C. The “hothouse Earth” scenario has been realised, and Earth is headed for another degree or more of warming, especially since human greenhouse emissions are still significant. While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability. The destabilisation of the Jet Stream has very significantly affected the intensity and geographical distribution of the Asian and West African monsoons and, together with the further slowing of the Gulf Stream, is impinging on life support systems in Europe. North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation. The summer monsoons in China have failed, and water flows into the great rivers of Asia are severely reduced by the loss of more than one-third of the Himalayan ice sheet. Glacial loss reaches 70 percent in the Andes, and rainfall in Mexico and central America falls by half. Semi-permanent El Nino conditions prevail. Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States. Impacts: A number of ecosystems collapse, including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic. Some poorer nations and regions, which lack capacity to provide artificially-cooled environments for their populations, become unviable. Deadly heat conditions persist for more than 100 days per year in West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, which together with land degradation and rising sea levels contributes to 21 perhaps a billion people being displaced. Water availability decreases sharply in the most affected regions at lower latitudes (dry tropics and subtropics), affecting about two billion people worldwide. Agriculture becomes nonviable in the dry subtropics. Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. Ten percent of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people. According to the Global Challenges Foundation’s Global Catastrophic Risks 2018 report, even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated due to sea-level rise, and In high-end scenarios “the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end”. 22! -- AT: Econ InterdependenceTrump ruined economic interdependence through the trade war – zero-sum security logics have dominated the White House Rudolf 21 – political scientist, (Peter, “The Sino-American World Conflict,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 3-30-21, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)By decoupling the two economies as much as possible, the White House hoped to reduce US economic, technological and security vulnerabilities created by the countries’ interdependence. (The pandemic appears only to have hastened these efforts.) Perhaps the most high-profile initiative was the Trump administration’s campaign against Huawei, one of China’s most important technology groups. For the ‘China hawks’ within the administration – particularly Peter Navarro, a presidential advisor on trade issues and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy – the fight against Huawei was an important stage in the competition for future technological supremacy and control of information systems employing 5G networks.107 Washington has especially sought to restrict Huawei’s access to cuttingedge semiconductors, thereby focusing on an area where Chinese firms are heavily dependent on foreign suppliers.108 The campaign against Huawei reflects the abandonment of the positivesum logic in economic relations. This logic, which was based on absolute gains, was linked to the expectation that economic interdependence would promote political cooperation. Now that China is seen as a global strategic rival, economic logic has given way to a security-policy logic, the dominant concern of which is the relative distribution of gains and the negative consequences of economic interdependence for preserving the technological basis of military superiority.109 The defensive and offensive measures adopted by the US will likely lead China to seek to reduce its own dependence on the United States and any other countries that might partner with the US in denying China access to advanced technology. As James Crabtree has written, Donald Trump’s ‘erratic and aggressive policies have succeeded in convincing Chinese elites that the U.S. is now irrevocably set on blocking China’s technological rise’.110 Beijing’s response, combined with US actions, could lead to the emergence of a new ‘geoeconomic world order’, in which the question of the relative distribution of gains, and concerns about the security consequences of economic interdependence, play a far more important role in determining government policy than in recent decades.111 It is possible that as the economic interdependence between the United States and China dissolves, the world will experience de-globalisation and the emergence of economic blocs or closed economic spaces.112! -- Russia Draw InGlobal competition results in rapid escalation – the US needs to stay on topRudolf 20 - political scientist, (Peter, “U.S. Geopolitics and Nuclear Deterrence in the Era of Great Power Competitions,” Wiley Online Library, 11-24-20, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)After the end of the Cold War, it was widely expected that China and Russia, hopefully moving toward democratization, could be integrated into the liberal order. This hope was disappointed. The United States is faced with the alternative of seeking geopolitical accommodation in a time of new great power conflicts or pushing ahead with strategic competitions overshadowed by the risk of a military conflict with a nuclear dimension. In the course of an intensifying deterrence policy two developments must be expected as the Cold War experience indicates: on the one hand, military worst-case analyses will gain in importance. Deterrence is based on the military capabilities of the opponent, since intentions cannot be determined with certainty and may change. Whether a potential opponent has the aggressive intentions attributed to him tends to play no more a role. Even if he takes substantial unilateral steps—as under Mikhail Gorbachev—to reduce the perceived threat, he may have little effect.106 It took the end of the geopolitical and systemic conflict until the Soviet Union was no longer perceived as threatening—and even then the deterrence system continued to exist. On the other hand, experience shows that even minor conflicts might become disproportionately important. Demonstrating resolve even in conflicts that do not affect fundamental interests becomes a test case for the credibility of the deterrent threat.107 With arms control and confidence-and transparency-building measures, the security dilemma may be mitigated and the risk of escalation reduced. In relations between the United States/NATO and Russia, such measures could be revived, whereas in the Sino-American relationship, they would have to be introduced.108 Since great power rivalries usually involve conflicts about influence and control in strategically important areas and since this is also the case in U.S.-Russian and U.S.-Chinese relations,109 this geopolitical dimension cannot be ignored if tensions between these competing powers are to be reduced. With regard to Russia, geopolitical accommodation seems at least conceptually imaginable without putting at risk core U.S. security interests or weakening existing alliance commitments. For U.S. domestic reasons, however, any administration would have a hard time to seek a rapprochement with Russia, although, in view of the emerging global rivalry with China it would make geopolitical sense to reduce Moscow?s incentives to seek an alignment with Beijing.110 Since the U.S.-China strategic rivalry is about regional and global leadership, at least from the prevailing American point of view, only its intensity and risks can be mitigated.111 Mutual “strategic distrust”112 over the goals of the other side runs deep, there is a lack of willingness to reach a strategic understanding, and strong traditional interests leave little room for mutually acceptable geopolitical compromises. While the Cold War was stabilized to a certain degree through the establishment of clear spheres of influence in Europe, the current geostrategic situation in East Asia is a different, less stable one. There is no clear demarcation between spheres of influence and there are no respected buffer zones.113 This is one, but certainly not the only, reason why the emerging Sino-American world conflict, sometimes called the “new” Cold War, differs from the “old” one.*** AFF Non-Unique -- DIB Collapsing The DIB is collapsing now – supply chains are vulnerable, and investment is decreasing.GT, '21 (Greeley Tribune Editorial; "Other Voices: America’s depleted industrial base is a national security crisis;" Greeley Tribune; ; 4-9-2021, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoCSome parts of the defense industry, to be sure, continue to flourish. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined, with the Pentagon’s budget consuming more than half of all federal discretionary spending. Revenue for defense contractors has increased by 83% since 2011, with annual spending per company doubling in the past five years alone.That money, however, is flowing to a reduced cast of contractors. An analysis by Bloomberg Government found that the number of Pentagon “prime vendors” — those that receive contracts directly from the government — has dropped by 36% in the last decade. An even smaller handful has reaped the most gains. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly half of the 183 major contracts awarded by the Pentagon in 2018 went to just five contractors and their subsidiaries.Such concentration imposes costs on both the military and the public. The first is financial. More than two-thirds of major Defense Department contracts are awarded without a competitive bidding process, according to the GAO; most of the rest receive bids from two or fewer companies. Fewer bidders means pricier contracts: Between 2008 and 2018, the average acquisition cost of a U.S. weapons program, in constant dollars, increased by 12.5%.A lack of suppliers also undermines America’s ability to respond to crises. The Pentagon has identified a “staggering” number of cases where it relies on a single vendor for critical components. It’s down to a lone domestic source of both ammonium perchlorate, a key ingredient for warship propulsion systems, and chaff, a material that fighter jets release to evade enemy radar systems.A sole manufacturer provides all of the Army’s gun and howitzer barrels and mortar tubes. Meanwhile, offshoring has made the supply chain more vulnerable to trade disruptions, cyberattacks and sabotage.The emergence of cyberattacks has already left the DIB in shamblesCybermagazine 6/23 ("New 'Defence Industry Supply Chain and Security 2021 Report'", Cybermagazine, 6/23/2021, // MR)BlueVoyant, a cybersecurity services company, has released findings from its Defence Industry Supply Chain & Security 2021 report, which highlights critical vulnerabilities within the defence supply chain ecosystem. The report includes evidence of the exploitable cyber weaknesses of small-to-medium businesses (SMBs) within the Defence Industrial Base (DIB) and demonstrates how cybercriminals are becoming increasingly adept at locating and exploiting the weakest link within the supply chain. As part of its assessment of the scale of the problem for SMB defence companies, BlueVoyant examined the security of 300 subcontractor firms within the DIB using its third-party datasets and proprietary research. BlueVoyant identified the cybersecurity gaps in the subcontractors’ security practices to garner a better understanding of the security posture of less visible members of the complex defence supply chain. Key report findings include: Over half of the 300 SMB defence contractors had unsecured ports that are critically vulnerable to ransomware attack. More than a quarter (28%) of companies analysed showed evidence indicating they would fail to meet the most basic, tier-1 CMMC requirement. Manufacturing and R&D companies had the highest risk profiles when assessing email security, IT hygiene, malicious activity and vulnerabilities. Industry type was a stronger predictor of risk than company size alone. 48% of the companies had ports vulnerable to ransomware as well as other severe vulnerabilities, including unsecured data storage ports, out-of-date software and OS, and other vulnerabilities rated severe according to NIST frameworks. Almost one-tenth of the companies analysed showed critical vulnerabilities, evidence of targeted threat activity, and evidence of compromise. 100% of the large R&D companies assessed, displayed network vulnerabilities, with 66% of these companies also showing evidence of targeting. More than six months after the F5 and Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities were announced, nine companies still had the vulnerabilities on their networks. In the US, securing the DIB is one of the most critical national security objectives and policymakers are acutely aware of the high stakes with cyberattacks, according to BlueVoyant. Businesses within this sector form the backbone of the US defence industry and are high-value targets for nation state adversaries and other cybercriminals. Although defence contractors face the same opportunistic threats as any business, the DIB’s biggest problem is the complexity of securing such an enormous ecosystem, spanning thousands of companies. The introduction of new US government regulations and compliance standards, such as the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), are set to improve the baseline of cybersecurity requirements. Yet, despite the discipline reflected in the new regulations, many challenges remain for smaller firms, which do not have the resources and budgets to deal with increasing, targeted cyberattacks. Through its analysis, BlueVoyant identified addressable concerns for DIB companies with low organisational cybersecurity capabilities and provided key recommendations for improving the defence industry’s overall security efforts. Key insights can help Department of Defence (DoD) and defence prime contractors focus their attention and can be used to support and extend recommendations that are present in the 2017 DSB Task Force report and in the 2020 Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report and include: Continuous cybersecurity monitoring is a key component of a secure supply chain. Prime contractors can reduce their risk exposure by focusing on the most high-risk segments of their supply chain. Findings align with prior reports that R&D companies are particularly vulnerable targets for malicious insertion in the supply chain and focusing on them can reduce risk to all segments. Predictive analysis is possible based on quantitative measures and can provide the DoD and prime contractors with findings to help them identify and more effectively manage risk. However, more research with a larger sample size and wider variables is needed to truly measure the risk of an industry with this scale. Commenting on the research, Austin Berglas, Global Head of Professional Services, BlueVoyant, said: “As prime contractors and other larger DIB members develop more robust and sophisticated security defences, it’s no surprise threat actors have pivoted towards targeting SMBs within the same supply chain. In particular, manufacturers and R&D companies are lagging in terms of their own cyber posture, leaving the entire defence industry wide open to the threat of ransomware and other third-party attacks. “For an industry with such an expansive, interconnected digital ecosystem, supply chain security should be a fundamental consideration. Prime contractors are under enormous pressure to reduce the attack surface of the entire supply chain but are partly blind to the vulnerabilities that exist. For smaller companies, identifying ongoing risks and understanding overall supply chain health is a daunting but vital process, and more attention and resources should be dedicated to combating the growing threat.” Jim Rosenthal, founder and CEO, BlueVoyant, concluded: “The US defence supply chain is a vital national security asset, but the DIB is currently in an inefficiently secure state. In the face of relentless and successful cyber espionage, the nation’s primary focus should be on creating a secure and resilient supply chain. The two Executive Orders: one on American Supply Chains, and the other on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, direct much-needed attention and funding to cybersecurity in the defence supply chain, but they are only the start. Closer co-operation between the DoD and the private sector is required to support a more vibrant, diverse and secure defence sector.”Sole-sourcing and reliance on outsourcing materials has crushed DIB stabilityGonzalez & Rodriguez 6-28, 2021, (" Nothing left in the tank: The state of the pentagon's supply chain", Andrew Gonzalez is a senior associate at One Defense and Stephen Rodriguez is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council, 6/28/21, )Since the end of the Cold War, when America faced its last superpower competitor, military leaders had little reason to be seriously worried when a portion of the nation’s planes, tanks and ships were unusable. The military’s operational missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere could largely be executed with materials on hand and the support of contractors. Today, one of the most concerning questions facing the U.S. Department of Defense is a crisis in readiness when measured against the near-term threat of China, which is already on a de facto industrial war footing. The lack of spare parts, in particular, has created this crisis in readiness. And a key driver for the scarcity of components and parts is that many are sole-sourced. This is an issue for U.S. combat readiness, surge capacity and the ability to remain in a protracted, high-intensity fight. Sole-source differs from single-source in that the former has no competition and thus has a de facto monopoly on a single node in the supply chain. Single-source can involve multiple manufacturers that system integrators select for their products. This provides much-needed redundancy to the system integrator as well as helping them avoid the dreaded “vendor lock.” It also offers a better value to the U.S. government customer who realizes savings through the associated supplier competition. Sole-sourcing has become the standard, making the DoD vulnerable to global and local supply shortages, which in turn drives down readiness and leaves our military without the ability to quickly replace equipment losses due to enemy activity. There are understandable reasons for this practice. Major weapons systems such as the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the M1A3 main battle tank are highly complex. The components sourced from manufacturers that are integrated into these systems must be held to a high standard of quality with little margin of error. The specialized nature of the industry, particularly in the aerospace sector, makes it difficult for new entrants to the market, as the existing dominant vendors can outprice the competition due to their scale. Another barrier to entry is the limited size of “mil spec” parts. The DoD may not buy enough parts to support more than one firm operating in a niche market. The 2019 Industrial Capabilities Report is an excellent reference document that lays out many of these critical issues in the DoD supply chain. These include a heavy reliance on foreign suppliers of machine tools with a one- to three-year procurement lag, the lack of large, single-pour aluminum and magnesium sand castings for aircraft, and only two domestic suppliers of solid-rocket motors. What happens if those tools stop arriving? How is the Air Force supposed to replace aircraft lost in combat quickly? What rockets are supposed to usher new constellations of satellites into low Earth orbit to replace those lost in an anti-satellite attack? The U.S. has allowed itself to wander into this precarious situation as a result of episodic budget cuts, massive industry consolidation and 20 years of low-intensity conflict in the Middle East. Fortunately, there are solutions the DoD might consider to incentivize industry to provide surge capacity. Current contracts for system integrators do not have strong enough requirements for there to be surge capability in either the contract duration or the product life cycle. These contract options must have greater thresholds for surge capacity if a sole-source supplier is being used. In single-source cases, the supplier network must be diversified and bolstered with government investment. Contracts should also heavily emphasize the adoption of emerging technologies to cut costs where the research and development timeline to develop them internally is too long. This is especially true for additive manufacturing contractors, whose early promise offer crucial resilience to the spare parts supply chain. The DoD should also focus its industrial policy on discouraging corporate consolidation and emphasize diversifying its supply chain and component contractor base in particular. The DoD should also invest in new and modernized infrastructure for there to be a more capable and resilient domestic manufacturing base. A good place to start would be with the aerospace supply chain, which, as a recent Government Accountability Office report pointed out, is facing a crisis in spare parts. Some degree of inefficiency must be allowable for the U.S. government to maintain idling plants, accept early technology failure from commercial suppliers and refine contracting practices. Placing a policy premium on surge capacity will drive these reforms. Failing to do so maintains the status quo, where we are stuck with fewer and fewer exquisite platforms that can’t maintain readiness or quickly be replaced. The defense-industrial base supply chain is barely able to keep pace today, in peacetime. Failure to act, well intentioned or not, is a de jure policy itself. The result will mean an American defeat, particularly in operational conflict scenarios in the Baltics or Taiwan, where the enemy can flow and reinforce its forces quickly. Surge capacity is needed, and the effectiveness of suppliers to meet DoD demands take precedence over the efficiency by which the supplier can do so.Non-Unique -- Domestic REM Fails Domestic REE mining isn’t enough – the US still depends on China for the later stages of the refinement process.Grasso, '13 (Valerie Bailey Grasso; Specialist in Defense Acquisition; "Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress;" Congressional Research Service; ; 12-23-2013, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-NoCThe supply chain for rare earth elements generally consists of mining, separation, refining, alloying, and manufacturing (devices and component parts). A major issue for REE development in the United States is the lack of refining, alloying, and fabricating capacity that could process any future rare earth production. One U.S. company, Electron Energy Corporation (EEC) in Landisville, PA, produces samarium cobalt (SmCo) permanent magnets, and Hitachi Metals, Ltd. of Japan is producing small amounts of the more desirable neodymium iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets (needed for numerous consumer electronics, energy, and defense applications) at its China Grove, North Carolina facility. EEC, in its production of its SmCo permanent magnet, uses small amounts of gadolinium—an REE of which there is no U.S. production. Even the REEs needed for these magnets that operate at the highest temperatures include small amounts of dysprosium and terbium, both available only from China at the moment. EEC imports magnet alloys used for its magnet production from China. Prior to multimillion dollar investments in mining, separation, and alloying facilities by Molycorp, and other exploration and development projects in the United States, there was a significant underinvestment in U.S. supply chain capacity (including processing, workforce development, and research and development (R&D) which has left the United States nearly 100% import dependent on all aspects of the REE supply chain and dependent on a sole source for much of the material. An April 2010 GAO report illustrates the lack of U.S. presence in the REE global supply chain at each of the five stages - mining, separation, refining oxides into metal, fabrication of alloys and the manufacturing of magnets and other components. According to the GAO report, China produces about 95% of the REE raw materials, about 97% of rare earth oxides, and is the only exporter of commercial quantities of rare earth metals (Japan produces some metal for its own use for alloys and magnet production). About 90% of the metal alloys are produced in China (small production in the United States) and China manufactures 75% of the NeFeB magnets and 60% of the SmCo magnets. Thus, even if U.S. rare earth production ramps up, much of the processing/alloying and metal fabrication would occur in China. Non-Unique -- REM Offshoring and other methods of extractions thump the DABarnard 20 - the national policy director at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), (Christopher, “US dependence on China for rare earth minerals is a disaster waiting to happen,” The Hill, 12-09-20, , Accessed 7-14-21, LASA-AH)Aside from the recent relief package proposal, there are other encouraging signs of a political evolution on this matter. For example, the bipartisan Reclaiming American Rare Earths (RARE) Act, introduced in the House on Sept. 1, offers a comprehensive framework of tax incentives to stimulate more investment into the U.S.-based rare earth reserves and mineral production, as well as a series of grants for mining and mineral recovery projects. Similarly, Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska.) American Mineral Security Act is another step in the right direction, and is likely what the Senate Energy Committee relief package is referring to. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are also playing an important role. From Alaska to Texas, companies and startups are advancing mining development, and a site in Colorado will be the first non-China facility for refining rare earth ores, a crucial process that has been outsourced to China for decades. The latter in particular, a joint venture between Japan, Australia and the U.S., also shows the potential for international collaboration with like-minded countries on rare earth exploration. Moreover, a mountain in Wyoming called Bear Lodge is America’s largest known deposit of rare earth minerals, with approximately 18 million tons that could supply the U.S. for years to come, although extraction has proven a challenge. Ultimately, however, more can and must be done. As Mills reports, the permitting process in the U.S. is ridiculously long, taking up to three decades where Australia and Canada only require two years. A regulatory minefield of labyrinthine local, state and federal rules precludes much-needed investment from taking place, stifling mining companies compared to their Chinese competitors. Meanwhile, mineral exploration and development on federal lands have been all-but-banned.US overreliance on Chinese REM supply chains decks any REM stability and, the US is only able to mine 14 out of the 35 critical mineralsCohen & Grant 6-22, 2021, ("America's Critical Strategic Vulnerability:Rare Earth Elements", Arieal Cohen and James C. Grant, 6/22/2021, )The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) dominance over global critical mineral supply chains presents one of the largest strategic vulnerabilities to the United States and her allies since the Arab oil embargo-triggered energy security crisis of the 1970s. The embargo, which coincided with dwindling U.S. reserves and a devaluation of the dollar, brought devastating impacts: high inflation coupled with economic stagnation (stagflation), and a quadrupling of oil prices. Today, the PRC holds a similar power to hobble the economic prosperity and military-industrial capabilities of adversaries around the globe. Rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals are crucial for production in high-tech manufacturing. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Interior identified 35 critical minerals crucial for national and economic security, including 17 REEs from atomic numbers 57-71 such as cerium and promethium as well as chemically similar elements scandium and yttrium. Though these elements are considered “rare,” there are misconceptions regarding their availability. REEs are, despite the name, commonly found in the Earth’s crust. However, extracting economically mineable concentrations is difficult, thus their relatively low supply. Chinese Strategic Dominance of Rare Earths Sector China is the world’s leading supplier of REEs: In 2019, it produced 62% of raw materials. In comparison, the United States produced 12.2%. The PRC also holds a majority share of REE and critical mineral reserves, owning 36.7% of global totals, whereas U.S. reserves are marked at 1.1%. Refinement capacities in China are significantly stronger than those in the United States due to an abundance of domestic facilities that process locally sourced and foreign raw critical mineral materials. Regarding REE export, the PRC transported 408,000 metric tons of final product materials from 2008-2018, roughly 43.3% of all rare earth exports over that period. This placed China as the clear export leader, ahead of the next best U.S. total at just 9.3%. The United States also imported 98% of its processed REEs from China in 2018. China’s dominant REE refining capacity, buoyed by low labor costs and lax environmental regulations, makes it the world’s top destination for REE processing. To address growing insecurity of its strategic mineral supply, the United States and her allies must evaluate the current Chinese domination of the critical mineral and REE supply chain and develop alternatives to this potentially dangerous dependence. Decreasing reliance on China for the supply of these vital resources will enhance strategic stability and ensure enduring self-reliance in the face of increasingly adversarial relations with Beijing. U.S. Domestic Mineral Production U.S. corporations are beginning to take steps in association with the federal government to enhance domestic supply lines. However, 14 of the 35 minerals identified to be critical by the Department of Interior are not currently extracted or refined in the continental United States. Recognizing the long-term vulnerability of an over-reliance on Chinese REEs, then-President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13817, identifying federal government priorities to increase domestic extraction of minerals, refinement processes, supply chain activity, and evaluating new material sources. Later in 2020, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 13953, declaring reliance on Chinese critical mineral export a national emergency. This also authorized the Defense Production Act to streamline the construction of domestic mines whilst prioritizing the expansion and protection of minerals in secured supply chains. The Biden administration has signaled its intent to continue and expand upon efforts outlined during the previous administration, pledging investment in rare-earth separation processes in the recently passed $2 trillion infrastructure plan. After a 100-day review of U.S. critical mineral supply chains as part of Executive Order 14017, President Biden announced the formation of a supply chain disruptions task force headed by the Secretaries of Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The group will identify improvements in supply chain management that will strengthen U.S. critical mineral supply over time. Recommendations in the review also encourage the Department of Defense, Congress, and private businesses to work with allies to develop mineral extraction sites and refinement projects in the United States. On the whole, the mandate to identify unreliable critical mineral supply chains and accompanying actions to develop reliable long-term supplies demonstrates that the Biden administration is taking critical mineral source diversification seriously. However, the United States is years away from providing a steady domestic supply of critical minerals, and rivaling Chinese production will require a massive policy commitment, deregulation, and investment. U.S.-China Global Competition The United States and China compete across multiple sectors and regions for critical mineral and REE supply. However, Chinese dominance of supplies, exports, and refining capacity remains. In 2020, China produced 140,000 tons of REEs, whereas the United States produced just 38,000 tons. The Chinese government has previously used its mining prowess to undercut U.S. efforts to reduce reliance on their refinement power. In 2019, the PRC raised tariffs on imports from the U.S. from 10% to 25%, meaning that REEs exported to China would be significantly more expensive to process. The Trump administration considered implementing counter-tariffs but refrained from using them due to concerns of U.S. companies being left stranded without an alternative supplier. This situation highlights the need to have redundancies in the REE processing supply chain. China and the United States have begun competing for resources in other mineral-rich regions. Notably, Chinese corporations have increased business relations in South America to increase their hold on mineral supplies in the region. The primary example is Brazil, where China’s Ningbo Zhoushan Port concluded a $650 million deal with Brazilian mining company Vale to export iron ore to production facilities in mainland China. Though iron ore is not considered a critical mineral, the deal exemplifies the expansive nature of Chinese business. Brazil holds an estimated 22 million tons of REEs, roughly 18.3% of estimated global supply. Should Chinese companies pine for the expansion of critical mineral trade relations in Brazil, the precedent set by previous commercial deals will likely yield positive outcomes. In Southeast Asia, China has capitalized on regional proximity by increasing trade relations with mineral rich nations such as Myanmar and Indonesia. Chinese companies reportedly relied on Myanmar for almost half of their REE concentrates in 2020, and thus the February 1 coup was of great concern to business officials. Though supply lines have not yet been disrupted as a result of the political instability, the coup brought in focus Myanmar’s importance to Chinese REE manufacturing. Current U.S.-China competition is taking place in Greenland, where snap elections in which the leftist environmental party, Inuit Ataqatgiit (IA), formed a majority and have placed mineral extraction projects in question. IA campaigned to block a joint Chinese-Australian mining venture, highlighting related practices considered to be harmful to local ecosystems. Greenland has rich REE reserves and the potential to become the largest supplier of critical minerals in the Western hemisphere. With renewed interests in diversifying its supply chain, the United States will likely look to Greenland for mine expansion. This will encourage the U.S. to keep China out of the Danish-controlled autonomy. After all, Denmark is a veteran and whole-hearted NATO member. The trajectory of competition between the United States and China will see the PRC continue to use its leverage over the critical mineral market to improve its geostrategic position vis-à-vis allies and adversaries alike. Tensions over mineral resources acquisition are unlikely to lead to direct conflict at this point; however, supply chains will likely be used as tools to undermine respective strategic postures. Chinese leadership through their media have already signaled such actions could take place, suggesting supply cut-offs could be used in future conflicts. And should China do so, the U.S. is likely to increase its presence in Africa and Latin America to secure vital resources. Joint U.S.-Ally Efforts to Bolster Critical Mineral Supply Security After the U.S. and its fellow democracies recognized strategic vulnerabilities related to Chinese critical mineral production, U.S.-allied government and public-private sector cooperation increased, with U.S. allies acting to diversify their supply chains. This trend needs to be supported by the respective governments and further expanded, including in the Biden administration energy and infrastructure plan and through “buy American” policies enacted by the previous and current administrations. Abundance of raw REE’s means nothing if there’s no one to process themFeng 6-22, 2021, ("Domestic rare-earth woe shows why US should end decoupling", Qian Feng is the research director at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, 6/22/21,)The US and its allies, which plan to spend big to counter China's dominance in rare-earth sector, seem to have encountered a bigger problem that money can't solve: an acute shortage of companies and projects. Rushing to secure domestic supplies of rare earths and to develop the capability to process them, the Pentagon and Department of Energy (DOE) have put money directly in several companies, but some in the industry said they are baffled by the investments because of recipients' links to China or lack of an established record, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. The vulnerability of the US' rare-earth industrial chain exposed by real world conditions is obviously far more severe than the results of the 100-day critical supply chain review announced by the Biden administration earlier this month. Judging from the present predicament, if the US and its allies want to rebuild a rare-earth industrial chain that is completely independent from China, they have quite a long way to go. Some politicians in the US have long been wishfully pushing so-called rare-earth independency. The strategic role of rare earth resources to high-tech and defense industries has been repeatedly cited as an argument to advocate decoupling amid the tension between the US and China. Policymakers in Washington seem convinced that to win competition from China in key emerging industries in the future, the US must unite its allies to completely cut connections with China in the rare earths industry. Based on this zero-sum game mindset, while expanding investment in projects at home to boost production capacity, the US also pins its hopes on its allies abroad. At the Quad summit in March, the US, Japan, India and Australia also made it a key topic to discuss strengthen rare-earth cooperation. But so far, the US' plan has run into great difficulties at home and abroad. Studies show that it would take the US and its allies at least a decade to create from scratch a non-Chinese rare earth supply chain. In fact, overly politicizing economic issues are doomed to fail. While American politicians choose to take a radical approach to interfere with economic cooperation for political reasons, American companies have made completely different choices. In 2019, when the Trump administration was pushing to break the country's dependence on Chinese supplies of critical minerals, the US companies have imported more rare-earth products from China. In 2019, China's exports of rare earth products to the US came in at about 153,000 tons, reaching $79.29 million. Any moves the US politicians take to hurt China on the rare-earth issue are bound to hurt American companies in the end. After decades of development, the international division of labor in the field of rare earths has become more mature and reasonable. China and the US enjoy mutual beneficial cooperation in the field. Facing the US' trade war and technology crackdown, China has never chosen to weaponize rare earth. It is hoped that the US government can deal with economic issues in accordance with economic rules. Political mutual trust can only be enhanced through mutually beneficial cooperation. The US should stop going further on the wrong path of harming others while not benefiting itself. Non-Unique -- Mining Mining in Round Top Mountain solves – sustains the US for 130 years.Vinoski, '20 (Jim Vinoski; Manufacturing Expert and Advocate; "The U.S. Needs China For Rare Earth Minerals? Not For Long, Thanks To This Mountain;" Forbes; ; 4-7-2020, Accessed 7-14-2021)//ILake-NoCA whole slate of new bad behaviors by China’s repressive regime have been laid bare by the COVID-19 crisis. There were already plenty of complaints before the pandemic began, but the coronavirus seems to be supercharging the pressure on U.S. companies to reduce their Chinese sourcing. One of the biggest recent challenges in that regard has been China’s dominance in mining and processing critical rare earth minerals. These are vital building blocks for everything from smart phones, EV batteries and medical imaging machines to advanced defense weaponry, so our reliance on a less-than-friendly nation for our supply presents a huge political and economic risk. But right now China controls 90% of global rare earth production.It’s amazing good fortune, then, that out in the barren scrub of Far West Texas 85 miles east of El Paso, an unassuming 1,250-tall mountain called Round Top holds the promise of making America largely self-sufficient in these critical minerals. The mountain contains five out of six light rare earths (such as neodymium), 10 out of 11 heavy rare earths (dysprosium, for example), and all five permanent magnet materials. What’s more, Round Top has large deposits of lithium, critical for batteries in EVs and power storage.USA Rare Earth is a privately held Delaware LLC that was formed specifically to develop the project to extract and process Round Top’s valuable ore. One of the company’s primary investors is Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC). Texas Minerals Resources Corporation had previously invested $25 million in the Round Top project, and is now a 20% junior partner in the endeavor.“The risk here has been well-established since President Xi’s not-so-veiled threat last year,” said Pini Althaus, CEO of USA Rare Earth, referring to a visit by Xi Jinping last May to a Chinese rare earth facility that coincided with state media reports about potential bans on rare earths exports to the U.S. as a trade war retaliation. “From a national security standpoint, having the U.S. military rely on China for rare earths for their fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles is just not prudent. And there’s also the high-tech world and US manufacturing to think about.”It’s not only the political threats that are a concern. “China is prioritizing their domestic consumption,” Althaus pointed out. “They manufactured $1 trillion worth of product from their rare earths materials last year. Heavy rare earths in particular are in short supply – they’re not endless.”Round Top, however, offers a 130-year supply of the critical minerals. And USA Rare Earth is looking at benefits beyond the ore itself. “It’s not just about supply,” said Althaus. “We want to reinvigorate the processing industry that’s been offshored.” Toward that end, the company is constructing the first U.S. plant to produce high-purity rare earth oxides, first in a pilot plant opening in Denver, Colorado, scheduled to be fully-functional in May, and later in a full-scale continuous process operation on the Round Top site. The focus there is on sustainable processing, using renewable energy for power and an environmentally-friendly continuous ion exchange separation method, which has the added benefits of low capital and operating costs and streamlined permitting.Link Turn – MiningEnvironmental regulation increases mining investment – certainty and innovation.Helenius et al., '14 (Kristina S?derholm, Patrik S?derholm, Maria Pettersson, Nanna Svahn, Roine Viklund, and Heidi Helenius; Lule? University of Technology; "Environmental Regulation and Mining Sector Competitiveness;" Lule? University of Technology; ; 2014, Accessed 7-15-2021)//ILake-NoCAt the same time the politically stable countries also tend to be those with the strictest environmental regulations. Thus, although environmental legislation may act as an impediment to exploration in some regions and can entail delays of the start-up process, the largest mining companies tend to be subject to environmental regulation practically in all places they choose to locate their mining operations. For this reason one is unlikely to detect a close negative empirical relationship between environmental regulation stringency and mining investment. A number of empirical studies investigate and comment on this relationship in more detail. Annandale and Taplin (2003) address the effect of environmental permitting processes on proposed mine development projects internationally, and they present the results of a survey among 200 mining company executives in Australia and Canada. The responses indicate that a substantive majority of mining companies do not perceive the environmental permitting process as an impediment to investment and it may even encourage investment activity. This was particularly the case among the Australian companies, while the Canadian executives overall expressed more concern over the negative impacts of the permitting process. Tole and Koop (2011) report similar results based on their econometric analysis of the locational choice of multi-national gold mining companies. Specifically, they show that strict environmental regulation did not affect the location decisions and it could even attract investment. This is reflected in the fact that gold mining firms seem to be more inclined to invest in regions with a clean environment, although their results are less robust for this finding. The above shows thus that rather than being intimidated by strict environmental regulation, mining companies may be looking for it, or at least for the factors that the existence of such regulation represent, such as stable political and legal institutions.2 Companies prefer to commence operations in countries where the environmental regulatory framework is clear and consistent as well as non-discretionary (see also Rémy, 2003). The role of regulatory stability is further accentuated in the Fraser Institute’s annual assessment of the attractiveness of different mining nations for investment. In these assessments mining professionals are asked to evaluate how uncertainty regarding environmental regulations (e.g., the stability of the regulations, the consistency and timeliness of the regulatory processes, whether regulations appear to be based on science or not, etc.) affects their willingness to invest in different regions or countries. This assessment shows, for instance, that in developed countries environmental regulations are generally less of a deterrent to investment than is the case in the developed world. This was in part illustrated also in Figure 1. In Figure 3 we show the relationship between environmental regulation and political stability as impediments to mining investment based on data from 112 countries on the perceptions of company executives in the global mining industry. This figure shows that countries where environmental regulations are perceived to discourage investments are also countries that are deemed to be overall politically unstable. Regulatory stability is particularly important for mining given the cyclical nature of minerals markets with widely fluctuating output prices, thus providing narrow investment ‘windows’ and forcing a certain time table for new investments. Results from the Behre Dolbear Group’s annual assessment of the performance of different mining countries add to this picture (Wyatt and McCurdy, 2013). One of the factors that they consider is the average time it takes to obtain a permit decision. According to Wyatt and McCurdy (2013) delays in the permitting process is a global problem, and it will be affected by, for instance, requirements for public consultation, adversarial trials and opposition and intervention by various stakeholder groups and NGOs. For instance, in parts of the USA delays in the permitting process have posed a substantive risk to mining operations, and lead times of 7-10 years before new mines can start operating are common. Most previous research (including the consultancy reports), though, do not ‘decompose’ the environmental regulatory framework in order to separate between, for instance, the stringency of the imposed permit conditions (e.g., performance standards) on the one hand and other design and implementation features on the other. The latter includes, for instance, the uncertainties created by the lack of timeliness in the regulatory decision-making process. Previous research also lacks a set of comparative studies of regulatory design and implementation in different countries. 12 A contributing explanation for the non-existent (and sometimes even positive) relationship between environmental regulation and mining development is that differences in compliance costs across countries may be relatively unimportant to multi-national mining companies since these companies tend to adopt the same technological and environmental standards independent of where they choose to operate. This is in turn due to a number of factors, including that: (a) the most modern and cost-effective mining processes are generally the most environmentally friendly ones; (b) environmental standards are becoming stricter worldwide, it thus makes sense for the industry to adopt strict environmental standards early on, rather than having to readjust later on; and (c) international mining companies are exposed to scrutiny and pressure from the public, banks and the shareholders to pursue appropriate environmental conduct (Peck et al., 1992; Rémy, 2003). The mining technologies used also have to comply with the environmental standards adopted in countries with strict regulations since much of the market potential for metals and minerals are found there. Furthermore, McNamara (2009) notes that multi-national mining companies, independent of their size, are affected by something that resembles an international consensus on environmental matters, and they are also increasingly influenced by various self-regulatory industry codes and standards. The companies wish to main a good corporate image, and they therefore shy away from situations that could evoke scandals that will make clients, customers and the public lose trust in them (World Bank and International Finance Corporation, 2002). Hilson (2000) argues that while multi-national mining companies often use the same environmental standards independent of where they are operating, this is not likely to be true for small companies in the developing world. Small local mining operations in poor countries are likely to be the ones primarily affected by, and benefitting from, a lack of stringent environmental regulations. However, small mining companies are also more often dependent on credit, so this is likely to be particularly prevalent in regions and countries in which international banks, development organizations etc. are not pushing for increased environmental conduct (Rémy, 2003). Impact Turn – Nuclear Weapons Production Too ExpensiveMaintaining nuclear supply is too expensive Hersman and Rodgers 2021[Rebecca Hersman is the Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Joseph Rodgers is a project coordinator the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Nuclear Modernization under Competing Pressures”, Hersman-Rodgers_T46_Formatted_FINAL_v2.pdf ()]In the modernization debate, the high-profile, high-dollar strategic delivery systems get most of the attention, but they are by no means the only issues on the nuclear modernization plate. One underappreciated challenge is the effective modernization of the U.S. nuclear stockpile itself. These issues include sustaining complex life extension and warhead modernization programs, ensuring that the United States can produce weapons as needed well into the future, and maintaining a viable supply chain for critical components such as tritium. One example well illustrates this challenge. A handful of U.S. nuclear warheads may require newly produced plutonium pits to ensure that they continue to function to the end of the century. Plutonium pits have an estimated lifespan of 80–90 years. This requirement applies to the W87-1 and may apply to the W93, the Future Strategic Missile Warhead, and submarine-launched cruise missile warhead. To support nuclear-warhead modernization projects, the United States currently plans to produce 80 pits per year by 2030 at two sites: Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The United States has not operated a full-scale plutonium pit production facility since 1989, and some in the nuclear policy community are highly skeptical about the project’s feasibility and cost profile. NNSA’s schedule for the expansion of Los Alamos and construction at the Savannah River Site has been called overly ambitious by analysts at federally funded research and development centers. In 2019, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) released a report evaluating NNSA’s two-site solution for plutonium pit production and questioning the expected timeline for the Savannah River location. It noted that “IDA examined past NNSA programs and could find no historical precedent to support starting initial operations by 2030, much less full rate production.” IDA assessed that the plans for the Savannah River Site were likely to experience substantial cost growth and schedule slippage— and could even be completely canceled. It also questioned whether Los Alamos could meet its goals by 2030.ICBMS Impact turn A. ICBMs fail - outdated & incredibly expensiveTucker 21 (Patrick, “New ICBM Costs Can, Must Come Down, Hyten Says” Defense One, 4/12/21, , Accessed 7/16/21, DDI-FGilbard)The United States needs to lower the cost of modernizing its aging intercontinental ballistic missile force, says Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who believes he’s found a way.?Hyten said he’s been working with Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor on the program, and others to bring that cost down. The solution, he argues, is in new digital engineering technologies and greater flexibility on software requirements.America’s nuclear triad of bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, has come?under assault?from nonproliferation experts who argue that Cold War-era missiles are unnecessary and?pose unacceptable risks,?in addition to being very costly. Last week, while traveling with other senior military leaders to meet with representatives from technology companies, Hyten?reiterated?his view on the importance of retaining the so-called third leg of ICMBs. In 2019 the Congressional Budget Office?assessed?that the cost of the ICBM replacement — a program called the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD — would run $61 billion over 10 years, or $18 billion more than what the office was projecting in just 2017.?B. Continued ICBM use leads to accidental nuclear war UCS 20 (“US ICBMs Are Superfluous and Increase the Risk of Mistaken Nuclear War, Report Finds” Union of Concerned Scientists, 6/22/20, , Accessed 7/16/21, DDI-FGilbard)CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (June 22, 2020)—Once considered a vital part of US nuclear deterrence, ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) have long been superfluous, according to a?report?released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The US Air Force keeps the missiles, located in silos in five Plains states, on high alert, increasing the risk that the United States could mistakenly start a nuclear war in response to a false warning of an attack.“There is no technological rationale for maintaining ICBMs,” said physicist David Wright, report lead author and former co-director of the UCS Global Security Program. “Sixty years ago, ICBMs were more accurate and powerful than submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and communications links with subs were unreliable. Today, SLBMs are as accurate as ICBMs if not more, and the Navy has secure submarine communication links, making the ICBMs unnecessary.“Perhaps even more important, submarines are virtually undetectable and therefore invulnerable at sea, while ICBMs are sitting ducks. Their vulnerability has prompted the Air Force to keep them on high alert, which is dangerous and could trigger a nuclear war.”Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a?summary?of its version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act that suggests it will support an administration request to triple funding for a new generation of ICBMs, from $500 million this year to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2021, and prohibit taking the current ICBM fleet off high-alert status. Today, the House Armed Services Committee will begin its deliberations over the legislation.“I want to thank UCS for this report, which I expect will become an invaluable resource as Congress considers the question of whether the United States should spend $100 billion to develop and deploy a suite of new nuclear-armed ICBMs,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “This is a misguided investment, and I plan to push alternative strategies in Congress to ensure American security without wasting our tax dollars.”The Air Force maintains the missiles on high alert so it can launch them before they could be destroyed by an incoming Russian nuclear attack. Because it takes only 30 minutes for a long-range missile to travel from Russia to the United States, the president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch US ICBMs in response without any certainty that the attack warning was accurate.“A mistaken nuclear launch is a very real possibility,” said physicist Lisbeth Gronlund, a report co-author and former co-director of the UCS Global Security Program. “In fact, there have been?a number of close calls?over the last 50 years where human or technological errors led both the United States and Russia to begin preparations to launch their nuclear weapons.”William J. Perry, defense secretary from 1994 to 1997, agrees that the United States could eliminate the ICBM fleet and still have a robust nuclear arsenal.“Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn’t only budgets that would benefit,” he?wrote?in a New York Times column. “These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.” Perry then described a false alarm that he experienced when a computer glitch falsely indicated that there were 200 Soviet nuclear missiles heading toward the United States.**** Oil DA 1NC 1NC -- Oil DA A. Uniqueness -- Oil rebounding now – industry consolidation, revenue upticks and increased free cash flow.Nair & Khan, '21 (Arathy S Nair and Shariq Khan; Arathy writes about the North America energy sector and focuses on oil and gas producers, refiners and pipeline companies.; "Halliburton points to oil industry recovery after profit beat;” Reuters; ; 1-19-2021, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCCrude oil prices are holding to gains from a rebound in late-2020 from a coronavirus-induced slump, with Brent crude hovering around $55 per barrel on Tuesday after averaging around $45 in the last three months of 2020.This has encouraged producers to complete more wells and add rigs. North America rig count was 410 at year-end, compared with 341 in the third quarter.“We view 2021 as a bit of a transition year, and 2022 is when we see the global rebalancing of supply and demand,” Chief Executive Officer Jeff Miller said on a post-earnings call, adding that he expected more consolidation in the industry.Miller said he is optimistic that the upturn in activity in North America would continue, while international markets would bottom out during the first quarter and improve as the year unfolds.However, he expects pressure to improve shareholder returns will hold output flat this year to 2020 exit levels.Halliburton, which kicked off fourth-quarter earnings for service providers, said revenue from North America jumped 25.8% from the third quarter, while international revenue rose 0.4%.Completion and production business revenue was 15% higher in the fourth quarter, compared with the preceding three months.The company expects revenue from the business to rise 3% to 5% in the current quarter from the fourth, though operating margins are expected to fall 150 to 200 basis points.Drilling and evaluation revenue rose 1.9% sequentially and is expected to increase in the low single digit in the first quarter from the fourth.Total revenue of $3.24 billion beat analysts’ estimates of $3.21 billion, while adjusted net income was 3 cents above estimates at 18 cents per share, according to Refinitiv IBES data.Halliburton, like its customers, has cut its capital spending and reduced its workforce, as energy demand and prices tumbled last year.The cost cuts helped the company generate free cash flow of $1.15 billion in 2020, above the $1 billion it had targeted.B. Link -- Regulatory scrutiny tanks (?) the oil industry – increased uncertainty and costs.Slack, ‘16 (Richard Slack; President and Chief of OilDex; "Meeting compliance challenges;” Oil & Gas Financial Journal; ; 01-12-2016, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCREGULATORY COMPLIANCE continues to be one of the greatest challenges for oil and gas producers. Not only is the oil and gas industry highly regulated, but regulations are evolving and changing on an ongoing basis. Staying compliant with the latest regulations is doubly difficult because the standards you had to meet yesterday may be even more stringent today. In addition, the cost of compliance consistently has a huge impact on the bottom line, and failure to meet compliance standards can incur even more expenses in fines and reparations.The best way to meet the requirements of regulators is through comprehensive data tracking. If you can monitor and report on every aspect of your operation, you can be sure you will be in compliance at all times, and you will have an audit trail ready to access when you need it.According to BDO's annual Oil & Gas Risk factor Report, regulatory compliance consistently ranks as number one among the risk factors cited by the 100 top E&P producers. Federal, state, and international regulations are the most frequently cited risks in public oil and gas companies' 10-K filings. And new compliance concerns are emerging on an ongoing basis. Fracking, for example, is still a relatively new practice with a unique set of environmental and safety concerns that are still being established by government agencies. While federal and, especially, state regulators continue to scrutinize E&P environmental and business practices, the uncertainty associated with how to comply with new regulations is high. For example, one in four companies in the BDO Report cited horizontal drilling as a regulatory concern.Oil and gas producers not only have to ensure compliance with multiple agencies in multiple jurisdictions, they also have to worry about compliance across multiple disciplines. These companies have to comply with regulations for facilities, financials, operations, environmental practices, and more. In the area of health, safety, and environment (HSE), spending among global E&P companies is estimated to climb from $35 billion in 2011 to $56 billion in 2030 - a 60% increase driven mostly by increased regulatory scrutiny.The risk factors and associated costs vary depending on the company and its industry segment, but wherever you are in the production value chain, the cost of non-compliance is increasing. For example, recent changes to HR 2845: Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, have extended pipeline records to be included as part of the regulation, including geospatial and oil flow lines, as well as other types of non-petroleum materials such as hazardous liquids, chlorine, and biofuels. This means there are more records to maintain and failure to comply with safety regulations can result in a fine of $1.75 million.C. Internal Link -- Strong oil sector upholds our national security and reduces dependence on hostile statesBarton 19 - a co-founder of a cyber security company and speaks around the country on cyber security and energy security matters (Michael James, “Offshore Drilling Enhances National Security,” Inside Sources, 5-24-19, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)A federal judge just dealt a blow to the economy — and our nation’s security.Sharon Gleason, a District Court judge in Alaska, blocked one of President Trump’s executive orders that seeks to expand offshore oil and natural gas drilling. In response to the ruling, the administration indefinitely delayed its rollout of a detailed five-year plan to spur offshore energy development in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.This delay will prevent American energy companies from extracting our offshore oil and gas riches. Workers will lose out on job opportunities. And the nation will lose out on valuable sources of fuel that could reduce our reliance on hostile petro-states like Venezuela and Russia.For the sake of our workers, and our national security, let’s hope the administration reverses course and finalizes its offshore energy plan.A few months after taking office, Trump signed an executive order opening federal offshore territories to energy exploration. Ever since, the Interior Department has been working on a plan to open up much of the outer continental shelf — the undersea land between three and 200 miles off the coasts — to development. Nearly 90 billion barrels of oil and 328 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie beneath the outer continental shelf — enough to heat America for two full years. The United States is on the cusp of complete energy independence — a goal that seemed impossible just a decade ago. Advances in the drilling technique known as fracking have enabled companies to tap previously inaccessible oil and natural gas deposits trapped in underground shale rock formations.From 2010 to 2017, oil production shot up more than 70 percent. Thanks to this fracking boom, the United States has reduced its reliance on hostile or unstable oil-rich nations. Oil and petroleum imports from Russia dropped nearly 40 percent from 2010 to 2017. Last year, oil imports from Saudi Arabia reached their lowest levels since the 1980s.However, we’re not completely independent. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are still among the top five sources of U.S. petroleum imports, according to the Energy Information Administration’s most recent data. Venezuela and Russia remain in the top 10. Offshore energy could enable us to break our foreign oil habit once and for all. Offshore production accounted for 16 percent of all U.S. crude oil production in 2018, increased by about 30 percent between 2013 and 2017, and is now pushing 1.7 million barrels per day. Expanding drilling to areas of the outer continental shelf that President Obama declared off-limits would raise that figure substantially. It also would create 840,000 jobs and generate a cumulative $200 billion in government revenue by 2035.Environmental activists have scared people into believing that offshore drilling is unsafe. The Natural Resources Defense Council warns that “the only sure way to prevent offshore oil spills, of course, is to abandon drilling for oil offshore.” That’s simply not true. The oil and gas industry has redoubled its efforts to make offshore drilling safer than ever. Since 2010, the oil and natural gas industry has revised or implemented more than 100 new safety regulations to protect against spills. All energy harnessing involves some risk, but the activists just yell “no” and never have a workable plan for affordable, scalable, reliable energy that already exists today.-- Specifically, Russia’s escalating on the Ukraine border – strength in the energy sector is key to check backCohen and Pasmanik 21 - Ph.D., is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and Director of the Energy, Growth and Security Program at the International Tax and Investment Center, a Research Assistant at EGS and Program Officer at the National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry, (Ariel and David, “Energy sanctions can prevent a new Russian offensive in Ukraine,” Atlantic Council, 4-29-21, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)A major Russian military buildup on the border with Ukraine has recently sparked fears of a potentially dramatic escalation in the simmering seven-year conflict between the two countries. Although tensions have eased somewhat following Moscow’s April 22 announcement of troop withdrawals, the threat of a new Russian offensive remains.What would be the likely objectives of any fresh Russian advances in Ukraine? Aside from power projection and the opportunity to leave Ukraine landlocked by cutting access to the Black Sea, Moscow could be seeking to seize the North Crimean Canal, which supplied Crimea with up to 80% of its fresh water supply until it was blocked by Ukraine in 2014. The Kremlin’s ultimate goal may be to gain control over Ukraine’s southern coastal regions and seize a continuous strip of territory stretching from Mariupol to Odesa, potentially linking up with Russian forces in the separatist region of Transnistria in Moldova.So far, international sanctions have lacked sufficient bite to force a change in Russian behavior. In order to deter the Kremlin from any future military adventures in Ukraine, the Biden administration and America’s allies across the Western world should now consider putting pressure on Russia where it hurts. This means targeting the energy sector, which serves as Moscow’s cash cow. The US could look to develop bilateral and multilateral sanctions targeting four vital sectors of the Russian energy economy: oil and gas sales; financing; the exploration and production of oil, gas, and LNG; and technology imports.It is true that that the latest round of US sanctions, specifically the restrictions on sovereign debt purchases, could spark ripple effects that may reverberate throughout the Russian energy sector. However, for maximum impact, the US and its NATO allies can skip the middleman and start directly targeting the oil traders.Russian oil majors should become targets too. As part of the Trump administration’s Venezuelan policy, the US announced that Rosneft Trading S.A. and its president, Didier Casimiro, who is also the First VP of Rosneft, would be added to a financial blacklist. This move largely froze him and the company out of the global financial system and, shortly after, forced Rosneft out of the country. Of course, Rosneft sold its assets to companies controlled by the Kremlin, but the damage was done.The US holds considerable leverage in this area, as Moscow’s hopes for China as a major market for Russian oil are unrealistic. China is not ready to explore and produce oil in Russia. The Chinese participate in the gas sector only where they can get a share in the volume of production, says Mikhail Krutikhin, a partner in RusEnergy consultancy.LNG is another area where robust Western sanctions could take a heavy toll on Russia and significantly reduce any appetite for an escalation in Ukraine. LNG is the most rapidly-growing area in the Russian hydrocarbons industry, with the launch of the Yamal LNG plant in the Arctic and the Sakhalin 2 LNG plant, which has been in operation since 2009.D. Impact -- Ukraine Russia conflict goes nuclearPond ‘17"War in Ukraine: Is This the Way It Ends", Elizabeth Pond is is a journalist based in Germany. Currently a correspondent for the Washington Quarterly and the Brookings Institute, she was a longtime European correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. She is the author of The Rebirth of Europe (Brookings, 2001) and coauthor of The German Question and Other German Questions (Macmillan/St. Martins, 1996), 11/19/2017, )The story so far :To understand today’s diplomatic signalling, it is necessary first to review three surprising developments in the years since Putin attacked Russia’s younger-brother East Slav Ukrainians in February 2014. That was when Russian naval infantry suddenly seized control of Ukraine’s provincial Crimean parliament.4 Firstly, Ukraine quietly built up a do-it-yourself army from the tiny core of only 6,000 combat-ready troops it then had. In Europe, Ukraine is now second only to Russia in terms of the manpower, if not the firepower, of its armed forces.5 Secondly, more than three years of simmering war have not cowed the Ukrainians back into deference to elder-brother East Slavs in Moscow. On the contrary, the Ukrainians have Putin to thank for giving them a common enemy and uniting them, for the first time, under a distinctive, West-oriented national identity of their own. The shift is most dramatic in eastern Ukraine. Russian speakers there disliked the far-off Kiev government passively, but never rallied to the cause of armed revolt as Putin expected. Yet they suffered disproportionately from the carnage, and many blamed Russian militants for their plight. Surveys by the Ukrainian Democratic Initiatives Foundation show that Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians would in fact have voted in pre-war 2011 for independence by a 53% majority over a large 47% opposed. Under the bloodshed this turned, by 2016, into a massive 71.5% pro-independence poll over only 28.5% against.6 Even more telling, perhaps, is the fact that ‘Ukraine is coming out from under the cultural influence of Russia’ and thus is ‘becoming independent not only in a political and government sense but in a cultural one as well’, as 145 Radio Liberty journalist Elena Matusova observes.7 ‘That’s why I always say we should erect a statue to Putin!’, said Oleg Ryabchuk, a leading intellectual activist in both of the two pro-democracy, pro-EU campouts on Kiev’s Independence Square (‘Maidan’) that transformed Ukrainian politics in the Orange Revolution of 2004 and Revolution of Dignity of 2014.8 Thirdly, these two astonishing developments have combined to wrest escalation dominance away from Moscow (albeit without gaining it for Ukraine).9 Russia’s Donbas operations come at a $1 billion annual cost, and raise the risk of perpetuating Western financial sanctions, while shrinking the benefits of Moscow’s continued military control of the rubble along the 255-mile battlefront in eastern Ukraine.10 This makes all the difference between 2014 and 2017. Back in 2014, when Putin abruptly ripped up the 39-year-old Helsinki pact outlawing any change of European borders by force, the stunned Ukrainians had no army that could defend either Crimea or the municipal offices in eastern Ukraine that were being seized by ‘little green men’, as the Ukrainians dubbed the Russian special forces in unmarked uniforms that fanned out in both areas.11 Kiev had to depend instead on private militias recruited and funded by the likes of billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskiy, who was duly appointed governor of Dnipropetrovsk province with a mandate to stave off any deeper Russian incursion. In 2014, the equally stunned United States and NATO quickly declared that they would not intervene militarily in a country that was not a NATO ally. The West worried about getting sucked into tit-for-tat escalation that could even risk stumbling into nuclear war through miscalculation, absent the understood Cold War nuclear constraints. Russia enjoyed conspicuous ‘dominance’ at any stage of military escalation, as Putin boasted, both from proximity and motivation.12 He could trump any Western delivery of weapons to Ukraine over long, vulnerable logistical routes by simply shuttling more powerful weapons over the border to pro-Russian separatists or sending in regular Russian forces – or even going nuclear, as his scarcely veiled threats made clear.13 Moreover, on motivation – or will, as Putin tended to phrase it – he had manifestly bigger stakes in Ukraine than did the West, and was ready to accept a higher Russian sacrifice. At that point he was embracing a populist 146 | Elizabeth Pond Russian nationalism as his post-communist ideology, and was far more passionate about not ‘losing’ Ukraine than the West was about defending it to restore the taboo on grabbing a neighbour’s territory in Europe. Despite the country’s vote for independence when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, Putin still saw Ukraine as a Russian patrimony. As he put it to then-US president George W. Bush in 2008: ‘You have to understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.’14Uniqueness UQ -- Consumption The oil industry is rapidly recovering – consumption surpasses pre-virus levels.Smith, et al., '21 (Grant Smith, Alex Longley and Andy Hoffman; "After a catastrophic year, oil is posting a remarkable recovery;" World Oil; ; 2-7-2021, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCFutures rallied to a one-year high near $60 a barrel in London last week as Chinese consumption surpasses pre-virus levels, the vaccine rollout restores confidence, and the OPEC cartel and its allies keep a tight leash on supply.With western economies still pounded by a high death toll and lockdowns, demand for transport fuels -- particularly in aviation -- remains depressed. But it’s roaring for the petroleum products that cater to a society working and consuming at home -- ones that power ships, make plastics, and fire up space heaters.“The recovery is proceeding at a faster rate than people perceived,” said Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc. “The demand recovery is going to look stellar. The inventory draw is significantly greater than what many people thought.”The sudden reversal is a salve for an array of producers. It’s offering supermajors like Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc a glimmer of hope after a grueling year. For countries like Iraq and Angola, which have sought aid from the International Monetary Fund to quell economic crises, it’s a lifeline. Even wealthier exporters like Saudi Arabia consider the extra revenue crucial.Consumption is increasing.Nagle, '21 (Peter Nagle; Economist, Prospects Group; "The oil market outlook: a speedy recovery;" World Bank Blogs; ; 5-4-2021, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCCrude oil consumption gradually recoveringCrude oil consumption continues to slowly increase after plunging 9% in 2020. Gasoline and diesel have mostly returned to pre-pandemic levels, but jet fuel consumption remains considerably lower as air travel has been slower to recover. UQ -- ExportsExports are increasing now – driller’s confidence is highTobben 21 – reporter for Bloomberg (Sheela, “US oil output climbs toward level not seen since pandemic’s start,” Al Jazeera, 4-12-21, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)The Permian Basin, the U.S.’s most prolific shale patch, will produce crude oil at levels not seen since the start of the pandemic in the latest sign the global economy is heating back up.Higher prices are buoying drillers’ confidence. Benchmark Nymex oil gained nearly 35% in the past four months after OPEC and its alliance cut production to strike a balance between demand and supply.The fossil fuel is also getting a bump as Covid-19 vaccinations progress and Americans travel again, boosting gasoline consumption.Output in the basin will reach 4.466 million barrels a day in May, the most in a year, and rig counts have touched a one-year high, according to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration. By comparison, production peaked at over 13 million barrels a day last year before the global pandemic crushed oil prices, forcing scores of drillers to file for bankruptcy and shutter wellThe increase is also coming from explorers who are trying to complete the drilling and finishing of wells that were disrupted by the extreme cold weather that swept across the U.S. south last month, while trying to meet targets for this quarter, said Artem Abramov, head of shale research for Rystad Energy. The company’s own supply estimates for next month are slightly higher than the government’s forecasts.Before the interruptions in February, output in the Permian was recovering, with drillers finishing wells at 57% of their pre-pandemic speed, or about 250 a month. The patch should return to a path of increasing output if producers can sustain the current momentum, BNEF analyst Tai Liu said in a note to clients last week.US oil exports at record high despite COVID Argus Media, 2021-02-05, "US crude exports hit record high in 2020," Argus Media, //ecUS crude exports reached a record high in 2020, showing resilience in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Total domestic crude exports averaged about 3.2mn b/d in 2020, up from 2.98mn b/d in 2019, the previous record high, according to trade data released today by the US Census Bureau and monthly figures from the Energy Information Administration. In December, US crude exports averaged 3.35mn b/d, up by about 23pc from 2.73mn b/d in November with China regaining its position as the top destination. US crude exports destined for China averaged about 719,000 b/d in December. China had been the top destination for US crude loaded in May-October, but its intake fell sharply in November when India took the top spot. India in December was the second top destination for US crude, with about 560,000 b/d, a record high for US exports headed to that country. State-controlled Indian refiners in December expanded their import portfolios to include more US grades, with IOC now including West Texas Light (WTL) as an eligible grade in their weekly import tenders and Hindustan Petroleum (HPCL) issuing a unique tender that sought Mars for its Vizag refinery in January and February. Meanwhile, US ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) exports to Mexico surpassed year-earlier levels in December as overall shipments edged higher. Total US gasoline and diesel exports climbed in December from the previous month while trailing volumes shipped in December 2019. But diesel shipments to Mexico, the largest foreign customer of US fuels, reported the largest year-to-year increase of any major fuel. Shipments increased by 20pc from November and by 16pc from December 2019 to about 295,000 b/d. Total US ULSD exports averaged 920,000 b/d, higher by 20pc from the previous month and lower by 7.1pc compared to December 2019. Exports to Mexico, Chile and France all increased compared to the previous year, while Brazilian, Colombian and Peruvian shipments fell. Total conventional gasoline exports averaged about 930,000 b/d in December, higher by 9.7pc from November.UQ -- Offshore Drilling Offshore drilling is expected to rebound after COVIDAdomaitis 21 – reporter at Reuters (Nerijus, “Maersk Drilling sees signs of recovery as orders rebound,” Reuters, 5-20-21, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Offshore drilling rig contractor Maersk Drilling (DRLCO.CO) said on Thursday it saw some signs of market recovery as it reported that orders in the first quarter were at the highest level in more than three years.The company, which had already on Wednesday lifted its 2021 earnings guidance, said it added $730 million in new contracts in the first quarter, including a $370 million contract awarded by Tullow (TLW.L) off Ghana. That was the highest level of new contracts since the fourth quarter of 2017.Maersk Drilling's shares, which have risen 40% this year, rose 2% on Thursday."The market is still recovering from the 2020 downturn but we are seeing signs of improvement, particularly in the floater segment," Maersk Drilling Chief Executive Jorn Madsen said in a statement.Many oil companies cancelled or postponed new projects after demand dropped amid the COVID-19 pandemic last year, but investments are expected to increase as oil prices have rebounded back to pre-pandemic levels.Speaking with Reuters, Madsen said he expected to see more consolidation in the sector as a number of peers - Valaris (VAL.N), Diamond Offshore, Noble(NENBLE.UL) and Pacific Drilling - have emerged from U.S. Chapter 11 debt restructurings, and the latter two agreed to merge in March."I think over the next 12-18 months we will see a number of deals... We are ready to take part in such consolidation," he said.The market is recovering quickly – any new regulation derails the recoveryWethe 21 – energy reporter for Bloomberg (David, “Oilfield service companies see drilling rebound everywhere but the U.S.,” World Oil taking from Bloomberg, 1-22-21, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Spending by the global oil industry outside the U.S. is poised to rebound later this year, according to its largest hired hands, the latest sign of growing confidence in the outlook for crude prices.Schlumberger, the largest oil services company, posted better-than-expected earnings Friday and forecast an increase in overseas spending by customers in the next quarter. Earlier in the week, Halliburton Co. said markets outside North America may see double-digit growth in the second half of 2021, while Baker Hughes Co. predicted a modest recovery in Latin America, the North Sea and the Middle East.The energy sector remains wary following a calamitous 2020 that saw capital expenditures slashed as energy prices plunged. The three largest oil services companies -- who help explorers map underground reservoirs and drill their wells -- fired tens of thousands of workers and took multibillion-dollar writedowns. They’re either lessening their exposure to the shrinking U.S. shale patch and turning their attention overseas, where they see a quicker recovery.That strategy is looking like it’s paying off. Adding wind to their sails is the recovery in crude prices in the first few weeks of 2021 following OPEC+ production curbs and optimism about the recovery in global demand from Covid-19.“We believe this sets the stage for oil demand to recover to 2019 levels no later than 2023, or earlier,” Schlumberger Chief Executive Officer Olivier Le Peuch said in the statement. “Absent a setback in these macro assumptions, this will translate to meaningful activity increases both in North America and internationally.”After selling some North American assets last year and cutting almost one-quarter of the company’s workforce, Houston- and Paris-based Schlumberger now expects international markets to generate up to 80% of its revenue. It posted its worst fourth quarter revenue sales in 15 years. Still, profit for the period, excluding one-time items, was 22 cents a share, exceeding the average of analysts’ estimates in a Bloomberg survey. The stock fell 0.1% in pre-market trading at 8:46 a.m. in New York.The earnings beat is significant and the “outlook is constructive and consistent with what we have heard from HAL and BKR earlier this week,” Kurt Hallead, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, wrote Friday in a note to investors.Schlumberger has been asking investors for more patience. It warned three months ago that it could take until late 2021 to restore profits to 2019 levels. But the company ended up achieving that goal by the end of 2020, posting an adjusted margin of 20% for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, the same level as the fourth quarter of 2019.UQ -- Prices Oil sector strong now – recovering from COVIDMills 6/5 (Alex, former President of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, “Crude oil prices show strength as economy recovers,” 6-5-2021, Times Record News, URL: , //RN)The price of crude oil has made back all that it lost during the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 as demand for petroleum products has returned. In January 2020, crude oil traded in the $60 range for West Texas Intermediate on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), but began to slide as the global economy went into a tailspin because of governments’ worldwide ordered lockdowns. By the beginning of the second quarter the WTI price had fallen to less than $20. Soft prices resulted in production declines in the U.S. and around the world. U.S. production dropped from 13 million barrels per day (b/d) to 11 million b/d. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and a group of non-member producing countries, which includes Russia, decided to cut production by 9.7 million b/d. As supply decreased and demand increased the oversupply eventually eased. Crude oil inventories in the U.S. reached a record high of 540 million barrels in June 2020, but they have declined to 484 million barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration. Crude oil prices have increased. Oil on the NYMEX closed at $68 per barrel on June 2 for 30-day delivery, and $71 on the international exchange for Brent. Bloomberg reports oil’s underlying structure has firmed. The spread between the nearest two December contracts for WTI is heading for the strongest close since 2019, indicating expectations for market tightness. Optimism about increased activity during this summer and continued reopening of the U.S. economy also indicates stronger demand. Questions about supply remain, but OPEC agreed on June 1 to maintain the current pace of increasing oil supplies through July. OPEC began a policy in May to release an additional 2.1 million b/d.US oil industry strong now – adapting to post-pandemic conditionsEberhardt 6/23 (Dan, Contributor to Forbes and CEO of Canary, LLC, “Oilfield Service Firms Still Waiting To See Benefits Of Higher Prices,” 6-23-2021, Forbes, URL: , //RN)It’s happy days again for the U.S. oil industry with benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices trading over $70 a barrel and domestic producers on pace to post record free cash flow this year. That’s a remarkable turnaround from the dark days of 2020 when the pandemic prompted WTI to temporarily trade in negative territory, ushering in the most profound downturn in the oil industry’s history. But the good times have not extended to all corners of the industry. While producers will generate some $30 billion in free cash flow this year, the oil services contractors that provide them with rigs, drilling equipment, fracking materials, and the help they need extracting oil and gas are still struggling. This is particularly true for service contractors that assist the onshore shale sector in the Lower 48 states, including my company Canary, LLC. How can this be when the U.S. oil and gas rig count has nearly doubled from its pandemic trough of 244 last August to 470 today? There are a number of reasons, but for starters that 470 pales compared to the nearly 800 rigs that were in operation before the pandemic struck in early 2020. The fact is that producers are still investing at pandemic levels today even though WTI has surged past $70 and could test $100 in the future, according to top executives from the world’s largest oil trading companies. This explains why producers are swimming in free cash flow: they are reaping fat revenues from strong oil prices while keeping capital spending low. Producers have to do this to get back in the good graces of investors, who grew tired of the shale sector’s previous debt-fueled business model that saw it wildly outspend its cash flow to chase growth. But those days are over, and they aren’t coming back. In the first quarter, 39 publicly-traded producers reinvested just 57%, or $8.9 billion, of the $15.5 billion in cash flow they generated, according to data compiled by RBN Energy. That’s down substantially from the 84% reinvestment rate seen in 2020 and a far cry from shale’s pre-pandemic boom years when producers needed to tap debt markets to fund their aggressive drilling programs. Producers are now doing more with less. Despite sharp capex cuts, they have managed to boost U.S. oil production to around 11 million barrels per day from 10 million barrels a day at its pandemic low point in May 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). So long as WTI holds above $60, the EIA expects production to average 11.1 million barrels a day this year and 11.8 million barrels a day in 2022, exiting next year around 12 million barrels a day. If oil prices continue to blaze, there's a real chance that producers will be able to satisfy investors and accelerate their growth plans — adding more rigs — particularly as OPEC-plus spare capacity dwindles over the next 18 months. But oil services contractors can’t count on this to save them. The low-carbon energy transition will continue to encourage investors to demand capital discipline from shale producers, and oil services firms must be ready. Looking at global upstream spending trends in coming years, Morgan Stanley is most bullish on the prospects for the shale sector, where it expects a compound annual growth rate of 8 percent in 2021-24. But even with those increases, shale capex would still be some 30% below the pre-pandemic level in 2019. To be sure, the outlook for oil services improves with every new rig that is added, and the second quarter could mark the low point for cash margins. Drilling and well completions activity and pricing are edging higher, especially for firms with specialized services or more productive equipment. Drilling companies are also seeking more skilled workers, and job offers for roughnecks are up, which is a strong sign. Oilfield jobs increased in May by 1.6%, or about 9,700 positions, according to the Energy Workforce & Technology Council, and some 27,000 oilfield jobs have been regained since February. But there’s still a long way to go, and the boom years for upstream capex won’t magically return — even if oil goes to $100. Investors and policymakers, including the Biden administration, are focused on the energy transition and apparently willing to leave any future oil supply gaps to OPEC and Russia to fill. The oil services sector must prepare for this structural downward shift in upstream spending. It must get leaner, meaner and greener. That means more downsizing, cost-cutting, and consolidation to eliminate excess equipment capacity in the market, which will give services firms greater pricing power when negotiating contracts with producers. It means remaking corporate strategies with a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions — and thinking about how they can help their producer clients clean up their operations and prepare for the transition.So are prices – they’ve recovered from their COVID slump.Nagle, '21 (Peter Nagle; Economist, Prospects Group; "The oil market outlook: a speedy recovery;" World Bank Blogs; ; 5-4-2021, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCCrude oil prices have recovered from their COVID-19 slump, driven by firming demand and continued production restraint by OPEC and its partners (OPEC+). As demand gradually returns to pre-pandemic levels and OPEC+ raises production, crude oil prices are expected to average $56/bbl in 2021 and $60/bbl in 2022. Risks to the outlook include a more prolonged pandemic, a breakdown of the OPEC+ agreement, and the response of U.S. shale.UQ -- ShaleShale production is rapidly recoveringResnick-Ault and DiSavino 21 – reporters at Reuters (Jessica and Scott, “U.S. shale oil output expected to rise 42,000 bpd in August to 7.907 million bpd -EIA,” Reuters, 7-12-21, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Crude output from seven major shale formations is expected to rise by 42,000 bpd in August, to 7.907 million bpd, compared with a 28,000 bpd rise in July, according to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) monthly drilling productivity report.The forecast is led by growing production in the largest formation, the Permian Basin, where crude output is estimated to rise 53,000 bpd in the month, offsetting falling output expected from the Bakken formation of North Dakota.Natural gas production from the major shale basins was expected to increase for a second month in a row, EIA said.Total gas output will increase less than 0.1 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) to 85.5 bcfd in August. That compares with a monthly record high of 86.9 bcfd in December 2019.Gas output in Appalachia, the biggest shale gas basin, was expected to decrease less than 0.1 bcfd to 34.4 bcfd in August. That compares with a monthly record of 35.6 bcfd in December 2020.Gas output in the Haynesville in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas was expected to increase over 0.1 bcfd to a record 13.5 bcfd in August, according to EIA data going back to 2007.EIA said producers drilled 549 wells and completed 818 in the biggest shale basins in June. That left total drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells down 269 to 6,252, their lowest since June 2018.Shale production expanding now – their data is misleading on purposeEberhart 20 - CEO of Canary, LLC (Dan, “In 2021, U.S. Shale May Surprise Oil Markets Again,” Forbes, 12-31-20, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)History shows that those who underestimate the U.S. shale sector do so at their peril. That hasn’t stopped many experts from writing off shale, believing that low prices, high well-decline rates, and investor demand for capital efficiency have effectively neutered shale’s growth potential. These fundamentals existed before Covid-19, and the pandemic has only increased the pressure. Shale could have the last laugh, though, outperforming expectations on the back of lower breakeven costs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), OPEC, and the International Energy Agency (IEA) underestimated shale’s growth potential last decade. These organizations now all predict U.S. production to decline or grow very slowly over the next few years. Perhaps it’s time to reassess.The EIA expects U.S. output to drop from 12.2 million barrels a day in 2019 to 11.3 million b/d in 2020 and 11.1 million barrels a day in 2021. Recent data shows U.S. output on the rise, though. The EIA said production averaged 11.2 million barrels a day in November - an increase from the 10.9 million barrels a day produced in October. Restoration of Gulf of Mexico production after a heavy hurricane season explains some of the increase, but the EIA appears to be undercounting shale barrels, again.Veteran energy economist Philip Verleger sees a far stronger shale recovery underway. He puts November production at 12.4 million barrels a day. He suggests shale executives are playing possum, publicly stating that they expect modest production growth in 2021 and 2022, so the Saudi-led OPEC cartel maintains its production limits.As for the EIA, “One might say EIA officials are deliberately underestimating the rise in U.S. production to boost prices and facilitate hedging by U.S. producers, thereby helping to strengthen and perpetuate the industry,” Verleger wrote in his recent Notes at the Margin column. While most market watchers think U.S. producers will have a hard time returning to 2019’s peak of 13 million barrels per day, that outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. Verleger and others expect falling costs and rising commodity prices could drive a more vigorous resurgence in the shale patch. The reason is that the sector continues to drive down the cost of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” making more wells economical at lower prices.Unlike traditional exploration and production, fracking is a manufacturing process that benefits from proportionately falling costs as output increases — what’s known as Wright’s Law in the parlance of manufacturing economics. Consolidation in the industry has also resulted in strong companies with the efficiency of scale to reduce costs further. A recent survey by the Dallas Federal Reserve reported that shale firms required less than $30 a barrel in most fields to cover their operating expenses for existing wells. Many companies indicated they could operate profitably in West Texas’ Permian basin for less than $40 a barrel, drilling costs included. The scope for future shale growth is complicated by investors’ demand for companies to increase their free cash flow — the cash available to repay creditors or pay dividends and interest to investors — and debt reduction. Shareholders aren’t in the mood for returning to the debt-fueled business model that destroyed so much capital during shale’s boom era, which has made the U.S. E&P sector a stock market laggard. But the tide may be turning. E&P shares are up 50 percent since early November on rising crude prices and Covid-19 vaccine optimism. Investors now see the sector as a good bet to outperform the broader market in a post-pandemic world. The doors to capital markets may open sooner than many think. After generating negative free cash flow for much of the last decade, the U.S. E&P sector offers an 11 percent median free cash flow yield next year — two times higher than the broader market — if West Texas Intermediate (WTI) averages $50 a barrel, according to Morgan Stanley. Capital discipline explains some of the improved performance, but Morgan Stanley also cited “sustainable efficiencies that have meaningfully reduced the industry’s breakeven oil price required to maintain production.” That suggests the sector may have a better handle on the traditionally high decline rates of shale wells. UQ -- AT: COVID Current trends overshadow COVID curbs—BUT delta variant is wild cardResnick-ault, writer for Reuters , 2021[Jessica, “Oil steadies as OPEC fuels demand hopes amid new COVID-19 worries”, Reuters, J June 29, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]Oil prices steadied on Tuesday as broad hopes for a demand recovery persisted, fueled by comments from OPEC's secretary general, slightly overshadowing travel curbs due to new outbreaks of the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus. Brent crude futures settled up 8 cents, or 0.1%, at$74.76 a barrel, having slumped by 2% on Monday. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures settled up 7 cents, or 0.1%, at $72.98 a barrel, after a 1.5% retreat on Monday. Demand in 2021 was expected to grow by 6 million barrels per day (bpd), with 5 million bpd of that in the second half, OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo told Tuesday's meeting of the Joint Technical Committee of OPEC+, an alliance made up of OPEC states, Russia and their allies. "The current 'wild card' factor is the 'Delta Variant' of the pandemic that is resulting in rising cases and renewed restrictions in many regions," he said in a speech, a copy of which was seen by Reuters. The producer group is expected to gradually ramp up production in response to demand. "Barkindo's comments suggest that OPEC is not going to raise production quickly enough to keep up with demand," said Phil Flynn, senior analyst at Price Futures Group in Chicago. OPEC's demand forecasts show that in the fourth quarter global oil supply will fall short of demand by 2.2 million bpd, giving the producers some room to agree to add output. The market expects the rollout of vaccination programmes to brighten the demand outlook, even as the new variant rises, analysts said. "The narrative of the past few months has not changed: the war against the virus is being gradually won, the global economy and oil demand are recovering," said PVM Oil analyst Tamas Varga. "Oil supply is being effectively managed. Therefore dips are probably viewed by ardent bulls as attractive buying opportunities." "The market has grown relatively immune to COVID-19 developments, but if lockdowns occur in larger demand centres in Asia, we may see the market’s nonchalance abate." Investors will be looking to the latest U.S. Energy Department oil inventory data on Wednesday for cues on the demand outlook. Futures rose in after-market trade after industry figures released late Tuesday showed U.S. crude oil inventories fell last week while fuel stockpiles rose, according to two market sources. Oil industry rebounds post COVID—but not set in stoneSLAV, writer for , 2021[IRINA, “UBS: Oil Demand To Return To Pre-Covid Levels By Q1 2022”, Oil price, Jul 09, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]Crude oil demand will rebound to pre-pandemic levels by the first quarter of 2022, according to Wayne Gordon, executive director of commodities and forex at UBS Global Wealth Management. Speaking to Bloomberg this week, Gordon said the outlook for oil was quite bright even though, he added, we could see more production soon once OPEC settled their internal differences. The analyst noted the latest drawdown in U.S. crude oil—and fuel—inventories reported yesterday, which signaled strengthening demand. Barring another flare-up in Covid-19 infections as the latest variant of the coronavirus gains growing attention, oil demand could be back to its level from before the pandemic early next year. UBS’s Gordon is far from alone in his bullish view of oil. Bankers are bullish, too. Goldman, for one, has stuck to its price forecast of $80 per barrel of Brent in the third quarter, citing the fast rebound in demand. JP Morgan agrees, seeing Brent topping $80 in the current quarter. Bank of America goes further: its analysts believe Brent crude could reach $100 per barrel but not this year. They see this price for the middle of 2022, meaning BofA analysts expect supply to remain tight. Meanwhile, global inventories are falling while non-OPEC supply is not rising as fast as it would have under other circumstances. This is particularly true of U.S. supply. In previous cycles, U.S. producers were quick to start ramping up production but now they have switch to a wait-and-see mode. This provides additional fuel for prices. Nothing is set in stone, however, and the price rally could be halted even with demand still on the rise. The rally “would only come to an abrupt end if central banks start increasing interest rates unexpectedly because of fear of inflation or in case OPEC raises production above demand — or they fail to accommodate extra Iranian barrels if the Persian Gulf OPEC member comes back to the market,” PVM Oil Associates analyst Tamas Varga told CNBC last week.Link Link -- General Associated uncertainty stifles investment and incurs major costs.Rosenfeld, '15 (Everett Rosenfeld; Everett Rosenfeld was CNBC's Asia Pacific Editor. He was also a reporter for CNBC, covering international macroeconomics, trade policy, politics and financial technologies from the United States and Germany; "Feds take on fracking: What will it cost drillers?;" CNBC; ; 03-24-2015, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCThe biggest concern for the industry, he said, is that ambiguities of the new regulations (which came together over four years) could stifle future investment."It's all about an industry that just simply wants to have certainty and predictability in the regulatory regime so that you can have the confidence to invest," Milito said. "And we're seeing that torn down in many respects."The industry has decried the regulatory changes as redundant and based on unsubstantiated concerns. Two groups, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, filed a lawsuit against the rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.But the government insists the new rules are necessary and easily managed by companies."Most Americans would call them common sense," U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said of the regulations on a media conference call on Friday. Neil Kornze, director of the Bureau of Land Management, said the costs to comply with the rule would only amount to less than one quarter of 1 percent of the price to drill a well.Aside from costs, a big question about the new rule is whether government regulators can move as quickly to verify compliance as the BLM estimates assume, oil industry sources told CNBC.Wally Drangmeister, vice president and director of communications at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, said that "standby" charges can add up for crews and equipment, so any delays on inspections or approvals can mean major costs for firms.It’s a top concern for 85% of all oil companies.Walker, '13 (Leon Walker; Leon Walker is a writer for Environmental Leader. His writing focuses on grid technology, utility news, renewable energy, natural gas and energy efficiency; "Compliance Costs Top Oil Companies' Concerns;" Environment + Energy Leader; ; 6-4-2013, Accessed 7-16-2021)//ILake-NoCFor the third consecutive year, regulatory changes and increased cost of compliance remain the top concern for all oil and gas companies in their 10-K filings, according to BDO’s annual analysis of risk factors. This year, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) regulation entered the top 20 risks cited by oil and gas companies for the first time, with 85 percent of companies listing it as a threat to operations.Now in its second decade, the US shale boom is running up against an increasingly stringent regulatory environment as it drives industry growth and development of new technologies.Infrastructure that has not kept pace with increasing production volumes is another factor shadowing the optimism around the shale boom. Concerns about a lack of adequate pipeline, storage and trucking capacity grew by 27 percent this year, with four out of five companies citing it in their 10-Ks, BDO reports.Concerns about broader environmental regulations also remain high, with 96 percent of companies citing it as a risk. BDO says this year will serve as a reality check for these companies as they face increased opposition to fracking, refining capacity constraints and Keystone XL pipeline project delays.Link -- Natives Indigenous lands are a huge source of oil – sustains native communities and produces over 3% of US oilBrown and Fonseca 21 (Matthew, Associated Press Correspondent, Felicia, Cover Native American tribes for AP's Race & Ethnicity Team, “Boom in Native American oil complicates Biden climate push,” 6-24-2021, AP News, URL: , //RN)On oil well pads carved from the wheat fields around Lake Sakakawea, hundreds of pump jacks slowly bob to extract 100 million barrels of crude annually from a reservation shared by three Native American tribes. About half their 16,000 members live on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation atop one of the biggest U.S. oil discoveries in decades, North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation. The drilling rush has brought the tribes unimagined wealth -- more than $1.5 billion and counting -- and they hope it will last another 20 to 25 years. The boom also propelled an almost tenfold spike in oil production from Native American lands since 2009, federal data shows, complicating efforts by President Joe Biden to curb carbon emissions. Burning of oil from tribal lands overseen by the U.S. government now produces greenhouse gases equivalent to about 12 million vehicles a year, according to an Associated Press analysis. But Biden exempted Native American lands from a suspension of new oil and gas leases on government-managed land in deference to tribes’ sovereign status. A judge in Louisiana temporarily blocked the suspension June 15, but the administration continues to develop plans that could extend the ban or make leases more costly. With tribal lands now producing more than 3% of U.S. oil and huge reserves untapped, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland — the first Native American to lead a U.S. cabinet-level agency — faces competing pressures to help a small number of tribes develop their fossil fuels while also addressing climate change that affects all Native communities. “We’re one of the few tribes that have elected to develop our energy resources. That’s our right,” tribal Chairman Mark Fox told AP at the opening of a Fort Berthold museum and cultural center built with oil revenue. “We can develop those resources and do it responsibly so our children and grandchildren for the next 100 years have somewhere to live.”Trump era policies increase domestic energy production by mining on native lands—plan roles it backLipton, investigative reporter for The New York Times, 2021[Eric, “In Last Rush, Trump Grants Mining and Energy Firms Access to Public Lands”, NY Times, Jan. 16, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]The Trump administration is rushing to approve a final wave of large-scale mining and energy projects on federal lands, encouraged by investors who want to try to ensure the projects move ahead even after President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. takes office. In Arizona, the Forest Service is preparing to sign off on the transfer of federal forest land — considered sacred by a neighboring Native American tribe — to allow construction of one of the nation’s largest copper mines. In Utah, the Interior Department may grant final approval as soon as next week to a team of energy speculators targeting a remote spot inside an iconic national wilderness area — where new energy leasing is currently banned — so they can start drilling into what they believe is a huge underground supply of helium. In northern Nevada, the department is close to granting final approval to construct a sprawling open-pit lithium mine on federal land that sits above a prehistoric volcano site. And in the East, the Forest Service intends to take a key step next month toward allowing a natural gas pipeline to be built through the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia, at one point running underneath the Appalachian Trail. These projects, and others awaiting action in the remaining weeks of the Trump administration, reflect the intense push by the Interior Department, which controls 480 million acres of public lands, and the Forest Service, which manages another 193 million acres, to find ways to increase domestic energy and mining production, even in the face of intense protests by environmentalists and other activists. When he takes office on Jan. 20, Mr. Biden, who has chosen a Native American — Representative Deb Haaland, Democrat of New Mexico — to lead the Interior Department, will still have the ability to reshape, slow or even block certain projects. Some, like a planned uranium mine in South Dakota, will require further approvals, or face lawsuits seeking to stop them, like the planned helium drilling project in Utah. But others, like the lithium mine in Nevada, will have the final federal permit needed before construction can begin, and will be hard for the next administration to stop. Whether they are the final word or not, the last-minute actions are just the latest evidence of how the far-reaching shift in regulatory policy under Mr. Trump has altered the balance between environmental concerns and business, giving substantial new weight to corporate interests.Mining on native lands minimize dependency on natural resources importsLipton, investigative reporter for The New York Times, 2021[Eric, “In Last Rush, Trump Grants Mining and Energy Firms Access to Public Lands”, NY Times, Jan. 16, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]For four years, Mr. Trump’s team and its allies have raced to roll back federal rules intended to protect federal lands and the nation’s air and water, as well as other safety rules in agencies across the government. The changes were often made in direct response to requests from lobbyists and company executives who were major donors to Mr. Trump and frequent patrons at his hotels and resorts. The final push on the mining and energy projects has come in part from senior Trump administration officials, including the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, a steel industry investor before joining Mr. Trump’s cabinet. Mr. Ross’s calendar shows at least three appointments with top executives at Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining giant backing the Resolution Copper mine planned for construction in Arizona next to the San Carlos Apache reservation. Mr. Ross also made a trip to the mine site this year. “As far as I am concerned, this is an invasion by a foreign power,” said Wendsler Nosie Sr., a former San Carlos Apache tribal leader who is protesting against the copper mine in Arizona.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times “This is a disaster,” said Wendsler Nosie Sr., a former San Carlos Apache tribal leader who in recent weeks has been camping out at the proposed mine site inside the Tonto National Forest to protest the pending decision. Backers of these projects say they are committed to minimizing the effect on public lands, sacred Native American sites and wildlife. “Our science-based decisions are legally compliant and based on an extensive process involving input from career subject matter experts and the public,” said Richard Packer, an Interior Department spokesman, adding that the agency “continues to balance safe and responsible natural resource development with conservation of important surface resources.” The administration has been seeking to promote more mining of key minerals, including uranium, copper and lithium, to allow the United States to be less dependent on imports.Native lands hold 20% of US oil – regulations would crush the sectorStone 14 (Laurie, Senior Writer/Editor for Rocky Mountain Institute, “Native Energy: From Fossil Fuels Below to Renewables Above,” 7-22-2014, Rocky Mountain Institute, URL: , //RN)Coal is not the only fossil fuel worrying Native Americans. Hydraulic fracturing is a contentious subject for tribal lands as well. An estimated 20 percent of the nation’s known oil and gas reserves lie on tribal lands. And 90 percent of wells that are drilled on federal and Indian lands use fracking, causing great concern for many tribes.Link Turns Case -- Natives Indigenous communities rely on drilling revenueRegan and Anderson 14 (Shawn, Research Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center, Terry, William A. Dunn Distinguished Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center, “The Energy Wealth of Indian Nations,” 11-1-2014, LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources, Vol. 3 Iss. 1, //RN)Despite such challenges, energy resources are the largest revenue generator in Indian Country, and they could be even larger.28 In 2012, Indian mineral owners earned more than $701 million in royalty revenue. The BIA estimates that Indian royalties will be between $850 and $900 million in 2013. The agency claims that it has “assisted tribes in negotiating 48 IMDA leases for oil and gas, totaling approximately 2.75 million acres and about $45 million in bonuses (upfront payments). These leases have the potential to additionally produce over $20 billion in revenue to the Indian mineral owner over the life of the lease through royalties and working interests.”29IL -- Natives K2 Oil Mining on native lands key to oil industry AND increase jobsOglesby, Editorial Intern, 2020[Cameron, “Drilling and mining companies got a holiday gift from Trump”, Grist, Dec 31, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]For a limited time only, some of America’s protected lands are open for heavy-duty industrial development. The Trump administration has made it a priority to open vast stretches of U.S. lands to mineral extraction projects. Over the past four years, at least 10 million acres have been leased to oil and drilling companies, turning formerly pristine forests and mountain-scapes into spreads of cratered, barren land laden with heavy machinery. The next administration is likely to take a different approach to federal lands. President-elect Joe Biden will take office on January 20, 2021, and has announced a diverse and climate-conscious set of cabinet nominees. Notably, the nomination of Deb Haaland — who would become the first Native American Secretary of Interior — brought many environmental organizations hope for the responsible and equitable management of federal lands in the future. But in a last-minute dash before President Trump leaves office, his administration has approved several mining and drilling projects that may commence before Biden has any say. These projects, in states around the country, would bring in thousands of jobs for residents — but as The New York Times noted recently, that would often come at the expense of protected lands, endangered species, and sacred Indigenous sites. Here’s a sampling of what’s been happening in public and federal lands over the holidays.Link -- RenewablesRenewables force out the oil industry – results in more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphereMoore 21 - an American writer and television commentator on economic issues (Stephen, “Biden rings death knell for America’s energy independence,”Boston Herald, 2-8-21, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)For millennials, supporting green energy is cool and even virtuous. It’s a popular and costless way to save the planet — until the power doesn’t flow through the grid. Then the laptops, hairdryers, Netflix shows, computer games and iPhones run out of juice.That may happen one of these days — and in the not-too-distant future (just ask Californians about blackouts), when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.Which brings me to President Joe Biden’s take-no-prisoners approach to energy. The goals: Kill fossil fuels; stop the building of pipelines; enter international treaties that outlaw fossil fuel use; end drilling on federal lands; strangle the oil and gas industries with regulatory assaults. And then throw billions and perhaps trillions of tax dollars at wind and solar farms.How much of our energy needs today are met with fossil fuels?The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently released a chart showing the latest official data on U.S. energy production sources from the Department of Energy. Some 80% of all our energy comes from oil, gas and coal. Less than 5% comes from wind and solar. Somehow, Biden is going to magically flip these percentages around in five or 10 years? Even the federal forecasters who support renewable energy think that is highly unlikely.Even if Biden were able to quadruple American production of green energy over the next decade — a huge undertaking — we will be meeting about 25% of our power needs. Where will we get the other 75% of our electric power and transportation fuels? Battery-operated cars such as Teslas and Chevy Volts need electric power to recharge the massive batteries.As we produce less oil and gas domestically, two bad things will happen. First, gas prices are going to rise rapidly — perhaps to above $4 a gallon. Prices have already started to rise at the pump to more than $2.50 a gallon in many markets. Second, we will make up for the lost domestic energy production by importing more energy from Saudi Arabia, Russia and OPEC nations.We will reverse the energy independence achieved under former President Donald Trump to dependency on OPEC nations under Biden. This certainly isn’t good for the U.S. economy and jobs here at home. But it’s great news for the Saudi oil sheiks, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the communists in Beijing — all of whom are going to make out like bandits. They can’t believe their good fortune.Maybe so, my younger and more idealistic friends say. But at least we will be doing our part to save the planet. Alas, no. China and India are building more than 100 coal plants as we shut ours down. China and Russia just signed a multibillion-dollar deal to build a pipeline from oil-rich Siberia to the big cities of China. Would Beijing invest in that infrastructure if they had any intention to stop using fossil fuels? Trump was right when he said that we have the toughest environmental standards in the world. So, shifting energy production out of America only increases greenhouse gases.Perhaps over the next several decades, wind and solar power will be cheap enough to meet most of our energy needs. But are we to starve ourselves of energy in the meantime? Are Americans willing to pay $4 or $5 a gallon to fill up the tank with Saudi oil or Russian gas?Link -- AT: Renewables Link Turn Renewables are too expensive for a clean transitionFreedom 18 – (“ENERGY INDEPENDENCE THROUGH SOLAR,” Freedom Solar Power, 6-14-18, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)For now, renewable energy remains more expensive to generate and utilize than energy produced from fossil fuels. In an effort to reduce these higher costs, state and federal requirements and incentives have helped to promote increased renewable energy production, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts continuing growth in U.S. renewable energy use through 2040.Causes of the higher expense associated with renewable energy are often due to simple location issues. Many of the most ideal locations for renewable energy generation are found in relatively remote areas (like wind turbines in the deserts of Texas and California), making it comparatively expensive to construct lines to transport that electricity from rural sources to the areas where most people live. Additionally, renewable energy sources are not continuously available. Clouds reduce production from solar energy electrical power plants, wind tends to be stronger during certain times of the day than others which can reduce production of electricity from wind farms during peak usage, and extended periods of drought can reduce production of hydropower.Renewable energies are worst for the environment – they can’t produce enough energy AND aren’t recycledShellenberger 19 - the best-selling author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins), a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and Green Book Award Winner (Michael, “We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal,” Forbes, 5-27-19, , Acccessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)Like a lot of people, I used to think that subsidies to promote the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind would be a one-time thing.Once a solar or wind farm was built, I thought, it would produce electricity forever, without further subsidy, because sunlight and wind are free. Renewables would thus allow a “sustainable” and even “circular” economy without waste or mining because everything would be recycled.But it turns out that only nuclear can produce sufficient clean energy to power a circular economy. That’s partly because nuclear plants have seen their efficiency increase dramatically. Nuclear plants used to operate for just 50% of the year. Now, thanks to greater experience in operations and maintenance, they operate 93% of the year.Nuclear plants were expected to run for 40 years, but thanks to greater experience, they’re expected to run for 80. And simple changes to equipment allowed the amount of power produced by existing nuclear plants in the US to increase the equivalent of adding eight full-sized reactors. By contrast, the output of solar panels declines one percent every year, for inherently physical reasons, and they as well as wind turbines are replaced roughly every two decades. As for circularity, solar panels and wind turbines are rarely recycled because the energy and labor required to do so are much more expensive than just buying raw materials.As a result, the vast majority of solar panels and wind turbines are either sent to landfills or join the global electronic waste stream where they are dumped on poor communities in developing nations.And that’s just at the level of the solar and wind equipment. At a societal level, the value of energy from solar and wind declines the more of it we add to the electrical grid.The underlying reason is physical. Solar and wind produce too much energy when we don’t need it and not enough when we do.Empirics prove – the past 6 years haven’t seen a decrease in emissions BUT have resulted in increased costShellenberger 19 - the best-selling author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins), a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and Green Book Award Winner (Michael, “We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal,” Forbes, 5-27-19, , Acccessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity.Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California’s electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables.In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States.The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high.Two weeks ago, Der Spiegel reported that Germany spent $36 billion per year on renewables over the last five years, and yet only increased the share of electricity from solar and wind by 10 percentage points.It’s been a similar story in the US. "All in all,” wrote the University of Chicago economists, “consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy."Economists agreeShellenberger 19 - the best-selling author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins), a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and Green Book Award Winner (Michael, “We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal,” Forbes, 5-27-19, , Acccessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)But there is a growing consensus among economists and independent analysts that solar and wind are indeed making electricity more expensive for two reasons: they are unreliable, thus requiring 100% back-up, and energy-dilute, thus requiring extensive land, transmission lines, and mining.After The Los Angeles Times failed to plainly connect the dots between California’s simultaneous rise in electricity prices and renewables, a leading economist with the University of California pointed out the obvious. “The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” James Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”Link -- Dams BadHydropower is a renewable – increased usage decimates the fossil fuel industryCard big suck sorry DHS 17 – Department of Homeland Security (“Dams and Energy Sectors Interdependency Study,” 2017, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)Historically, hydroelectricity has been a vital source of electric power generation, accounting for as much as 40 percent of the Nation’s electricity supply in the early 1900s.8 Although the share of hydropower generation has declined to about 6 percent of total U.S. electric power generation, as production from other types of power plants grew at a faster rate, hydroelectric dams remain an important U.S. power source.9 Hydropower is critical to the national economy and overall energy reliability because it is: ? The least expensive source of electricity, as it does not require fossil fuels for generation; ? An emission-free renewable source, accounting for about 48 percent of total U.S. annual net renewable generation;10 ? Able to shift loads to provide peaking power (it does not require ramp-up time like combustion technologies); and ? Often designated as a black start source that can be used to restore network interconnections in the event of a blackout. Hydroelectric power uses the force of moving water and is considered a “renewable” source because water on the Earth is continuously replenished by precipitation.11 A typical hydro plant serves multiple functions and consists of a power plant where the electricity is produced, a dam that can be opened or closed to control water flow, and a reservoir where water can be stored.12 The water behind a dam flows through an intake and pushes against blades in a turbine, causing them to turn. The generator attached to the turbine then produces electricity. The amount of electricity that can be generated depends on how far the water drops and how much water moves through the system.Dams suck for the environmentKiwi energy no date - an energy retailer dedicated to providing innovative energy solutions for electricity and natural gas supply (“Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy,” Kiwi Energy, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)Perhaps the largest disadvantage of hydroelectric energy is the impact it can have on the environment. Dams can damage or otherwise impact the environment both upstream and downstream through their construction process during the formation of the dam. To build a dam, new roads and power lines must be installed that disrupt the environment. Dams also often form reservoirs that flood large areas and displace natural habitats. When dams flood areas, it creates sections of still or stagnant water that kills vegetation which emits greenhouse gasses as it rots. This is especially true in humid and tropical environments.Blocking the flow of water can also seriously impact fish migration, especially for species like salmon that rely on rivers to spawn. Dams can even impact biological triggers that tell fish where to go when it’s time to migrate. Some dams have sought to solve this disadvantage of hydroelectric energy by creating fish ladders or fish elevators to help migratory fish make it to their spawning grounds.The final environmental disadvantage of hydroelectric energy on our list is water quality. When dams are created, they limit the flow of water, which affects the oxygen levels in the water. Lower oxygen levels behind the dam can result in lower oxygen levels downstream as well. When there is not as much oxygen in the water, it is more difficult for some species of fish to survive, which affects river habitats.The increase in carbon dioxide and methane emissions from a hydroelectric plant can also harm all forms of aquatic plant life. The increased pollution of these greenhouse gases can cause plant life beneath the water to rot, which can severely impact the surrounding ecosystem. - Offshore DrillingThe aff collapses energy independence – turns case and emboldens adversariesCohen 21 - a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and the Founding Principal of International Market Analysis, a Washington, D.C.-based global risk advisory boutique (Ariel, “Biden May Kill A Quarter Of U.S. Oil And Gas Production,” Forbesi, 1-27-21, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)President Biden is expected to announce a moratorium on future oil and gas drilling permits today, Wednesday January 27, fulfilling in part his campaign pledge to end drilling on federal lands and the continental shelf. The move, which has long been anticipated by the O&G industry, comes on the heels of a January 20th order signed by Acting Secretary of the Interior Scott de la Vega mandating a 60-day restriction for new onshore and offshore fossil fuel leases. Should the Senate confirm Deb Haaland as the Secretary of Interior, the order might be extended further or even made permanent, though Republicans will doubtless try to ally with pro-business Democrats in opposing such a move.Almost a quarter of US oil production and 12 percent of natural gas production takes place on federal land and water. According to the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resource Revenue federal drilling programs generated $11.7 billion in tax revenue. If the moratorium extends to all active leases on federal lands, this will be gone, despite the mushrooming 2020 federal debt of $27 trillion and budget deficit of over $3 trillion – a whopping 16 percent of the GDP.In the short term, the tangible impact of the order may be negligible. The president did not conceal his intentions to pursue such a strategy, and companies aggressively pursued drilling permits in the months surrounding the election even as they were forced to otherwise downsize amidst pandemic-reduced demand. As the mandate does not inhibit previously acquired permits, those who thought ahead could endure the moratorium in hopes of it being ended by a future administration (President Obama’s coal leasing moratorium was ended by President Trump).Still, the ban will deliver a massive blow to the U.S. hydrocarbon industry. If the Secretary of Interior makes the order permanent, and if the Republican minority fails to find the votes in Congress, then the order may be lifted only by the next Administration. However, there is no guarantee Biden’s successor will be a Republican. The energy industry might be prepared to weather two months or even tighten its collective belt for four years of the moratorium, but what if the ban lasts eight years? The private sector abhors uncertainty.Environmentalists will be thrilled at the victory, but some are concerned by the change. “Energy demand will continue to rise,” said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers in a January 21st statement. An end to drilling on federal lands will not change America’s need for energy, but will lead to importing from “countries with lower environmental standards” all while deny state and local governments much need revenue.For the last 11 years, the long term increases in domestic production fueled by hydraulic fracturing has carried the United States toward net exporter status and energy independence. America is now the world’s largest hydrocarbon producer. This trend has seen US imports from the OPEC oil cartel plummet from over six million barrels per day to slightly under 700 thousand. Increased economic independence from foreign powers, particularly from democracy-averse cartel members, is unquestionably a foreign policy win for the United States. With independence comes the liberty to take moral stances otherwise viewed as bad for business, something Democrats should remember if they intend to confront Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Venezuela.If the United States cedes its hard-fought oil market share, it is certain others will seek to fill the gap. Already Russia and Saudi Arabia have scrapped for dominance, and Iran and Qatar remain joint owners of the world’s largest natural gas field.. The yielded revenue would go to America’s geopolitical rivals, where democratic norms are trampled, environmental standards are limited and enforcement is lax.US workers will be the losers. The American Petroleum Institute’s (API) analysis suggests that the job losses as a result of a lasting leasing moratorium could peak at 936 thousand in 2022, hitting hardest those working in high-production states. Those states include New Mexico, where the fossil fuel industry accounts for roughly 100,000 jobs, and half of production takes place on federally-owned sections of the Permian Basin. The permits acquired throughout late 2020 will shield some jobs until they expire, but permit stockpiling will leave smaller, less prepared employers in the cold.The energy industry is expected to bounce back after the pandemic – the aff ruins thatSiegel 20 - an energy and environment reporter at the Washington Examiner and helps author the Daily on Energy newsletter (Josh, “Biden offshore drilling ban would kill 200,000 jobs, oil lobby says,” Washington Examiner, 5-26-20, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Joe Biden’s proposal to ban new offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters would cost nearly 200,000 jobs, strip the U.S. government of billions in dollars of revenue, and potentially push production to other countries, according to a new study commissioned by the industry’s trade group.The study, released Tuesday by the National Ocean Industries Association, does not name Biden. But its release is intended to underscore the potential consequences of Biden’s proposal to prevent the U.S. government from issuing new oil and gas drilling permits in federal waters, which had experienced record oil production before the coronavirus halted demand.Nearly all U.S. offshore drilling occurs in the western and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico, where nearby states are mostly reliably Republican. But the report shows jobs that support the offshore oil and gas industry, which is capital-intensive and reliant on the manufacturing of associated equipment such as sensors and pipes, are present in nearly all 50 states.“You have this economic machine that is the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas industry that really feeds into the whole country,” said Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association. “You destroy so much when you take it away.”In 2019, offshore oil and natural gas industry, directly and indirectly, supported roughly 345,000 jobs in the United States, a number that the study projects to increase to 370,000 jobs on average between now and 2040, absent new policy. The industry study, produced by Energy and Industrial Advisory Partners for the National Ocean Industries Association, projects average employment to decline to 179,000 jobs under a permitting ban.“It would definitely mean a significant slowdown of the offshore oil industry over time,” said Tyler Priest, an offshore drilling historian at the University of Iowa who was unaffiliated with the study. Priest was a member of the 2010 National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill created by President Barack Obama.Priest said he expects the biggest job losses to be felt by contractors who are hired to do seismic surveys of newly leased offshore waters, along with companies that drill exploratory wells on new leases. He notes that offshore workers don’t necessarily live near the Gulf since projects employ a two-weeks on, two-weeks off schedule.Biden and other proponents of reducing fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters argue it is a necessary step to sufficiently reduce emissions that cause climate change.“It’s such an obvious first step to a clean energy economy,” Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat and a member of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, recently told the Washington Examiner. “You just can't keep digging the hole deeper.”Nearly one-quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production on public lands and waters, the U.S. Geological Survey found in 2018.The new study focuses specifically on the implications of restricting oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico, accounting for 15% of the nation’s oil production in January.A much lesser amount of natural gas is produced offshore, less than 5%.The study assumes the government would issue no new drilling permits beginning in 2022, but that permits already approved for companies with existing leases would be unaffected (Biden’s proposal only affects prospective drilling permits). Leases for oil and gas development in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico usually last 10 years, giving companies exclusive access to certain acreage, but producers must get periodic approval from the government during that time for drilling permits.Biden’s official campaign plan says that he would “ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters,” which appears to mean he would stop the government from issuing approvals for drilling through the duration of a lease, even if the lease was issued before Biden took office.The study projects that oil and natural gas production from the Gulf of Mexico would decline on average by more than 55% to 1.1 million barrels per day until 2040, compared to what would be expected with no leasing restrictions.The study, using projections from the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration, expects oil and natural gas production in the Gulf to average around 2.5 million barrels per day for the next 20 years, absent a ban on new leasing. That compares to 2.3 million barrels per day of Gulf oil and gas production in 2019.The study says offshore oil and natural gas production in the year 2040 would fall to 323,000 barrels per day compared to 1.96 million barrels per day with no leasing ban.It also projects government revenues to fall with an offshore permitting ban, given the royalty payments and other fees that companies pay for producing on federal lands. Revenues to the government, some of which are distributed to Gulf Coast states, would average around $2.7 billion per year through 2040, compared to $5.4 billion in 2019.Milito acknowledges that offshore oil and gas producers are already facing a “dire” situation because of the coronavirus-fueled price crash, but he expects the industry to bounce back.“There is a substantial possibility there will be many companies that don't survive this,” Milito said.Milito and Priest say offshore drilling, while expensive, is more productive on a per-well basis compared to onshore shale production.“Everybody thinks the shale has us covered, but the industry is still very committed in making investments in deep water projects,” Milito said.They said a drilling ban would push offshore production to other parts of the world, to places like Brazil, Angola, Nigeria, Mozambique, and Guyana, as long as there is a continued demand for oil and gas.“If you are focused on practical measures to reduce emissions, focus on the demand side, not supply,” Priest said. “This is a misguided policy.”Link Turns Case – Offshore DrillingLink alone turns case – oil production is offshored – decks aff solvencyWebb and Nicholson 18 - Former Secretary of the Navy and former Democratic Virginia Senator, Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See (Jim and Jim, “Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development Drives US Energy and National Security,” RealClear Energy, 6-20-18, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)This has very serious implications. As the Washington Post opined earlier this year, “As long as the economy requires oil, it must come from somewhere, and better the United States than a country with much weaker environmental oversight.” In fact, because of current U.S. policy, major energy investments are moving to countries like Mexico, where regulations could lag even farther behind ours. Over the last four years, as we have debated whether to open up carefully selected new areas for exploration on our side of the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico has leased over 20 million new acres on its side. The country's total acreage leased in the Gulf is now over 30 million acres, double that of the U.S.’s 14.7 million.Link -- Personhood Water personhood fails to save the environment AND tanks oil industry—empirics proveShelton, Professor Emeritus of International Law @ George Washington University Law School, 2015[Dinah, “Nature as a legal person”, Vertigo, September, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to declare in its constitution that nature is a legal person.57 Articles 10 and 71-74 of the Constitution recognize the inalienable rights of ecosystems,58 give individuals the authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems,59 and require the government to remedy violations of nature’s rights,60 including “the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.”61 The provisions were written by Ecuador’s Constitutional Assembly with input from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based non-governmental organization providing legal assistance to governments and community groups. Its drafts seek to “change the status of ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities.” Bolivia followed Ecuador in 2009 by similarly giving Constitutional protection to natural ecosystems, in order to override the immediate interests of residents. The constitutional amendment gives nature equal rights to humans. The 2010 Law of Mother Earth (Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra, Law 071) first implemented the amendment by redefining the country's mineral deposits as "blessings" and establishing new rights for nature. The law proclaimed the creation of the Defensoría de la Madre Tierra a counterpart to the human rights ombudsman office (the Defensoría del Pueblo). Nature’s rights include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to ecological balance; the right to the effective and opportune restoration of life systems affected by direct or indirect human activities, and the right for preservation of Mother Earth and any of its components with regards to toxic and radioactive waste generated by human activities. In October 2012, Bolivia enacted an expanded version of the 2010 law. The new law, entitled Framework Law on Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well, recognizes Mother Earth as a “living dynamic system,” and grants it comprehensive legal rights that are comparable to human rights. Bolivia amended its constitution in large part due to pressure from its large indigenous population, who places the environment and the Earth, Pachamama, at the center of all life. The indigenous were responding not only to traditional cultural and spiritual demands, but also to the fact that the Andean mountain ecosystems have been particularly affected by climate change, with the melting of glaciers, loss of water, and spread of diseases to the highlands. Significantly, however, two leading Bolivian indigenous rights groups ,CONAMAQ and CIDOB, oppose the 2012 law, stating that it undermines indigenous rights by not requiring indigenous consent for development projects, and promotes “standard development” that will continue to harm the environment. Implementation of the 2012 law may prove difficult for other reasons, as well. The right of Pachamama not to “have cellular structures modified,” for example, means genetically modified seeds should be prohibited and phased out, although much of Bolivia’s agricultural industry, including ninety percent of all soy, uses genetically modified seeds. Further north, on November 16, 2010, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania became the first city in the United States to declare nature a legal person and to ban “fracking” within the city limits. The state legislature tried to override the decision, supported by the oil and gas industry. It adopted a 2012 law allowing gas companies to drill anywhere in the state without regard to local zoning laws. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, however, restoring the city ordinance.63 In the majority opinion, the justices cited Article 1 Section 27 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, which guarantees the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” Dallas, Texas also recently adopted restrictions that bar hydraulic fracturing within 1,500 feet of a home, school, church, and other protected areas, effectively banning the practice within the city limits. In addition, voters in four cities in the state of Colorado recently succeeded in either banning or suspending fracking. As the Pennsylvania case shows, constitutional provisions are beginning to give rise to enforcement litigation based on the legal personality of nature. Wheeler c. Director de la Procuraduria General Del Estado de Loja64 was the first case in history to vindicate the Ecuadoran constitutional provisions. The lawsuit was filed against the local government in the southern region of Vilcabamba in March 2011, who were responsible for a road expansion project that dumped debris into the Rio Vilcabamba, narrowing its width and doubling the speed of its flow. The project was also done without an environmental impact assessment or consent of the local residents. Two residents brought the action alleging violations of the Rights of Nature. The court held against the local government, stating that the rights of nature prevail over other constitutional rights if they are in conflict with each other, setting an important precedent. The court also held that the defendant bears the burden of proof to show there is no damage. Unfortunately, compliance with the ruling and mandated reparations has been slow to arrive.Link -- WOTUS 2015 WOTUS ruling hurt Oil Industry, Trump ruling provesDALY, Writer AP News, 2021[MATTHEW, “Biden moves to restore clean-water safeguards ended by Trump”, AP News, June 9, , accessed 7/16/21, DDI-AJ]The Biden administration began legal action Wednesday to repeal a Trump-era rule that ended federal protections for hundreds of thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways, leaving them more vulnerable to pollution from development, industry and farms. The rule — sometimes referred to as “waters of the United States” or WOTUS — narrowed the types of waterways that qualify for federal protection under the Clean Water Act. It was one of hundreds of rollbacks of environmental and public health regulations under President Donald Trump, who said the rules imposed unnecessary burdens on business. The Trump-era rule, finalized last year, was long sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who complained about federal overreach that they said stretched into gullies, creeks and ravines on farmland and other private property.Internal Link Internal Link – Offshore DrillingStrong energy sector is key to national security against growing adversariesWebb and Nicholson 18 - Former Secretary of the Navy and former Democratic Virginia Senator, Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See (Jim and Jim, “Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development Drives US Energy and National Security,” RealClear Energy, 6-20-18, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Energy is the driving force for growth and quality of life in every nation, large and small. National security depends on it. Wars have been fought over it. A nation cannot reach or sustain its potential without large-scale access to it. Domestic energy production fills these needs and is a key contributor to a healthy economy. And there are few levers more powerful for a nation’s international position than energy independence.America’s strategic position has improved in recent years due to an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. But we remain vulnerable in an expanding global economy marked by ever-growing energy needs and potentially troublesome energy alliances, such as Russia’s recent accord with OPEC, that have the potential to manipulate the flow of oil.It is also undeniable that for the foreseeable future, oil and natural gas will be the greatest drivers of the world’s economies. Here at home, oil and gas are expected to generate over 60 percent of America’s energy for at least the next 30 years, even with the welcome use of renewables continuing to be on the rise.That said, it is time to correct an oversight in America’s move toward an "all-of-the-above" energy policy: the unnecessarily restrictive approach to the exploration and safe development of oil and natural gas resources that lie offshore.Offshore oil production is growing around the world, accounting for 25 percent of the world’s crude supply of around 99 million barrels a day. Just in recent years, major offshore discoveries have occurred in Brazil, Guyana, the North Sea, Cyprus, and Mexico. At the same time, due to environmental concerns in the past, our national policies have failed to adjust to the significant advances in exploration, drilling technology, and safety measures that would allow us to conduct research and safely explore and develop all of our existing domestic oil and natural gas resources — including those that lie offshore.Offshore drilling guarantees the US as the driver in energy productionLutz 18 - joined API after 10+ years leading the in-house marketing and communications for non-profits and trade associations (Jessica, “Offshore U.S. Energy Is Critical To National Security,” American Petroleum Industry, 10-17-18, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)U.S. natural gas and oil production plays a vital role in enhancing the security interests of our nation and our allies, growing the local and national economy, and contributing to the communities in which we live. Offshore energy exploration and production helps supply safe, reliable energy for American consumers, small businesses and manufacturers, and plays a key role in the nation’s economic future. Webb:“The U.S. energy boom has also allowed the United States to put increased pressure on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The rise of U.S. energy has added stability to global markets, reducing OPEC’s power and undercutting its efforts to restrict energy supplies and maintain higher prices. The free market of our energy sector also makes U.S. companies more innovative and flexible in adjusting to low prices — a major advantage over OPEC countries, which are usually dominated by national oil companies.“The United States can increase these advantages through renewed emphasis on safe and technologically advanced offshore exploration, which is increasingly in use throughout the world. Ninety-four percent of federal offshore acreage is currently off limits to energy development. The Trump administration’s National Offshore Leasing Program for 2019-2024 would change that by opening key areas off the Atlantic Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Recent advances in safety solutions, plus improvements in business practices and tighter government standards, guarantee that offshore exploration can be safe, targeted and productive.”The U.S. has vast natural gas and oil potential off our shores that should be safely harnessed for our country’s long-term needs and security. But don’t take my word for it, hear from CNBC's Brian Sullivan who recently reported from an offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico:America needs to correct long overdue energy policy shortcomings and modernize the unnecessarily restrictive approach to the exploration and safe development of national gas and oil resources that lie offshore. Technology, drilling techniques and industry standards have all changed greatly since these restrictions were put into place. Our national policies should mirror the significant advances that have been made in these areas, for the good of our national security and our economy. Webb:“The technical process of exploring offshore energy reserves would be the first step in a careful process conducted with safety measures that will protect America’s beaches, ecology and maritime necessities. It offers an opportunity to solidify our place as a global energy power and to guarantee energy independence at home.Offshore drilling upholds our national security and reduces dependence on hostile statesBarton 19 - a co-founder of a cyber security company and speaks around the country on cyber security and energy security matters (Michael James, “Offshore Drilling Enhances National Security,” Inside Sources, 5-24-19, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)A federal judge just dealt a blow to the economy — and our nation’s security.Sharon Gleason, a District Court judge in Alaska, blocked one of President Trump’s executive orders that seeks to expand offshore oil and natural gas drilling. In response to the ruling, the administration indefinitely delayed its rollout of a detailed five-year plan to spur offshore energy development in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.This delay will prevent American energy companies from extracting our offshore oil and gas riches. Workers will lose out on job opportunities. And the nation will lose out on valuable sources of fuel that could reduce our reliance on hostile petro-states like Venezuela and Russia.For the sake of our workers, and our national security, let’s hope the administration reverses course and finalizes its offshore energy plan.A few months after taking office, Trump signed an executive order opening federal offshore territories to energy exploration. Ever since, the Interior Department has been working on a plan to open up much of the outer continental shelf — the undersea land between three and 200 miles off the coasts — to development. Nearly 90 billion barrels of oil and 328 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie beneath the outer continental shelf — enough to heat America for two full years. The United States is on the cusp of complete energy independence — a goal that seemed impossible just a decade ago. Advances in the drilling technique known as fracking have enabled companies to tap previously inaccessible oil and natural gas deposits trapped in underground shale rock formations.From 2010 to 2017, oil production shot up more than 70 percent. Thanks to this fracking boom, the United States has reduced its reliance on hostile or unstable oil-rich nations. Oil and petroleum imports from Russia dropped nearly 40 percent from 2010 to 2017. Last year, oil imports from Saudi Arabia reached their lowest levels since the 1980s.However, we’re not completely independent. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are still among the top five sources of U.S. petroleum imports, according to the Energy Information Administration’s most recent data. Venezuela and Russia remain in the top 10. Offshore energy could enable us to break our foreign oil habit once and for all. Offshore production accounted for 16 percent of all U.S. crude oil production in 2018, increased by about 30 percent between 2013 and 2017, and is now pushing 1.7 million barrels per day. Expanding drilling to areas of the outer continental shelf that President Obama declared off-limits would raise that figure substantially. It also would create 840,000 jobs and generate a cumulative $200 billion in government revenue by 2035.Environmental activists have scared people into believing that offshore drilling is unsafe. The Natural Resources Defense Council warns that “the only sure way to prevent offshore oil spills, of course, is to abandon drilling for oil offshore.” That’s simply not true. The oil and gas industry has redoubled its efforts to make offshore drilling safer than ever. Since 2010, the oil and natural gas industry has revised or implemented more than 100 new safety regulations to protect against spills. All energy harnessing involves some risk, but the activists just yell “no” and never have a workable plan for affordable, scalable, reliable energy that already exists today.Energy independence checks back against China and RussiaMicallef 18 - a best-selling military history and world affairs author, and keynote speaker (Joseph V., “The Strategic Implications of American Energy Independence,” , 9-18-17, , Accessed 7-15-21, LASA-AH)Energy Independence and U.S. Foreign PolicyThe prospect of the U.S. emerging as a major exporter of energy will have far-ranging implications for both the U.S. economy and its foreign policy. Economically, it will eliminate a major source of the U.S. trade deficit, while as the energy trade shifts to a net positive, the surplus will eventually offset at least half of the current U.S. trade deficit.More importantly, natural gas is an important feedstock for a range of petrochemical-related industries -- from plastics to fertilizers. Inexpensive and plentiful natural gas is feeding a boom in export sales of petrochemicals and their related products. Moreover, energy costs are a significant component of manufacturing costs in many industries. Inexpensive energy is a significant contributor to the competitivity of American industry.Far more importantly, however, are the implications for Russia's gas exports to Europe. Russia currently supplies about 40 percent of the EU's natural gas needs. More importantly, Russia has increasingly emerged as the swing supplier as Europe's natural gas consumption has grown. The Kremlin has seen Europe's growing dependence on Russian natural gas as an important source of leverage in Moscow's relations with the various European states and, in particular, Germany.This dependence is especially true with respect to the former states of the USSR and some of the former countries in the Soviet bloc. In the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, dependence on Russian energy has been almost 100 percent. LNG, however, is rapidly changing that.Lithuania now has an import terminal allowing it to bring in LNG from Norway and soon from the U.S., as well. Latvia and Estonia are linking up their domestic gas distribution system to that of Lithuania in order to avail themselves of LNG imports via Lithuania.Poland is moving in the same direction, having recently signed an agreement with two U.S. companies to import 3.5 TCF of natural gas over 20 years. Polish state-run gas company PGNiG has already announced that it plans to stop importing Russian gas after 2022.At the moment, Russian gas to Europe is about 15 percent cheaper than equivalent American LNG imports. Russia has the advantage of moving most of its natural gas exports to Europe via an established network of pipelines, which have long since been paid off.It's believed, however, that gas delivered via new pipelines, such as the Nord Stream pipelines and the South Stream and Blue Stream pipelines, will be more expensive. Moreover, even if Europe does not become a significant market for U.S. LNG exports, the availability of U.S. supplies will significantly reduce Russian pricing leverage, as well as the political leverage that Europe's dependence on Russian gas has afforded the Kremlin.In Asia, much the same scenario is true, except here U.S. LNG exports enjoy a significant price advantage. Natural gas delivered to China via Russia's new Asian gas pipeline runs around $10 per MCF versus around $4.50 per MCF for American LNG. Russian gas reserves in eastern Siberia are more expensive to operate, and the pipeline to carry that gas to China is brand new and was expensive to build.Chinese imports of American LNG could go a long way to reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China, a persistent source of friction between Washington and Beijing. In addition, they would go a long way to reducing Japan's and South Korea's vulnerability to supply disruptions from Mideast sources.Not surprisingly, the Trump administration has criticized Europe's dependence on Russian gas exports and has been promoting American LNG as an alternative. It's conceivable that the question of American LNG exports to Europe will become strategically linked by Washington to European commitments to increase their level of defense spending to 3 percent of their gross national products (GNP).In other words, the Trump administration might show more flexibility on NATO's pledge to spend 3 percent of GNP on defense spending in return for a larger commitment to purchase American LNG.Simply put, the use of Russian natural gas exports as a source of political leverage in Russian foreign policy has probably seen its best days. Going forward, it's likely that the Kremlin's gas-based leverage will decline substantially.Internal Link – Foreign PolicyEnergy independence is key to foreign policy decisionsFolk 18 – reporter at Ecologist (Emily, “How important is energy independence in the US?,” Ecologist, 9-10-18, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)Eco-political BenefitsThe United States is already a leader in the $6 trillion global energy market. Though the US imports about 20 percent of its energy, that number has been declining since new technology allowed for the extraction of shale oil and gas that was previously inaccessible.The natural gas boom has freed up space in the American economy. Instead of purchasing barrels of oil from other countries, the US is able to supply more of its own needs, which allows money to be cycled more easily back into the American economy.Seeing the impact that natural gas extracted from US territory made on the economy, many investors and politicians took notice and began advocating for energy independence. Indeed, the money to be made from natural gas amidst growing demand is one tempting reason to strive for energy independence.Energy independence also boasts possible geopolitical benefits. The United States imports most of its energy from countries where political tensions run high. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and Russia are all huge exporters of energy, and this has put the United States in more than one awkward position over the years.In addition to the amount of defense money spent protecting US oil interests abroad, relying on foreign oil has prevented the US and other countries from intervening in conflicts around the world. Europe’s lack of intervention when Russia annexed Crimea is just one example of energy stability influencing foreign policy decisions for the worse.Energy independence could free the United States from fear of trade retaliation when making foreign policy decisions. This would make it easier for the US and other energy independent countries to boycott or otherwise intervene in unjust systems and governments. It would also give other oil producers more claim over their own energy.Internal Link – EconomyEnergy independence boosts the economyAnderson 14 - Business reporter, BBC News (Richard, “How American energy independence could change the world,” BBC, 4-3-14, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)US economyLast year, the United States spent about $300bn (?180bn) on importing oil. This represented almost two-thirds of the country's entire annual trade deficit. Oil imports are, therefore, sucking hundreds of billions of dollars a year out of the US economy.As the IEA says, a persistent trade deficit can act as a drag on economic growth, manufacturing and employment.If the US achieved energy independence, not only would the country spend far less on cheaper, domestically generated power, but the money would be going primarily to US-owned energy producers.The US's oil import bill also constitutes about 2% of the country's annual economic growth. As the US economy averages about 2% growth a year, the country would, in effect, be getting a year's growth for free.Paul Dales, at Capital Economics, argues that as this would be spread out over the next 10-20 years, the annual benefits would be much smaller - in this instance, 0.2%-0.1%.True, but comparing now with energy independence, the boost to the US economy of ending oil imports would be significant.Fossil fuels are key – anything else is too expensiveAnderson 14 - Business reporter, BBC News (Richard, “How American energy independence could change the world,” BBC, 4-3-14, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)US manufacturingEnergy independence will come about only through cheap and abundant shale oil and gas, which could help spark a golden age for US manufacturing.US energy prices are far lower than those in Europe and Japan, and this fact - together with rising wages in China and the increasing productivity of US factories - means a number of US firms are looking to bring production back home - a process known as reshoring.Several companies, including Dow Chemical, General Electric, Ford and Caterpillar, have announced hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, either in new plants or in re-opening shutdown facilities. Even Apple has announced a new factory in Arizona more than a decade after closing its last US plant.In fact, between 2010 and the end of March 2013, almost 100 chemical industry projects valued at around $72bn were announced, according to the American Chemistry Council.Indeed a study by accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that one million manufacturing jobs could be created by 2025 thanks to low energy prices and demand from the shale gas industry. Further analysis by the Boston Consulting Group points to a surge in US exports of manufactured goods.Many economists believe shale will spark a renaissance in US manufacturingAny boost in production to US manufacturing would obviously lift overall economic growth even further. In fact, the benefits are already being felt - many economists point to cheaper energy as one reason why the US has outperformed in recent years.Oil is key to sustain overseas alliancesAnderson 14 - Business reporter, BBC News (Richard, “How American energy independence could change the world,” BBC, 4-3-14, , Accessed 7-16-21, LASA-AH)Geopolitics and the Middle EastWith energy independence secured, America's interest in oil in the Middle East would inevitably wane. Much depends on your own view of how important oil is to US foreign policy, but some commentators have compared American policy in Syria, a relatively minor oil producer, with that in Iraq, one of the biggest producers in the world.You only have to look at Europe's reaction to Russia's move into Crimea to see how intertwined energy security and foreign policy are - with Russia supplying about a third of Europe's energy, EU leaders' hands are, to a large extent, tied.Whether oil is the most important driver of US foreign policy in the Middle East is a moot point."Oil is a very important aspect of US interests, but you can't ignore the others," says Alexia Ash at IHS.She says the US is very concerned both about stability in the region, particularly as it borders both Russia and China, and its image as a global superpower. The US also has strong historical ties with Saudi Arabia, including lucrative defence contracts. Others argue the US is already starting to withdraw from some of its overseas interests.As Ms Ash asks: "If the ideological battles are lost, does the US start to retreat into its own shores?" Energy independence allows it to do just that.Impact ! -- Europe US energy production is key to Europe energy independenceKantchev 16 - a Moscow-based reporter covering Russia and the region (Georgi, “With U.S. Gas, Europe Seeks Escape From Russia’s Energy Grip,” The Wall Street Journal, 2-25-16, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)ABOARD THE INDEPENDENCE, Lithuania—On the deck of this floating gas terminal, Mantas Bartuska awaits a tanker to pass a narrow inlet on the Baltic Sea with the first natural gas shipments from the Gulf Coast that many hope will transform Europe’s energy market.“Soon, hopefully, U.S. gas will come,” said Mr. Bartuska, chief executive of the operator of the Independence, the gas terminal docked at the port city of Klaipeda, Lithuania.After a yearslong effort, a tanker chartered by Cheniere Energy, an American company, left a Louisiana port this week with the first major exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG. This shipment isn’t going to Europe, but others are expected to arrive by spring.“Like shale gas was a game changer in the U.S., American gas exports could be a game changer for Europe,” said Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s energy chief.Many in Europe see U.S. entry into the market as part of a broader effort to challenge Russian domination of energy supplies and prices in this part of the world. Moscow has for years used its giant energy reserves as a strategic tool to influence former satellite countries, including Lithuania, one of the countries on the fringes of Russia that now see a chance to break away.Some are building the capacity to handle seaborne LNG, including Poland, which opened its first import terminal last year. In Bulgaria, which buys about 90% of its gas from Russia, Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said last month that supplies of U.S. gas could arrive via Greek LNG facilities, “God willing.”The shale boom has reshaped the world energy market over the past decade, with the U.S. emerging as a new energy exporter, and the beginning of gas exports represents a big moment in this new world. Deutsche Bank estimates the U.S. could catch up with Russia as Europe’s biggest gas supplier within a decade, with each nation controlling around a fifth of the market. Russia supplies about a third of Europe’s gas via pipeline.Lots of competitionThe U.S. faces a crowded market where a global glut is projected to keep prices low. American exports will help reduce European LNG prices by about 25% within two years, according to Goldman Sachs estimates. The U.S. will compete with Russia, Norway, U.K., Australia and others in Europe’s gas market. Germany, for example, gets half its gas and Italy a third from Russia.Low prices also mean natural gas could compete with coal and help Europe achieve its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.In Lithuania, officials have accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of espionage and cyberwarfare to keep its share of the lucrative energy market.“In Russia, gas always goes together with politics,” Rokas Masiulis, Lithuania’s energy minister, said in an interview at his office, across the street from a former KGB prison. “Russia is extremely aggressive in gas pricing and the arrival of U.S. LNG will change that.”Bulgarian officials allege Russia bankrolled a wave of street protests in 2012 that forced the government to impose a moratorium on shale gas exploration. In 2014, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, then-head of NATO, told reporters that Russia was covertly funding European environmental organizations to campaign against shale gas to help maintain dependence on Russian gas.Russia’s foreign ministry didn’t respond to requests for comment.U.S. gas exports will improve energy security for its allies, said Chris Smith, assistant secretary at the U.S. Energy Department. Those include Lithuania, which was the first Soviet republic to declare independence in 1990 but remains reliant on Moscow for energy.Until 2014, Gazprom owned 37% of Lithuania’s national gas company, Lietuvos Dujos, and dominated its boardroom, said current and former officials.“There was no negotiation about gas prices,” said Jaroslav Neverovic, Lithuania’s energy minister from 2012 to 2014. He said Gazprom would send Lietuvos Dujos a list of gas prices, which the board automatically approved.Mr. Neverovic said negotiations always took place on New Year’s Eve, when Gazprom would threaten to cut off supplies during winter’s coldest days. Gazprom denied setting unfair prices.Gazprom calculated its prices using a formula the Lithuanians said was unintelligible. A copy reviewed by The Wall Street Journal showed a 773-word formula with multiple sub-clauses.The result, according to Lithuanian officials, was one of the highest gas bills in Europe. In the first half of 2013, industrial buyers paid an average of 44 euro cents, or $0.47, per kilowatt-hour for Gazprom gas. Businesses in the U.K., which has its own gas reserves, paid 35 euro cents, EU data show.Cheap oil exports are keyKantchev 16 - a Moscow-based reporter covering Russia and the region (Georgi, “With U.S. Gas, Europe Seeks Escape From Russia’s Energy Grip,” The Wall Street Journal, 2-25-16, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)At current prices, U.S. gas delivered to Europe would cost as low as $3.60 per million British thermal units. Russian gas now costs around $4.60, on average, according to Trevor Sikorski of London-based consultancy Energy Aspects. But, he said, “If Russia wanted to chase out the U.S., they could supply gas at probably $2 in a price war.”Mr. Medvedev said Gazprom wasn’t planning a price war. But if U.S. LNG prices did fall, he added, the company “would seek to cut its own costs.”The first major U.S. exports left Wednesday from Sabine Pass, a terminal built on a patch of Louisiana swampland. A decade ago, Sabine Pass was planned as a gas import terminal, but the project reversed direction after the escalation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—the technique of using blasts of water, sand and chemicals to release oil and natural gas trapped underground.Fracking pushed U.S. oil production to its highest level in nearly half a century and led to an oversupply of gas that drove domestic prices to a 17-year low on Thursday.U.S. producers are now looking for customers in the saturated global marketplace. Around 90 million metric tons of new gas will hit markets annually over the next three years, equal to about a third of current demand, according to brokerage AB Bernstein.Cheniere Energy, the operator of Sabine Pass, has signed 20-year contracts with a number of European gas companies, including U.K.’s BG Group, which was acquired this month by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and Spain’s Gas Natural.Lithuania’s LITGAS signed a trade agreement with Cheniere last year. Officials expect the first U.S. gas to reach their shores in coming months.Klaipeda’s mayor, Mr. Grubliauskas, said during a recent interview at his office, decorated with photographs of U.S. naval drills in the port: “U.S. LNG is more than just about gas. It’s about freedom.”Energy independence starves Russia’s defense sectorZile 20 - Latvian Member of the European Parliament with the ECR Group (Roberts, “Energy independence is still key in the fight against Russia,”NewEurope, 5-5-20, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Whilst we in Europe have been distracted in recent months, first with Brexit and then with the Coronavirus, Russia has been making small gains. The most notable of these was in early January when Russia managed to gain favourable terms in the renegotiation of the oil and gas lines that run through Ukraine to fuel Western Europe.The negotiations ended in bad terms for Ukraine and for Europe, but what the EU is negotiating with Russia now under Nord Stream II is even worse. The establishment of Nord Stream II will undermine the security of Central and Eastern Europe. And It will only fuel the dependence of Germany on Russian gas.Whilst many in Germany dismiss this claim, there is already considerable evidence that they have weakened their position on Russia in favour of Nord Stream II. Germany has been one of the most reluctant countries to impose increased sanctions on Russia in response to their expansionism in Ukraine. And why should they not soften their position? When in 2017 they were dependent on Russia for 37% of their oil imports with trends looking towards that percentage rising.This kind of energy politics isn’t unique to Germany, in fact, it cuts both ways. Countries such as France which are energy independent don’t take a strong line against Russia as they have no reason to confront them despite having nothing to lose. However, for those of us in the Baltic, we need both our energy independence and our political one.NATO has gladly stepped in to defend us of the latter part. The United Kingdom, the United States and Canada have all taken part in NATO’s forward presence to demonstrate to Russia that we are no the price to be paid for fuelling the western European economy. Especially when there are alternatives to keeping Europe fuelled.Last year the United States, Poland and Ukraine signed a trilateral agreement on energy. American liquified natural gas (LNG) would be exported to Poland – at a low price – and pumped into refinement plants before being pumped through a new gas line across the border into storage in Ukraine. It will diversify the energy market in both countries and end dependence on hostile neighbours.The expected capacity is to be up to 6 billion cubic metres of gas per year. According to US Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the signing of the memorandum is “an amazing ‘win’ for energy security, the economic security and the national security of all three countries”. In addition to the trilateral agreement, the United States has been working with other Baltic states, including Lithuania, to increase LNG import capacity.In addition, the United States is also expected to become one of the main financial contributors to the Three Seas Initiative – a large scale infrastructure connection project amongst the Central and Eastern EU member states.The Lithuanian government announced last year a plan to radically expand their existing LNG terminals to double their current capacity. The aim is to create a new pipeline connecting the Baltic states, Poland and Finland, putting an end to the dependence of the five countries on imports from Gazprom. In time this too will be connected to Ukraine, helping to diversify their energy markets further. It has to be emphasized that already now the connected pipeline between Estonia and Finland has proven to be an important and vibrant asset, especially during the last winter.The United States has, of course, expressed its desire to keep exporting to Europe. The Americans in recent years have had a boom in the production of oil and gas, with LNG becoming a cheap by-product not needed for domestic use. Exporting to allies in Europe offers the Americans a chance to help alienate Russia on the world stage by cutting dependence from neighbouring states, whilst at the same time boosting American exports. It is also important to note that America’s shift towards becoming a net exporter of oil and gas, was one of the causes of the recent collapse in fuel prices. The Russians had long depended on America’s need for Middle Eastern oil to be able to fix prices high enough to make a profit and low enough to undermine their competitors.As a result, ending our dependence on Russia has the added benefit of dealing an economic blow. Nearly 40% of the Russian economy is based on the oil and gas sector – the with largest state-run company in the country being Gazprom. Five out of the top ten companies in Russia are related to the energy sector – half of which are run directly or indirectly by the state. An energy-independent Europe would be able to starve the Russian economy – with most of the damage being felt by those at the top of society. For decades, the Russian mafia state has been fueled by oil and gas money with many of the country’s powerful oligarchs having stakes in the industry.The profits from oil and gas in Russia are pumped directly into the Kremlin’s security state. In recent years, the security services, who have been acting in hostile ways towards Europe, have seen their budget increased to 35% of total state expenditure. The refitting of the Russian military in recent years has been tied to the growth in profits from the Russian oil and gas sector. By starving Russia of European money for energy, we are in effect starving the Russian military and it’s capabilities to act abroad.Granted, instead of a one single silver bullet concept, the EU has to realize that there will be many steps to overcome in relations to Russia. But it should be clear that the only reliable first step towards tackling Russia is to end our dependence on them for energy. Only once that has happened Europe will we be able to act independently and face the threat from Russia head-on. So long as central Europe remains dependent on the East for fuel, they will never be able to take a robust stance against the true aggressor in the world. And because of that, we in the Baltic will never truly feel safe.US export of energy key to check Russian military and strengthen relations with EU and NATOZile, Latvian Member of the European Parliament with the ECR Group, 2020[Roberts, “Energy independence is still key in the fight against Russia”, New Europe, May 5th, , accessed 7/17/21, DDI-AJ]Last year the United States, Poland and Ukraine signed a trilateral agreement on energy. American liquified natural gas (LNG) would be exported to Poland – at a low price – and pumped into refinement plants before being pumped through a new gas line across the border into storage in Ukraine. It will diversify the energy market in both countries and end dependence on hostile neighbours.The expected capacity is to be up to 6 billion cubic metres of gas per year. According to US Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the signing of the memorandum is “an amazing ‘win’ for energy security, the economic security and the national security of all three countries”. In addition to the trilateral agreement, the United States has been working with other Baltic states, including Lithuania, to increase LNG import capacity.In addition, the United States is also expected to become one of the main financial contributors to the Three Seas Initiative – a large scale infrastructure connection project amongst the Central and Eastern EU member states.The Lithuanian government announced last year a plan to radically expand their existing LNG terminals to double their current capacity. The aim is to create a new pipeline connecting the Baltic states, Poland and Finland, putting an end to the dependence of the five countries on imports from Gazprom. In time this too will be connected to Ukraine, helping to diversify their energy markets further. It has to be emphasized that already now the connected pipeline between Estonia and Finland has proven to be an important and vibrant asset, especially during the last winter.The United States has, of course, expressed its desire to keep exporting to Europe. The Americans in recent years have had a boom in the production of oil and gas, with LNG becoming a cheap by-product not needed for domestic use. Exporting to allies in Europe offers the Americans a chance to help alienate Russia on the world stage by cutting dependence from neighbouring states, whilst at the same time boosting American exports. It is also important to note that America’s shift towards becoming a net exporter of oil and gas, was one of the causes of the recent collapse in fuel prices. The Russians had long depended on America’s need for Middle Eastern oil to be able to fix prices high enough to make a profit and low enough to undermine their competitors.As a result, ending our dependence on Russia has the added benefit of dealing an economic blow. Nearly 40% of the Russian economy is based on the oil and gas sector – the with largest state-run company in the country being Gazprom. Five out of the top ten companies in Russia are related to the energy sector – half of which are run directly or indirectly by the state. An energy-independent Europe would be able to starve the Russian economy – with most of the damage being felt by those at the top of society. For decades, the Russian mafia state has been fueled by oil and gas money with many of the country’s powerful oligarchs having stakes in the industry.The profits from oil and gas in Russia are pumped directly into the Kremlin’s security state. In recent years, the security services, who have been acting in hostile ways towards Europe, have seen their budget increased to 35% of total state expenditure. The refitting of the Russian military in recent years has been tied to the growth in profits from the Russian oil and gas sector. By starving Russia of European money for energy, we are in effect starving the Russian military and it’s capabilities to act abroad.Russia escalates war with EU—goes nuclearPifer, Nonresident Senior Fellow, 2017[Steven, “The growing Russian military threat in Europe”, Brookings, May 17th, , accessed 7/17/21, DDI-AJ]In the 1990s and early 2000s, many analysts assumed that Russia wanted to work in a cooperative manner with the United States and Europe and, if not integrate into, develop cooperative relationships with key European and trans-Atlantic institutions such as the European Union and NATO. In recent years, however, it has become clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin leadership have chosen a different course. They appear to have concluded that the European security order that developed in the aftermath of the Cold War disadvantages Russian interests. They have sought to undermine that order and define Russia in opposition to the United States and the West.Russia is pursuing several goals in Europe. First, the Kremlin seeks a Russian sphere of influence—or a “sphere of privileged interests,” as then-President Dmitry Medvedev called it in 2008—in the post-Soviet space, with the possible exception of the Baltic States. Mr. Putin does not seek to recreate the Soviet Union, as the Russian economy is not prepared to subsidize the economies of the other former Soviet states. What the Russian leadership wants from its neighbors is that they defer to Moscow on issues that the Kremlin defines as key to Russian interests. This includes relationships between those states and institutions such as the European Union and NATO, despite Russia’s commitment under the Final Act to respect the right of other states to choose to belong to international organizations and to be party to treaties of alliance.Second, Moscow seeks to weaken the European Union and NATO, which it believes act as checks on Russian power. Russian security doctrine openly regards NATO as a threat. Mr. Putin appears to hold a particular grievance against NATO. He asserts that the Alliance began enlarging in the early 1990s in order to take advantage of Russian weakness and bring military force to Russia’s borders. His narrative ignores NATO’s efforts to engage Russia in a cooperative manner as well as the commitments undertaken by the Alliance with regard to the non-stationing of nuclear and conventional forces on the territory of new member states, commitments made to ease Russian concern about NATO enlargement.The Kremlin also regards the European Union and its enlargement as a threat. Indeed, the Russian pressure that began on Ukraine in 2013 was not due to that country’s relationship with NATO. Then-President Victor Yanukovych had renounced the goal of securing a NATO membership action plan, and key Alliance members such as Germany and France had made clear that they did not support putting Ukraine on a membership track. What spurred Russia to increase its pressure was the prospect that Ukraine—even under Mr. Yanukovych—might conclude an association agreement with the European Union.Third, the Kremlin seeks a seat at the table when major questions regarding Europe are decided. This explains in part Russia’s opposition to the European Union and NATO; Russia does not belong to those institutions. While Russia is a member of OSCE, it has devalued the status of the organization over the past two decades, regularly calling into question its mission and, at times, even its legitimacy.Russia’s more assertive and belligerent stance in Europe over the past five years has been abetted by the modernization of Russian military forces, both nuclear and conventional. Much of the modernization of Russian strategic nuclear forces appears to be replacing old weapons systems with new versions—in some cases, systems Moscow might have replaced years ago had it then had the finances. The overall strategic modernization program appears sized to fit within the limits of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.More worrisome, particularly for European security, are Russia’s deployment of a new ground-launched intermediate-range cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, its modernization of an array of other non-strategic nuclear weapons, and its apparent “escalate to de-escalate” doctrine. Formal Russian doctrine suggests that Russia would resort to use of nuclear weapons in the event that nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction were used against Russia or an ally, or in the event of a conventional attack on Russia in which the existence of the Russian state is at stake. There have, however, been suggestions that Moscow might entertain the notion that it could use nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” a conventional conflict that did not involve an attack on Russian territory, for example, after a Russian conventional attack on another country.Russia is also modernizing its conventional military forces. While much of this appears to be replacing old with new, the Russian military clearly aims to enhance its ability to conduct offensive operations outside of Russian territory, spurred in part by a desire to improve on the mediocre performance of Russian forces in the 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict. Over the past three years, it appears that Russia has deployed and operated a number of its new conventional weapons systems in Ukraine.! -- Ukraine Energy independence key—gets exported to Ukraine which stops Russian aggression and escalation in the regionWaldman, writer at EE News, and Storrow, writer at EE News 2019[Scott and Benjamin, “How U.S. fossil fuels are tied to Ukraine and impeachment”, EE News, September 30, , accessed 7/17/21, DDI-AJ]Ukraine, now at the center of a rapidly accelerating impeachment inquiry against President Trump, has been central to the president's efforts to increase U.S. exports of fossil fuels.The Eastern European nation sits at the crossroads of Europe and Russia. Today, roughly a third of Russian gas consumed in Europe passes through Ukraine. That has made the country uniquely susceptible to Russian meddling. Moscow has twice cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in the past 15 years and stopped selling directly to the country after the onset of the civil war there in 2014. The prospect of a third shutoff looms at the end of the year, when the current transit agreement between Russia and Ukraine is set to expire.The impeachment inquiry against Trump could strain the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. House Democrats are seeking information on how the president and his administration may have pressured Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The White House may have delayed military aid to Ukraine as part of a campaign to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open an investigation into an energy company that employed the former vice president's son.And while Ukraine has benefited financially and strategically from U.S. support for its energy independence from Russia, that policy is usually centered around the country's desire to maintain American support for its military, said Margarita Balmaceda, a researcher at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University."Ukraine leaders welcome U.S. support and investment in its energy sector," Balmaceda said. "Ukrainian leaders may even pay lip service to Ukraine eventually somehow buying U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of buying gas that originated in Russia, but I would say the key here is that Ukraine is dependent on anybody that is able to offer it military support, because Ukraine is in a very, very difficult situation in the face of Russian military intervention."Indeed, before the nation became a flashpoint in what may lead to the third impeachment of an American president, Ukraine was a significant piece of the Trump administration's international "energy dominance" policy.President Trump has seized upon the conflict in Ukraine as a central argument for bolstering the sales of American fossil fuels abroad, arguing that U.S. allies need reliable energy suppliers to ward off adversaries and grow their economies. Administration officials have coordinated sales of Pennsylvania anthracite, a particularly carbon-intensive form of coal, to help offset a decline in Ukrainian coal production associated with the conflict there (Climatewire, Aug. 1, 2017).Administration officials have vehemently objected to plans to build Nord Stream 2, an undersea natural gas pipeline linking Russian directly to Germany, and thus cutting out Ukraine. Rick Perry, the U.S. Energy secretary, has voiced support for congressional efforts to sanction companies participating with the project (Greenwire, May 21).And Trump has aggressively marketed U.S. liquefied natural gas exports as an alternative to Russian gas."Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons right now," Trump told a gathering at the Department of Energy in 2017, when he announced his desire to see the United States dominate global energy markets. "We want to sell it to them and everyone else all over the globe" (E&E News PM, June 29, 2017).**1nc card -> Ukraine Russia conflict goes nuclearPond ‘17"War in Ukraine: Is This the Way It Ends", Elizabeth Pond is is a journalist based in Germany. Currently a correspondent for the Washington Quarterly and the Brookings Institute, she was a longtime European correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. She is the author of The Rebirth of Europe (Brookings, 2001) and coauthor of The German Question and Other German Questions (Macmillan/St. Martins, 1996), 11/19/2017, )The story so far :To understand today’s diplomatic signalling, it is necessary first to review three surprising developments in the years since Putin attacked Russia’s younger-brother East Slav Ukrainians in February 2014. That was when Russian naval infantry suddenly seized control of Ukraine’s provincial Crimean parliament.4 Firstly, Ukraine quietly built up a do-it-yourself army from the tiny core of only 6,000 combat-ready troops it then had. In Europe, Ukraine is now second only to Russia in terms of the manpower, if not the firepower, of its armed forces.5 Secondly, more than three years of simmering war have not cowed the Ukrainians back into deference to elder-brother East Slavs in Moscow. On the contrary, the Ukrainians have Putin to thank for giving them a common enemy and uniting them, for the first time, under a distinctive, West-oriented national identity of their own. The shift is most dramatic in eastern Ukraine. Russian speakers there disliked the far-off Kiev government passively, but never rallied to the cause of armed revolt as Putin expected. Yet they suffered disproportionately from the carnage, and many blamed Russian militants for their plight. Surveys by the Ukrainian Democratic Initiatives Foundation show that Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians would in fact have voted in pre-war 2011 for independence by a 53% majority over a large 47% opposed. Under the bloodshed this turned, by 2016, into a massive 71.5% pro-independence poll over only 28.5% against.6 Even more telling, perhaps, is the fact that ‘Ukraine is coming out from under the cultural influence of Russia’ and thus is ‘becoming independent not only in a political and government sense but in a cultural one as well’, as 145 Radio Liberty journalist Elena Matusova observes.7 ‘That’s why I always say we should erect a statue to Putin!’, said Oleg Ryabchuk, a leading intellectual activist in both of the two pro-democracy, pro-EU campouts on Kiev’s Independence Square (‘Maidan’) that transformed Ukrainian politics in the Orange Revolution of 2004 and Revolution of Dignity of 2014.8 Thirdly, these two astonishing developments have combined to wrest escalation dominance away from Moscow (albeit without gaining it for Ukraine).9 Russia’s Donbas operations come at a $1 billion annual cost, and raise the risk of perpetuating Western financial sanctions, while shrinking the benefits of Moscow’s continued military control of the rubble along the 255-mile battlefront in eastern Ukraine.10 This makes all the difference between 2014 and 2017. Back in 2014, when Putin abruptly ripped up the 39-year-old Helsinki pact outlawing any change of European borders by force, the stunned Ukrainians had no army that could defend either Crimea or the municipal offices in eastern Ukraine that were being seized by ‘little green men’, as the Ukrainians dubbed the Russian special forces in unmarked uniforms that fanned out in both areas.11 Kiev had to depend instead on private militias recruited and funded by the likes of billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskiy, who was duly appointed governor of Dnipropetrovsk province with a mandate to stave off any deeper Russian incursion. In 2014, the equally stunned United States and NATO quickly declared that they would not intervene militarily in a country that was not a NATO ally. The West worried about getting sucked into tit-for-tat escalation that could even risk stumbling into nuclear war through miscalculation, absent the understood Cold War nuclear constraints. Russia enjoyed conspicuous ‘dominance’ at any stage of military escalation, as Putin boasted, both from proximity and motivation.12 He could trump any Western delivery of weapons to Ukraine over long, vulnerable logistical routes by simply shuttling more powerful weapons over the border to pro-Russian separatists or sending in regular Russian forces – or even going nuclear, as his scarcely veiled threats made clear.13 Moreover, on motivation – or will, as Putin tended to phrase it – he had manifestly bigger stakes in Ukraine than did the West, and was ready to accept a higher Russian sacrifice. At that point he was embracing a populist 146 | Elizabeth Pond Russian nationalism as his post-communist ideology, and was far more passionate about not ‘losing’ Ukraine than the West was about defending it to restore the taboo on grabbing a neighbour’s territory in Europe. Despite the country’s vote for independence when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, Putin still saw Ukraine as a Russian patrimony. As he put it to then-US president George W. Bush in 2008: ‘You have to understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.’14Nuclear escalation over Ukraine or Europe is likelyThompson 14 - Senior Contributor at Forbes (Loren, “Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons,” Forbes, 4-24-14, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)One facet of the regional military balance that bears watching is the presence of so-called nonstrategic nuclear weapons on both sides. Once called tactical nuclear weapons, these missiles, bombs and other devices were bought during the Cold War to compensate for any shortfalls in conventional firepower during a conflict. According to Amy Woolf of the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has about 200 such weapons in Europe, some of which are available for use by local allies in a war. Woolf says Russia has about 2,000 nonstrategic nuclear warheads in its active arsenal -- many of them within striking distance of Ukraine -- and that successive revisions of Russian military strategy appear "to place a greater reliance on nuclear weapons" to balance the U.S. advantage in high-tech conventional weapons.A 2011 study by the respected RAND Corporation came to much the same conclusion, stating that Russian doctrine explicitly recognizes the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to conventional aggression. Not only does Moscow see nuclear use as a potential escalatory option in a regional war, but it also envisions using nuclear weapons to de-escalate a conflict. This isn't just Russian saber-rattling. The U.S. and its NATO partners too envision the possibility of nuclear use in a European war. The Obama Administration had the opportunity to back away from such thinking in a 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, and instead decided it would retain forward-deployed nuclear weapons in Europe under a doctrine known as extended deterrence. Eastern European nations that joined NATO after the Soviet collapse have been especially supportive of having U.S. nuclear weapons nearby.So improbable though it may seem, doctrine and capabilities exist on both sides that could lead to nuclear use in a confrontation over Ukraine. Here are four ways that what started out as a local crisis could turn into something much worse.Four ways miscalculation happensBad intelligenceThompson 14 - Senior Contributor at Forbes (Loren, “Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons,” Forbes, 4-24-14, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Bad intelligence. As the U.S. has stumbled from one military mis-adventure to another over the last several decades, it has become clear that Washington isn't very good at interpreting intelligence. Even when vital information is available, it gets filtered by preconceptions and bureaucratic processes so that the wrong conclusions are drawn. Similar problems exist in Moscow. For instance, the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 arose partly from Soviet leader Khrushchev's assessment that President Kennedy was weaker than he turned out to be, and the U.S. Navy nearly provoked use of a nuclear torpedo by a Russian submarine during the blockade because it misjudged the enemy's likely reaction to being threatened. It is easy to imagine similar misjudgments in Ukraine, which Washington and Moscow approach from very different perspectives. Any sizable deployment of U.S. forces in the region could provoke Russian escalation.Defective SignalingThompson 14 - Senior Contributor at Forbes (Loren, “Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons,” Forbes, 4-24-14, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Defective signaling. When tensions are high, rival leaders often seek to send signals about their intentions as a way of shaping outcomes. But the meaning of such signals can easily be confused by the need of leaders to address multiple audiences at the same time, and by the different frames of reference each side is applying. Even the process of translation can change the apparent meaning of messages in subtle ways. So when Russian foreign minister Lavrov spoke this week (in English) about the possible need to come to the aid of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Washington had to guess whether he was stating the public rationale for an invasion, sending a warning signal to Kiev about its internal counter-terror campaign, or trying to accomplish some other purpose. Misinterpretation of such signals can become a reciprocal process that sends both sides up the "ladder of escalation" quickly, to a point where nuclear use seems like the logical next step.Looming DefeatThompson 14 - Senior Contributor at Forbes (Loren, “Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons,” Forbes, 4-24-14, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Looming defeat. If military confrontation between Russia and NATO gave way to conventional conflict, one side or the other would eventually face defeat. Russia has a distinct numerical advantage in the area around Ukraine, but its military consists mainly of conscripts and is poorly equipped compared with Western counterparts. Whichever side found itself losing would have to weigh the drawbacks of losing against those of escalating to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Moscow would have to contemplate the possibility of a permanent enemy presence near its heartland, while Washington might face the collapse of NATO, its most important alliance. In such circumstances, the use of "only" one or two tactical nuclear warheads to avert an outcome with such far-reaching consequences might seem reasonable -- especially given the existence of relevant capabilities and supportive doctrine on both mand BreakdownThompson 14 - Senior Contributor at Forbes (Loren, “Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons,” Forbes, 4-24-14, , Accessed 7-17-21, LASA-AH)Command breakdown. Strategic nuclear weapons like intercontinental ballistic missiles are tightly controlled by senior military leaders in Russia and America, making their unauthorized or accidental use nearly impossible. That is less the case with nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which at some point in the course of an escalatory process need to be released to the control of local commanders if they are to have military utility. U.S. policy even envisions letting allies deliver tactical warheads against enemy targets. Moscow probably doesn't trust its allies to that degree, but with more tactical nuclear weapons in more locations, there is a greater likelihood that local Russian commanders might have the latitude to initiate nuclear use in the chaos of battle. Russian doctrine endorses nuclear-weapons use in response to conventional aggression threatening the homeland, and obstacles to local initiative often break down once hostilities commence. Prices DA Links Links -- General Water protections lead to electricity production shutdown King et.al., UT Austin Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, 2013, (Carey W., Ashlynn S. Stillwell, Kelly Twomey, Michael Webber, "PROFESSIONAL ARTICLE: Coherence Between Water and Energy Policies," 53 Nat. Resources J. 117, Spring, PAS) Accessed on NexisThermoelectric generation requires water to mine, process, and convert primary fuels into electricity. These operations impact and depend upon local water resources. Furthermore, for thermoelectric power plants to operate reliably, they usually require consistent and sufficient access to a significant amount of water for cooling. If access to water becomes severely constrained due to drought or allocations to other water users, then power generation can be curtailed. In addition, heat waves inhibit the ability for thermoelectric power plants to get the cooling they need. This high water temperature situation can force power plants to draw down on their power output. Thus, an environmental restriction on the water supply can directly restrict the electricity supply. Unfortunately, droughts and heat waves often occur at the hottest times of the year when electricity for air-conditioning is at the highest demand. Population growth and economic growth further exacerbate these tensions by increasing demand for consumption of water and energy resources. The increasing demands and environmental protections upon finite flows of accessible freshwater have induced technological changes in power plant cooling. U.S. thermoelectric power plants constructed before 1960 almost exclusively used open-loop cooling designs that withdraw water at high flow rates and return the heated water back to the environment. When these power plants were built, water was perceived as abundant, and environmental regulations were practically nonexistent. During the 1960s and 1970s, environmental concerns about water increased. [*124] These concerns led to increased regulatory pressure on some water users' claims to large rivers and reservoirs. New power plants incorporated new designs to withdraw less water, leading to the widespread implementation of cooling towers. The closed-loop design of these cooling towers serves many environmental interests by reducing the entrainment 14 and impingement 15 of aquatic wildlife. 16 They also prevent the artificial heating of aquatic environments. 17 While cooling towers withdraw less water than open-loop cooling systems, they consume more water (up to twice as much consumption). 18 As human population and energy demands continue to grow, the power industry might implement even less water-intensive cooling designs, such as dry-cooled systems, that withdraw and consume less than 10 percent of the water of wet-cooled systems. However, dry cooling systems have higher capital costs, and reduce overall efficiency of the plant, which increases costs and flue gas emissions per unit of electricity generated. 1. Water Demand for Thermoelectric Power Plant Cooling In the United States, the thermoelectric power sector accounts for 49 percent of all water withdrawal and 41 percent of freshwater withdrawals, 19 more than any other sector. However, this sector accounts only for 3 percent of freshwater consumption. Other industrialized countries have similar proportions of water withdrawal and consumption for thermoelectric power generation, and these proportions relate to the physical process of the steam cycle. 20 Typically, thermoelectric power plants generate electricity by burning or reacting fuel to provide heat to a [*125] high-pressure boiler that generates steam from treated freshwater. The superheated steam turns a turbine connected to an electric generator. Water then cools the steam, condensing it into "boiler feed" water so the steam cycle can begin again.Link/IL Water Key to Electricity—Economy CollapseElectricity production requires large water resources to be sustainable—risks economic losses and increased costsTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]Water and energy are essential for sustaining and enhancing economic growth and social development. However, water and energy resources are becoming increasingly scarce and factors such as climate change put additional pressure on their availability [1]. At the same time, the demand for water and energy is increasing due to population growth, economic development, urbanization, and changing consumer habits. Particularly in regions affected by water scarcity, the increasing demand for energy can put additional pressure on water resources and the energy sector itself can be negatively affected by reduced water availability. In light of these challenges, a deeper understanding of the role of water for energy security in both current and potential future energy systems is required.The energy sector today accounts for about 10% to 15% of the global freshwater withdrawal, and for about 3% of the total water consumption [2,3]. Most water in the energy sector is used for generating electricity (about 88%), especially for cooling processes at thermal power plants, with thermal power plants accounting for about 70% of the today’s global installed power plant capacity [2]. In several countries and regions affected by water stress due to over-exploitation of water resources, climate change, and changing weather patterns, cases of water scarcity with negative impacts on power generation have increased significantly [4]. These kinds of water-related risks have resulted in reduced power generation and even power plant shutdowns around the world, and are expected to further intensify in the future (ibid). As a result, significant economic losses and costs are already evident [5].At the same time, the demand for electricity is expected to increase significantly due to different factors, such as economic development in emerging and developing economies or growing demand driven by electrification strategies pursued by industrialized countries to decarbonize their economies [6]. While the rising demand for electricity is clear, the future water demand for power generation is less certain. This is because the water intensity of electricity generation varies significantly depending on the energy carrier and electricity generation technology, as well as on the cooling system applied [7] and the future structure of the power supply. The role of different energy sources at the global, regional, and national levels is subject to high uncertainties (e.g., [8]). Adding to these uncertainties is the fact that a large proportion of the today’s global power plant fleet will have to be retired and replaced in the coming decades [9,10]. And even assuming rapid decarbonization of the energy sector, the development of future water demand for electricity generation remains unclear, because different renewable energy and climate protection technologies also have very different water use intensities [11].Future Demands Need More WaterFuture electricity production requires increased water consumption—takes into account efficient water cooling systemsTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]*IEA CP= International Energy Agency Current policies scenario*BAU=Business as usual The changes in the future global water withdrawal vary between +55% and ?72% compared to 2015. In the IEA CP BAU scenario, the increase in fossil fuel-based electricity generation, especially from natural gas and coal, combined with a cooling system mix similar to the current share, results in an increase in water withdrawal of 55% compared to 2015. Overall, higher shares of fossil fuels are likely to lead to greater water withdrawal, while scenarios with high shares of renewable energy perform better in terms of reducing future water withdrawal. In the case of GP Adv. (R), the BAU scenario results in an even lower global water withdrawal than the reference scenario with advanced power plant and cooling technologies (IEA CP ETS). This is due to the fact that electricity generated from fossil fuels still comes predominantly from thermoelectric power plants based on technologies with higher water withdrawal intensities. Figure 4 shows that the general trend towards reduced global water withdrawal for electricity generation in 2040 does not translate automatically into reduced global water consumption. In absolute terms, water consumption is expected to rise in five out of eight scenarios (by between 9% and 78%) compared to 2015. In contrast, the IEA SD scenario results in lower global water consumption in 2040 compared to 2015 in both the BAU (?1%) and ETS (?20%) pathways. The most common feature of all the decarbonization scenarios is reduced water consumption caused by reduced coal-based power generation. However, an increase in global water consumption occurs as a result of an increase in electricity production and a shift towards improved cooling systems, which in turn withdraw less water, but consume more [2]. The reference scenario IEA CP assumes an increase in coal and gas-based electricity generation in the future, which leads to increased water consumption under the BAU and ETS technology assumptions. Globally, increased water consumption can be observed for the most ambitious scenario in terms of renewable energy deployment (GP Adv. (R)). The reason for the high levels of water consumption (despite the high share of renewable energy) is the widescale implementation of low carbon technologies, such as geothermal energy, biomass energy, and concentrated solar power (CSP). These renewable technologies are generally heat-based and use similar power blocks to traditional thermal power stations; they also consume comparable amounts of water (Table A1). In the GECO B2?C scenario, the increase in water-intensive nuclear power is the main driver for rising water consumption. Regulation Hurts ProductionWater key to energy cooling systems—increased regulations effect relationshipTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]The water used in cooling systems can be sourced from freshwater or non-freshwater resources (i.e., seawater, brackish water, or reused water sources (BSW) [45]). For example, the use of seawater offers a potentially more sustainable solution in areas where freshwater becomes scares. Yet, while the use of non-freshwater resources for electricity generation is expected to increase in the future, the extent will depend on the availability of these water sources close to the electricity demand centers as well as on aspects of applicable environmental regulations. Due to these uncertainties in this analysis, non-freshwater cooling is included in the water demand calculations, but no changes in the shares are assumed. While the impact that cooling technologies have on water use in the electricity sector is widely acknowledged, there is only limited information about the current deployment of the different cooling system types and even less information about their likely shares in the future.Water Supply Key to Energy ProductionWater supply key to electricity productionTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]In terms of scope, the study addressed only water demand, not water supply. Factors such as water intake, discharge quality, and water temperature were not part of this global and regional analysis, but it should be noted that these factors can play an important role in water consumption and withdrawal at the local or power plant levels and further research is needed to address their impact. In terms of water demand, other aspects are also important, such as the future levels of seawater use for cooling, the extent to which carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are deployed, the role of water efficiency innovations in the power sector and the indirect water demand of the power sector. These aspects were not quantified in this analysis, but are discussed briefly in the following sub-sections.Water Shortages Increase PricesWater shortages lead to high prices on basic necessities—Texas provesGibson, Reporter for CBS News, 2021[ KATE , “Texans without water or shelter face another foe: Price gouging”, Feburary 20, , accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]Texas officials are calling on residents to report any incidents of price gouging amid food and water shortages that have followed widespread power outages after a winter storm battered the state this week.Houston-area residents have lodged complaints over bottled water and hotel rooms being offered for inordinate prices, according to Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee, chief civil attorney for Texas' biggest county, and Harris County Judge Linda Hidalgo."We've seen some anecdotal evidence of outrageous prices on necessary items like food and water, basically, price gouging," Hidalgo said at a news conference. "Whether it's spiking the price of basic necessities, whether it's posting an Airbnb with power for $1,000 a night — we can't imagine something more cruel than taking advantage of people who are suffering right now in this disaster and have been suffering for days," added Hidalgo, who urged residents to report instances of abuse. Within 20 hours of setting up a reporting system on Wednesday, Hidalgo and Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said more than 450 complaints of price gouging had poured in.AT Water Demand Decreases in FutureNumerous scenarios mean it is impossible to determine water demand for electricity—best techniques require significant tech advancementTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]On the global level, as shown previously in Figure 2, all the scenarios predict an increase in electricity production by 2040. Despite this increase, in most scenarios, the water withdrawal levels, and in some cases even the water consumption, are likely to decrease in the same time period. This implies reduced water withdrawal and consumption intensities in worldwide electricity generation in most scenarios. Despite this general trend, the water intensities across scenarios vary widely due to scenario-specific shifts in the electricity mix and corresponding changes in power plant types and cooling systems. The shift from 1T cooling systems to CT, for example, reduces water withdrawal, but increases water consumption. Likewise, the shift from ST to CC thermal power plants can reduce both water withdrawal and consumption. Comparing water withdrawal and consumption intensities (Figure 5) between the BAU and ETS technology scenarios demonstrates that shifts in the cooling system and electricity generation technology can have a greater influence on water demand reduction in the electricity sector than the shift towards renewable energy technologies. Without technological advances in cooling systems and electricity generation, scenarios including a high share of renewable energy show comparable water consumption intensities or, in the case of GP Adv.(R) BAU scenario, even greater intensities than the scenarios with higher shares of fossil fuels.Internal Link Industry/GridEnergy production key to industry and grid energy productionTerrapon-Pfaff et al, Professor @ Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2020[ Julia, “Water Demand Scenarios for Electricity Generation at the Global and Regional Levels”, MDPI, 4 September, doi:10.3390/w12092482, accessed 7/14/21, DDI-AJ]*GHG=Greenhouse Gas Overall, all the scenarios anticipate an increase in electricity generation by 2040 compared to 2015. However, the extent of the increase and the overall mix of energy sources vary considerably depending on the scenario. The different underlying decarbonization strategies and the level of ambition in respect of GHG emission reductions explain these differences. For example, scenarios assuming a higher degree of electrification in sectors such as transport or industry require higher amounts of electricity. Moreover, assumptions about economic development and population growth underlying the energy scenarios can influence the anticipated total future electricity demand. Unsurprisingly, all the scenarios expect an increase in electricity generation from renewable energy sources, with wind and photovoltaic sources anticipated to increase the most. In the GP Adv. (R) scenario, concentrated solar power (CSP) and geothermal energy also play an important role in the electricity mix. An increase in electricity generation from fossil fuels is expected in the reference scenario IEA CP, while the GECO B2?C scenario shows a strong increase in nuclear energy by 2040 compared to 2015. In contrast, the IEA SD and GP Adv. (R) scenarios assume a decline in fossil fuels (especially coal). In the GP Adv. (R) scenario, nuclear energy is almost completely phased out worldwide by 2040. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download