Jump to content
Roboyle

Neg strat for offshore ports?

Recommended Posts

T, NOAA disad with the cards below, Politics (duh), CP below, Ports Disad below, then case

 

Cut your own case files. Hint - port security is inefficient, expensive, and theyre doing a ton of it in the squo. There's plenty good cards that the "nuke-in-a-box scenario is super unlikely and that airports are best.

 

 

NOAA DISAD

NOAA is in charge of offshore port oversight—here’s an example

Maritime Executive 08 (“A Fly in the Ointment: NOAA Recommends Just One Offshore Massachusetts Deepwater LNG Port”  http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/2007-03-09a-fly-in-the-ointment-noaa-recommends)

The seemingly endless raft of good news from the Massachusetts LNG deepwater scene hit a snag this week when it became apparent that final approval of Excelerate’s Deepwater LNG port could be sunk by NOAA objections. In the MARAD Record of Decision for preliminary approval of the terminal, NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) “recommends that the USCG/MARAD license a maximum of one of the pending applications for deepwater port and pipeline operation in Massachusetts Bay.” With the Neptune (Suez) facility about to receive final approval in the next couple of weeks, Excelerate’s project could be in danger of being turned aside unless MARAD, the US Coast Guard and NOAA can agree on a compromise. MARAD’s Shannon Russell was reached at her Washington offices on Wednesday and she told MarEx, “MARAD would like to see any and all LNG deepwater projects that meet required criteria to go forward. Both projects will facilitate safe, secure and efficient distribution of LNG. Both are important parts of the U.S. energy picture.” She also said that while MARAD would explore every avenue to make that happen, it was important to quantify the risks pointed out by NOAA, mitigate those dangers and protect MARAD from liability down the road if the Excelerate facility is approved. She added, “We’ll work with everyone to make this happen.” NOAA’s objections to multiple project approvals apparently revolve around the close proximity of the project to shipping lanes, adverse impacts on sanctuary resources, diminished aesthetics and a laundry list of other concerns. John Cullather, Staff Director for the House Subcommittee for Coast Guard and Maritime Affairs would not comment on the likelihood of Excelerate receiving final approval of their Massachusetts facility, but he did say, “Members of this committee led the effort to make the offshore LNG ports included in the Maritime Transportation Security Act.” Cullather maintains that the facilities are far safer in their offshore positions than if they were placed ashore. Ultimately, he believes that both facilities will be approved. What it will take to get there remains unknown.

 

100% scanning is very expensive - $8 million for each one of 2,100 shipping lanes = more than 16.8 billion dollar

Napolitano 9 (Janet Napolitano is the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, “Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, "Transportation Security Challenges Post-9/11", Russell Senate Office Building, 12-2-2009, < http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1259938923345.shtm>)

And, on that note, the costs of 100-percent scanning are very steep, especially in a down economy.  DHS equipment costs alone would be about $8 million for every one of the 2,100 shipping lanes at the more than 700 ports that ship to the United States.  So therefore, DHS is compelled to seek the time extensions authorized by law with respect to the scanning provision.

 

 

DOD CP

Text: the United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in cost guard modernization and intelligence, early warning, domestic counterterrorism, and border and transportation security programs.

 

Counterplan is way more useful than the aff

Carafano 5 (James Jay Carafano, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Homeland Security Dollars and Sense #2: Misplaced Maritime Priorities”, Heritage foundation,  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/02/homeland-security-dollars-and-sense-2-misplaced-maritime-priorities?renderforprint=1)

 

Appropriators must ensure that funding is directed toward programs that provide the greatest contribution to the most critical missions in homeland security. Getting the "biggest bang for the buck" is a worthwhile criterion to guide these spending decisions. Nowhere is this more important than in the area of maritime security. Maritime commerce is essential to America's economic vitality. Most goods that enter and leave our shores travel by sea. But this economic lifeline also offers terrorists vast opportunities to exploit or attack ships, ports, and waterways. Nowhere should the need for strategic spending be more apparent. Yet, nowhere is it more apparent that Congress has failed to target spending where it could provide the most security.   Owners and operators of the nation's more than 350 ports have made shrill demands for increased federal grants in support of port security. Indeed, estimates for enhancing security at America's ports run into the billions of dollars. The Administration proposed limiting port grants in FY 2005 to $50 million. Lobbying efforts pushed for dramatic increases-as much as $400 million per year. In the end, Congress settled on tripling funding to $150 million. Is that a victory for enhancing maritime security? Not at all.   The Administration was prudent to ask for more limited spending. The U.S. port infrastructure is so vast that providing resources for other than the most critical needs makes little sense. Spreading $150 million across the nation won't come close to plugging all the security gaps at ports. It is akin to locking the door in a house without windows. On the other hand, grant programs have proven far more effective when federal money has been used to fund vulnerability assessments and to encourage public-private partnerships that adopt sustainable and effective port-security programs.   To address the considerable vulnerabilities of maritime infrastructure, the greater

share of federal dollars might be more effectively used to invest in effective intelligence and early warning, domestic counterterrorism, and border and transportation security programs-efforts that would keep terrorists out of the ports to begin with.   Congress should ensure that Coast Guard modernization is fully funded before it even thinks about dumping more federal dollars into port grants for state, local, and private sector projects that contribute marginally to the overall security of the maritime domain. The Administration and Congress should refrain from increasing port security grants in the FY 2006 budget

 

Counterplan alone avoids politics

Merchant 10 – environmentalist and freelance writer
[10/7, Brian, “How the US Military Could Bring Solar Power to Mass Market”, 
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/us-military-solar-power-mass-market.php, AL]
Furthermore,
Congress is infinitely more likely to approve funding for R&D; and infrastructure if the projects are military-related. Which is depressing, but true -- the one thing that no politician can get caught opposing is the safety of American troops. In fact, the whole premise of the article is rather depressing, on point though it may be: The only way we may end up getting a competitive clean energy industry is through serious military investment, which is of course, serious government spending. Which under any other guise would be vehemently opposed by conservatives.

 

PORTS DA

Increased port security would crash the US economy

Beltzer 11 (Michael H. Beltzer, Associate Professor of Industrial Relations in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Wayne State University. He also is a Research Scientist at the University of Michigan's Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, and is Associate Director of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Trucking Industry ProgramSupply Chain Security: Agency Theory and Port Drayage Drivers,

Economic Labor Relations Review, http://search.proquest.com/docview/870060083/fulltext)

 

Most solutions to date have been to increase surveillance and enforcement and to increase use of technology in this effort, and the economic burden is substantial. In addition, while the economic benefits flow to a narrow sector of the economy (the security and information technology sectors), the costs are borne by the public in the form of higher prices and distortions in allocative efficiency. Further, according the Secretary of DHS, 'guarding against every terror risk would bankrupt the US' (Lipton 2006). Martonosi, Ortiz, and Willis imply that the cost of 100 per cent inspection of inbound containers would be approximately $900 million annually (Martonosi et al. 2006). The cost of compliance with extremely high security standards would result in both increased cost to consumers and reduced economic activity (deadweight loss) and thus produce serious negative macroeconomic effects - all of which have much greater consequences since the global financial meltdown occurred in 2007-2010.

 

Specifically, the aff hamstrings manufacturing industry growth

Frittelli 5, Specialist in Transportation Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 5/27/2005(John F. “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress” CRS Report to Congress http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA453735)

 

The container shipping system is designed for speed and efficiency. Transportation services are a critical component of the global, low-inventory (i.e., just-in-time) distribution model that many manufacturers have adopted. Most industries in the United States use some imported components from overseas suppliers. By bringing parts to a plant just before they are needed for assembly, manufacturers can save money on warehouse space and inventory carrying costs. Transport efficiencies permit warehouse requirements to be minimized. Lean inventories in turn have contributed to business productivity. From 1980 to 2000, according to one study, business logistics costs dropped from 16.1% of U.S. GDP to 10.1%. 15 Given the dependence of the United States and the global economy on a highly efficient maritime transportation system, many experts acknowledge that slowing the flow of trade to inspect all inbound containers, or at least a statistically significant random selection would be “economically intolerable.” 16 Supply chain analysts are concerned that increased security-related delay at seaports could threaten the efficiency gains achieved in inventory management over the past two decades by forcing companies to hold larger inventories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem on spending  is they read a card about how PPP's are best. Would the argument be since the NOAA runs it they can't take funding from private companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So PPPs are questionably topical under T it's, and most of the time they lean towards being topical, but if they no link NOAA in that fashion and especially if they no link politics then u have an excellent abuse story on T. In the meantime, I'll think more about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms or answering the human trafficking adv, you have a couple of options

1) da+ util outweighs

2) cp for US to work against human trafficking.

3) k (cap, suffering reps, anthro, security, etc. To solve root cause)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms or answering the human trafficking adv, you have a couple of options

1) da+ util outweighs

2) cp for US to work against human trafficking.

3) k (cap, suffering reps, anthro, security, etc. To solve root cause)

I'd go the approach (granted I am policy oriented) a DA + util outweighs and squo solves human trafficking - there are some decent cards in the camp file. util is probly ur best strat, and if the impact is vtl, then whip out ur "vtl inev and subjective"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×