Advantage 2: Science

The embargo is blocking scientific exchange, robbing research opportunities and

scientific cooperation throughout the region ending the embargo is necessary for the
open exchange required for scientific progress.
Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba,
Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences,
University of California, Irvine. 08
(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, U.S. Cuban Scientific Relations, Vol. 322
no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europethose of
the United States and Cubawill celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both
nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began
in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely
blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address
shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework
for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research
communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere,
particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities
that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane
Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to
protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike
when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.
Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on
tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba,
and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with
U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources
to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.
Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important
vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields,
ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are
engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico,
China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value
system of scienceopenness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidenceprovides
a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from
science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of
knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among
peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp
its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this
hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade
limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire
region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such
restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded
so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific
exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well
favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has
hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new
era of scientific cooperation.

Scenario 1: Oil Spills
Gulf of Mexico is the fastest growing deepwater market in the world.
Beaubouef, managing editor for Offshore magazine, 6/1
(Bruce, Offshore Magazine, 6/1/13, Gulf Drilling Rebounds to pre-Macondo levels,
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-73/issue-6/gulf-of-mexico/gulf-
drilling-rebounds-to-pre-macondo-levels.html, 6/26/13, ND)

Drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico is rebounding slowly but surely from the events of 2010, and is part of a general
recovery in E&P activity taking place in the Gulf in the wake of Macondo. The increase in drilling is driven by sustained high
oil prices, new lease sales, the promulgation of a new safety regime, fiscal stability, and the fact that
the pace of permitting has finally returned to pre-spill levels. Since October 2012, 55 wells have been
cleared for drilling. In the first half of this year, the Gulf of Mexico is expected to have 46 competitive
deepwater rigs, and this number is projected to increase by mid-2014 to just over 50 competitive deepwater
units, according to Rigzone's RigLogix Database. Last year, eight newbuild floaters entered the Gulf of Mexico with another eight expected to
enter in 2013. Thus far, five newbuild floaters are forecasted to enter the 2014 GoM market with only one new unit projected for 2015. The
deepwater rig count for 2013 is forecasted to be the highest it has been in five years. The overall floater fleet is set to expand by 31% with the
newbuild plans, while the jackup fleet will expand by 18%, according to an analysis conducted by Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Looking at
announced contracts in 2013 and 2014, analysts believe that there will be 45 to 50 rigs in the deepwater GoM through 2014, with the
possibility of more. Additionally, development drilling activity is expected to reach a new peak in 2013, which will then likely be superseded in
the following two years, according to a Wood Mackenzie report. Some analysts describe the Gulf as the fastest growing
deepwater market in the world today, one that will continue to grow into 2014. Optimistic projections hold that the Gulf rig
count could double by 2017, with predictions that oil service companies alone could see revenue from the Gulf rise from $4 billion in 2011 to
$12 billion in 2015.

The Embargo prevents cooperation on oil spills Cuba needs US equipment.
Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas focused on
U.S.-Cuba relations, 11
(Sarah, 3/14/11, Los Angeles Times, Like Oil and Water in the Gulf,
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-stephens-cuba-oil-20110314,
6/26/13, ND)

Thanks to the U.S. embargo against Cuba a remnant of the Cold War the risks to the United States begin the
moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed. And we are utterly unprepared. Not only does the embargo
prohibit U.S. firms from joining Cuba in any efforts to extract its offshore resources, thus giving the
competitive advantage to foreign firms, but it also denies Cuba access to U.S. equipment for drilling and
environmental protection an especially troubling policy considering the potential for a spill. The
embargo also compels Cuba's foreign partners to go through contortions, such as ordering a drilling rig built in China and shipping it nearly
10,000 miles to Cuban waters, to avoid violating U.S. law. Most important, the failed policy of isolating Cuba has the U.S.
paralyzed: It stops us from engaging Cuba in meaningful environmental cooperation and prevents us from
addressing in advance the threat of potential spills caused by hurricanes or technological failures, which could put our
waters, fisheries and beaches at peril. As Cuba gets ready to drill, the Obama administration has limited options. It could do
nothing. It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world. Or it could
use its executive authority to cooperate with Cuba, despite the embargo, to ensure that drilling in the gulf protects our mutual interests. Since
the 1990s, Cuba has showed a serious commitment to the environment, building an array of environmental policies,
many based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience responding to major spills. And, like the U.S., Cuba has to
balance its economic and environmental interests, and the environmental side will not always prevail. Against this backdrop, cooperation
and engagement is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it. During the BP spill, Cuba permitted a vessel
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look for damage in Cuban waters. The Obama administration declared
its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to the BP spill, and to others in the future that threaten
Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists to attend an important environmental conference in Florida. But these modest
measures are not sufficient. Members of Congress from Florida have introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies
and U.S. firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in U.S. waters. These proposals will
not stop Cuba from drilling; if enacted, Cuba's partners will disregard them, and they will make cooperation to protect our mutual coastal
environment even more difficult. Energy policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the
embargo is an abiding threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign
policy on the illusion that sanctions will cause Cuba's government to collapse or stop Cuba from developing
its oil resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from addressing both the
challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

The embargo threatens biodiversity in shared and proximate regions no bilateral
cooperation on endangered species, oil spills, or natural disasters is sufficient in the
status quo.
Boom 12 (Brian M. Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, September 2012,
Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through Environmental Research,
Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*).
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
THE ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States provide the
opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach
to addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the
two countries territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and the
United States thus share much biodiversityranging from varied populations of organisms to diverse
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, exotic species invade, disease-causing
species disperse, and rare species go extinct in the face of growing habitat modification. The living
components of this shared environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by
natural or man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do
such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events
provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. Governments around the world routinely
collaborate on shared environmental concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation
being addressed. Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from local to international
levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems that extend
beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and
there are many effective mechanisms in place to deal with challenges ranging from endangered
species and ecosystems to oil and toxic waste spills. However, a lack of formal diplomatic relations
can limit desirable cooperation on shared environmental issues. The U.S. embargo on trade with
Cuba which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to Cubas
nationalization of U.S. businesses properties in Cuba during the Cuban Revolutionand subsequent
regulations have thwarted the efforts of Cuban and U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental
or other professional and academic matters.1 There is essentially no intergovernmental
environmental interaction between the United States and Cuba . The shared biodiversity of these
countries, and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico regions,
suffers as a result . Fortunately, some NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in
working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental issues. The
experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring an enhanced mechanism for
bilateral cooperation. Also fortunately, on January 14, 2011, the Obama administration announced
new rules that ease some restrictions on U.S. citizens travel and remittances to Cuba, which will
collaterally encourage more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have
created some space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is required
to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring, and protection of shared biodiversity.

Environmental cooperation between US and Cuba spills over into the region, creating
a paradigm for global sustainability
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)

Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the country communism has inadequately acted
as a seal to preserve elements of Cubas past as the centralized government prohibited private
development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but
Cuba has been largely exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S.
Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel Castro has used his unchecked power to back
policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging some of the islands
pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest
Caribbean island, and if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a
cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global level. The
Obama administrations recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on
the island could be of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of
Cubas unique and increasingly threatened coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on
Washingtons part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.-Cuba relations, yet the travel
restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a certain
category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old
U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obamas modifications
fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cubas tropical forests,
soils, and maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a
Soviet-style economic system. Cubas economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism,
development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S.
policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility
throughout the hemisphere. An environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only
possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental
strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in
developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be
implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cubas extreme lack of development
provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable environmental protection
practices.
Offshore oil development threatens Cuba and Florida environment, oil spills could
destroy the ecosystem, including coral reefs and fisheries.
Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 09
(Christina, 6-12-09, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be
an Environmental Duo?, http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-
duo/, 6/26/13, ND)
The recent discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and
India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cubas and Floridas
environmental riches. Together, Cuba and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results
coming from the exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have
detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum
deposits in the Bay of Crdenas and related areas. Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which would in
turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef formations. The amount of
pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals would also increase
with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate
consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.s enormous oil usage and its development
requirements will cultivate economic growth on the island. Washington must work with Cuba to create an
ecological protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it a
reality as well. Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of present and future
revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative
relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner.



Coral reefs are vital to curbing ocean acidification, necessary for breathable oxygen
and the marine food web
Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, 9
(Joseph, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, Imagine a World without
Fish: Deadly ocean acidification hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop is
subject of documentary, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-change-imagine-a-
world-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/, 6-30-13)

Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being
upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australias ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
which warns: The worlds oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences
for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earths breathable
oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere,
dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which
make up more than a third of the planets marine life. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are
at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form
their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals
to form their skeletal structures (calcify). Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification
over the last 20 years, says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of
Queensland. Theres not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it
dissolves into the oceans. When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you
put calcification out of business in the oceans.

Scenario 2: Biodiversity
US Cuba cooperation is key to sustain biodiversity the alternative results in
ecosystem degradation and overfishing
PR Newswire 13
(United States Scientists Visit Cuba to Discuss Overfishing, Coral Reefs, Ocean Energy
and Ocean Issues,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-states-
scientists-visit-cuba-to-discuss-overfishing-coral-reefs-ocean-energy-and-ocean-issues-
65763572.html, 6/24/13, AZ)

RALEIGH, N.C., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Environmental Defense Fund will send a team of
experts to Havana, Cuba, on Sunday to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs,
conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy - a signal that greater environmental
cooperation may be on the horizon. EDF scientists and policy experts and Cuban scientists and
environmental officials will have a series of meetings about how the United States and Cuba can work
together to protect ocean waters and marine resources shared by the two countries. The meetings
come on the heels of a September visit to the United States by Cuban environmental officials. "The
United States and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of
managing them," said Daniel Whittle, a senior attorney at EDF and director of its Cuba Program.
"Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have impacts in the
United States, and vice-versa. The sooner we work together to manage shared resources and find
solutions common problems, the sooner we'll see benefits for the people, the environment and the
economy in both countries." EDF has asked the Obama administration to ease policies that limit
scientific exchanges between U.S. and Cuban scientists and conservation professionals. Last month the
U.S. State Department issued visas for four Cuban environmental officials to attend scientific meetings
hosted by EDF in Washington, DC, and Sarasota, Florida--the first such meetings held in the U.S. in
several years. "These precedent-setting meetings are a hopeful sign that greater environmental
cooperation is on the horizon," said Dr. Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for EDF. "An important first
step toward managing our shared marine resources is to share good science and good ideas. We have
a lot to learn from each other." Rader added that expanded scientific and management cooperation
can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds,
marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity. Just 90 miles from the tip of Florida, Cuba shares a large
amount of ocean territory with the United States. Because of the prevailing currents and Cuba's
proximity, preserving its marine resources is critically important to the economies of coastal
communities in both countries.

Overfishing kills food security
Koster, operator of overfishing.org, 2011
(Pepijin, 2/1/2011, Why is Overfishing a Problem? Online:
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php FG)
In the first chapter we already discussed that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as
large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why
overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by
looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists
publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report
is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the key issue
and trends. Due to the difficulty of aggregating and combining the data it can be stated that the SOFIA
report is a number of years behind of the real situation. 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited 20% are
moderately exploited 17% are overexploited 7% are depleted 1% is recovering from depletion The
above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another
52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable
production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish
stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems. We are losing
species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under
stress and at risk of collapse. We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for
social, economical or dietary reasons. The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers
of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to
a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by
decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000
people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the
collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered
from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people
thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the
Newfoundland fishermen. It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the
food web 3 the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals,
sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are
overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and
threatened by the industrialized fisheries. 4 Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many
important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as
follows: The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If
things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might
end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.

Food shortages lead to World War III
Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, 98
(William, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64, 6-31-13)

The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries
to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would
go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use
their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for
the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's
vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do
so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.