Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should enter into binding consultation with Brazil to (insert plan here). The United States federal government should implement that outcome of that consultation.
Brazil wants equal participation in U.S.-Latin American engagement
Peter Hakim, president emeritus and senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue, June 9, 2011 (“Brazil and the U.S.: Remaking a Relationship”, Foreign Service Journal, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=2679, js)
For the foreseeable future, it is almost inevitable that Brazil and the U.S. will continue to bump up against one another, both in the hemisphere and worldwide. Both nations are deeply engaged in global affairs, but pursue policies and agendas that reflect divergent interests, priorities and approaches. They will not always be able to find common ground or keep their disagreements in check. So in most respects, the U.S.-Brazil relationship will involve both conflict and cooperation — just like U.S. ties with other powerful nations. Brazil’s progressively more assertive role in Latin America has led to a variety of squabbles. It surprised and irritated Washington with its intense opposition to a new U.S.-Colombia security pact. By subsequently concluding its own, albeit far more modest, military accord, with Washington Brazil demonstrated a welcome flexibility. But it left no doubt that it expected the United States to consult and get its agreement before embarking on any new security initiatives in South America — a position endorsed by every other nation on the continent.
Consultation key to U.S.-Brazil relations
Thomaz Guedes da Costa, professor of National Security Affairs @ Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University, 3-24-10
(Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, “Grand Strategy for Assertiveness: International Security and U.S.-Brazil Relations”, https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Task_Force_Papers/Costa-Grand_Strategy_for_Assertiveness.pdf, accessed 7-2-2013, GSK]
In every international economic event, such as the Summit of the Americas or the G-20, where President Lula meets President Barack Obama, the press reports a cordial exchange between the ¶ two. Brazil’s diplomatic narrative does not suggest that there are outstanding Brazilian demands on the United States. It seeks only to promote closer relations.19 Brazilian officials do not ignore ¶ the United States. They just report the bilateral relations as cordial and save their energy to ¶ advance their grand strategy elsewhere. If U.S. officials wish to leverage Brazil’s potential value ¶ in international politics, even if only to promote U.S. interests, Washington will have to take the ¶ initiative and be creative in relating to Brazil’s current objectives and grand strategy.
U.S.-Brazil relationship key to preserve biodiversity loss and mitigate global warming
Thomas Shannon, U.S. Embassador to Brazil, December 7th, 2010
(“Climate change, opportunity for advances”, http://brazil.usembassy.gov/climate.html, js)
This year alone, the United States has significantly increased it climate finance to a total of $1.7 billion, $1.3 billion of Congressionally-appropriated assistance and $400 million of development finance and export credit. Evidence of this progress can be seen in Brazil, where the U.S. is investing US$ 4 million and leveraging its technical expertise to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, create sustainable strategies for the management of forests, and promote forest carbon market readiness. These activities work in conjunction with conservation policies launched by the government of Brazil to protect biodiversity and further reduce carbon emissions throughout Brazil; and taken together with our cooperation on climate change research and capacity building, they form the core of the U.S.-Brazil partnership on climate change. The United States is also working hard to reduce its own emissions and transition to a clean energy economy. President Obama’s Recovery Act provided more than $80 billion in investments, loans and incentives to support a range of initiatives that are vital to this goal. We have put in place the most ambitious U.S. fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards ever. We are taking important steps to reduce emissions from our largest polluting sources. And President Obama remains committed to passing domestic energy and climate legislation. As I travel throughout Brazil I see broad concern about the current impacts and the potential threats of changing climate – concerns that Americans share. But I am encouraged by the actions that are being taken here and around the world to work toward a clean energy future that promotes sustainable economic growth for all. Just as no nation can escape the effects of climate change, no nation alone can solve this problem. Two weeks ago I visited the Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park in Goiás, which had been recently devastated by fires after a year of unusually severe droughts. The U.S. Forest Service and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation will work together to share best practices in protecting natural areas for the benefit of generations to come. And earlier this year, our two countries reached an agreement to convert old debts into funding for Brazilian environmental organizations, demonstrating that the U.S.-Brazil partnership on climate change is robust, responsive to local needs, and based on shared responsibilities.
Global warming causes extinction
(Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.