Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solvency Answers
Frontline
Lockheed Martin proves status quo confidence solves the aff
Censer 13 --came to the Washington Post and its local business publication Capital
Business in April 2010 to cover government contracting. She previously worked as
managing editor of Inside the Army, an independent newsletter that covers Army
procurement, budget and policy issues. She also worked as a reporter at the Carroll
County Times in Westminster, Md, and the Princeton Packet in Princeton, N.J. A
Fairfax native, she graduated from Princeton University. (Marjorie As federal dollars
shrink, Lockheed fishes for new revenue streams April 21st 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/as-federal-dollars-shrinklockheed-fishes-for-new-revenue-streams/2013/04/21/dcd36b42-a6a3-11e2-83023c7e0ea97057_story.html)//CS
Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin is known as the largest defense contractor
in the world, building military aircraft, satellites and ships. Now it wants to be a
power company. As government contractors see pressure on government
spending, theyre taking another look at the technology and capabilities they have
and finding ways to redirect those skills. Lockheed, for instance, announced
last week that it has partnered with a Chinese firm to build a power plant
off the coast of southern China. And McLean-based contracting giant Booz Allen
Hamilton has formed a strategic innovation group to consider what new technology
or products it might move into. At Lockheed, the power plant project has
been managed by Dan Heller, who heads the companys new ventures unit. The
unit was established in 2008 and includes the power plant as well as Perforene, a
water purification technology that Lockheed patented this year. Heller said
Lockheed has been experimenting with ocean thermal energy conversion
which will power the plant for decades but has increased its
investment in the past five years. The technology uses the temperature
difference between the warm surface water of the ocean and the cold water much
lower to create an electricity-generating cycle. Lockheeds partner in the
project, the Beijing-based Reignwood Group, invests in a range of
industries, from energy to aviation to luxury products. The plant Lockheed
is designing will supply the power needed for a Reignwood-developed
green resort, the company said, and the agreement could allow for
developing several more power plants. Still, the companys focus is on
building a new market. Heller said Lockheed has identified 83 countries
that would be able to use the technology. We will start to market the
[ocean thermal energy conversion] system globally before were even
through the construction phase, said Heller, adding that the company
expects to complete the plant within about four years. Were trying to
look far beyond the pilot plant. Booz Allen is also planning for the future,
creating a 1,700-employee strategic innovation group tasked with
applying the companys technologies and services to new areas. The unit
will also manage research and development into new technologies. The
company has appointed Karen Dahut, who previously ran Booz Allens analytics unit,
to head the group. She said the company, which has invested $40 million in the
group, is resisting the temptation to stop investing in research and new ideas, given
the pressure on government spending. The thought behind this was ... really
to capitalize on the market that we hope to be in five to eight years from
now, Dahut said. For instance, the group is looking into how it can
translate its predictive intelligence work with government intelligence
organizations to business with financial institutions. The company combines
cyber-protection services with analysts monitoring Internet data to help clients
identify potential cyberthreats. Booz Allen is also considering adding more data
feeds, such as financial data, Dahut said. Still, the move into new areas can be
daunting for contractors, said August Cole, an adjunct fellow at the American
Security Project, which counts Lockheed among its donors.
Commercialization fails
*note: this card only works if the aff does not defend spending money (financial
incentives) for OTEC
DOE 13 (US Department of Energy Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics
August 16th 2013, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermalenergy-conversion-basics)//CS
OTEC power plants require substantial capital investment upfront. OTEC
researchers believe private sector firms probably will be unwilling to make
the enormous initial investment required to build large-scale plants until
the price of fossil fuels increases dramatically or national governments
provide financial incentives. Another factor hindering the commercialization of
OTEC is that there are only a few hundred land-based sites in the tropics
where deep-ocean water is close enough to shore to make OTEC plants
feasible.
the plant. Despite such advantages, and even though demonstration plants
were constructed as far back as the 1880s, there are still no large-scale
commercial OTEC plants in operation. This is largely due to the costs
associated with locating and maintaining the facility off shore and drawing
the cold water from the ocean depths. But the time may finally be right.
Extension No Commercialization
OTEC is too vulnerable for commercialization
Friedman 14 -- Becca, citing Harvard Political Review, writing for the Ocean
Energy Council (EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION March 2014 http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-futureocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)//CS
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be
developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier.
Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific
International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary
presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to
100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology
Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and
risk is OTECs main liability. Weve talked to inventors and other constituents
over the years, and its still a matter of huge capital investment and a
huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less
risky that could produce power with the same certainty, Penney told the
HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine
environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely
disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country
completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be
debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an
OTEC plant would cause the machinery to rust or corrode or fill up with
seaweed or mud, according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory
spokesman.
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_
web.pdf)//CS
OTEC seems most suitable, and economically viable for island countries
and remote island states in tropical seas where generation can be
combined with other functions, as e.g., air-conditioning and fresh water
production. Several countries are actively pursuing large-scale deployment of OTEC. For example, companies
and governments in France, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea have
developed roadmaps for OTEC development (Brochard, 2013; Marasigan, 2013; Kim and Yeo, 2013;
Okamura, 2013). Furthermore, Indonesia is mapping its OTEC potential (Suprijo, 2012),
Malaysia is proposing a new law on ocean thermal energy development
(Bakar Jaafar, 2013), and the Philippines has been considering feed-in tariffs for OTEC
(NREB, 2012). Moreover, the technical concept for a 10 MW plant has been proven and the economics for scale-up of plants are
promising. The advantage over other type of renewables as solar and wind is that OTEC is continuous and can also produce without
For current
plants, there are some issues with construction in fragile marine
environments, sealing of the different parts of the installation against sea
water, maintenance of material in the sea environment, and bio-fouling of
the pipes and other parts of the installation. For larger installations, e.g., 10 MW or even 100 MW,
direct availability of sun or wind. However, there are some challenges that still need to be overcome.
the pipes are of considerable width from 4 m to 20 m which may impact the coastal structure, and more importantly, the transfer
of the cold water up and the discharge in the warmer water could affect the marine life in the vicinity of the plant (e.g., exhaust
water at 3 degrees below surface water temperature could cause algae bloom). Thus, water effluent needs to be discharged at a
certain depth, as the discharged cold water at the surface could influence the temperature of the surface water required for power
production. impact could be compared with the temperature issues of, for example, a gas-fired power plant. A second area that
still presents some challenges is the environmental impact.
amount of intermittent renewables. A combination of different renewables in hybrid technologies can have positive impacts on the
investment prospects.
plant output. But the capital intensive nature of OTEC projects will be a
deterrent to immediate large-scale investment, especially by private
investors. Energy technologies such as wind and solar might be seen as
less risky renewable energy investment options, given their proven costs
and performance. Also, as these technologies are currently ahead of OTEC in
market maturity, their levelized cost of energy might continue to decrease
significantly in the coming years. These other available options for renewable
electricity generation may impede investments in OTEC. The engineering
feasibility of open-cycle and closed-cycle OTEC plants has been assessed by many
independent investigators in recent years. Engineering design and development for
OTEC is supposed to be a relatively easy task us documented in several reports.
Individual component demonstrations have been conducted in the past, with
moderate success. The missing link is the conversion of these tests into
operational large-scale demonstration projects. Though there have been
several short-term prototypes of the technology, none have succeeded in
attracting large investments in working plants. Commercialization of this
technology will require focused effort from all interested stakeholders in
the system the scientists, engineers, government authorities, and the
investor community. Most energy consumers and investors have
traditionally indicated a bias towards land-based plants and a resistance
to water-based power plantsl67J. Their degree of participation will depend upon
the projected cost of power, the capital investment required and the degree of risk
involved.
Frontline
Status quo solves new extraction techniques OTEC not key
Pietrowski 13 (Alex, staff writer, April 4, 2013, Another Breakthrough in Hydrogen Energy
Challenges Fossil Fuel Dominance, http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/04/04/anotherbreakthrough-in-hydrogen-energy-challenges-fossil-fuel-dominance/, alp)
Researchers at Virginia Tech have developed a new process that extracts large quantities of
hydrogen gas from plants in a renewable and eco-friendly way, offering us another potential
alternative to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. After 7 years of research, Y.H. Percival
Zhang, an associate professor at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of
Engineering at Virginia Tech, and his team have developed a new method of using customized
enzymes to produce high quantities of hydrogen out of xylose, a simple sugar present in plants.
Zhang and his team have succeeded in using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar, to
produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory. Zhangs
method can be performed using any source of biomass. This new environmentally friendly
method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no zero
greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals. Previous methods to produce
hydrogen are expensive and create greenhouse gases. [Science Daily]
Aquaculture Projects. (Ed and Jim, Dodge and Baird are having a moderated debate
in the comments of an article written by Nordhaus and Shellenberg, Ted Nordhaus
and Michael Shellenberger are leading global thinkers on energy, climate, security,
human development, and politics. Moderate Environmentalists Go Nuclear, May
9th 2014 http://theenergycollective.com/michaelshellenberger/378026/moderateenvironmentalists-go-nuclear)//CS
Edward Dodge says: "Ocean thermal energy conversion can replace all fossil
fuels." C'mon Jim, this comment is fantasy. I'm all for OTEC, don't get me
wrong, but proponents of various renewables have been making these
grandiose claims for years. They were wrong in the 1970s and they are
still wrong today. If you are going to use OTEC to produce synthetic hydrocarbons
you might have an argument, but you are going to be hard pressed to make
the economics work compared to all the fossil fuels that are lying at our
feet. And nukes will probably be a better way to produce synthetics. The
supplies of coal, oil and gas are incredibly vast , they are not going to run
out in centuries. And coal specifically is easy to access. And what happens
to the price of coal as substitutes are brought to market? It gets cheaper,
and hence more desirable. And on the demand side, diesel and jet fuel are
the most energy dense carriers we have available, outside of nuclear, so
for any type of vehicle that is high horsepower and requires lots of fuel,
liquids are where its at. Engineering performance and cost drives demand, not
anyone's moral persuasions. When the US Air Force says they have something
better than jet fuel I will believe it, until then I will focus my efforts on clean fuels
and zero waste.
Jim Baird says: Edward, currently we get about 14TW from fossil fuels whose
reverses according to BP estimates will last 52.9 years for oil, 55.7 years for natural
gas and 109 years for coal. As pointed out below, Nihous points to 14TW of OTEC
potential which will last ad infinitum. As to energy density, by weight hydrogen is
about three times better than diesel or jet fuel and it would be required to bring
offshore produced energy to shore. By converting liquid ocean volume to weight you
reduce sea level rise another way. The OECD estimates $35 trillion in assets will be
at risk to storm surge and sea level rise in the world's port cities by 2070 and this is
only one of eight climate risks identified by the IPCC. Burning cheap coal, NG or oil
is nothing more than robbing Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul. As to the
Air Force, the national security implications of climate change are well established
and only OTEC addresses both the cause as well as the effect of this threat.
Edward Dodge says: Jim, Those numbers from BP are for today's proven economic
reserves, but as we have seen from recent history with shale gas and oil,
technology innovation can rapidly transform uneconomic reserves into
marketable commodities. There are 16,000 Trillion Cubic Feet of high
purity natural gas in one single deposit of methane hydrates in the Gulf of
Mexico and that is but one deposit among hundreds spread across the
impossible to cut the cost of such systems below about $7,000/kW. This is very unfortunate,
because an electric car with a 100-horsepower motor needs about 75 kilowatts of electricity to
make it go. At this price, the cost for just the fuel cell stack powering the car would be about half
a million dollars. Actual costs for complete Ballard fuel cell engine systems have been well over a
million dollars each. Then theres still the rest of the car to pay for, although with the propulsion
system costing this much, the additional cost would seem like a rounding error. That, however,
is not even the worst of it. Operating under road conditions in the real atmosphere, which
contains such powerful catalyst poisons (chemicals that will reduce the effectiveness of the fuel
cell) as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia that
can permanently incapacitate a PEMFC, the operating lifetimes of fuel cell stacks have been
shown to be less than 20 percent those of conventional diesel engines. As the trenchant industry
analyst F. David Doty pointedly put it: Were still waiting to see a fuel-cell vehicle driven from
Miami to Maine via the Smoky Mountains in the winter even one time, with a few stops and
restarts in Maine. Then, we need to see one hold up to a forty-minute daily commute for more
than two years (preferably at least fifteen years) with minimal maintenance, and come through a
highway accident with less than $200,000 in damages.... When lifetime and maintenance are
considered, one can argue that vehicle-qualified PEMFCs are currently 400 times more
expensive than diesel engines.
predictable crude prices. Even at their highest point in late summer, oil prices remained roughly
25 percent below levels of five years ago, not counting inflation, and gasoline prices on Labor
Day weekend were at multiyear lows. And while oil slightly above $100 a barrel oil and nearly
$3.50-a-gallon gasoline are high by historical measures, they are at a surprisingly benign level
given the on-and-off disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa over the last three years.
gas (GHG) emissions. The implication? Efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (and otherwise) to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is moot. If the
future temperature rise in the U.S. is subject to the whims of Asian environmental and energy
policy, then what sense does it make for Americans to have their energy choices regulated by
efforts aimed at mitigating future temperature increases across the countryefforts which will
have less of an impact on temperatures than the policies enacted across Asia? Maybe the EPA
should reconsider the perceived effectiveness of its greenhouse gas emission
regulationsat least when it comes to impacting temperatures across the U.S. New Study A
new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is authored by a
team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder,
Colorado. The paper is titled Potential Impacts of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US
Warming. Skipping the details of this climate modeling study and cutting to the chase, here is
the abstract of the paper: This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to
investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US climate change. We
took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity
experiments in which the prescribed carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian
domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005
2024. The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of
aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating anomalies that force large-scale
circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an
additional 0.4C warming over the eastern US during winter and over most of the US
during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone experiment
with specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon
aerosols. Usually, when considering the climate impact from carbon aerosol emissions
(primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot), the effect is thought to be largely contained to
the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is only on the
order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Ocean
a distance which requires about a week for air masses to navigatewe usually arent overly
concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the
time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean. But in the Teng et al. study, the
authors find that, according to their climate model, the local heating of the atmosphere by the
Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing sunlight) can impart changes to
the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. And these changes
to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and thus
induce a change in the climate here characterized by 0.4C [surface air temperature] warming
on average over the eastern US during winter and over almost the entire US during summer
averaged over the 20052024 period. While most of the summer warming doesnt start to kick
in until Asian carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are
today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large (several tenths of a C)
even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions. Now lets revisit just how much global
warming that stringent U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across
the country. In my Master Resource post Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCCbased arithmetic of no gain) I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction of global temperatures (from
where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly
more than the global average (land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05C of global
temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075C of temperature savings averaged
across the U.S., by the year 2050. Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the
U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et
al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas
reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign
nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes
induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions. And even if the traditional form
of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse
gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new greenhouse
gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S.
greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again, pointing out that a reduction
in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught, at least when it comes to mitigating climate change.
So, whats the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy choices? As I have
repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it comes to greenhouse gas
emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes
to influences on the climate. What the powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes
in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it doesnt hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large
developing nations will follow our lead. Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a
difference.
3.2. Fallacy
B: It is easier and more efficient to transport hydrogen than natural gas over large
distances We have available numbers based on long-terrn experience for both electricity and natural gas, which are given in
Table 2. The energy losses for transportation of hydrogen in pipelines depend on the design and cost. It has been proposed to use
present pipelines designed for natural gas, although there remain severe questions whether it is safe to do so because of the potential
leaking of hydrogen though the valves. For
b) Safety facilitates terrorism and public outcry over hazards turns the case
Shinnar 03 Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of
New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of Engineering (Reuel, The
Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars, Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455476)//js
3.3. Fallacy
C: H2 is safe. It diffuses faster into the air than it can ignite. The Hindenburg disaster was not caused by
hydrogen While H2,like nitroglycerin,can be safely handled,it is the most dangerous of all fossil fuels known to
man. It is true that H2 did not self-ignite to cause the burning of the Hindenburg,and that some of what burned was the aircraft
fuel aboard and the cabin and skin of the dirigible. It is also true that some of the hydrogen may have burned without exploding and
sent heat mainly upwards. But if the Hindenburg had been filled with helium,nothing so rapid or serious would have happened. Like
nitroglycerin, hydrogen does not explode by itself. It needs an energy release (a spark, for example) to ignite or explode a hydrogenoxygen mix- ture. However, for hydrogen the minimum energy required is very small. All fuels mixed with air can cause explosions
or large fires and have done so. The question is the likelihood and the severity of the safety measures that have to be taken to prevent
a fire or explosion. The
flammability or explosion limits of H2 are much wider than for any other fuel,
and the minimum energy required for ignition or explosions is by a magnitude lower than for
methane (see Table 4). This limits the maximum amount that can be safely stored and demands
special expertise of the personnel handling it. Safety instructions for handling compressed hydrogen are distributed
by Air Products, Inc." i5.,a..,t_'ugl_..,..,tl1an. gasoline, which is safer than natural gas, which is safer than H; notwithstanding some
assertions to the con- natural gas and propane, have caused explosions, of the hazald, we strongly limit the size of propane dtiiiiks
One is not allowed to transport even a reason- ably small propane cylinder for a camping stove through a tunnel despite the fact that
the maximum explosive force of a propane cylinder for a camping stove is between 40 to 100 lb of TNT. By comparison, the
explosive force of a H2 container as proposed by the car companies is 220 lb of TNT (equal to five suicide bombers).
Furthermore, the probability of a fuel tank for a hydrogen car to explode is an order of
magnitude larger than that of a propane tank. A bus has a much larger potential explosive force
than a propane tank. For a H; storage tank of the size used in a bus, one would normally recommend a protected special
room with a blow out wall into a safe area with no people or any combustibles (see footnote 5). In a bus this blowout wall is into the
bus itself. An accident
in one bus in a tunnel would put the tunnel out of use for months. There is also a
cars can be easily modified to become an undetectable bomb for a
suicide bomber. All one has to do is to equip the hydrogen tank with a release valve and a
delayed detonator. If 10% of the cars were H2 cars, less than five cars exploding at the same time in rush hour in a confined
critical post-September ll problem. H3
space, such as the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, might kill more people than on September ll, and make the tunnel unusable for a
year. Whenever
accidents can happen they will ultimately happen regardless of safety measures.
Therefore one has to limit the impact of the largest reasonably possible accident even if it has a
low probability to occur. No safety measures can compen- sate for the physical properties of
hydrogen (very wide combustion limits of H2 air mixtures and low minimum ignition energy) nor can safety measures
compensate for the fact that H2 is the most dangerous fuel known to man. The question is, why introduce it, especially as it is not an
energy resource, only an energy carrier? And if
3.4. Fallacy
D: Hydrogen is storable, electricity is not Actually both H2 and electricity are storable. The
question is efficiency and cost. Electricity has several options for storage. For a thermal solar
plant, there is an option to store the heat transfer fluid. While this is relatively cheaper and involves no
efficiency losses, cost limits storage to 1 day for load following . The cheapest storage is hydraulic, but it still has
an eiciency of at best 80%. The same is true for batteries. Hydrogen storage by liquefaction is
even more expensive and has lar- ger efficiency losses . But if we include the efficiency losses of
making the hydrogen from electricity, it is clearly more costly and much less efficient . H2 storage
has one advantage. It requires much less weight, which is important for cars. However, in a car with present fuel cells, H2 would
require three times as much electricity tn manufacture the vehicle compared to an electric car. The best is to reduce this by a factor
of two (H2 generation from elec- 't_t_.ii1_'.y'v;1includjngcornpression has very optimistically an efficiency of 70%, but
55% ;'at: fuel cell itself 60% (40% at present) [4,8].
3.5. Fallacy E: Hydrogen is a clean fuel widely available and environmental] y beneficial As said
before, hydrogen is not an energy resource, but an energy delivery sys- tem. Therefore, while hydrogen just like electricity is clean,
the impact on the environment in both cases depends on the primary energy source used. If Hz were made from a fossil fuel such as
natural gas, the inherent loss of eiciency would cause a large increase in greenhouse gases compared to direct use of the fossil fuel
(double or higher). Furthermore,
Since hydrogen may leak out of natural gas pipelines, and requires different fittings and
compressors, they might never be used for hydrogen. The same is true for all alternative liquid
fuels. Unless they mix with gasoline or diesel, a dedicated distribution system is needed . Therefore,
switching is impractical unless one designs the new energy source to be so
compatible that it can simultaneously use the existing distribution system. Localized generation of
hydrogen by alternative energy is impractical. If the hydrogen is generated from methane or electricity, this is
thermally inefficient and involves a and cost, but possibly also in global from small local plants. -;~As electricity
is the only energy that can be generated from alternative energy sources on a large scale and that can be phased in to
slowly replace fossil fuels. It can be directly used replacing fossil fuels, which is such a decisive
advantage that it overshadows all other arguments even for mobile uses, especially as
direct use of alternative electricity is much cheaper. The ability to phase in slowly is essential,
as we do not have the resources to switch such large critical systems in a reasonably short time.
It also allows society to learn from its mistakes, which radically reduces the cost. The
hydrogen economy has no advantages to compensate for this major difficulty.
Hydrogen gas is odorless and colorless, and it burns almost invisibly. A tiny fire may go undetected at a
leaky fuel pump until your pant leg goes up in flames. And it doesn't take much to set compressed hydrogen gas
alight. "A cellphone or a lightning storm puts out enough static discharge to ignite hydrogen, " claims
Joseph Romm, author of The Hype about Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate and founder of the Center for
Energy and Climate Solutions in Arlington, Virginia. A fender bender is unlikely to spark an explosion, because carbon-fiberreinforced hydrogen tanks are virtually indestructible. But that doesn't eliminate the
fuel cell cars won't necessarily slash costs . According to Patrick Davis, the
former leader of the Department of Energy's fuel cell research team , "If you project today's fuel
cell technologies into high-volume production-about 500,000 vehicles a year-the cost is still up
to six times too high." Raj Choudhury, operations manager for the General Motors fuel cell program, claims that GM will
have a commercial fuel cell vehicle ready by 2010. Others are doubtful. Ballard says that first there needs to be a
"fundamental engineering rethink" of the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell , the type
being developed for automobiles, which still cannot compete with the industry standard for internal
combustion engines-a life span of 15 years, or about 170,000 driving miles. Because of membrane
deterioration, today's PEM fuel cells typically fail during their first 2,000 hours of operation. Ballard
insists that his original PEM design was merely a prototype. "Ten years ago I said it was the height of engineering arrogance to think
that the architecture and geometry we chose to demonstrate the fuel cell in automobiles would be the best architecture and geometry
for a commercial automobile," he remarks. "Very few people paid attention to that statement. The truth is that the present
geometry isn't getting the price down to where it is commercial. It isn't even entering into the
envelope that will allow economies of scale to drive the price down."
the best-case
scenario, the transition to a hydrogen economy would take many decades, and any reductions in
oil imports and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years.
Realistically, a major effort to introduce hydrogen cars before 2030 would actually undermine efforts to reduce emissions of heattrapping greenhouse gases such as CO2. As someone who helped oversee the Department of Energys (DOEs) program for clean
energy, including hydrogen, for much of the 1990sduring which time hydrogen funding was increased by a factor of 10I believe
that continued research into hydrogen remains important because of its potential to provide a pollution-free substitute for oil in the
second half of this century. But if
we fail to limit greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, and
especially if we fail to do so because we have bought into the hype about hydrogens near-term
prospects, we will be making an unforgivable national blunder that may lock in global warming
for the United States of 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade by midcentury. Hydrogen is not a readily
accessible energy source like coal or wind. It is bound up tightly in molecules such as water and
natural gas, so it is expensive and energy-intensive to extract and purify. A hydrogen economya
time in which the economys primary energy carrier would be hydrogen made from sources of
energy that have no net emissions of greenhouse gasesrests on two pillars: a pollution-free source for the
hydrogen itself and a fuel cell for efficiently converting it into useful energy without generating pollution. Fuel cells are small,
modular electrochemical devices, similar to batteries, but which can be continuously fueled. For most purposes, you can think of a
fuel cell as a black box that takes in hydrogen and oxygen and puts out only water plus electricity and heat. The most promising
fuel cell for transportation uses is the proton exchange membrane (PEM), first developed in the early 1960s by General Electric for
the Gemini space program. The
safely, compactly, and cost-effectively store hydrogen onboard. This is a major technical
challenge. At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up some 3,000 times more space
than gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy. The DOEs 2003 Fuel Cell Report to Congress notes
that, Hydrogen storage systems need to enable a vehicle to travel 300 to 400 miles and fit in an envelope that does not compromise
either passenger space or storage space. Current
Liquefying one kilogram (kg) of hydrogen using electricity from the U.S. grid would by itself
release some 18 to 21 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, roughly equal to the CO2 emitted by
burning one gallon of gasoline. Nearly all prototype hydrogen vehicles today use compressed hydrogen storage.
Hydrogen is compressed up to pressures of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) or even 10,000 psi in a multistage
process that requires energy input equal to 10 to 15 percent of the hydrogens usable energy
content. For comparison, atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi. Working at such high pressures creates overall system complexity
and requires materials and components that are sophisticated and costly. And even a 10,000-psi tank would take up
seven to eight times the volume of an equivalent-energy gasoline tank or perhaps four times the
volume for a comparable range (because the fuel cell vehicle will be more fuel efficient than current cars).
makes little sense for the foreseeable future. Burning a gallon of gasoline
releases about 20 pounds of CO2. Producing 1 kg of hydrogen by electrolysis would generate, on
average, 70 pounds of CO2. Hydrogen could be generated from renewable electricity, but that
would be even more expensive and, as discussed below, renewable electricity has better uses for
the next few decades.
hydrogen delivery
infrastructure to serve 40 percent of the light duty fleet is likely to cost over $500 billion . Major
breakthroughs in hydrogen production and delivery will be required to reduce that figure significantly. Who will spend the hundreds
of billions of dollars on a wholly new nationwide infrastructure to provide ready access to hydrogen for consumers with fuel cell
vehicles until millions of hydrogen vehicles are on the road? And who will manufacture and market such vehicles until the
infrastructure is in place to fuel those vehicles? Will car companies and fuel providers be willing to take this chance before knowing
whether the public will embrace these cars? I fervently hope to see an economically, environmentally, and politically plausible
scenario for how this classic chasm can be bridged; it does not yet exist. Centralized production of hydrogen is the ultimate goal. A
pure hydrogen economy requires that hydrogen be generated from CO2-free sources, which would almost certainly require
centralized hydrogen production closer to giant wind farms or at coal/biomass gasification power plants in which CO2 is extracted
for permanent underground storage. That will require some way of delivering massive quantities of hydrogen to tens of thousands of
local fueling stations. Tanker trucks carrying liquefied hydrogen are commonly used to deliver hydrogen today, but make little sense
in a hydrogen economy because of liquefactions high energy cost. Also, few automakers are pursuing onboard storage with liquid
hydrogen. So after delivery, the fueling station would still have to use an energy-intensive pressurization system. This might mean
that storage
and transport alone would require some 50 percent of the energy in the hydrogen
delivered, negating any potential energy and environmental benefits from hydrogen. Pipelines are
also used for delivering hydrogen today. Interstate pipelines are estimated to cost $1 million per mile or
more. Yet we have very little idea today what hydrogen generation processes will win in the marketplace during the next few
decades, or whether hydrogen will be able to successfully compete with future high-efficiency vehicles, perhaps running on other
pollution-free fuels. This uncertainty
usable energy in the hydrogen delivered. Without dramatic improvement in high-pressure storage systems, this
approach seems impractical for large-scale hydrogen delivery. Producing hydrogen onsite at local fueling stations is the strategy
advocated by those who want to deploy hydrogen vehicles in the next two decades. Onsite
reformers. Although onsite CH4 reforming seems viable for limited demonstration and pilot projects, it is impractical and unwise for
large-scale application, for a number of reasons. First, the upfront cost is very high: more
The 1992
Energy Policy Act established the goal of having alternative fuels replace at least 10 percent of
petroleum fuels in 2000 and at least 30 percent in 2010 . By 1999, some one million alternative fuel
vehicles were on the road, only about 0.4 percent of all vehicles. A 2000 General Accounting Office report
relevant experience in the area of alternative fuel vehicles that is often ignored in discussions about hydrogen.
explained the reasons for the lack of success, concluding that, Fundamental economic impedimentssuch as the relatively low
price of gasoline, the lack of refueling stations for alternative fuels, and the additional cost to purchase these vehiclesexplain much
of why both mandated fleets and the general public are disinclined to acquire alternative fuel vehicles and use alternative fuels. It
seems likely that all three of these problems will hinder hydrogen cars. Compared to other alternative fuels, such as ethanol and
natural gas, the best analysis today suggests that hydrogen will have a much higher price for the fuel, the fueling stations, and the
vehicles. The fourth reason that producing hydrogen on-site from natural gas at local fueling stations is impractical is that natural
gas is simply the wrong fuel on which to build a hydrogen-based transportation system. The United States consumes nearly 23
trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas today and is projected to consume more than 30 tcf in 2025. Replacing 40 percent of ground
transportation fuels with hydrogen in 2025 would probably require an additional 10 tcf of gas, plus 300 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity, or 10 percent of current power usage. Politically, given the firestorm over recent natural gas supply constraints and price
spikes, it seems very unlikely that the U.S. government and industry would commit to natural gas as a substitute for even a modest
fraction of U.S. transportation energy. In addition, much if not most incremental U.S. natural gas consumption for transportation
would likely come from imported liquefied
Studies go neg
Morris 03 (David, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, AlterNet, February
23, 2003, A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea,
http://www.alternet.org/story/15239/a_hydrogen_economy_is_a_bad_idea, alp)
There is another energy-related problem with hydrogen. It is the lightest element, about eight
times lighter than methane. Compacting it for storage or transport is expensive and energy
intensive. A recent study by two Swiss engineers concludes, "We have to accept that
[hydrogen's] ... physical properties are incompatible with the requirements of the energy
market. Production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of the gas ... are so energy
consuming that alternatives should be considered."
scientific applications costs considerably more. Dispensed in compressed gas cylinders to retail
customers, the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram. For
comparison, a kilogram of hydrogen contains about the same amount of energy as a gallon of
gasoline. This means that even if hydrogen cars were available and hydrogen stations existed to
fuel them, no one with the power to choose otherwise would ever buy such vehicles. This fact
alone makes the hydrogen economy a non-starter in a free society.
Liquefaction is inefficient
Zubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear
engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the
University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books,
co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research
and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems
headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, The Hydrogen Hoax,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)
The situation is much worse than this, however, because before the hydrogen can be transported
anywhere, it needs to be either compressed or liquefied. To liquefy it, it must be refrigerated
down to a temperature of 20 K (20 degrees above absolute zero, or -253 degrees Celsius). At
these temperatures, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics make refrigerators extremely
inefficient. As a result, about 40 percent of the energy in the hydrogen must be spent to liquefy
it. This reduces the actual net energy content of our product fuel to 792 kilocalories. In addition,
because it is a cryogenic liquid, still more energy could be expected to be lost as the hydrogen
boils away during transport and storage.
Extension No Transition
Pipelines and truck-based transportation dont work
Zubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear
engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the
University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books,
co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research
and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems
headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, The Hydrogen Hoax,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)
As an alternative, one could use high pressure pumps to compress the hydrogen as gas instead of
liquefying it for transport. This would only require wasting about 20 percent of the energy in the
hydrogen. The problem is that safety-approved, steel compressed-gas tanks capable of storing
hydrogen at 5,000 psi weigh approximately 65 times as much as the hydrogen they can contain.
So to transport 200 kilograms of compressed hydrogen, roughly equal in energy content to just
200 gallons of gasoline, would require a truck capable of hauling a 13-ton load. Think about
that: an entire large truckload delivery would be needed simply to transport enough hydrogen to
allow ten people to fill up their cars with the energy equivalent of 20 gallons of gasoline each.
Instead of steel tanks, one could propose using (very expensive) lightweight carbon fiber
overwrapped tanks, which only weigh about ten times as much as the hydrogen they contain.
This would improve the transport weight ratio by a factor of six. Thus, instead of a 13-ton truck,
a mere two-ton truckload would be required to supply enough hydrogen to allow a service
station to provide fuel for ten customers. This is still hopeless economically, and could probably
not be allowed in any case, since carbon fiber tanks have low crash resistance, making such
compressed hydrogen transport trucks deadly bombs on the highway. In principle, a system of
pipelines could, at enormous cost, be built for transporting gaseous hydrogen. Yet because
hydrogen is so diffuse, with less than one-third the energy content per unit volume as natural
gas, these pipes would have to be very big, and large amounts of energy would be required to
move the gas along the line. Another problem with this scheme is that the small hydrogen
molecules are brilliant escape artists. Hydrogen can not only penetrate readily through the most
minutely flawed seal, it can actually diffuse right through solid steel itself. The vast surface area
offered by a system of hydrogen pipelines would thus afford ample opportunity for much of the
hydrogen to leak away during transport. As hydrogen diffuses into metals, it also embrittles
them, causing deterioration of pipelines, valves, fittings, and storage tanks used throughout the
entire distribution system. These would all have to be constantly monitored and regularly
inspected, tested, and replaced. Otherwise the distribution system would become a continuous
source of catastrophes.
co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research
and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems
headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, The Hydrogen Hoax,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)
The Queen in Lewis Carrolls Through the Looking Glass says that she could believe six
impossible things before breakfast. Such an attitude is necessary to discuss the hydrogen
economy, since no part of it is possible. Putting aside the intractable issues of fundamental
physics, hydrogen production costs, and distribution show stoppers, let us proceed to discuss
the problems associated with the hydrogen cars themselves. In order for hydrogen to be used as
fuel in a car, it has to be stored in the car. As at the station, this could be done either in the form
of cryogenic liquid hydrogen or as highly compressed gas. In either case, we come up against
serious problems caused by the low density of hydrogen. For example, if liquid hydrogen is the
form employed, then storing 20 kilograms onboard (equivalent in energy content to 20 gallons
of gasoline) would require an insulated cryogenic fuel tank with a volume of some 280 liters (70
gallons). This cryogenic hydrogen would always be boiling away, which would create concerns
for those who have to leave their cars parked for any length of time, and which would also turn
the atmospheres in underground or otherwise enclosed parking garages into explosive fuel-air
mixtures. Public parking garages containing such cars could be expected to explode regularly,
since hydrogen is flammable over concentrations in air ranging from 4 to 75 percent, and the
minimum energy required for its ignition is about one-twentieth that required for gasoline or
natural gas. Compressed hydrogen is just as unworkable as liquid hydrogen. If 5,000 psi
compressed hydrogen were employed, the tank would need to be 650 liters (162 gallons), or
eight times the size of a gasoline tank containing equal energy. Because it would have to hold
high pressure, this huge tank could not be shaped in an irregular form to fit into the vehicles
empty space in some convenient way. Instead it would have to be a simple shape like a sphere or
a domed cylinder, which would make its spatial demands much more difficult to accommodate,
and significantly reduce the usable vehicle space within a car of a given size. If made of (usually)
crash-safe steel, such a hydrogen tank would weigh 1,300 kilograms (2,860 pounds) about as
much as an entire small car! Lugging this extra weight around would drastically increase the fuel
consumption of the vehicle, perhaps doubling it. If, instead of steel, a lightweight carbon fiber
overwrapped tank were employed to avoid this penalty, the car would become a deadly explosive
firebomb in the event of a crash.
potentially increasing its ability to pump 25 percent more oil out of the deep waters of the Gulf
of Mexico and onshore oil shale fields.
million barrels produced domestically by 2022, which would be just short of the record of 9.6
million barrels produced in the United States in 1970. But its high forecast is 12 million barrels,
potentially making the United States the worlds biggest producer. Higher American
production means Washington has greater flexibility to release strategic reserves
should prices begin to rise in a way that threatens Western economies.
OTEC cant solve warming oceans just release the heat later on
Baird 13 (Jim, 1AC author, The Energy Collective, September 3, 2013, OTEC Can Be a Big
Global Climate Influence, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-bigglobal-climate-influence, alp)
Asked if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, Thats a good question, and the
answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no. The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat.
Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the
surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the
hottest years on record. Since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up
modes. They probably cant go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the
end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly theres a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new
level and you never go back to that previous level again, Trenberth says.
authors find that, according to their climate model, the local heating of the atmosphere by the
Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing sunlight) can impart changes to
the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. And these changes
to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and thus
induce a change in the climate here characterized by 0.4C [surface air temperature] warming
on average over the eastern US during winter and over almost the entire US during summer
averaged over the 20052024 period. While most of the summer warming doesnt start to kick
in until Asian carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are
today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large (several tenths of a C)
even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions. Now lets revisit just how much global
warming that stringent U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across
the country. In my Master Resource post Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCCbased arithmetic of no gain) I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction of global temperatures (from
where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly
more than the global average (land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05C of global
temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075C of temperature savings averaged
across the U.S., by the year 2050. Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the
U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et
al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas
reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign
nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes
induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions. And even if the traditional form
of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse
gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new greenhouse
gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S.
greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again, pointing out that a reduction
in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught, at least when it comes to mitigating climate change.
So, whats the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy choices? As I have
repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it comes to greenhouse gas
emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes
to influences on the climate. What the powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes
in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it doesnt hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large
developing nations will follow our lead. Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a
difference.
Frontline
Food insecurity doesnt cause conflict
Salehyan 7 Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas.
(Idean, 6-14 The New Myth About Climate Change Corrupt, tyrannical governments
not changes in the Earths climatewill be to blame for the coming resource
wars.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/08/13/the_new_myth_about_climate_cha
nge)
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence
that resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to
conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural
resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet
has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased
dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the
number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some
100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua,
and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this
downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in
Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off
armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns
that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food
shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to
experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed
hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and
led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet
the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did
not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more
to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
contribute to insecurity, which can, in turn, lead to violent conflict, have more
empirical support. Even here, however, the importance of water as a causal
variable is questionable. Several studies have found that variables such as
regime type and institutional capacity are much more important indicators
of conflict potential, 43 and may have mitigating effects on any waterconflict link. As a consequence of accumulated research , many scholars
have concluded that risks of water wars are low , 44 and others have toned
down or qualified their statements about the likelihood of future water wars.45
Some governmental reports have limited their contentions to highlighting that water
scarcity can aggravate conflicts and increase insecurity,46 and many studies now
emphasize water as a tool for cooperation .47 Warnings and predictions of
imminent water wars continue to be commonplace, however. In a review of
published academic literature, Gupta and van der Zaag find that articles on water
conflict outnumber those on cooperation by nearly three to one, and are five times
more likely to be cited.48 This article will now turn to offering possible explanations
for the persistence and popularity of such declarations despite the bulk of expert
opinion downplaying the risks of water wars. Incentives to Stress a Water War
Scenario Incentives Presented in Existing Literature Observers have noted that
various actors may have incentives to stress or even exaggerate the risks of
water wars. Lonergan notes, for instance, that in many cases, the comments
are little more than media hype ; in others, statements have been made for
political reasons .49 Beyond mere acknowledgement of the possibility of such
incentives, however, little research has attempted to understand what these
incentives are and how they may differ between actors. An understanding of the
different motivations of various groups of actors to stress the possibility of
imminent water wars can help explain the continued seemingly
disproportionate popularity of such messages and help to evaluate such
warnings more critically.pg. 17-18 //1nc
promoted in US food and farming policy. The FAOs definition of food security
includes a provision describing access to nutritious food; however, in many lowincome areas, it is easier to access cheap, unhealthful food (such as fast food),
often produced primarily from commodity crops. In addition, the US exports a high
proportion of its commodity crops to the rest of the world. For example, in 2010,
over 53 percent of all corn exports in the world were from the US. The exportation
of these commodity crops affects farmers in the rest of the world especially small
farmers with limited resources. A large influx of commodity crops from the US can
affect local food security, as small farmers cannot compete with less expensive
(subsidized) US-produced agricultural products.
seafood we bring to our shores. Thanks to the American fisheries law, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, many American fish populations, including summer flounder
and black sea bass, have recovered from depletion and are being managed
sustainably for the first time in more than a generation. Since 2000, 34
commercially important fish populations have recovered; overfishing has been cut
in half over the last eight years; and commercial catch and revenues in 2011 were
the highest in 14 years. Yet this success is threatened by shortsighted efforts in
Congress to weaken these safeguards. Fortunately, many fishermen and others
citizens are resisting these rollbacks, advocating that the future of American
seafood depends on a strong fisheries law.
Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is maybe, but maybe
not. Though climate change can cause plenty of misery and deserves to be
mitigated for that reason alone, it will not necessarily lead to armed conflict.
The political scientists who track war and peace, such as Halvard Buhaug,
Idean Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils Gleditsch, are skeptical of the popular
idea that people fight wars over scarce resources.290 Hunger and resource
shortages are tragically common in sub-Saharan countries such as Malawi,
Zambia, and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not. Hurricanes, floods,
droughts, and tsunamis (such as the disastrous one in the Indian Ocean in
2004) do not generally lead to armed conflict. The American dust bowl in
the 1930s, to take another example, caused plenty of deprivation but no civil
war. And while temperatures have been rising steadily in Africa during the
past fifteen years, civil wars and war deaths have been falling. Pressures
on access to land and water can certainly cause local skirmishes, but a
genuine war requires that hostile forces be organized and armed, and that
depends more on the influence of bad governments, closed economies, and militant
ideologies than on the sheer availability of land and water. Certainly any
connection to terrorism is in the imagination of the terror warriors:
terrorists tend to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not
subsistence farmers.291 As for genocide, the Sudanese government finds it
convenient to blame violence in Darfur on desertification, distracting the world from
its own role in tolerating or encouraging the ethnic cleansing.
In a regression analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen
found that conflict was more likely if a country was poor, populous,
politically unstable, and abundant in oil, but not if it had suffered from
droughts, water shortages, or mild land degradation. (Severe land
degradation did have a small effect.) Reviewing analyses that examined a
large number (N) of countries rather than cherry-picking one or two, he
concluded, Those who foresee doom, because of the relationship
between resource scarcity and violent internal conflict, have very little
support in the large-N literature. Salehyan adds that relatively inexpensive
advances in water use and agricultural practices in the developing world
can yield massive increases in productivity with a constant or even shrinking
amount of land, and that better governance can mitigate the human costs of
environmental damage, as it does in developed democracies. Since the state of the
and conflict ([Brauch, 2002] and Pervis and Busby, 2004 Pervis, Nigel, Busby,
Joshua, 2004. The Security Implications of Climate Change for the UN System.
Environmental Change and Security Project Report 10, pp. 6773.[Pervis and Busby,
2004]). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003)
speculate about the consequences of a worst-case climate change scenario arguing
that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p.
15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability
and violent conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is
thin ([Barnett and Adger, 2007] and [Kevane and Gray, 2008]).
Tech solves
BBC News 4
food production. Fighting also forces millions of people to flee their homes,
leading to hunger emergencies as the displaced find themselves without the
means to feed themselves. The conflict in Syria is a recent example. In war,
food sometimes becomes a weapon. Soldiers will starve opponents into
submission by seizing or destroying food and livestock and systematically
wrecking local markets. Fields are often mined and water wells
contaminated, forcing farmers to abandon their land. Ongoing conflict in
Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo has contributed significantly to the
level of hunger in the two countries. By comparison, hunger is on the retreat in
more peaceful parts of Africa such as Ghana and Rwanda. Unstable markets. In
recent years, the price of food products has been very unstable. Rollercoaster food prices make it difficult for the poorest people to access
nutritious food consistently. The poor need access to adequate food all year
round. Price spikes may temporarily put food out of reach, which can have
lasting consequences for small children. When prices rise, consumers
often shift to cheaper, less-nutritious foods, heightening the risks of
micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. Food wastage.
One third of all food produced (1.3 billion tons) is never consumed. This food
wastage represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security
in a world where one in 8 is hungry. Producing this food also uses up precious
natural resources that we need to feed the planet. Each year, food that is
produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the
annual flow of Russia's Volga River. Producing this food also adds 3.3 billion
tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, with consequences for the
climate and, ultimately, for food production.
ability to produce an adequate supply of food said Cool Foods Campaign director
Diana Donlon. In fact, taken in the aggregate, the global food system is responsible
for approximately half of all greenhouse gases. Droughts and heat waves in 2012
in the U.S. alone affected approximately 80 percent of agricultural land, causing an
estimated $30 billion in damages. Already in 2014, California, which produces
nearly half the nations fruits and vegetables, is experiencing the worst drought in
its 153 year history. In the report, Center for Food Safety examines how industrial
agriculture the dominant method of food production in the U.S. externalizes
many social and environmental costs while relying heavily on fossil fuels. Organic
farming, by comparison, requires half as much energy, contributes far fewer
greenhouse gasses, and, perhaps most surprisingly, is more resilient in the face of
climate disruption. While our current climate trajectory is daunting, a future
defined by food insecurity and climate chaos is not inevitable. We can still alter our
course. Regenerative, organic agriculture has tremendous, untapped potential to
strengthen food security while adapting to climate uncertainties and even helping
to mitigate them, said Donlon.
food and often prevent the aid workers from reaching the most affected people.
Lack of emergency plans. History of the severest food crises shows that many
countries were completely unprepared for a crisis and unable to resolve the
situation without international aid. Corruption and political instability. In spite of
criticism lately, the international community has always send help in the form of
food supplies and other means which saved millions of lives in the affected regions.
However, the international aid often did not reach the most vulnerable populations
due to a high level of corruption and political instability in many Third World
countries. Cash crops dependence. Many African and Third World governments
encourage production of the so-called cash crops, the income from which is used to
import food. As a result, countries which depend on cash crops are at high risk of
food crisis because they do not produce enough food to feed the population. AIDS.
The disease which is a serious public health concern in the sub-Saharan Africa
worsens food insecurity in two ways. Firstly, it reduces the available workforce in
agriculture and secondly, it puts an additional burden on poor households. Rapid
population growth. Poor African and Third World countries have the highest growth
rate in the world which puts them at increased risk of food crises. For example, the
population of Niger increased from 2.5 million to 15 million from 1950 to 2010.
According to some estimations, Africa will produce enough food for only about a
quarter population by 2025 if the current growth rate will continue.
Naylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford
University (Spring 2006, Rosamond L., Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean
Aquaculture, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)
The technology is in place for marine aquaculture development in the
United States, but growth remains curtailed by the lack of unpolluted
sites for shellfish production , competing uses of coastal waters ,
environmental concerns , and low market prices for some major
commodities such as Atlantic salmon. Meanwhile, the demand for marine fish
and shellfish continues to rise more rapidly than domestic production, adding to an
increasing U.S. seafood deficit (now about $8 billion annually).
Seattle School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Director and principal scientist
- Policy, Economics and Social Science WorldFish Center, Aquaculture, Fisheries,
Poverty and Food Security. Dec 5, 2011
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf Page 40. 7/4/14 J.M.)
Asia has long traditions in aquaculture of carps, but the rapid growth and
diversification of the industry has largely taken place within the last 40 years,
when growth has often exceeded 10 percent annually and now contributes more
than 90 percent of global production. This growth has been driven by rising
demand from growing and urbanizing populations, stagnating supplies from
capture fisheries, investment in education and technology research, a dynamic
private sector and high levels of public investment in infrastructure to support
agricultural development. The past fifteen years has seen the emergence of a
vibrant SME sector, particularly in China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and
the Philippines, which targets both domestic and international markets
(Beveridge et al., 2010). The aggregate data on Asian aquaculture all show
increases in the volume and value of trade, increased contribution of production to
agricultural GDP, and, in some cases, increased availability of fish in domestic
supply as well (e.g. Figure 8, section 3.2). That this translates into improved food
security and reduced incidence or prevalence of poverty is then often simply
assumed, although this is not necessarily the case if revenues accrue largely to a
small number of wealthy people, or the growing middle classes in Asian cities
increase their fish consumption, but nothing changes for the poor and hungry.
Once again, deeper analysis is needed before causal linkages can be inferred and
poverty and food security benefits for aquaculture can be claimed.
hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry, focused on overfishing, pollution and ocean
acidification, all of which threaten global food security. In his opening remarks,
Kerry noted that ocean conservation constitutes a great necessity for food
security. More than 3 billion people, 50 percent of the people on this planet, in
every corner of the world depend on fish as a significant source of protein, he said.
Proponents hope that many of the solutions being used by US scientists,
policymakers and fishermen could serve to help international communities. There
is increasing demand for seafood with diminished supply. We need to find ways to
make seafood sustainable to rich and poor countries alike, Danielle Nierenberg, the
president of FoodTank, a Washington think tank, told IPS. For instance, oyster
harvesters in the Gambia have really depleted the oyster population, but a USsponsored project has been able to re-establish the oyster bedsby leaving them
alone for a while. The same strategyto step back a bitworked with lobster
fishers in New England. Nierenberg predicted that with diminishing wild fish, the
future of seafood would be in aquaculture. What aquaculture projects need to do
now is learn from the mistakes made from crop and livestock agriculture, she said.
It doesnt always workfor instance, maize and soybeans create opportunities for
pest and disease. Overcrowding animals creates manure.
(Tacon, 2003c), while the aquaculture sector has continuously increased its use of
fishmeal (see Box 1).
Leadership Answers
Frontline
Science diplomacy fails, scientists and policy makers cant work
together
Marlow 12 (Jeffery, Writer for wired.com, The Promise and Pitfalls of Democracy,
Wired.com, 12/11/12, http://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-sciencediplomacy/, CTC)
On July 17th, 1975, Alexei Leonov and Tom Stafford did something extraordinary: they shared a
meal of canned beef tongue and black bread. It may not have been the most delicious culinary
experience the men had ever had, but the setting of the meal was slightly more noteworthy:
outer space, where two spacecraft had docked and were orbiting the earth at nearly 18,000 miles
per hour. The two men and their crews conducted scientific observations, exchanged gifts, and
spoke intermittently in English, Russian, and Oklahomski, the Soviet commanders
description of Staffords drawl. Far below Leonov and Stafford, their political leaders Leonid
Brezhnev and Gerald Ford, respectively were embroiled in the maneuverings of the Cold War.
Diplomatic tensions ran deep, but with the Space Race to the Moon in the rearview mirror, joint
missions seemed to operate above the fray of political discourse. The Apollo-Soyuz episode was
a unique moment in American space exploration history, a pivot from antagonism and
competition to measured cooperation that previewed a similar move toward engagement in the
political arena over a decade later. Indeed, crosstalk between members of supposedly clashing
countries is a common feature of the scientific enterprise. These sorts of collaborations may not
directly solve the issues at the heart of tense diplomatic situations, but they do get parties on
either side talking. The very neutrality of the subject matter the pursuit of truth may
actually help the process, allowing mistrust to thaw and preconceptions to crumble while
engaging in a shared aim. This notion of science as a diplomatic tool its use as an entry point
to a recalcitrant society that simultaneously breaks down politically steeped preconceptions and
offers tangible benefits is a promising mode of development and a constructive brand of
international relations. The Obama Administration understands the value of science diplomacy;
last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the expansion of the Science Envoy
program, appointing Barbara Schaal of Washington University in St. Louis, Bernard Amadei of
the University of Colorado, and Susan Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to
the position. These prominent scientists represent the third class of envoys the program began
in 2009 and has sponsored visits to nearly 20 countries. The philosophy behind the envoy
program is noble, but its current directive is a bit vague. As noted in the State Departments
official release, the science envoys travel in their capacity as private citizens and advise the
White House, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. scientific community about the insights
they gain from their travels and interactions. A recent assessment of the program by envoy
Elias Zerhouni noted the challenge of following through on initiatives predicated on the
personal credibility and contacts of the individual envoys. Leveraging the networks of worldrenowned scientists within the framework of a coherent policy of international relations is
difficult, particularly when funding for longer-term projects is uncertain. The trust of
international partners requires a predictable political and financial environment. When
President Obama launched the program during a speech in Cairo, he said that the envoys would
collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records,
clean water, and grow new crops. Whether these programs are mandated by the executive
branch or are the responsibility of the envoys is unclear. A more explicit structure could allow
science diplomats to be more effective, building on the strong record of science as an invaluable
tool in the soft power arsenal.
Chinas STEM related degrees statistics prove China is the leader for
the long run
Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for
many places including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That Chinas
Scientific Dominance Over The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014,
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientific-dominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)
While China and the U.S. currently award science and engineering degrees to an equivalent
proportion of their populations, China has sharply increased the number of graduates in these
fields and the U.S. does not seem poised to catch up anytime soon. Chinese students also
receive more American doctoral degrees in science and engineering than any other foreign
students. Between 1987 and 2010, there was a threefold increase in the number of Chinese
students in these programs (from 15,000 to 43,000).
will be a substantial hard-power asset for the United States deep into the twenty-first century. China
and Russia enjoy nothing comparable.
President Xi Jinpings official visit to the United States in February 2012 as Chinas then vice president suggests that conflict between the two
states is not inevitable. This goes against the ideas of American offensive realists, who have publicly argued that conflict is an unavoidable consequence
two powers through an official visit; second, to familiarise American leaders with the basic political, economic, ideological and diplomatic style of
Chinas next leader; and, third, to consolidate SinoUS trade relations. The
message is
necessary to reduce the possibility of future strategic misunderstandings , especially
because the United States, as a representative Western capitalist power, has been seen as
ideologically prejudiced against China since the Cold War. It is also timely because Chinas rapid economic growth in
the past decades has arguably aroused envy and fear in the United States and some European countries, which have been suffering from the
consequences of the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis. These anxieties have hardly been assuaged by statements from a growing pool
of commentators who predict that China will soon equal the United States in economic power, and will eventually supplant its hegemony. But this
prediction fails to account for the philosophical grounding of Chinese leaders, which indicates that China has neither the intention nor the capacity to
challenge Americas hegemony. As Mao Zedong pointed out in the early 1960s, We [China] are a socialist country. We do not invade other countries,
not in 100 years or 1000 years. Maos successors have consistently reiterated this principle and repeated many times that China will never seek
hegemony. Xis visit served as another reminder that Chinas and Americas interests are in many ways aligned, and that there is considerable scope for
the largest advanced economy and the largest emerging economy in the world to establish a new type of partnership. Secondly,
Xis visit
helped to further China-US trade and economic relations. In recent years, as part of Chinas
going out strategy, more and more state-owned enterprises and private companies in China
have engaged in mergers and acquisitions activities in North America and Europe, with the intention of
absorbing Western advanced technologies and management techniques. After Xis visit to the US, hundreds of
accompanied Chinese entrepreneurs have now moved closer to possessing an accurate
understanding of local policies and the investment environment in America. This deepening of China-US
relations will encourage more Chinese enterprises to invest in the United States . High-tech, clean energy
and manufacturing industries are bound to become new hotbeds of bilateral cooperation in the next few years. The trade orders signed in Iowa and
California by Xis team also included preferential agricultural policies for American farmers, which have been welcomed and endorsed by the federal
government, state governments and the American public. Admittedly, the 2012 US presidential election campaign saw candidates from both the
Democratic and the Republican parties score political points by criticising many of Chinas policies, including its exchange rate and trade policies. But,
overall,
Xis visit indicated that the future of China-US relations under his presidency will be
shaped by cooperation, despite the intrusion of domestic politics.
Worlds apart yet co-dependent The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance.
Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or
unfortunately military; scientists need political support to fund their research. But they
also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one
means or another. Science is or should be about pursuing robust knowledge
that can be put to useful purposes. A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that
respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage
political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate
change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores
the differences acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or
perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous. The Obama administration's
commitment to "soft power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's
nuclear weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality
may be no bad thing. David Dickson Director, SciDev.Net
discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift
from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had
played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons
in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and
climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this
role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora,
from Canadas International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate
scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world
alike. Nor perhaps predictably was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives
can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such
diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of
international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europes
framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the
first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European
Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second
World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively,
increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the
9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange
programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the
burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific
diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international
diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst
for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change
negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a
good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint
international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last
December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the
limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a
misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to
collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would
have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a
synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers
in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel,
Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that
as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for
example, physicists from both Russia and the United States SESAME will become a symbol of
what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant
described as a beacon of hope for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful
SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East
peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be
papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from
other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high
profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing
damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of
having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising,
appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice
committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to
take into account how advances in science whether nuclear physics or genetic technology
have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of
global inequalities. Science for diplomacy therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The
consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives and
benefit from diplomatic agreements but cannot provide the solutions to either. On tap but
not on top seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones. With all
the caution that even this formulation still requires.
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full
N.O.)
Extension No Challenge
The US is the leader in science and technology now this non-uniques
all of your DAs theres only a risk of a China rise in the future that
the plan solves
HSNW 08, Homeland Security News Wire is the homeland security industrys largest online
daily news publication, (U.S. remains the dominant leader in science and technology
worldwide, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/us-remains-dominant-leaderscience-and-technology-worldwide, 6/15/2008) Kerwin
Perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, the United States remains the worlds undisputed
leader in science and technology; the key factor enabling U.S. science and engineering workforce
to grow: inflow of foreign students, scientists, and engineers Good news for the United States: We have written about
a growing perceptions that the United States is losing its competitive edge, but a RAND Corporation study issued the other day says the United States
remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide. The
investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years , but
instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the world growing even faster than what has been
seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does
not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be
dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan, according to RAND researchers. Other nations, however, are rapidly educating
their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and
engineers every year than the United States. Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should
be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist.
The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even
preeminent. There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce.
We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues, Hosek said. Among the studys
recommendations: Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and
technology performance and the condition of the nations science and engineering workforce Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from
U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the
United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in
research and innovation Increase the U.S. capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other countries Continue to
according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on
A recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B), however, has the potential to
reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that
curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more
research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than
protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home. Among
potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older,
par.
native-born K-12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding
on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S.
reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In
recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive Ph.D.s from
U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and
salaries improve abroad.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using
the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more
detail. In Beijing analysts still struggle to define the precise state of the China-US relationship.
As one said to me recently: Bu shi rezhan, bu shi lengzhan; er shi liangzhan. Or, in the Queens
English: Its not a hot war, its not a cold war; its more like a chilly war. The problem for
leaders, diplomats and analysts is that the relationship defies simple definition. Variants range
from strategic engagement, strategic co-operation and strategic competition to China as a
responsible global stakeholder. The problem with these ideas is that they mean very little to
the Chinese. The phrase that hits home in both capitals these days is strategic trust deficit a
gap between China and the US which, if left unchecked, could destabilise the entire Asia-Pacific
region. Such a deficit is potentially disastrous for both parties. We see it in the world of cyber
espionage and cyber warfare; in escalating tensions in the East and South China Seas, where
hundreds of naval and air assets are deployed; in escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula;
and in the UN Security Council stalemate over Syria. That is why the working summit between
presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China at the weekend was so
important. There had been no high-level political mechanism for the two sides to manage
these and other apparently intractable challenges facing the regional and global order. With this
summit, with more to follow, we at last have the capacity to build such a mechanism. The fact is,
unless the Chinese president himself (simultaneously chairman of the Central Military
Commission and general secretary of the Communist party) engages personally in negotiations
with his US counterpart, Chinas political system is geared to the defence of the status quo. In
the US, the secretaries both of state and defence are able to make some strategic calls in
negotiations. But their Chinese counterparts are not even among the 250 most senior officials in
the party hierarchy. Only the president, in consultation with the other six members of the
Politburo Standing Committee, can make the genuinely big calls. Despite opposition in both
capitals, both presidents decided to depart from the diplomatic conventions that have governed
relations for the past 40 years and convened a working summit, free of the pomp normally
associated with state visits. This is a success in its own right. More importantly, both camps are
privately delighted by the tone, depth and content of this first engagement, with neither
expecting a laundry list of deliverables. Nobody present saw this as the cyber summit
described in the US media. So, what are the outcomes? First, the agreement to establish a
regular military-to-military dialogue is critical . It could contribute to rules of the road on
cyber security; crisis management for the Korean peninsula; the management of incidents at sea
and in the air as well as creating a mechanism to develop basic confidence and security-building
measures for the region. Second, the summit represented the first systematic engagement and
calibration between the two nations on the future of North Korea, including their reported
public commitment to prevent Pyongyang acquiring nuclear weapons. Third, there was
agreement on climate change, perhaps reflecting the start of a commitment to make the global
rules-based order more effective. No one should expect Chinese policy to change quickly. Much
could go wrong. But, without a programme of working bilateral summitry, there is little prospect
of getting much of strategic importance right. After 20 years of drift in the relationship
following the elimination of the Soviet threat, which for the previous 20 years provided the
underlying rationale for co-operation this meeting could mark the start of a new period of
detente. We were headed towards strategic competition or worse. We may now have the
capacity to build sufficient trust in the relationship, creating a framework to manage the
growing complexity of bilateral, regional and global challenges the nations face. It could even
lead to what Mr Xi himself described as a new model of great power relations for the future,
one that does not mindlessly replicate the bloody history of the rise and fall of great powers in
centuries past.
Add-on Answers
CONCLUSION The logic of ECST supports arguments for greater economic interdependence to
reduce the likelihood of conict. This chapter does not argue against the utility of signalling
theory. It does, however, suggest that when considering the occurrence of and conditions
created by economic crises, ECST logic is dubious as an organising principle for security
policymakers. The discussion pulls together some distinct areas of research that have not yet
featured prominently in the ECST literature. Studies associating economic interdependence,
economic crises and the potential for external conict indicate that global interdependence is
not necessarily a conict suppressing process and may be conict-enhancing at certain points.
Furthermore, the conditions created by economic crises decrease the willingness of states to
send economic costly signals, even though such signals may be most effective during an
economic crisis. These two points warrant further consideration in the debate over ECST and,
more broadly, theories linking interdependence and peace. The debate takes on particular
importance for policymakers when considering the increasingly important US-China
relationship and the long-term prospects for peace in the Asia-Pacic. Recent US policy towards
China, such as the responsible stakeholder approach, assumes that greater interdependence
with China should decrease the likelihood for conict. Some have even suggested that the
economic relationship is necessary to ensure strategic competition does not lead to major war
(see, e.g., Kastner, 2006). If US or Chinese policymakers do indeed intend to rely on economic
interdependence to reduce the likelihood of conict, much more study is required to understand
how and when interdependence impacts the security and the defence behaviour of states. This
chapter contributes some thoughts to that larger debate. NOTES I. Notable counterarguments
include Barbieri (1996). Gowa (I994), and Levy and Ali I998 . 2. Of<):ial statements have
focused on this explanation as well. See, for example, Bernanke (2009). 3. For a dissenting
study. see Elbadawi and Hegre (2008). 4. Note that Skaperdas and Syropoulos (2001) argue that
states will have a greater incentive to arm against those with which it is interdependent to hedge
against coercion. This argument could be extended to include protectionism in extreme cases.
Creseenzi (2005) both challenges and agrees with Copelands theory by suggesting that a more
important indicator is the exit costs involved in terminating an economic relationship. which
could be a function of the availability of alternatives. 5. There is also substantial research to
indicate that periods of strong economic growth are also positively correlated with a rise in the
likelihood of conict. Pollins (2008) and Pollins and Schweller (I999) provide excellent insights
into this body of literature.
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all
sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of
the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens
and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's
interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide
recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None
of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly
attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and
Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic
struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia
(where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia
conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the
Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential
campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its
two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar
picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state
wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon
capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States
effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleedinginto-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both
leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts
in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off
Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn,
occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa
Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So,
to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban
riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in
civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no
great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); No great improvement or disruption in
great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that
diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's
acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any
rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite
are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its
weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include
China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've
finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but
even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented
"stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the
most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a
distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's
major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain
decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the
board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as
allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the
World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts
toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by
the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing
disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And
looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as
disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be
sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes,
even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the
continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty
of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning
of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a
world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such
"diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a
world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all
up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's
post-World War II international liberal trade order.
Multiple ongoing projects prove the status quo solves the internal link
Burke 14 (Sharon E., assistant secretary of defense for operation energy plans and programs,
Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, Powering the Pentagon: Creating a Lean, Clean Fighting
Machine, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141207/sharon-e-burke/powering-thepentagon, alp)
These changes may not bode well for the Pentagons energy use in the short term, but some
encouraging signs are emerging. One project, the Adaptive Engine Technology Development
program, promises to make a fighter jet engine that uses 25 percent less fuel, which could mean
an increased strike radius, fewer refueling missions, and lower operating costs. The Department
of Defense is developing a flexible, wearable battery that would conform to soldiers body armor.
Along with the Department of Energy, it is also working on developing hybrid energy storage
modules, which include a variety of improved energy-storage devices for military use. A
number of research projects are under way on tactical microgrids, which control and optimize
the distribution of electricity on the battlefield to improve the reliability of generators and
reduce their wear and tear. Meanwhile, lighter-weight, lower-drag materials have the potential
to improve the energy performance of everything from bullets to vehicles to airplanes.
Investments in other technologies could tap localized or renewable energy supplies, such as
waste products, portable solar cells, and even the kinetic energy troops generate when they walk.
threats to regional security. Petrostates will continue to be weakly institutionalized and thus
subject to civil wars, creating the kind of security problems that demand responses by the
international community, as occurred in Libya in 2011. Petro-financed insurgent groups such as
Hezbollah will persist, as will threats to the shipping lanes and oil transit routes that supply
important U.S. allies, such as Japan. In sum, energy autarky is not the answer. Self-sufficiency
will bring economic benefits to the United States, but few gains for national security. So long as
the oil market remains globally integrated, national oil imports matter far less than total
consumption. Rather than viewing energy self-sufficiency as a panacea, the United States should
contribute to international security by making long-term investments in research and
development to reduce oil consumption and provide alternative fuel sources in the
transportation sector. In addition to the economic and environmental benefits of reducing oil
consumption, substantial evidence exists that military and security benefits will accrue from
such investments.
hegemony.3 In short, the rise of China is likely to remain a great source of controversy and debate in the years and decades to
come. Still, evidence shows that the giant Asian state is likely to pursue its interests driven by certain
hegemonic ambitions as its material power grows and as it becomes more status-conscious.
However, its rise has been, and will be, limited by various constraints, one of which is a pattern
of prudent responses from other states in the Asia-Pacific. The region is thus bound to remain stable, China
rising but without enjoying the luxury of providing leadership for peaceful regional community building, at least not until it becomes
a liberal democracy.4
During that time, the declaratory policies of both countries have remained essentially the same,
both with respect to one another and toward international relationships in general. Changes in
both countries, most notably those in China, have made us more alike. The process of convergence
continues. Neither will ever become just like the other, but similarities, compatibilities, and mutual understanding will continue
to increase absent an unexpected shock to the relationship. Trend lines are moving in the direction of greater stability. Both sides
have learned to address issues and resolve problems. Not all of them, but more than enough to acquire a reservoir of experience and
larger stake in the relationship. The issues that have been resolved, at least temporarily, have involved increasingly central or
fundamental matters. Examples include de-linking trade and human rights issues in the 1990s and the decreasing importance of
ideological differences. Moreover, the relationship
sides have
learned to avoid making questions on which they disagree into litmus tests for the overall
relationship, and to refrain from casting issues as matters of principle on which they cannot be seen to
compromise. In short, both the United States and China have learned how to manage issues and to
manage the relationship in ways that isolate and limit the impact of disagreements, sustain
momentum, and strengthen strategic stability.
containment by the United States). The United States strategic concepts of hedging and pivot (renamed as rebalancing)
support this. In 2006, the Uni- ted States outlined a policy of encouraging China to play a constructive, peaceful role in the AsiaPacific region while creating prudent hedges against the possibility that coop- erative approaches by themselves may fail to
preclude future conflict (Stewart 2009). This
groups engage in coalitional politics to deny hegemony to any particular group . The key to
consocia- tional stability thus is the existence of multiple balances of power.6 This assumption
echoes defensive realism. Unlike offensive realists who argue that states go for all they can get
with hegemony as their ultimate goal (Me- arsheimer 2001), defensive realists maintain that states are
generally satisfied with the status quo if their own security is not challenged and thus
concentrate on main- taining a balance of power (Glaser 1996; Tang 2010). Structural conditions such as anarchy
do not invariably lead to expansionism; but the fear of triggering a security dilemma, calculations of the
balance of power, and domestic politics induce states to abstain from pre-emp- tive war and
engage in reassurance policies.
analysts who have urged a policy to "contain" China. During a recent visit to China, I was struck by how many
Chinese officials believe such a policy is already in place and is the central purpose of President
Obamas pivot toward Asia. "The pivot is a very stupid choice," Jin Canrong, a professor of international
relations, declared publicly. "The United States has achieved nothing and only annoyed China . China
cant be contained," he added. Containment was designed for a different era, and it is not what the United
States is, or should be, attempting now. At the start of the cold war, containment meant economic isolation of the Soviets and
regional alliances like NATO to deter Moscow's military expansion. Later, to the chagrin of George F. Kennan, the father of
containment, the doctrine led to the "domino effect" theory behind the escalation of the Vietnam War. Cold war containment
involved virtually no trade and little social contact. But China
enjoyed bipartisan support. President George W. Bush continued to improve relations with India, while deepening economic ties
with China. His deputy secretary of state, Robert B. Zoellick, made clear that America would accept the rise of China as a
"responsible stakeholder." Mr. Obama's "rebalancing" toward Asia involves moving naval resources to the Pacific, but also trade,
human rights and diplomatic initiatives. As his national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, said in November, the AmericanChinese relationship "has elements of both cooperation and competition." Asia is not a monolith, and its internal balance of power
should be the key to our strategy. Japan, India, Vietnam and other countries do not want to be dominated by China, and thus
welcome an American presence in the region. Unless China is able to attract allies by successfully developing its "soft power," the
rise in its "hard" military and economic power is likely to frighten its neighbors, who will coalesce to balance its power. A significant
American military and economic presence helps to maintain the Asian balance of power and shape an environment that provides
incentives for China to cooperate. After the 20089 financial crisis, some Chinese mistakenly believed that America was in
permanent decline and that this presented new opportunities. A result was that China worsened its relations with Japan, India,
America's
rebalancing toward Asia should not be aggressive. We should heed Mr. Kennan's warning
against overmilitarization and ensure that China doesn't feel encircled or endangered. The world's
South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines a misstep that confirmed that "only China can contain China." But
two largest economies have much to gain from cooperation on fighting climate change, pandemics, cyberterrorism and nuclear
proliferation. With China becoming more dependent on Middle Eastern energy, we should discuss maritime regulations to ensure
free passage of ships and include China in Pacific naval exercises. We
Conviction that
conflict is inevitable shapes perceptions and behavior. For example, many Chinese reflexively
interpret any action by the United States that could have negative implications for China as
having been adopted specifically for that purpose. Bolstering alliances with the ROK and Japan
in the wake of DPRK provocations, access arrangements in Central Asia to support troops in
Afghanistan, and even improved relations with Myanmar are construed to prove that the United
States seeks to encircle China in preparation for military conflict. 20 Similarly, U.S. academics,
popular media, and politicians regularly assert that Chinas military modernization and political
activism have the real but unstated goal of challenging U.S. preeminence. 21 Leaders on both sides seem
determined to prevent the situation from getting out of hand, but public opinion is difficult to manage, and at
times appears to press governments to take actions more likely to increase than decrease
strategic distrust and the potential for conflict. We acknowledge the utility of realist theory for explaining the rise
Chinese proverb reflects the same idea in its observation that one mountain cannot be shared by two tigers.
and fall of great powers in earlier eras, but assess that globalization, interdependence, and the explicit intention of both countries to
avoid conflict have changed the nature of great power relationships.22 We also acknowledge that ours is a minority view and worry
that widespread expectations that conflict is inevitable could lead to attitudes and actions that make it more likely. In other words,
there is a significant danger that realist fatalism will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.23
the fact that Washington ultimately refused to side with the Philippines during the
April 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, there is little evidence to suggest any such crisis of
confidence amongst Americas closest AsiaPacific allies. In its May 2013 Defense White Paper, for example,
Canberra characterizes Australias alliance with the United States as being our most important
defence relationship and a pillar of Australias strategic and security arrangements .44 The
United States was certainly swift to demonstrate the credibility of its alliance commitment to
Seoul following the March 2010 sinking of the Cheonan, undertaking a series of high-profile military exercises
with South Korea in waters proximate to China and in the face of strong opposition from Beijing.45 Likewise in November 2013,
Washington sent a strong signal of support for Tokyo by flying two B-52 bombers through
Chinas newly announced Air Defense Identification Zone without informing Beijing in advance.46 U.S.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel backed up this show of defiance with unequivocal confirmation that
Article V of the U.S.Japan Mutual Defense Treaty extends to the Senkaku Islands .47
public displays of
nationalist sentiment stand in marked contrast to June 2013 anti-China protests in Hanoi
following Vietnamese allegations that a Chinese vessel had rammed and damaged a Vietnamese fishing boat. Subsequently , a
mere 150 protesters gathered in the city center.15 Crowds of comparable size have attended anti-Chinese
protests in the Philippines. For instance, a March 2012 protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Manila that organizers expected to
draw 1,000 protesters attracted barely half that number.16 The
Even when
clashes at sea do occur, history suggests that these generally afford statesmen greater time and
space to find diplomatic solutions. As Robert Ross observes, in such cases neither side has to fear that the others
on the capacity of states to project military powerrelative, at least, to when they share common land borders.17
provocative diplomacy or movement of troops is a prelude to attack and immediately escalate to heightened military readiness.
Tension can be slower to develop, allowing the protagonists time to manage and avoid
unnecessary escalation.18 Ross observation, in turn, dovetails elegantly with the issue of proximity, which Hoyt regards as
a defining feature of a flashpoint. The antagonists in the South China Sea disputes are less proximate
than in the case of the Korean Peninsulawhere the two Koreas share a land border that remains the most
militarized on earth. The same can be said of the Taiwan flashpoint. Indeed, the proximity of Taiwan
to the mainland affords Beijing credible strategic options and arguably even incentivesinvolving the
use of force that are not available to it in the South China Sea.19 Finally, and related to the third of Hoyts
criteria, the South China Sea cannot be said to engage the vital interests of Asias great powers . To be
sure, much has been made of Indias growing interests in this part of the world particularly following reports of a July 2011 face-off
between a Chinese ship and an Indian naval vessel that was leaving Vietnamese waters.20 However, New Delhis interests in the
South China Sea remain overwhelmingly economic, not strategic, driven as they are by the search for oil. Moreover, even if New
Delhi had anything more than secondary strategic interests at stake in the geographically distant South China Sea, it is widely
accepted that Indias armed forces will for some time lack the capacity to credibly defend these.21 Similarly, while much has been
made of Tokyos willingness to assist Manila with improving its maritime surveillance capabilities,22 for reasons of history and
geography, Tokyos
b) Empirics prove
Taylor 14 Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National
University (Brendan, The South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint, The Washington Quarterly,
37:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.893176)//js
In the South China Sea, two major, modern SinoU.S. crises have been successfully managed.
The first occurred in April 2001, when a U.S. EP-3 conducting routine surveillance in airspace
above the South China Sea collided with a Chinese J-8 jet fighter and was forced to make an
emergency landing on Hainan Island. To be sure, efforts to address this crisis did not initially
proceed particularly smoothly, as Chinese officials refused to answer incoming calls from the
U.S. Embassy. Ultimately, however, those most intimately involved in the crisissuch as thenCommander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Dennis Blairhave written subsequently
how top U.S. officials made every effort to exercise prudence and restraint while they collected
more information about the nature of the incident. They have also acknowledged that their
Chinese counterparts made a series of grudging concessions that ultimately resulted in
success...after they decided that it was important to overall SinoU.S. relations to solve the
incident.49 Again in March 2009, while diplomatic tensions between Beijing and Washington
heightened in the immediate aftermath of an incident involving the harassment of the USNS
Impeccable by five Chinese vessels, good sense also prevailed as senior U.S. and Chinese
officials issued statements maintaining that such incidents would not become the norm and
pledging deeper cooperation to ensure so.50 Added to these examples of effective crisis
management, it is also worth noting that Washington reportedly facilitated a
compromise to the April 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff.51
perspective rests on
two central arguments. The first is that while the rise of China is clearly reshaping the
distribution of power in Asia, the region has also wit- nessed equally important and long-term
changes to other determinants of security and stability. These changes, whose beginnings predate the rise of
China, can be dis- cerned by comparing Asias security environment in the immediate aftermath of World War II and that of now.
In the former period, Asian security was shaped by eco- nomic nationalism, security
bilateralism, and political authoritarianism. These have gradually but unmistakably given way to
market liberalism and economic interdepen- dence, security multilateralism (coexisting with
US-centric bilateralism), and growing domestic political pluralism. Together, they create those
very mitigating factors for anarchy that the region was found to be wanting by the pessimists in
the immediate aftermath of the Cold Wars end and question the relevance of thinking about
Asias future security in terms of Europes, Americas, or Asias own pasts.
Off-Case
Japan CP
1NC Japan CP
Text: The Government of Japan should increase funding for
research and development of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion technology and support exports of Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion technology to countries that express an
interest. The Government of Japan should demonstrate Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion.
Japan has the technology to develop large-scale OTEC plants
Takahashi 2k, Masayuki Mac Takahashi is a professor of Multi-Disciplinary
Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo,
(DOW Deep Ocean Water as Our Next Natural Resource,
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/dow/pdf/chap3.pdf, 2000) Kerwin
A Japanese committee for OTEC estimated the amount of energy potentially usable
for Japan. Figure 34 shows the situation of ocean energy within the area where
Japan could utilize it exclusively: the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), within 200
nautical miles (370 kilometers) from the coast. The total amount was estimated at
30 billion kilowatts. This figure corresponds to about 8.6 billion tons of oil per year,
which is about 20 times as much as the total energy consumed in Japan in 1980.
Supposing only one percent of this energy was used, it would be possible to reduce
oil consumption by about one billion tons. It may be necessary to study the oceans
and the climate surrounding Japan in greater detail for a more precise estimate, but
what is certain is that a great deal of energy could be extracted from the seas both
to the east and to the west of Japan. What is more, it could be used for ever.
Japans competitiveness in regional integration. The strategic meaning of ASEANJapan trade cooperation is to balance Chinese power in the region. Japans
balancing strategies are twofold. First, ASEAN-Japan economic cooperation will
project an image of a receptive and cooperative Japan. As Rahul Sen and Sanchita
Basu Das argued, a more receptive Japan could offer ASEAN unique opportunities to
broach sensitive issues such as agriculture and services liberalization [31]. A free
trade agreement, nevertheless, is only one part of ASEAN-Japan economic
cooperation. A comprehensive scheme embodied in AJCEP Agreement,
encompassing economic, scientific, technological and cultural cooperation, will
provide greater incentives to ASEAN economies to embrace Japan-led regionalism.
Second, Japans balancing strategy is to promote the idea and practice of an East
Asian Community. Since 1997, the financial crisis sparked Japans strong interests in
East Asia cooperation [32]. East Asian Community seeks to consolidate ASEANJapan relations and enmesh China in regional settings. The rationale for this idea is
to ensure the pivotal role of ASEAN in East Asian cooperation and reconcile Japan
with Southeast Asian neighbors. A viable ASEAN, for Japan, can provide stable
support for Tokyos vision of East Asian community. Tokyo has long endorsed the
institutionalization and internal integration of ASEAN by making efforts to narrow
the gap between ASEAN-6 and CLMV states. In addition, Japan has highlighted the
importance of ASEAN as the driving force of East Asia economic integration in
many international forums such as APEC, ARF and the East Asia Summit (EAS). In
short, Tokyos heart-to-heart diplomacy not only markedly lassoes the support
of ASEAN members and their people, but also seeks to deal with Chinas soft power
moves. Strengthening Socio-Cultural Cooperation via Ideational Transmission?
Socio-cultural cooperation is conducive to a sense of community which may forge
closer ASEAN-Japan relations. Nevertheless, it reveals Tokyos careful pursuit of
regional leadership. One niche that Japan emphasizes is ideational capacity
buttressed by economic advancement and technological innovation. As the Prime
Minister Aso Taro has argued, Japan seeks to act as the thought leader in Asian
countries [33]. Actually, Tokyo has been actively engaging in ideational transmission
to its East Asian neighbors. At the regional level, Japan has initiated the idea of the
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) in 2007. This thinktank, supported by the Japanese government, seeks to provide intellectual and
capacity building leadership to the construction of East Asian Community in general
and to the future ASEAN Economic Community in particular [34]. Almost every
Japanese prime minister in recent decades has publicized support for ASEAN or
suggested exchange programs to ASEAN states [35]. For example, in 1977, the
ASEAN Cultural Fund was designated by Fukuda Takeo to amplify intra-ASEAN
cultural exchanges. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo announced in 2007 a program
to invest US$ 315 million in a 5-year youth exchange initiative, JENESYS (Japan-East
Asia Network of Exchange for Students and Youths), to students from ASEAN and
EAS member states to visit Japan [36]. In 2008, former Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda
proposed the new Fukuda Doctrine, which promised to endorse ASEANs single
market initiative as well as the development of the Mekong Basin [37]. Social and
territorial conflicts between two or more U.S. allies.102) The North Korean nuclear
issue remains unresolved; North Korea has conducted tests of ballistic missiles and
a nuclear weapon; and the oppressive military rule in Burma/Myanmar continues.
Added to these concerns are several regional issues: diseases (such as avian flu,
SARS, and AIDS), environmental degradation, disaster mitigation and prevention,
high seas piracy, and weapons proliferation. Memories of the 1997-99 Asian
financial crisis still haunt policy makers in Asian countries.
Nuclear war
Chakraborty 10 [Tuhin Subhro Chakraborty is Research Associate at Rajiv
Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS). His primary area of work is
centered on East Asia and International Relations. His recent work includes finding
an alternative to the existing security dilemma in East Asia and the Pacific and Geo
Political implications of the Rise of China. Prior to joining RGICS, he was associated
with the Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation, United Service Institution of
India (USI) where he examined the role of India in securing Asia Pacific. He has
coordinated conferences and workshops on United Nation Peacekeeping Visions and
on Chinas Quest for Global Dominance. He has written commentaries on issues
relating to ASEAN, Asia Pacific Security Dilemma and US China relations.The
Initiation & Outlook of ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) Plus Eight,
http://www.usiofindia.org/Article/?pub=Strategic
%20Perspective&pubno=20&ano=739]
The first ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus Eight (China, India, Japan, South
Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the USA) was held on the 12th of
October. When this frame work of ADMM Plus Eight came into news for the first time
it was seen as a development which could be the initiating step to a much needed
security architecture in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific is fast emerging as the
economic center of the world, consequently securing of vulnerable economic assets
has becomes mandatory. The source of threat to economic assets is basically
unconventional in nature like natural disasters, terrorism and maritime piracy. This
coupled with the conventional security threats and flashpoints based on territorial
disputes and political differences are very much a part of the region posing a major
security challenge. As mentioned ADMM Plus Eight can be seen as the first initiative
on such a large scale where the security concerns of the region can be discussed
and areas of cooperation can be explored to keep the threats at bay. The defence
ministers of the ten ASEAN nations and the eight extra regional countries (Plus
Eight) during the meeting have committed to cooperation and dialogue to counter
insecurity in the region. One of the major reasons for initiation of such a framework
has been the new face of threat which is non-conventional and transnational which
makes it very difficult for an actor to deal with it in isolation. Threats related to
violent extremism, maritime security, vulnerability of SLOCs, transnational crimes
have a direct and indirect bearing on the path of economic growth. Apart from this
the existence of territorial disputes especially on the maritime front plus the issues
related to political differences, rise of China and dispute on the Korean Peninsula
has aggravated the security dilemma in the region giving rise to areas of potential
conflict. This can be seen as a more of a conventional threat to the region. The
question here is that how far this ADMM Plus Eight can go to address the
conventional security threats or is it an initiative which would be confined to
meetings and passing resolution and playing second fiddle to the ASEAN summit. It
is very important to realize that when one is talking about effective security
architecture for the Asia Pacific one has to talk in terms of addressing the
conventional issues like the territorial and political disputes. These issues serve as
bigger flashpoint which can snowball into a major conflict which has the possibility
of turning into a nuclear conflict.
2NC Solvency
Japan solves OTEC development tech and location
UNC 12, University of North Carolina Science Department, (OTEC the Only Option
for Japan, http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2012/07/22/otec-theonly-option-for-japan/#comments, 7/22/2012) Kerwin
Japan, unlike the United States, has incredibly limited on-shore space, and with the
sun and the wind being intermittent, around 80% of Japans long term energy
supply remains insecure. The country has never been largely reliant on fossil fuels
and with the Tohoku earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, nuclear power is an
unattractive option. Even with little current, small salinity gradient resources, and
major storms just off the coast, is the ocean is Japans best option for sustainable
energy for the future. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) in particular has
been labeled the only productive answer for the country recovering and rebuilding
after recent natural disasters and the falling economy that followed. OTEC was
tested in Japan thirty years ago on Nauru by the Tokyo Electric Power company. The
experiment was widely successful however a hurricane eventually wiped it out.
Now, Japan looks at the success seen and considers using OTEC to power a
plantship. This ship would graze along the coast, providing benefits in the
upbringing of fisheries. Additionally, opportunities would be seen for the
development of marine biomass plantations, which would produce biofuels at sea,
electricity, and freshwater. Platforms on the sea surface would harvest the energy,
The water intake could be installed vertically, allowing pipes to be much shorter.
Construction and operation costs in turn would be cheaper and damage to pipes
less as they would float versus being cemented to the sea bottom. In being pumped
up to the at-sea power plants, cold water would retain its low temperature making
net power generation far higher. The platforms could also be equipped harness sun
and wind resources. Construction would require zero of Japans limited land space. A
demonstration facility test is set to be carried out in Okinawa Prefecture by three
companies: IHI Plant Construction Co.,Ltd., Yokogawa Electric Corporation and
Xenesys Inc. at a cost estimate of 500 million yen. The design is of 50kW nameplate
capacity and should be complete by March 2013. The test claims to be the first
OTEC demonstration conducted in an actual ocean environment with
consideration to commercialization.
A2: No Spillover
The CP promotes global OTEC adoption
JFS 7, Japan for Sustainability,
(http://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id026789.html, Kuwait to Adopt
Japanese Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Technology, 9/20/2007) Kerwin
Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) decided to introduce a power
generation and water production system utilizing ocean thermal energy conversion
(OTEC) technology developed by a Japanese venture, Xenesys Inc. KNPC and
Xenesys will sign an official contract in the summer of 2007. OTEC is a clean power
generation system utilizing temperature difference between cold deep seawater and
the warmer surface. As it needs a difference of 15 degrees Celsius or more to
generate electricity without any fuel, tropical and sub-tropical regions within 30
degrees of the equator are suitable for this system. Technological development of
OTEC began in earnest after the oil crisis of the 1970s. The world's first practical
OTEC plant became feasible with the invention of a new OTEC system known as the
"Uehara Cycle" developed by the research team of Dr. Haruo Uehara at Saga
University, Japan. Obtaining an exclusive license of the government-patented
system, Xenesys developed practical technologies for OTEC power generation and
water production through its joint research with Saga University. Saudi Arabia is
considering the construction of this new OTC plant as well. Xenesys is also working
to introduce its new technology to Thailand and other countries along the Indian
Ocean.
Electric Vehicles CP
1NC CP v1
Text: The United States federal government should implement tax
breaks and subsidies for electric vehicles
That solve global warming and energy consumption
Shinnar 03 Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of
New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of Engineering (Reuel, The
Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars, Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455476)//js
The decisive advantage for electricity is that we can start at once. What we should also do is to
encourage research on improving the known methods to reduce energy consumption and global
warming. But research will not help unless it is tied to actual implementation. As those measures are not attractive
with present prices, we have to find a way to subsidize them to stimulate real competition. Tax
breaks, indirect subsidies, or a carbon tax, or taxes on gasoline to pro- mote more
efficient use could achieve this. We presently subsidize the small users of electricity indirectly without any direct
taxes. Experience shows that direct subsidies cause objection when they become big (see Ref. [2] and the current discussion on
increasing the subsidy to alcohol for cars). We
Ultimately the
only real way to reduce global warming, to reduce pollution and achieve energy
independence is by developing alternative sources for electricity. especially solar energy. This
would also require introducing electric cars, and was discussed in Section 7. All these options require
starting their implementation long before they are needed. We have the technology to do them all now, and no
research will really lead to any significant change, unless it is followed by implementation.
Large-scale implementation itself will reduce costs significantly. It is time that those concerned about
achieving these goals learn from our experience with clean coal. In the 1970s, there was a large drive to reduce emissions from coal
power 'plants. The technology to do so was available in the form of scrubbers. It have cost 20 to 30 billion dollars. Power companies
strongly objected. as "they had no assurance that they would be allowed to profitably recover the cost. and no research could change
that simple fact. The US spent the same 20 billion dollars in research with no real result [12]. If instead it had found a way to
implement scrubbers, competition would have reduced the cost and improved the technology. All of us would breathe healthier air
and enjoy cleaner skies today. The
1NC CP v2
Text: The United States federal government should increase
investment in charging infrastructure for electric vehicles
Charging infrastructure is the weak link states should provide
incentives for consumer adoption of EVs
Bakker 13 (Sjoerd, Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban
environment, Science Direct, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 25
(2013): 18-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.005)//js
When it comes to supporting citizens and business, three major options are available. First,
consensus that fast-chargers are also needed that enable a battery to be 80% charged within half an hour. This does come at an
additional cost to the driver, and most EV-driv- ers therefore prefer to charge at night. Still, it is thought to be useful to have a
number of fast-chargers to reassure drivers that a quick-charge is possible when necessary. This may help to reduce range anxiety
among EV drivers. 3.3. Regulatory
1NC CP v3
Text: The United States federal government should impose
substantially stricter fuel requirement standards for automobiles
Increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles are the only way to
solve oil consumption and warming
Shinnar 03 Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of
New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of Engineering (Reuel, The
Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars, Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455476)//js
hydrogen that can be added during the whole refinery process is equivalent to 600,000 barrels of oil. The total potential savings in
oil imports are about 5 million barrels a day, of which 2 million are due to lower gasoline consumption, and 2 mil- lion due to larger
yields of gasoline and diesel from the barrel, and one million bar- rels due to utilizing hydrogen generated from other fossil fuels into
the gasoline. Unlike H2 generated in gas stations, this hydrogen is generated in central facilities where the CO2 can be sequestered.
Even if only 60% of this potential is realized, it is equal to exchanging 35% of all present cars to hydrogen cars. It is feasible to
achieve this in 20 years. There is no way to do that with hydrogen cars. We could look at this method as an improved form of a
hydrogen economy. There is available proven technology for hydrogen production from resid, natu- ral gas, and coal, as well as for
hydrocracking of resid. We also have the tech- nology to increase alkylate production (the environmentally best gasoline) from
various oil fractions, as well as to make high quality parainic diesel. Aggressive research is needed to find better and cheaper
catalvtic pathways to do so.
our long-term global warming and energy security challenges, however, will
require not only improvements to our electricity grid but also the market success of electric
vehicles themselves. EVs are still in their infancy, and it also will take time for them to enjoy a major presence in the vehicle
market. But as electric vehicles market penetration improves, we must also phase out the highest-emitting electricity sources, such
as coal, and increase the use of cleaner and renewable electricity generation. Only by pursuing both of these objectives in paral- lel
can electric vehicles fulfill their potential. Current
More Is Needed Some efforts are under way around the country to reduce the emissions from electricity, and the emissions
intensity of electric- ity is thus expected to decrease in the coming years. Projections show that the global warming emissions
intensity of the nations electricity grid will drop 11 percent by 2020 (compared with 2010), and in some regions more than 30
percent.8 The expected decline in emissions intensity of the U.S. elec- tricity grid is due in large part to state and regional policies
and federal tax incentives for increasing the supply of renewable elec- tricity and hastening the retirement of coal-fired plants. More
than 70 percent of coal-powered plants in the United States are more than 30 years old. But the percentage of coal in the nations
grid mix has been declining over the past decade, and widespread retirements of existing coal plants are expected by 2020 (UCS
2011). Also,
29 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted renewable electricity standards,
which require growing shares of renewables to meet electricity demand for example, Connecticut
intends that 23 percent of its total electricity-generating capacity will be renewable by 2020 (Figure 1.7). Moreover, 24 states
have adopted energy efficiency resource standards, which aim to accelerate energy efficiency
investments and thereby reduce electricity demand (ACEEE 2011). Even with substantial progress around the
country expected in coming years, much more is needed to move our electricity sector to a cleaner and
more sustainable future. Reducing global warming emissions 80 percent by 2050 compared
with 1990 levels will be necessary to prevent the worst consequences of cli- mate change. 9 Even
states such as California, which is charging ahead with a 33 percent renewable electricity standard by 2020, will need to go further in
order to achieve this level of overall reduction.10 The strengthening of current policies and the implementa- tion of new ones will be
needed to achieve these goals, including a nationwide cap on carbon emissions, a national renewable energy standard, and building
and appliance efficiency stan- dards, among others.11 To
regula- tion
is a further key factor in pushing the development and diffusion of innovation. Governments
must therefore find the right mix of regulatory pressure and funding options corresponding to
the current condition of its national industries and markets, to make innovations attractive for
both the supply and demand side (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Beise and Rennings, 2005).
case of environmental innovations, which involve inter- nalization of external costs and relatively long time scales,
Deploying
alternative vehicles and fuels at a sufficient rate to meet the 2050 target of reducing greenhouse
gas emission (GHG) by 80% as indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6 is a
formidable challenge, the scale of which is illustrated by the IEAs Blue Map scenario (see Figure 1 below). It is
unlikely that market forces alone will be able to organically deliver this complex
transition in the required timeframe. Therefore if political aspirations are to be met,
the sooner alternative transport fuels can become competitive with oil-derived fuels and displace them the better.
policy interventions will be required in order to stimulate and manage the transition
effectively.
Environment DA
OTEC causes massive algae blooms and destroys ecosystems
Abbasi 00 [April 2000, S.A Abbasi is a researcher from the Centre for Pollution Control &
Energy Technology, Pondicherry University writing for Applied Energy a peer reviewed journal
acclaimed for articles on energy, The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy
sources, Science Direct]
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) power plants have the potential to cause
major adverse impacts on the ocean water quality. Such plants would require entraining
and discharging enormous quantities of seawater. The plants will displace about 4 m3 of water
per second per MW electricity output, both from the surface layer and from the deep ocean, and
discharge them at some intermediate depth between 100 and 200 m. This massive flow may
disturb the thermal structure of the ocean near the plant, change salinity gradients, and change
the amounts of dissolved gases, nutrients, carbonates, and turbidity. These changes could have
adverse impacts of magnitudes large enough to be highly significant. The enrichment
of the near-surface waters with the nutrient-rich cold water brought up from a depth of 1000 m
is of particular significance. Natural upwellings of cold water from great depths in the ocean
produce sites that are enormously rich in marine life. One of the well-known natural upwelling
sites is where the Humboldt current off Peru enriches the surface waters. The productivity there
is so high that almost one-fifth of the world's fish harvest comes from this region. It would be
possible to use the cold water effluent from an OTEC plant for the cultivation of algae,
crustaceans, and shellfish. In the nutrient-rich water, unicelluar algae grow to a density 27 times
greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed by filter-feeding shellfish
such as clams, oysters, and scallops. However, abundance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can
spell serious trouble as it can lead to eutrophication and all the adverse consequence
associated with eutrophication. Further, if the algal blooms caused by artificial upwelling
include certain dinoflagellates, there may be other problems. For example shellfish consume
dinoflagellates and if these shellfish are consumed by humans, it can lead to serious illness.
OTEC advocates hope that, by designing the OTEC plant to discharge its water below the photic
zone (the region in the surface waters where photosynthesizing organisms live), the surface
waters will not be enriched. Furthermore, the fish living below the photic zone do not feed on
these nutrients. However, these are unknowns and, given the magnitude of disturbances that
would be caused by OTEC, may not be as easily controllable as the proponents of
OTEC may like to believe. If nutrient-rich water is discharged anywhere near the surface
water intake valves, it could cause biofouling inside the pipes. Marine biota may be impinged on
the screens covering the warm and cold water intakes of an OTEC plant. Small fishes and
crustaceans may be entrained through the system, where they will experience rapid changes of
temperature, salinity, pressure, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. A major change occurring in the
cold water pipe is the depressurization of up to 107 pascals in water coming from a depth of
1000 m to the surface. Sea surface temperatures in the vicinity of an OTEC plant could be
lowered by the discharge of effluent from the cold water pipe. This will have impacts on
organisms and microclimate. The pumping of large volumes of cold water from depths of the
ocean to the surface will release dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen to
the atmosphere. This would influence water pH and DO status, causing stress to marine life.
Biocides, such as chlorine, used to prevent biofouling of the pipes and heat exchanger surfaces
may be irritating or toxic to organisms. If ammonia is the working fluid and it leaks out, there
could be serious consequences to the ocean ecosystem nearb y. In summary, there is
lot more to OTEC than mere utilisation of the thermal gradiant across ocean depth. The largescale utilisation of this phenomenon can profoundly disturb the fragile marine
ecosystems. Further, the disturbance being non-point in nature, can be very
difficult to control or mitigate. All this puts serious question marks before the
viability of OTEC.
Biocides, such as chlorine, used to prevent biofouling of the pipes and heat exchanger surfaces
may be irritating or toxic to organisms. If ammonia is the working fluid and it leaks out, there
could be serious consequences to the ocean ecosystem nearb y. In summary, there is
lot more to OTEC than mere utilisation of the thermal gradiant across ocean depth. The largescale utilisation of this phenomenon can profoundly disturb the fragile marine
ecosystems. Further, the disturbance being non-point in nature, can be very
difficult to control or mitigate. All this puts serious question marks before the
viability of OTEC.
Destroys fisheries
Chislock et al 13 [2013, Michael F. Chrislock is from the Department of Fisheries and
Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Enrique Doster is from the Department of Animal
Sciences, Auburn University, Rachel A. Zitomer is from the Department of Biological Sciences,
Humboldt University, Alan E. Wilson is from Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures,
Auburn University, Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic
Ecosystems, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/eutrophication-causesconsequences-and-controls-in-aquatic-102364466]
Some algal blooms pose an additional threat because they produce noxious toxins (e.g.,
microcystin and anatoxin-a; Chorus and Bartram 1999). Over the past century, harmful algal
blooms (HABs) have been linked with (1) degradation of water quality (Francis 1878), (2)
destruction of economically important fisheries (Burkholder et al. 1992), and (3) public
health risks (Morris 1999). Within freshwater ecosystems, cyanobacteria are the most important
phytoplankton associated with HABs (Paerl 1988). Toxigenic cyanobacteria, including
Anabaena, Cylindrospermopsis, Microcystis, and Oscillatoria (Planktothrix), tend to dominate
nutrient-rich, freshwater systems due to their superior competitive abilities under high nutrient
concentrations, low nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratios, low light levels, reduced mixing, and high
temperatures (Downing et al. 2001; Paerl & Huisman 2009; Paerl and Paul 2012). Poisonings of
domestic animals, wildlife (Figure 4), and even humans by blooms of toxic cyanobacteria have
been documented throughout the world and date back to Francis' (1878) first observation of
dead livestock associated with a bloom of cyanobacteria. Furthermore, cyanobacteria are
responsible for several off-flavor compounds (e.g., methylisoborneal and geosmin) found in
municipal drinking water systems as well as in aquaculture-rased fishes, resulting in
large financial losses for state and regional economies (Crews & Chappell 2007). In
addition to posing significant public health risks, cyanobacteria have been shown to be poor
quality food for most zooplankton grazers in laboratory studies (Wilson et al. 2006; Tillmanns et
al. 2008), thus reducing the efficiency of energy transfer in aquatic food webs and potentially
preventing zooplankton from controlling algal blooms
reducing poverty and hunger by improving fisheries and aquaculture. CGIAR is a global
research partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development.
Using Fisheries and Aquaculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_1105.pdf]
In 2000 the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) helped focus international attention on the
plight of the worlds poor. Yet with 2015 fast approaching many of the worlds poorest and
hungriest people are still falling behind. Indeed, even if we halve extreme poverty and hunger by
2015, at least 800 million people will remain poor and 600 million will still not have enough to
eat. Adding to this grim picture, 2008 has seen growing international alarm over future world
food supplies. Triggered initially by the growing scarcity and rising prices of wheat and rice, this
global concern has matured to recognize the need to improve production, not only of
traditional staples, but also fisheries, livestock and other food crops. Fisheries and
aquaculture have enormous potential to provide the poor with more food, better
nutrition and increased incomes. Already many of the worlds poorest billion, particularly
people in Asia and Africa, get a substantial portion of the animal protein in their diet from fish.
For many of these people, fish also provides a major source of livelihood. With targeted
investment to better manage fisheries and develop aquaculture we can substantially increase
these benefits. Globally, aquaculture has expanded at an average annual rate of 8.9% since 1970,
making it the fastest-growing food production sector. It now provides about half of all fish
for human consumption. And with half of all wild fish stocks now harvested to full capacity
and a quarter over-exploited, we can expect aquacultures share of fish production to
increase further. This can benefit poor people by improving their food security and
nutrition, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth and offering greater diversification
of their livelihoods. Although we cannot greatly increase catches from capture fisheries, wild
fish stocks remain vital to many national economies and to the day-to-day welfare
of millions of people. So it is essential that we sustain current catches and grasp
opportunities to use the fish we catch better and add to their value. Failure to sustain and make
the most of the catch will have profound consequences for the health, income, livelihoods and
well-being of poor people in many developing countries.
no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their childrenand believing that they must
fight "the others" to secure them. At the same time, the number of refugees in the world
doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and re- source
shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The coming famine is planetary
because it involves both the immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in
heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty yearsand also the impacts of war,
government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human
beings, no matter who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is
solved, billions will experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy,
one of the world's most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and
North and South America, succinctly summed it all up: "Global warming gets all the publicity
but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive scale.
Taking a 10-30 year view, I believe that food shortages, famine and huge social unrest are
probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. I believe future food
shortages are a far bigger world threat than global warming."
Abbasi, 2000; Pelc and Fujita, 2002). An additional concern could be acidification effects as
noted for naturally upwelled waters by Feely et al. (2008).
Phytoplankton turn
Intoduction of land based OTEC creates phytoplankton blooms,
blooms cause disease, destroy coastal economics, and hurt ocean
ecosystems.
NOAA 13 (6/20/13, Phytoplankton are microscopic marine plants, Florida Keys Maritime
Security, http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/plants/phyto.html, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ
In a balanced ecosystem, phytoplankton provide food for a wide range of sea creatures including
krill, shrimp, snails, and jellyfish, that are in turn food for larger animals like sea turtles, fish
and whales. However, under certain environmental conditions, such as the introduction of too
many nutrients from land based sources of pollution, phytoplankton may grow out of control
and form blooms.
These blooms can be problematic because the excess algae can block out sunlight, which is bad
for plants like seagrasses that need sunlight to make food. Zooxanthallae, or symbiotic algae that
live in the tissue of coral and supply coral with food, can also be impacted by algal blooms.
Excess algae can also smother other critters living on the ocean floor.
When blooms eventually exhaust their nutrients, the phytoplankton die, sink and decompose.
The decomposition process depletes surrounding waters of available oxygen, which marine
animals need to survive. These oxygen-depleted waters are often called dead zones, since
animals either die from lack of oxygen or leave the area to find more habitable waters.
Some algae produce their own toxins and blooms of these species are harmful to people. These
harmful algal blooms, or HABs, can cause respiratory distress and illness in people and animals
and can lead to shellfish closures. HABs cause an estimated $82 million in economic losses to
the seafood, restaurant, and tourism industries each year.
Aquaculture turn
Increased aquaculture destroys marine ecosystems
Emerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of
Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, Aquaculture Impacts on the
Environment, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php,
accessed 7/24/14)//GZ
In 1989, a sudden and catastrophic collapse of wild seatrout populations in areas close to
salmon rearing cages in Ireland gave aquaculture critics a focus for protest. Although a link
between fish farming and the decline of natural stocks cannot always be established, some
environmental effects are clear. Unlike mollusc farming, many species of fish depend on a diet of
artificial feed in pellet form. This feed is broadcast onto the surface of the water, and is
consumed by the fish as it settles through the water column. Because not all the feed is eaten, a
great deal of feed can reach the bottom where it is eaten by the benthos or decomposed by
microorganisms. This alteration of the natural food web structure can significantly impact the
local environment.
Many studies have implicated overfeeding in fish farms as the cause of changes in benthic
community structure because a high food supply may favour some organisms over others.
Moreover, sedentary animals may die in water depleted of oxygen resulting from microbial
decomposition, while the mobile population may migrate to other areas. Antibiotics and other
therapeutic chemicals added to feed (e.g. Ivermectin, Terramycin and Romet-30) can affect
organisms for which they were not intended when the drugs are released as the uneaten pellets
decompose. Nonetheless, many drugs used in fish farms have been found to have minimal (if
any) deleterious effects on the aquatic environment. Feed additives, however, are not the only
source of potentially toxic compounds in culture operations. A variety of chemicals are used to
inhibit the growth of organisms which foul netting and other structures, reducing water flow
through the cages.
Aquaculture would reduce fish stocks because its already so heavily dependent on
aquafeed.
Emerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of
Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, Aquaculture Impacts on the
Environment, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php,
accessed 7/24/14)//GZ
Ironically, fish culture is dependent on a diet of wild fish because fish meal and fish oils from
natural stocks are the primary components of artificial compounded feed (aquafeed). It can be
argued, therefore, that aquaculture cannot provide an alternative to fishing unless only
herbivorous fish and shellfish are farmed. However, the source of the fish meal is pelagic fish
such as menhaden and mackerel, species not normally consumed by humans. Additional fish
meal comes from bycatch which would otherwise be discarded as waste. Nonetheless, it is not
clear that the conversion of "trash fish" into human food via aquaculture is preferential to using
fish meal in swine and poultry feed.
As farms intensify, there is a growing trend toward the increased use of aquafeed. Almost
31,000,000 megatonnes (MT) of the world's total wild fisheries production is used for animal
feed each year, 15% of which is used in fish feed. Feed is specially formulated to ensure high
conversion efficiencies, (amount of feed needed to produced one pound of animal), and in
general, aquatic animals are far more efficient at feed conversion than terrestrial animals. Given
these facts, the strategy of feeding fish to fish seems logical, however it should be noted that only
a few percent of feed for swine and poultry is composed of fish meal, compared with 70% for
finfish and shellfish, and inefficient practices can lead to a great deal of waste. Growing a pound
of salmon may require 3-5 pounds of wild fish, and between 1985 and 1995 the world's shrimp
farmers used 36 million tons of wild fish to produced just 7.2 million tons of shrimp. In general,
the quantity of input of natural fish stocks exceeds outputs in terms of farmed fishery products
by a factor to 2 to 314.
Politics
Links
OTEC is unpopular-costs and legal status
EP 09 --Energy consultant firm that quantifies, qualifies and investigates the
feasibility of sustainable solutions for their clients, focused on reducing carbon
footprints while simultaneously pursuing client goals(Energy PlaceOcean Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC) No specific date http://energyplace.com/index.php
%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D7%26Itemid%3D11)//CS
The Earth's oceans are continually heated by the sun, and cover nearly 70% of the
earths surface. The secret to harvesting the oceans stored solar energy lies in
exploiting the difference in temperature between the warmer water at the surface,
and the colder water at greater depth. If the extraction could be made costeffective, it could provide two to three times more energy than other ocean-energy
options, such as wave power. But the small magnitude of the temperature
difference makes energy extraction, so far, relatively difficult and
expensive. How Does Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Create Electrical Energy?
Perhaps the easiest way to understand ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is
by looking at the three primary types of OTEC plant: (1) open-cycle, (2) closedcycle, and (3) hybrid. All three plants make use of a heat engine a device placed
between deep, cold ocean water and shallow, warmer water. As heat flows from the
warm water to the cold water, the heat engine uses the energy of the transfer to
drive a generator that creates electricity. Closed-cycle Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Warm surface seawater is pumped through a heat exchanger that
vaporizes a fluid with a low boiling point (e.g., ammonia). The expanding vapor
turns a turbo-generator to produce electricity. Open-cycle Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Warm seawater is placed in a low-pressure container, where it boils. The
expanding steam drives a turbine attached to an electrical generator. When the
ocean water turns to steam, it leaves behind its salt and other contaminants. The
steam is then exposed to cold ocean water, condensing it into fresh water for
drinking or irrigation. Hybrid Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Warm seawater
enters a vacuum chamber, where it is flash-evaporated into steam (similar to the
open-cycle process). The heat of the steam vaporizes ammonia in a separate
container, and the vaporized ammonia drives a turbine to produce electricity
(similar to the closed-cycle process). Vaporizing the seawater removes its salt and
other impurities. When the steam condenses in the heat exchanger, it emerges as
fresh, pure water for drinking or agriculture. Where Are the Best Locations for OTC
Plants? OTEC plants can produce more power where the temperature difference
between warm and cold ocean water is greatest. This generally occurs within 20
north and south of the equator, in the tropics. What Is the Record Power Output
From an OTEC Plant? In May 1993, an experimental open-cycle OTEC plant at
Keahole Point, Hawaii produced 50,000 watts of electricity, breaking the record of
40,000 watts set by a Japanese system in 1982. Has Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Been Tried in the Past? In 1881, French physicist Jacques Arsene
buildings. If such a system operated 8000 hours per year in a large building, and
local electricity sold for 5-10 per kilowatt-hour, it could save $200,000-$400,000
in annual energy bills (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989). The InterContinental
Resort and Thalasso-Spa on Bora Bora now uses OTEC technology to air-condition its
buildings. The system passes cold seawater through a heat exchanger, where it
cools fresh water in a closed-loop system. The cool freshwater is then pumped to
buildings for cooling (no conversion to electricity takes place). Another application
is chilled-soil agriculture . When cold seawater flows through underground pipes, it
chills the surrounding soil. The temperature difference between plant roots in the
cool soil and plant leaves in the warm air allows many plants that evolved in
temperate climates to be grown in the subtropics. Aquaculture, another viable
OTEC offshoot, is considered one of the best ways to reduce the financial and
energy costs of pumping large volumes of water from the deep ocean. Deep ocean
water contains high concentrations of essential nutrients that are depleted in
surface waters due to consumption by animal and plant life. This artificial
upwelling mimics natural upwellings responsible for fertilizing and supporting the
largest marine ecosystems, and the largest densities of life on the planet. Coldwater delicacies such as salmon and lobster, and microalgae such as spirulina can
also be cultivated in the nutrient-rich cold water from OTEC plants. As described
earlier, open-cycle and hybrid OTEC plants produce desalinated wate. System
analysis indicates that a 2-megawatt (net) plant could produce about 4300 cubic
meters of desalinated water per day (Block and Lalenzuela 1985). OTEC plants can
produce hydrogen via electrolysis, using electricity generated by the OTEC plant.
Also, minerals can be extracted from seawater pumped by OTEC plants. Japanese
researchers have recently found that developments in materials sciences and other
technologies are improving the ability to extract minerals efficiently, using ocean
energy. What Barriers Stand in the Way of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion? The
obstacles to OTEC as a viable power source are considerable, but probably
not insurmountable. Political concerns include the legal status of OTEC
facilities located in the open ocean. Costs, of course, also remain
uncertain, because so few OTEC facilities have been deployed. One study
estimated OTEC power generation costs as low as US $0.07 per kilowatt-hour,
compared with $0.05 - $0.07 for subsidized wind systems.
seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson,
co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told
the HPR, Years ago in the 80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC
and it was abandonedThat philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a
few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government
funding for this. Its not the Democrats, not the Republicans. Its a bureaucratic
issue. OTEC is not completely off the governments radar, however. This past year,
for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy
program in the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated.
OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii s National Energy
Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now,
though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic.
The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research
programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
We know from the famous equation of Albert Einstein, that a tiny amount of mass is
a vast storehouse of energy. But even the molecular Hydrogen as a result of water
decomposition, is a promising energy source of the future. However, the amount of
energy we use to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is higher compared to the
amount of energy that Hydrogen can generate using Fuel cell using Fuel. But we can
mitigate this problem by using renewable source of energy such as PV solar, Solar
(thermal), wind energy, geothermal energy, and ocean thermal energy
conversion. The cost of renewable energy is still expensive for two reasons;
We are used to cheap energy from fossil fuels for decades, and we have
already recovered most of these investments. 2. A complete switch over to
renewable energy technologies will require massive new investment. Unlike
the investments we made on fossil fuel infrastructures over several decades,
we have to invest on renewable energy infrastructure on a massive scale, and
we have to deploy them in a shorter span of time, simultaneously all over the
world. Currently there is no such infrastructure in renewable energy industry
in existence. Meanwhile the unabated emission of carbon dioxide by fossil fuels is
causing global warming. There are many skeptics on the science on global warming.
Such skepticism does not stem from the fact that they have a concrete proof but,
such skepticism serves their vested interest. Politicians who are in power do not
want any increase in the cost of energy, which becomes unpopular among
people may eventually, throw them out of power. They say they want to serve
people with low cost energy but, neither politicians nor the common man
understands the consequences of such measures. It will be our future
generations who will face the brunt of this skepticism, by facing fuel shortage or
unaffordable cost of fuel, erratic climate change, and frequent natural
catastrophies.It is time for the world to act decisively and swiftly and move towards
renewable energy, by massive investment and creation of new skills and jobs on a
very large scale. The companies who have massively invested in fossil power
plants, and the governments who depend on the support of such companies
and who want to keep the energy cost low, because of its popularity, are the
major skeptics of global warming. The hidden cost of environmental
challenges and its consequences is much higher than the savings, due to
cheap fossil fuels. It requires a paradigm shift and a sense of social justice, in
the minds of Governments and companies. It is not all that difficult to switch over
to cleaner technologies. In fact most of the technologies are already available and it
requires only a will, bold decision and leadership by Governments.
Spending
Links
OTEC has extreme compounding costs
Choi 08-- (Charles Q.The Energy Debates: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,
December 12th 2008, http://www.livescience.com/3155-energy-debates-oceanthermal-energy-conversion.html)//CS
Ocean thermal energy conversion requires a lot of money up front since
the devices are massive undertakings, Penney explained. The pipes have to be
wide or else the deep seawater rushes up too fast, heating up as it rubs against the
sides an intolerable consequence, since it needs to be cold. To get the cold water
necessary, the pipes also have to extend down thousands of feet. Keeping the
plants operating in the face of the corrosive saltwater environment and
organic matter that inevitably clogs up the works could prove challenging
also. "And for all that investment, you don't know if two months after you
deploy it whether a tropical storm will then wipe it out," Penney said. Still,
"the oil industry clearly knows how to put structures in place in the ocean and drill
down to 15,000 feet. The technology is there it could just be very costly."
The environmental impact of OTEC remains murky. While nutrients in cold water
from the deep could help aquaculture farms prosper, one question is whether they
might also help unwanted life to grow as well. "And if you're pumping up billions of
gallons from the depths, what might it change there?" Penney asked. "There's life
down there too."
being tried out. Lockheed wont release the cost of the project, but outside experts
estimate that a 10-MW facility would cost roughly US $300 million to $500
million. However, experts say that a full-scale 100-MW plant would be
more competitive at just $1.2 billion. The biggest challenge has been to
get the gold and start the project, says Varley, but in terms of engineering, he
says, I dont see any showstoppers at this point. Thats not surprising, since the
company has been working on OTEC since the 1970s, and the technology hasnt
changed drastically since then. OTEC systems make use of the temperature
differential in tropical areas between warm surface water and cold deep water. In
most systems, ammonia, which has a very low boiling point, passes through a heat
exchanger containing the warm water. The ammonia is vaporized and used to turn a
turbine, and then its cycled past the cold water to recondense. This is a renewable
energy technology with the rare capacity to supply base-load power, as water
temperatures are fairly stable. The ammonia passes through a closed loop, while
the water comes and goes through massive pipes. The project in China may pump
cold water up from a depth of about 1000 meters, using a pipe thats 4 meters
across. Varley says that some of the infrastructure can be borrowed from the
offshore drilling industry: We showed them our requirements for the platform, and
they yawned and said, Is that all you got? he says. But then we showed them
the pipe. Attaching the massive pipe to a relatively small floating platform creates
unusual stresses, Varley says. Lockheed also had to find materials for the pipes and
the heat exchangers that could withstand the harsh marine environment.
Lockheeds client is Reignwood Group, a Chinese company whose diverse portfolio
includes resort and housing developments. According to a company press release,
Reignwood Group wants the 10-MW plant to supply all the power for a large-scale
environmentally sound resort community that the company will build in southern
China. A Reignwood spokesperson did not respond to requests for more details by
press time. A Lockheed spokesperson says the companies are currently working on
site selection and that theyll start designing a facility this year to suit the specific
conditions at that site. The China project isnt the only OTEC project going ahead.
Baltimore-basedOTEC International is negotiating the terms of a 1-MW
demonstration plant in Hawaii, and the company is planning much bigger facilities
in Hawaii and the Caribbean. Both OTEC International and Lockheed Martin see their
current plans as steps toward a much more ambitious goal: utility-scale OTEC
plants. Going from a PowerPoint to a 100-MW would be too big a leap, says
Lockheeds Varley. OTEC advocates have been trying to build megawatt-scale
facilities for decades, but several ambitious projects have failed to
materialize. So why should it be different this decade? Eileen ORourke, president
of OTEC International, says theres a convergence of favorable conditions. Island
jurisdictions like Hawaii have very high energy prices and limited alternatives for
base-load power, and OTEC fits with their desire to be energy independent and
green, she says. Add in mature technology from the offshore oil industry, she says,
and we just think the time is right for OTEC.