Offshore Wind Starter Pack

Offshore Wind Starter Pack----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Affirmative-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1AC----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Contention 1: Inherency--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Contention 2: Warming---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
The Plan-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Contention 3: Solvency--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Contention __: Economy------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Inherency Extensions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
Regulatory Uncertainty--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Investment Low Now----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
Must Invest Capital------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
ITC-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
Solvency Extensions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
Generic--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
Fossil Fuels---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
ITC-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
Warming-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Jobs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
Manufacturing------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
Output---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
Sustainability-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
Biodiversity---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
Coral Reefs/Fish----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
Federal Policy------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
Federal Permits------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42
Federal Loan Guarantees------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Government Investment Key-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
AT: Infrastructure Destruction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45
AT: Construction Hurts Biodiversity----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
AT: Proximity and Transmission---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
AT: Onshore---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
AT: Other Renewables---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49
AT: Birds------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50

AT: Noise Pollution------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52

AT: General Case Turns------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54
AT: Case Outweighs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
Warming Extensions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
Warming is Real - Rahmstorf-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
Warming is Real - Scientific Consensus------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60
Must Act Now------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62
Prefer our Science--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
Brink------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 65
Internals Economy------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 66
Internals Feedbacks----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
Internals Ocean Feedbacks-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
Internals Biodiversity--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
Internals Ocean Biodiversity------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72
Impacts Extinction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 73
Impacts Biodiversity---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74
Impacts War------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75
Modelling Solvency------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 77
AT: Ice Age/Cooling------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 78
AT: CO2/Agriculture Turn----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
AT: Warming doesnt Kill Oceans-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81
AT: Warming Inevitable-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82
AT: Models Flawed------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83
Ocean Biodiversity Brink---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84
Ocean Biodiversity Plankton------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 85
Ocean Acidification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86
Ocean Acidification Biodiversity------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87
Ocean Acidification AT: Not Anthropogenic------------------------------------------------------------------------ 88
Economy Extensions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89
Uniqueness----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90
Ports No Investment Now--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91
Internals Manufacturing Sector--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92
Internals Competiveness----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94
Internals Electricity Prices--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
Impacts Nuclear War--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96
Impacts Biodiversity---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97
AT: Offcase------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98

AT: States CP-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99

AT: Federalism DA------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 104
AT: Disadvantage / Turn Uniqueness--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109
AT: Politics Bipartisan Support------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110
AT: Agency CPs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111

Negative--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------112
AT: Inherency-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113
AT: Warming--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 114
No Warming Temperatures Stable----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115
No Warming Cooling Now------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 116
Warming Inevitable------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 117
Not Human Induced----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118
No Runaway Warming-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 119
No Consensus------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 120
AT: Computer Models--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121
AT: Ocean Temperatures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 122
AT: Positive Feedbacks------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 123
AT: Reducing Emissions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 124
AT: Extinction Impact--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125
AT: Ocean Acidification Impact--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 126
AT: Biodiversity Impact------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 127
AT: Economy Impact---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128
AT: War Impact---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129
Offense Biodiversity-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130
Offense CO2 Good----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 131
Offense CO2 Good for Agriculture---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133
Impact Calculus War Outweighs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 135
Impact Calculus War = Climate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 136
Wind Xs Biodiversity Avian Collisions---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137
Wind Xs Biodiversity Noise Pollution----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138
AT: Economy--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
Econ Up------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140
AT: U.S. Key------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 141
AT: Impacts--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142
AT: Jobs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 143
AT: Jobs - Bad Methods------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 144
AT: Jobs - No New Employment-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145
AT: Manufacturing High Now--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146

AT: Manufacturing No IL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148

AT: Manufacturing Industry Exports Now------------------------------------------------------------------------- 149
AT: Manufacturing Wind Not Key---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150
AT: Manufacturing Not Key to Economy-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 151
AT: Solvency---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 152
General Solvency Answers--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 153
AT: Wind Solves Warming--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 154
Barges/Vessels----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 156
Rare Earth Mineral Shortage------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 157
Timeframe---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159
Cables Takeout----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160
No Investors-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161
PTC Fails----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 162
ITC Fails------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 164
Technology Fails--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 165
No Infrastructure--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 168
Too Costly---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169
Onshore Wind High Solves Better---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 170
West Coast---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 171
Offense Increases Warming------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 172
Offense Increases Emissions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 174
Offcase----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 175
States Solve RPS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 176
States Solve Maryland------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 177
Politics Link - Generic-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 178
Politics Link Financial Incentives----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 179
Politics Link GOP Hates the Plan----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182
Birds Link---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183

Affirmative

1AC

Contention 1: Inherency
A.

Cost competitiveness is the primary barrier to development

current tax credits are necessary but not sufficient to solve.
Hahn and Gilman 13
Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf
For the U.S. to maximize offshore wind development, the most critical need continues to be stimulation of
demand through addressing cost competitiveness. In 2013, this critical need was partially addressed through
an extension of the U.S. Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Business Energy Investment
Tax Credit (ITC), and the 50 percent first-year bonus depreciation allowance. In addition, the U.S. DOE
announced seven projects that will receive up to $4 million each to complete engineering and planning as the first
phase of the Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Program. On the state level, the Maryland
Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 established Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Credits for up to 200 MW,
requiring consideration of peak load price suppression and limiting rate impacts.

B.

Private investment is unlikely without federal financing and long

term regulatory stability.
Hahn and Gilman 13
Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf
As independent power producers (IPPs) predominantly drive the development of offshore wind projects in the
United States, offshore developers in the United States are unlikely to self-finance projects through balance
sheet financing and will therefore need access to project financing. The banks likely to participate in U.S.
offshore projects initially will be those European banks that have offshore project financing experience in Europe.
They will likely assess U.S. projects in the same way that they assess European ones. However, pricing and other
market conditions may be subject to the terms of the U.S. wind project finance market, which at times have
deviated from European terms and conditions. Given the size of proposed offshore wind projects in the United
States, the support of government agencies could be critical, via loans or loan guarantees. As discussed in
Section 2, offshore wind investors and lenders in Europe rely on support schemes that provide long-term revenue
stream stability, either directly through feed-in tariffs (FiTs) or public payments, such as green certificates, or
indirectly through long-term PPAs made possible by the underlying regime. Projects in the United States to
date, such as those in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, rely upon income received from regulated PPAs that
provide a fixed price per MWh produced that is well above the wholesale price. Another support regime that
has been proposed in New Jersey is the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC) system, which, as a
contract for differences, is not that different from a FiT. Both systems are expected to be bankable, as they
provide sufficient price support to make projects economically viable. The European experience shows that many
different regulatory regimes can be successful, as long as the overall price level is compatible with the
current installation costs of offshore wind and there is sufficient regulatory stability to cover the relatively
long development and construction process.

Contention 2: Warming
A.

Warming is real and human caused-4 reasons

Prothero 12
(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and
biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles,
and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, How We Know Global Warming is Real
and Human Caused Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest)
How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of
evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a
long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of
temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the
sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now
known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply
upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a
narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age.
There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm
Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in die 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of
the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More
revealing, die timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began
massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of
coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an
alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly
over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid
for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),4 but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast
that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.5 As one
can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar
bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting
beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf - over
3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story
typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and
interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000
years- yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a
rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest
rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes,
Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon - yet
this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia
(especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering.
The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit
villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to die North Slope of Alaska. This is
catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of
greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing,
but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list
of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in
2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated
all over the globe as their environments change.6 Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly
cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as
the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually

ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea
level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over
the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000
years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider
that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next
century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as
Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny
island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already
vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.7 Even a
small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a
storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise
alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of die world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the
Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned.

B.

Warming is an existential threat

Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at
the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming
threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial
levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and
in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely
warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been
exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C (O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels
by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change
in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of
countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even
undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on
security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been
condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change
beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is
no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the
best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

C.

Warming causes rapid ocean destruction causes extinction

immediate action key
Harvey 13 citing the International Programme on the State of the Ocean
Fiona, Rate of ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels]
October 2, 2013 //mtc
The oceans are becoming more acidic at the fastest rate in 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions
from burning fossil fuels, and a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable as a
result, leading marine scientists warned on Thursday. An international audit of the health of the oceans has
found that overfishing and pollution are also contributing to the crisis, in a deadly combination of destructive
forces that are imperilling marine life, on which billions of people depend for their nutrition and livelihood. In
the starkest warning yet of the threat to ocean health, the International Programme on the State of the
Ocean (IPSO) said: "This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth's known history. We are entering an
unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary
pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun." It published its findings in the State of the
Oceans report, collated every two years from global monitoring and other research studies. Alex Rogers,
professor of biology at Oxford University, said: "The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more

rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more
imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since
everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth." Coral is particularly
at risk. Increased acidity dissolves the calcium carbonate skeletons that form the structure of reefs, and
increasing temperatures lead to bleaching where the corals lose symbiotic algae they rely on. The report
says that world governments' current pledges to curb carbon emissions would not go far enough or fast enough
to save many of the world's reefs. There is a time lag of several decades between the carbon being emitted and
the effects on seas, meaning that further acidification and further warming of the oceans are inevitable, even if
we drastically reduce emissions very quickly. There is as yet little sign of that, with global greenhouse gas
output still rising. Corals are vital to the health of fisheries, because they act as nurseries to young fish
and smaller species that provide food for bigger ones. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the
seas at least a third of the carbon that humans have released has been dissolved in this way, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and makes them more acidic. But IPSO found the situation was
even more dire than that laid out by the world's top climate scientists in their landmark report last week. In
absorbing carbon and heat from the atmosphere, the world's oceans have shielded humans from the
worst effects of global warming, the marine scientists said. This has slowed the rate of climate change on
land, but its profound effects on marine life are only now being understood. Acidification harms marine
creatures that rely on calcium carbonate to build coral reefs and shells, as well as plankton, and the fish
that rely on them. Jane Lubchenco, former director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and a marine biologist, said the effects were already being felt in some oyster fisheries, where
young larvae were failing to develop properly in areas where the acid rates are higher, such as on the west
coast of the US. "You can actually see this happening," she said. "It's not something a long way into the future.
It is a very big problem." But the chemical changes in the ocean go further, said Rogers. Marine animals use
chemical signals to perceive their environment and locate prey and predators, and there is evidence that their
ability to do so is being impaired in some species. Trevor Manuel, a South African government minister and
co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, called the report "a deafening alarm bell on humanity's wider
impacts on the global oceans". "Unless we restore the ocean's health, we will experience the consequences
on prosperity, wellbeing and development. Governments must respond as urgently as they do to national
security threats in the long run, the impacts are just as important," he said. Current rates of carbon release
into the oceans are 10 times faster than those before the last major species extinction, which was the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction, about 55m years ago. The IPSO scientists can tell that the
current ocean acidification is the highest for 300m years from geological records. They called for strong
action by governments to limit carbon concentrations in the atmosphere to no more than 450 parts per
million of carbon dioxide equivalent. That would require urgent and deep reductions in fossil fuel use. No
country in the world is properly tackling overfishing, the report found, and almost two thirds are failing badly.
At least 70 per cent of the world's fish populations are over-exploited. Giving local communities more control
over their fisheries, and favouring small-scale operators over large commercial vessels would help this, the
report found. Subsidies that drive overcapacity in fishing fleets should also be eliminated, marine conservation
zones set up and destructive fishing equipment should be banned. There should also be better governance of
the areas of ocean beyond countries' national limits. The IPSO report also found the oceans were being
"deoxygenated" their average oxygen content is likely to fall by as much as 7 per cent by 2100, partly
because of the run-off of fertilisers and sewage into the seas, and also as a side-effect of global warming. The
reduction of oxygen is a concern as areas of severe depletion become effectively dead.

D.

Oceans are key to life on Earth

Spencer 09
Ben Spencer Reporter for the West Australian The Oceans of Life http://benspencer.hubpages.com/hub/TheOceans-Of-Life
Ever since the Earth was formed, life has depended on our oceans to survive. This is where life on Earth
began, and without the ocean, life as we know it would no longer exist. The water on Earth came in the
form of steam, as the Earth was cooling down; steam from under the Earths crust was released through
volcanic eruptions, along with many other gases. It then came down in the form of rain, the Earth rained for
thousands of years, filling up the oceans. However, this only accounted for about 50% of the water on Earth
today. The remaining body of water that is found on the earth came from comets. Because the solar system was
still forming, thousands of debris was flying around and the Earth was constantly hit by comets. A comet is a
small solar system body, most commonly known for its tail. Comets are made up of collections of dust and
rocky particles but most importantly, a comet is made up of about 50% ice. This was discovered when NASA
purposefully crashed a probe into a comet, witnessing a magnificent sight as thousands of litres of water
sprayed out into space. Given that these comets can range from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres,
when they travel into the Earths atmosphere, there is a lot of potential water for our oceans. Comets travel an
extremely elongated orbit around our sun. When the comet flies close enough to the sun, we are able to see
them. This is because the heat vaporises some of the ice which then causes a fuzzy atmosphere effect. This
effect gives the comet its tail and makes it viewable by the naked eye. Without this effect, comets can only be
seen through a telescope, and even then, they are still very hard to spot. With the combination of steam from
under the Earths crust and the excessive amounts of comets which would have been hitting the Earth as it was
forming, this explains the origin of Earths oceans. However, this does not explain why they are so important
to life on Earth. There are many reasons as to explain why the ocean is essential to life. There are two of the
main reasons for this; one of them is ocean currents. The oceans current plays such a major part on how
the Earth functions that without it, life on Earth would suffer severely. We know this because it has
happened before. The oceans current basically circulates life around the globe, achieved by its ability to
carry heat and cycle nutrients throughout the globe. Warm water from the equator gets carried along the top of
the water to the Arctic, where the water is frozen. It then is dropped to the bottom of the ocean where it follows
the ocean floor back down to the Equator. Then it heats back up, rising to the surface and gets carried back to
the Arctic. This is an endless cycle. Ocean currents are responsible for the warmer temperature in Western
Europe, as well as the Antarcticas ability to support plant and animal life in such large numbers. A
disruption of these currents would likely cause mass extinction. The second reason used to explain the
oceans importance in maintaining Earth life, is perhaps the worlds most important creature,
Phytoplankton. Phytoplanktons importance lies in its ability to produce oxygen. Like plants, Phytoplankton
takes in energy through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a process used by phytoplankton and
land vegetation that converts carbon dioxide in to organic compounds, (mostly sugar), using the energy from
sunlight. By using this process, these organisms have the ability create there own food, as long as they are in
contact with sunlight. Then they release oxygen as a waste product, therefore, making it vital for all life on
Earth. Most people believe that plants produce most of the oxygen on Earth. In actual fact, around 50% of the
oxygen produced from photosynthesis comes from Phytoplankton. From this we can understand, that the loss
of the Phytoplanktons habitat, being the ocean, would devastate all life on Earth due to a massive oxygen
shortage. A possible event that could cause this destruction of the Phytoplanktons habitat lays in the oceans
currents. If global warming continues, the Arctic will heat up enough so that it is unable to cool the water
sufficiently. This would prevent the water sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and hence the oceans
current would stop. This would be what is known as a stagnant ocean. Simply put, water stagnation occurs
when water stops flowing. Some creatures prefer stagnant water conditions, including sulphuric bacteria,
mosquito larvae and some species of frog. However, there is also a more dangerous chemical which can be
produced from stagnant water. It is known as hydrogen sulphide and it is believed to be the culprit for the
biggest known extinction in Earths history. Hydrogen sulphide is a highly toxic and flammable gas. It tends to
accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces, such as the bottom of a stagnant ocean, as it is denser

than air. It is a very pungent chemical at first; however, it quickly deadens the sense of smell which can catch
its victims unaware. It was this chemical that scientists believe caused the Permian Mass Extinction 250
million years ago. The Permian is a geological period beginning 299 million years ago and ending 48 million
years later. It was just after the Carboniferous period and is most famous for its end which was caused by a
mass extinction event. The continents back then were all in one land mass called Pangaea. Because of this, the
interior land mass became hot and dry because it was so far away from the sea. The climate was also
considered hotter due to an increase in volcanic activity. The creatures that lived during the Permian period
were very diverse. A great evolutionarily expansion was taking place during this time because the Earth was
gradually getting warmer. The communities began to become increasingly complex and there was much
variety. Unfortunately, a lot of this quick and intricate development would be in vain. The survivors of this
period would live on to become the first dinosaurs in the Triassic period. What happened in between the
Permian and the Triassic period is known as the Permian Mass Extinction, believed to have been caused by the
ocean currents stopping and the ocean becoming stagnant. This turned the entire ocean floor in to a producer of
hydrogen sulphide. As it filled the oceans, it poisoned everything, killing 95% of all marine life in the
Permian period. Then rising out of the ocean it continued on to the land and began to devastate life on land.
The Earth became a toxic and inhospitable wasteland where even the air was deadly. The sulphide also
severely weakened the ozone layers and exposed life on Earth to extremely high levels of UV radiation. 70%
of all life on land was killed. For the next 500,000 thousand years the Earth was very quiet and almost
empty. After such a radical impact on the life on Earth it took 6-7 million years for the Earth to recover.
There was very little range in diversity and scarce food sources for the life left on Earth. The reason the
oceans stopped and caused this massive destructive wave on all life on Earth is because of the warming
during the Permian period. This caused it to eventually stop the water from cooling and stop the ocean
currents. This is a clear indication of the deadly effects that can result from Global Warming. Out of all the
mass extinction phases to come to Earth, by far the worst was the one caused by Global Warming.
Today, humans are increasing the temperature of the globe from activities such as fossil fuel burning and
deforestation, which then increases concentrations of greenhouse gases. What happened in the Permian period
is an obvious signal of the dangers behind global heating. If we continue to abuse our planet, it wont be long
before the same thing happens again. Without the ocean, there is no life.

The Plan
PLAN: The United States Federal Government should substantially
increase federal tax credits and loan guarantees for offshore wind
projects.

Contention 3: Solvency
A.

Assistance from the federal government is key to Offshore Wind

Hahn and Gilman 13
Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf
For larger projects, the support of government or quasi-government agencies has long been critical. Most
offshore projects that have been project financed in Europe have received support from some combination
of the EIB; the Danish export credit agency, EKF; the German export credit agency, Euler Hermes (EH);
and, most recently, the Green Investment Bank (GIB) in the United Kingdom. The export credit agencies
could facilitate the financing of U.S.-based projects by supporting turbine manufacturers, such as Vestas,
Siemens, and REpower. The availability of 5 billion from the KfW has facilitated financing for offshore wind
projects in Germany. This financing complements other sources, such as the EIB, export credit agencies, and
commercial banks. The proposed Meerwind wind farm, mentioned above, is the first offshore project to reach
financial closing under the KfWs program. The project is unique in that it did not include EIB funding. In 2012,
the 367-MW Walney project in the United Kingdom became the first project to receive funding from the United
Kingdoms GIB. The bank contributed approximately one-fifth of the amount needed for the refinancing of the
project. As the offshore wind market matures, it will require less help from public finance institutions. In
2012, the 270 MW Lincs project in the United Kingdom received financing from a group of 10 commercial banks
but did not leverage a public finance institution.

B.

Financial incentives are key to creating sustainable energy

leadership through Offshore Wind multiple industry executives and
EPA agree
Environment America et Al 12
A Bunch of Environmental NGOs, EPA, Multiple State Governments,
http://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/resources/Offshore_wind_letter_to_President_Obama_%20Final%20072412.pdf, online 12
Support federal financial investments to spur offshore wind development until this new technology is
mature and well established. Offshore wind energy needs a long-term extension of its Investment Tax
Credit, continued DOE support for research and development, and investments in data collection for
better permitting. Set a bold goal for offshore wind development in the Atlantic, in order to provide
clear leadership and vision regarding the important role of offshore wind in Americas energy future
and demonstrate that this is a high priority for the Administration. Ensure that offshore wind
projects are sited, constructed and operated responsibly in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
conflict with local marine life and other uses. Wind energy development should be coordinated with state
and regional coastal and marine spatial planning efforts and be done in a manner that is consistent with the
goals of your historic National Ocean Policy. Permitting must also take into account the benefits to the
environment from the proposed project. Provide DOI and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
with sufficient staff and resources to manage the learning curve required to handle multiple
renewable energy leases along the coast, in order to prevent disruption of current efforts to promote
an efficient leasing process, and avoid subsequent impairment of needed financing and power offtake agreements. Prioritize coordination to secure a market for offshore wind power, including
convening coordination among the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce and state
and regional economic development, energy, and commerce agencies to identify incentives and
develop commitments to purchase offshore wind power.

C.

Offshore wind solves for greenhouse gasses

Shroeder 10
Erica Shroeder California Law Review, Volume 98 | issue 5, Article 5. Turning offshore wind on 10/31/2010Erica Schroeder, Turning Offshore Wind On, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1631 (2010). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol98/iss5/4
Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared to traditional
electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur
dioxide and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 62 Lower
emissions of traditional air pollutants mean fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally. 63
Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally
and around the world.64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of
climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant effects on terrestrial, marine,
and freshwater plant and animal species; forced changes to agricultural and forestry management; and
adverse human health impacts, including increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65 The
U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of
greenhouse gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030, with 40
percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector. 66 Thus, if the United States can get more of
its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to climate change, and help to mitigate its negative
impacts. Furthermore, wind power does not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated
with nuclear power or fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and
natural gas extraction.67 Wind power generation also does not require the water necessary to cool
traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units.68

D.

Offshore Wind farms directly trade off with CO2 from fossil fuelssubstantially better than onshore turbines
DOE 11
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
On average, one gigawatt of installed offshore wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million megawatt
hours (MWh) of electricity annually. Generating the same amount of electricity with fossil fuels would
consume 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and would emit 2.7 million tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually (S. Dolan 2010). Because offshore winds generally blow
more strongly and consistently than onshore winds, offshore wind turbines operate at higher capacity
factors2 than wind turbines installed on land. In addition, daily offshore wind speed profiles tend to
correspond well to periods of high electricity demand by coastal cities, such that the strongest winds (and
thus highest potential energy generation) correspond to the periods of greatest electricity demand(W. Musial
2010).

E.

United States federal domestic action on climate change key to

global climate leadership
Talbott 12
Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution, and John-Michael Arnold, special assistant to the President
at Brookings, 5-25-2012, Its the Climate, Stupid!
Brookings,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/5/25%20americas%20role
%20talbott/0525%20americas%20role%20talbott.pdf
And then theres climate change, the most urgent, most consequential, most dangerous issue of these times.
Climate change is also the ultimate example of the nexus between U.S. domestic and foreign policy. As long
as the United States is tied up in knots at home, it cant lead the world. American voters today have an
unprecedentedly onerous distinction: they are both the first generation to realize that they live in the era of global
warming and also the last generation with a chance to do something about it. The human enterprise must cut its
emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent in the coming decades, a period when population is projected to
grow by 50 percent. That means in the next five years people have got to begin bending the curve of emissions
that drives global warmingotherwise it will probably be too late to head off an irreversibly catastrophic
tipping point somewhere around midcentury. In meeting this daunting challenge, the United Stateswhich
has pumped almost a third of total global carbon emissions into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution
is uniquely able to catalyze international consensus and action. Whether that is called a window of
opportunity or a window of obligation, it is closing. During his campaign for the presidency four years ago and in
the afterglow of being elected, Obama seemed ideal for the role and responsibility of catalyst. His identity and
biography were like a parable of the United States as an artifact of globalization at its best. In his statements on
the campaign trail in 2008, in his victory speech in Grant Park, and in his inaugural address, he gave priority to
rescuing what he called a planet in peril, and he vowed to put new emphasis on cooperative solutions to global
threats, particularly climate change. In 2009 he undertook a rescue mission to prevent a debacle at the
Copenhagen conference on climate change. Back home, he was still pushing hard for cap-and-trade legislation
only to see it eventually collapse in the Senate. Since then, the climate issue has been the most conspicuous
symptom of 2013itis. The looming question of the 2012 campaign is whether that disease, as its nickname
suggests, can be cured after the election. Will a reelected Obama succeed in his second term where he failed in his
first? Or will a President Mitt Romney, if he survives the lingering resistance to his nomination within the GOP
and goes on to triumph in November, muster the political will to make up for all these lost years? It wont be easy.
Both men have demonstrated an awareness of the challenge and its urgency in the past. During Romneys
governorship, Massachusetts imposed mandatory carbon emission limits on power plants. But that was six years
ago. Now, in a concession to the skeptics who hold sway in his party, Mitt Romneys position is that we dont
know whats causing climate change. As for how 2012 will end, no one yet knows who will win the election and
how the Earths fever chart will look, but they can be sure of this: not only will the United States score zero
progress on the climate/energy issue, but there will be backsliding in terms of the public debate and education
surrounding it. Thats in part because outright deniers of the science and opponents of corrective action have the
upper hand in that debate, but also its because of the widespread antipathy in the American electorate to any new
taxes, notably including a carbon tax by that or any other name. One must hope that both those factors recede in
2013 and that its not too late for the United States to make the transition from being a huge part of the
problem to becoming a significantand leadingpart of the solution.

Contention __: Economy

A.

Despite recent gains in the job market, more are needed to secure
the recovery
CNN, 6/6
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/06/investing/may-jobs-report/
It took two years to wipe out 8.7 million American jobs but more than four years to gain them all back. That's
according to the Department of Labor's latest jobs report, which shows the U.S. economy added 217,000 jobs in
May. With that job growth, there are now more jobs in the country than ever before. The last time we were
near this point was January 2008, just before massive layoffs swept throughout the country, leading the
unemployment rate to spike to 10%. The unemployment rate is unchanged at 6.3% for May, and much has
improved since the worst of the crisis. Yet, this isn't the moment to break out the champagne. Given
population growth over the last four years, the economy still needs more jobs to truly return to a healthy
place. How many more? A whopping 7 million, calculates Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic
Policy Institute. President Obama's administration was quick to point out that the recovery is still incomplete by
their standards. "We're moving in the right direction, but we have a lot more work to do," said Secretary of Labor
Tom Perez. "There are way too many people who are still on the sidelines." As of May, about 3.4 million
Americans had been unemployed for six months or more, and 7.3 million were stuck in part-time jobs
although they wanted to work full-time. Both these numbers are still elevated compared to historic norms, and
are of concern to Federal Reserve officials, who will meet in two weeks to re-evaluate their stimulus policies.
Overall, this has been the longest jobs recovery since the Department of Labor started tracking jobs data in 1939.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney predict it will take two to three more years to return to "full
employment," which they define as an unemployment rate around 5.5%.

B.

Offshore wind is key to creating jobs in the United States and

abroad in port economy
Hopkins 12
Robert B. Hopkins, Duane Morris LLP. "Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate Both US and
Foreign Maritime Jobs." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012.
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/offshore-wind-farms-in-u-s-waters-wouldgenerate-both-u-s-and-foreign-maritime-jobs?cmpid=rss>.
With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the last few years
have proposed offshore wind energy legislation as a future investment in renewable energy as well as a
vehicle for American job creation. The immediate future of U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on
whether Congress renews certain tax credit and federal loan guarantee programs. In the event that offshore
wind farms move forward, it is likely that both U.S. maritime and foreign maritime workers will be
involved in construction and maintenance. A recent study by The National Renewable Energy Laboratory
estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind farms located off U.S. coastlines to be 4 times
the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity. The construction and maintenance of offshore wind
farms to tap into even a small percentage of this potential will demand a robust and competent
maritime workforce. The U.S. understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England with the
installation of the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300
megawatts). The Thanet project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation. U.S. wind
farm developers, green energy advocates and some U.S. politicians have stressed that offshore wind
farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shore-based workers. In addition, some have
pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to assert that foreign-flagged vessels crewed by foreign
maritime workers may not even be involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects. However, such a broad
statement is not entirely accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex. The Jones Act, which was enacted in
1920, establishes a system for protecting American maritime jobs and requires that U.S.-flagged vessels be

used to transport merchandise between points in U.S. territorial waters (i.e., up to 3 nautical miles off the
coastline). Moreover, this requirement is extended 200 miles offshore to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in certain scenarios involving man-made objects that are
affixed to the seabed. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act,
has issued a number of rulings that conclude that the Jones Act in certain situations does not apply to the
actual installation of wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has
been some debate on whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind farm
located over 3 miles off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance and repair. A bill clarifying
that the Jones Act would apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360) has recently passed the U.S.
House of Representatives and is now awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely
legal standpoint, foreign-flagged vessels would likely be able to participate in the installation of the
proposed wind farms, but there is some uncertainty as to whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able
to participate in maintenance/repair work. Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up
lift vessels capable of undertaking much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of offshore wind
turbines. To further confound matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm construction in Europe and China,
many foreign-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such work are now booked for the next several years.
Factoring in all of the above, it is likely that large foreign-flagged vessels will play a significant role in the
initial installation of wind turbines off U.S. coastlines, with an opportunity for smaller U.S.-flagged vessels to
render assistance. However, with the lack of available large scale foreign-flagged vessels, there are obvious
long term investment opportunities for the construction of large U.S.-flagged vessels or for the conversion of
other large U.S.-flagged vessels to undertake much of the above heavy work. One possible option is to
convert U.S.-flagged vessels now working in the oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico for this purpose.
Such investment opportunities will obviously become more attractive if a large number of wind farms move
forward in the U.S.. As to certain maintenance/repair, which could be done by smaller U.S.-flagged
vessels already in existence, if Congress passes HR 2360, U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to
maintain and repair the wind turbines. Moreover from a practical standpoint, even if HR 2360 does not
become law, it may not make economic sense to employ smaller foreign-flagged vessels for certain
maintenance/repair work. Thus if U.S. offshore wind farms become a reality, U.S. maritime workers as
well as foreign maritime workers will likely be involved in construction and maintenance

C.

Offshore wind would revitalize weak US ports and shipyards and

create millions of sustainable jobs
DOE 11
[U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, A
National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States 2.7.2011
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf>//wyo-hdm]
Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits.
According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create
approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters (W. Musial 2010). Installing 54
GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and
maintenance (O&M) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million jobyears to manufacture and install the
turbines (W. Musial 2010). Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and
shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and
maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S.
ports and heavy industry facilities. Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and
foundation structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and
installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition,
European experience has clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purpose built installation,
operations, and maintenance (IO&M) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and
port facilities. To assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design

requirements for IO&M infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and
capabilities for the benefit of all national regions. A significant portion of the cost differential between landbased
and offshore wind energy systems lies in transport and installation requirements. European experience indicates
that specialized wind system installation vessels, rather than adapted oil and gas vessels, will be required for cost
effective, high volume installation.

D.

Ports are key to the overall economy

FTU 12
Florida Times-Union, Newspaper, Feb 24, http://www.jaxport.com/about-jaxport/newsroom/news/lead-letter-ports-are-vital-economy-nation, Online 12

Our economy is linked to our waterways and international trade, and with proper strategic investment
now, our full national recovery will come by sea. Consider the facts: - Every dollar invested in port facilities
returns seven-fold. - Ships carry over 90 percent of all U.S. cargo, imports and exports. - International
trade accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. - And 13 million Americans
work in positions related to international trade. - The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that
between 2001 and 2020 total freight moved through our ports will increase by more than 50 percent and
the volume of international container traffic will at least double. Many of our nations most critical port
projects are stuck in neutral because of overlapping bureaucracy and lukewarm commitment from
Washington. Our future reputation will be based on whether we improve our gateways to the world.

E.

Growth key to prevent war

Royal 10 Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil.
Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the
Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited
by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the
security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic,
dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008)
advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global
economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one
pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of
power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining
power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with
parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although
he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests
that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security
behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long
as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be
the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and
external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between
internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict
tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg &
Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism

(Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory"
suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that
economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani
and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states
than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed
from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of
weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This
implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other
perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as
those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. [end page 214] Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and
conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to
those views.

Inherency Extensions

Regulatory Uncertainty
__Current federal policy does not establish uniform authority over
the permitting and development of offshore wind capabilities.
Vann 12
Adam, Legislative Attorney, CRS Reports, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, 10.17
Prior to enactment of EPAct in 2005, the Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) took the lead role in the federal
offshore wind energy permitting process, claiming jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act (RHA),28 as amended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).29 The Corps has jurisdiction
under these laws to permit obstructions to navigation within the navigable waters of the United States and on
the OCS.30 The Corps jurisdiction over potential offshore wind projects had never been made explicit,
however. Section 388 of EPAct sought to address some of the uncertainty related to federal jurisdiction over
offshore wind energy development by amending the OCSLA to specifically establish legal authority for
federal review and approval of various offshore energy-related projects. The provision amended the OCSLA by
adding a new subsection that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other federal
agencies, to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for certain activitieswind energy
development among themnot authorized by other OCSLA provisions, the Deepwater Port Act, the Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion Act, or other applicable law.31 A memorandum of understanding between the
Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signed in April of 2009
confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, exercised through the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM),32 an agency within DOI, over the production,
transportation, or transmission of energy from non-hydrokinetic renewable energy projects on the OCS. EPAct
also makes clear that federal agencies with permitting authority under other federal laws retain their jurisdiction,
despite enactment of this subsection.33 Thus, the Corps continues to permit offshore development pursuant to the
RHA, and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over issues related to energy development, such as species
impacts, are similarly unaffected. The legislative language does not clearly dictate which agency should take
the lead role in coordinating federal permitting and responsibility for preparing analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).34 However, several provisions within Section 388 suggest that DOI is
charged with primary responsibility. The law directs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with other agencies as
a part of its leasing, easement, and right-of way granting process.35 DOI is also responsible for ensuring that
activities carried out pursuant to its new authority provide for coordination with relevant federal agencies.36
The law also directs the Secretary to establish a system of royalties, fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments
that will ensure a fair return to the United States for any property interest granted under this provision.37

Investment Low Now

__The oil lobby prevents significant Congressional investment in
offshore wind
Robert Bowen, Staff Writer, March 5, 2014, Can offshore wind farms also reduce damage from hurricanes?,
The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/can-offshore-wind-farms-also-reduce-damage-from-hurricanes,
Accessed 5/14/2014
There currently are no offshore wind farms in the U.S. although eleven are under construction. Wind farms are
providing clean energy in many other nations, however, without incident. One reason for this is that our lobbyistowned Congress believes in off- shore oil drilling, but not offshore wind generation. The laws, regulations,
permitting processes, and the tax subsidy system is totally geared to encourage off shore oil wells even
post-BP and the huge profits they produce. They are stacked against wind farms, however.

__Low United States investment in Offshore Wind now limited

projects
Campbell 11
Richard J, Congressional Research Service, China and the United States, A Comparison of Green Energy
Programs and Policies, Digital Commons, Online 12
Offshore wind power in the United States is a fledgling industry, having just received federal authority
in 2010 to go ahead with the first U.S. offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, off the Massachusetts
coast. Known as the Cape Wind project, it will involve 130 turbines (from the German firm, Siemens AG)
with a total capacity of 420 mw.113 The overall potential for U.S. offshore wind power production capacity
was estimated at 908 gw in 2005.114

__Offshore wind will remain non-competitive until the u.s creates

financial incentives- then international investment and developent
can occur
Musail et Alt 2010
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by
DOE
Currently, capital costs for offshore projects are nearly double those for land-based wind projects. These
higher costs accrue from, for example, the offshore turbine support structures, offshore electrical
infrastructure construction, the high cost of building at sea, O&M warranty risk adjustments, turbine cost
premiums for marinization, and a decommissioning contingency. These costs can be partially offset by
increased energy production. In comparison with land-based wind, however, offshore wind is also
immature and its costs are higher because less deployment and experience has not allowed for full
realization of the learning curve, by which product costs in new industries are known to decline as a function
of production quantity. Further cost uncertainty and upward cost pressure may be introduced because of U.S.
dollar/euro exchange rates. High cost is one of the primary deterrents for would-be developers of offshore
wind. Current projects in the United States depend on policy incentives to offset some of the high costs,
but there are no guarantees that the necessary incentives will be available when a project is approved
and permitted. Developing innovative offshore wind technology, accelerating U.S. offshore wind
deployment, and implementing regulatory and operational supports to reduce the risks associated with
offshore wind investments can all have a downward influence on the future costs of offshore wind.
Section 6 covers offshore costs and economics in greater detail.

Must Invest Capital

__Must start investing capital into Offshore Wind we have entered
a period of make or break for the United States in relation to
Offshore must act strongly by 2016
IHS 12
Global Offshore Wind Energy Markets and Strategies: 20122025 June 2012 Market Study Excerpt
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emerging-energy.com
%2FuploadDocs
%2FExcerpt_GlobalOffshoreWindEnergyMarketsandStrategies2012.pdf&ei=Ipc0UJjtFsq7qAGE3YDIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHjQnFq0_5qV7MpvnrSVTlfWIJt
XA&sig2=Wxrm5YxGejL3_tSxj6ZQxg

Offshore wind is increasingly faced with pressure to deliver capacity on a large scale while proving it is
capable of reducing costs prior to projects in deeper waters, further from shore become the norm. During
this make or break window leading up to around 2016, the industry will either have had to position
itself for sustained build-out, or face a rapid decline as a non-competitive technology. Currently, an
overwhelming majority of projects are installed within a relative comfort zone of up to 30 meters water depth
and at 30 km distance from shore; 93% of European and nearly 100% of Asia Pacific capacity. The industrys
challenge in the longer term will be to increase capacity additions at lowered costs, but in more difficult
conditions. For now, interest in the offshore sector continues to grow, with investor commitments, policy
support, and technological innovations driving the industry forward. The global offshore market is
expected to reach nearly 95 GW of installed wind energy capacity by 2025. This represents 13% of total
global wind additions between 2012 and 2025. However, costs remain high and financial backing for capital
intensive projects is needed as the next generation of offshore projects heads for uncharted territory.

__Offshore wind is need massive Rand D to become commercially

viable
Musail et Al 2010
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by
DOE
The near-term technology is still immature, which is an obstacle to offshore wind development. High cost
of wind energy can, in part, be addressed directly with technology innovations that increase reliability
and energy output and lower system capital expenses. The current technology limits the domain for
offshore machines to shallow-water sites at a cost premium that is reflective of the industrys early state. New
technology is needed to lower costs, increase reliability and energy production, solve regional
deployment issues, expand the resource area, develop infrastructure and manufacturing facilities, and
mitigate known environmental impacts. Because of the high up-front investment costs required to
explore new technology innovation and the long timeline that is usually required to reap the full benefits of
high-risk game-changing innovations, many companies may not be motivated to invest in R&D for
offshore wind technology solutions.

ITC
__The Senate Finance vote supporting the Investment Tax Credit
(ITC) added momentum, but Congress has not extended credits
essential to significant offshore wind expansion
Daniel Hess, Staff Writer, April 4, 2014, Senate Finance Committee Votes to Extend the ITC for Offshore
Wind, Oceana, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/04/senate-finance-committee-votes-to-extend-the-itc-for-offshorewind, Accessed 5/14/2014
The Senate Finance committee gave a strong bipartisan show of support for domestic offshore wind energy
yesterday by voting to extend the critical investment tax credit. This vote resurrects a crucial incentive for
this nascent clean energy industry and offers a great chance to catapult the industry into the mainstream
and allow companies to plan successful projects that take advantage of the nations vast offshore wind
potential. The vote also shows that the United States is finally getting serious about transitioning to a clean and
domestically produced energy future that mitigates the effects of global climate change and creates thousands of
good-paying American jobs in the process. Todays action adds to the momentum being felt by the offshore
wind industry. The federal government is now holding multiple competitive lease sales along the Atlantic
Coast, the Cape Wind and Block Island projects are moving forward, and an Oregon floating wind project
recently received approval to develop its offshore wind resources. While this is a great victory, the fight to
extend the ITC is far from over. Now is not the time to let up our efforts. Contact your Representatives and
Senators and make sure they know how important an extension of the ITC is for the future of offshore
wind, and of clean and domestic energy in the United States!

__ITC extension was included in the EXPIRE Act, which hasnt made
it to the Senate floor
Mary Kate Francis, Staff Writer, April 11, 2014, Keeping the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit in
perspective,
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/keeping-the-renewable-energy-production-tax-credit-in-perspective, Accessed
5/18/2014
The Committee later approved, via voice vote, the Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency
(EXPIRE) Act of 2014. This bill includes an extension of the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC)
and investment tax credit (ITC) which would let wind energy developers qualify for the tax credits if they
start construction on their wind projects by the end of 2015. The next step will be for the EXPIRE Act to
move to the Senate floor for consideration.

__Senate Republicans just shut down the Expire Act

Lisa Desjardins, CNN Capitol Hill Reporter, May 16, 2014, Strange times: Republicans block tax credits -- as a
protest, CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/15/politics/republicans-tax-credits/, Accessed 5/18/2014
It is a rare, strange day when Senate Republicans vote to block billions in tax cuts. But that's what
happened Thursday when they chose to freeze a massive tax credit package in order to protest how
Democrats are running the chamber. By a vote of 53-40, the EXPIRE Act, which would extend $85 billion in
tax credits, failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Only one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk
of Illinois, voted with Democrats to advance the measure. The rest of the GOP votes were "no," as Republicans
vented anger that Democrats have refused to allow votes on their amendments to this and most other bills in the
past year.

Solvency Extensions

Generic
__Offshore Wind has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be
quickly resolved on a short learning curve
Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental
Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Turning Offshore Wind On, California
Law Review, p
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are almost
entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are
visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts
on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on
coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant
negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In
addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind powers environmental costs. These costs are site specific
and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which can
involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine
blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel
extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the
environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that offshore wind farms, if placed
right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and
vulnerable species.85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult
to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least
50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to
lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88

Fossil Fuels
__Offshore wind costs less than fossil fuels
Anthony Watts, Staff Writer, February 27, 2014, Claim: Offshore Wind Turbines for Taming Hurricanes,
WUWT,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/27/claim-offshore-wind-turbines-for-taming-hurricanes/, Accessed 5/10/2014
Jacobson and study co-author Willett Kempton, professor in UDs College of Earth, Ocean and Environment,
weighed the costs and benefits of offshore wind farms as storm protection. The net cost of offshore wind
farms was found to be less than the net cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels. The calculations take
into account savings from avoiding costs related to health issues, climate change and hurricane damage,
and assume a mature offshore wind industry. In initial costs, it would be less expensive to build seawalls,
but those would not reduce wind damage, would not produce electricity and would not avoid those other
costs thus the net cost of offshore wind would be less.

__Wind will compete with fossil fuels in coastal areas

Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Provide clean power to its coastal demand centers. High winds abound just off the coasts of 26 states. More
specifically, suitable wind resources exist near large urban areas where power demand is steadily growing,
electric rates are high, and space for new, land-based generation and transmission facilities is severely
limited. These characteristics provide favorable market opportunities for offshore wind to compete
effectively in coastal regions.

__Offshore wind can displace fossil fuels for electricity because

costs will be lower
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Increasing the percentage of renewable energy generation in our nations fuel mix has the potential to
significantly reduce harmful emissions. Although offshore wind projects have high capital costs, they have no
fuel costs and low operating costs. These characteristics allow the turbines to produce energy at a much
lower marginal cost than fossil-fuel power plants. As a result, offshore wind turbines displace power that
otherwise would have been generated by the fossil-fuel plants and avoid any emissions that would have
resulted from the combustion of the fuel. The specific type of displaced generation will vary by region and is
dependent on the mix of generation in the area.

ITC
__Extending the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind creates
over 200,000 jobs and can drive investments over $70 billion by
2030
Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean
Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed
5/14/2014
The Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind is the single most important incentive for stimulating
investment in this clean energy industry and must be included in any tax extenders package the U.S. Senate
votes on. According to the Department of Energys estimates, the U.S. has more than 4,000 gigawatts of
offshore wind power potential, which is enough to power the U.S. four times over. The DOE also estimates
that the offshore wind industry could support up to 200,000 manufacturing, construction, operation, and
supply chain jobs across the country and drive more than $70 billion in annual investments by 2030. If the
U.S. wants to take advantage of this incredible potential, we must extend the ITC and create a more certain
regulatory environment so the industry can plan successful projects that operate efficiently and bring clean
energy and good-paying jobs to our shores.

__Extending the ITC for offshore wind will reduce U.S. dependence
on fossil fuels, create jobs, and combat climate change
Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean
Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed
5/14/2014
Momentum is steadily building in the U.S. offshore wind industry. Even with promising developments, the
U.S. still lags far behind the rest of the world in developing this clean, safe, and abundant technology. Not only
is Europe well on its way to having more than nine gigawatts of offshore wind energy spinning off its shores, but
China is also rapidly getting in on the game. The long-term availability of the ITC is crucial to continuing this
strong momentum and will give the industry a much needed boost so that the U.S. can finally realize all of the
environmental and economic benefits of this clean, domestic industry and become a leader on the global clean
energy stage. Do not let the offshore wind industry get phased out before it ever gets phased in. I urge you to
capitalize on the offshore wind industrys momentum and spearhead the nations transition to a clean and
renewable energy source that will reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, create long-term domestic
jobs, combat global climate change, and save our oceans. Please vote to extend the Investment Tax Credit
for offshore wind.

__ITC Extension is essential to reap the benefits of offshore wind

Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean
Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed
5/14/2014
Clean offshore wind energy could power millions of homes and help save our planet from more burning
fossil fuels and oil spills. But this new industry needs a boost. The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) extension
has just passed the Senate Financial Committee. This tax credit helps take some of the financial pressure
off of new offshore wind projects, and can help this industry take off. But there are still hurdles to pass. Do
not let offshore wind get phased out before it is phased in. Take action today to make sure your senators know you
support extending the ITC and the promising future of offshore wind in the United States!

__The new DOE projects are insignificant. Congress must

immediately renew the ITC for offshore wind to jumpstart the
industry
Daniel Hess, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, DOE Gives Huge Boost to Clean Energy by Awarding Nearly $150
Million to Three Offshore Wind Projects, Oceana, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/05/doe-gives-huge-boost-toclean-energy-by-awarding-nearly-150-million-to-three-offshore-wind-projects, Accessed 5/14/2014
Oceana ocean advocate Nancy Sopko lauded the news: "We applaud the Department of Energys
announcement awarding nearly $150 million to three regionally and technologically diverse offshore wind
projects, an announcement which represents the continued forward motion of U.S. offshore wind. These awards
provide much-needed support to a growing and promising industry that will provide clean, renewable energy,
while helping to slow the effects of global climate change, creating thousands of good-paying domestic jobs, and
making us leaders in the global clean energy market." This announcement continues the growing momentum
weve seen in the U.S. offshore wind industry over the past few years. However, the continued uncertainty
surrounding the availability of the critically-important Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind puts a
promising clean energy future in jeopardy. "This announcement sends a clear signal that the administration is
committed to developing this clean energy, job-creating industry. But the administration cannot do this alone.
Congress must renew the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind immediately to stimulate private
investment and jumpstart a thriving domestic offshore wind industry so that we can finally begin to reap
all of the environmental and economic benefits of this domestic clean energy resource," said Sopko.

__Extending the ITC is essential to galvanize the offshore wind

industry
Zack Colman, Staff Writer, March 7, 2014, Offshore wind lobbies for credit to keep industry from blowing
away, Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/offshore-wind-lobbies-for-credit-to-keep-industryfrom-blowing-away/article/2545151, Accessed 5/14/2014
Companies looking to build an offshore wind industry are lobbying lawmakers to extend a key tax
incentive as a larger onshore wind credit faces congressional headwinds. No wind power is currently
generated off U.S. coasts, though the Obama administration is hoping to change that. It already has proposed
three commercial leases in Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island. More are likely on the way the Energy
Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory says U.S. coasts could yield 429,000 megawatts of
offshore wind electricity. Electricity capacity totaled roughly 1.1 million megawatts in 2011, according to the
Energy Information Administration. Locking up financing is another story. Without the tax credit, one
industry source said, projects might never come to fruition. That's why the industry is pounding the marbled
pavement of Capitol Hill in hopes of including a one-year extension of an investment tax credit in a possible
tax extenders package. The credit, which gives developers up to 30 percent of the project cost in cash up front,
expired last year. The industry's boosters say they are being realistic. While they want a long-term extension, they
know the GOP is even reluctant to renew an onshore production tax credit. Companies are trying to convince
Republicans that the offshore credit, like the onshore one, is a jobs issue.

Warming
__Investing in offshore wind brings four times as much electricity
without greenhouse pollution and mitigates hurricanes
Robert Bowen, Staff Writer, March 5, 2014, Can offshore wind farms also reduce damage from hurricanes?,
The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/can-offshore-wind-farms-also-reduce-damage-from-hurricanes,
Accessed 5/14/2014
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says that offshore wind farms can generate four times as much
electricity as all the power plants in the nation without the air pollution and greenhouse gas emitted by
burning fossil fuels. As remarkable as that is, there may be another reason for the United States to build
offshore wind farms: they reduce the damage from hurricanes. A ground-breaking study says that
construction of offshore wind farms can actually tame hurricanes. Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at
Stanford University completed a study last September, and published it online in Nature Climate Change
magazine last week. The study concludes that installation of wind turbines offshore could reduce wind speed from
hurricanes up 56-92 MPH, and reduce storm surge between 6 percent and 79 percent.

__Large-scale offshore wind reduces pollution from fossil fuels and

generate four times as much electricity
Wendy Koch, Staff Writer, February 26, 2014, Offshore wind farms can tame hurricanes, study finds, USA
Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/offshore-wind-farms-tame-hurricanes/5813425/,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Jacobson says large offshore wind farms can be a more cost-effective way to generate power than fossil
fuels, given the additional benefits of reducing pollution and hurricane damage. He says even existing
turbines can withstand wind speeds of up to 112 mph typical of a Category 2 or 3 hurricane -- and a large
array could slow the wind enough to prevent turbine damage from a more powerful storm. The U.S.
Department of Energy, which is promoting offshore wind development along the coasts and the Great Lakes, says
it's capable of generating four times as much electricity as do all current U.S. power plants.

__Increasing offshore wind energy development could substantially

reduce climate changing emissions
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Increasing the use of renewable energy for electricity generation is crucial to mitigate the risks of climate
change and to shift the nation to a longterm, lowcarbon economy. In his 2011 State of the Union Address,
President Barack Obama called for 80% of the nations electricity to be generated from clean energy sources,
including wind, by the year 2035. In the North American Leaders Declaration of Climate Change and Clean
Energy, the Obama Administration supported the global goal of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50%
by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because offshore wind power generates electricity without emitting CO2,
gigawattscale offshore wind deployment could contribute significantly to a national climate change
mitigation strategy. Previously, a scenario analyzed in the EERE report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 found that
the United States could generate 20% of its electricity from wind energy by 2030, with offshore wind
providing 54 GW of capacity. This analysis clearly shows the potential for wind energy, and offshore wind
in particular, to address the daunting challenge of reducing CO2 emissions in a rapid and cost effective
manner.

__Offshore wind creates energy security and reduces climate

emissions with four times the production value
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
In common with other clean, renewable, domestic sources of energy, offshore wind power can help to build a
diversified and geographically distributed U.S. energy mix, offering security against many energy supply
emergencieswhether natural or man-made. Wind power also emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) or other harmful
emissions that contribute to climate change, ground-level pollution, or public health issues. The United
States offshore wind energy resources can significantly increase the wind industrys contribution to the
nations clean energy portfolio. The United States is fortunate to possess a large and accessible offshore wind
energy resource. Wind speeds tend to increase significantly with distance from land, so offshore wind resources
can generate more electricity than wind resources at adjacent land-based sites. The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) estimates that U.S. offshore winds have a gross potential generating capacity four times
greater than the nations present electric capacity. While this estimate does not consider siting constraints and
stakeholder inputs, it clearly indicates that the U.S. offshore wind capacity is not limited by the magnitude of the
resource.

__Increasing offshore wind power prevents millions of tons of CO2

emissions and meets electricity needs
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
On average, one gigawatt of installed offshore wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million megawatt
hours (MWh) of electricity annually. Generating the same amount of electricity with fossil fuels would
consume 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and would emit 2.7 million tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually. Because offshore winds generally blow more strongly and
consistently than onshore winds, offshore wind turbines operate at higher capacity factors than wind turbines
installed on land. In addition, daily offshore wind speed profiles tend to correspond well to periods of high
electricity demand by coastal cities, such that the strongest winds (and thus highest potential energy
generation) correspond to the periods of greatest electricity demand .

Jobs
__Expanding offshore wind creates millions of jobs and revitalizes
shipyards
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits.
According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create approximately
20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters. Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in
U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs and would
require more than 1.1 million jobyears to manufacture and install the turbines. Many of these jobs would
be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and
staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.

__The plan could create 43,000 new permanent jobs and millions in
job years. These new jobs will not be outsourced
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Most of the labor for offshore wind will draw from local and regional sources that cannot be easily
outsourced overseas. Analysis done at NREL, extrapolated from European studies, estimates that offshore wind
will create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt in the United States. In addition,
approximately 0.8 jobs would be created for every cumulative megawatt of offshore wind in operation. If 54 GW
were installed under the 20% scenario, more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs
and more than 1.1 million job-years would be required to manufacture and install the turbines.

__54 gigawatts would create over $2 billion in economic activity and

more than 43,000 permanent jobs
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Revitalize its manufacturing sector. Building 54 GW of offshore wind energy facilities would generate an
estimated $200 billion in new economic activity and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid
technical jobs in manufacturing, construction, engineering, operations and maintenance. Extrapolating from
European studies, NREL estimates that offshore wind will create more than 20 direct jobs for every megawatt
produced in the United States.

Manufacturing
__The plan creates a strong domestic wind industry that revitalizes
U.S. manufacturing. This creates over $200 billion in revenue and
tons of jobs
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Developing a domestic wind industry offers a viable way to revitalize our domestic manufacturing sector
and create high-paying, stable jobs while increasing the nations competitiveness in twenty-first century
energy technologies. In the 20% scenario, 54 GW of offshore wind would create more than $200 billion in
new economic activity with a high percentage of that revenue remaining in the local economies. This
offshore wind power development would create many benefits beyond the $200 billion in revenues because
the power generated would have no fuel price variability, no emissions, and no significant use of water
resources. Finally, offshore wind development would reduce dependence on foreign energy resources.

__Increasing offshore wind revitalizes the manufacturing sector and

overall U.S. economy while reducing emissions
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Offshore wind has the potential to address all three issues: the energy supply, the environment, and the
economy. Offshore wind uses the vast renewable wind resources adjacent to the ocean perimeter of the
United States, which are domestic, indigenous, inexhaustible energy supplies in close proximity to our urban
energy load centers. Offshore wind turbines can convert the strong ocean winds into clean, renewable
power with no harmful emissions. Offshore wind has the potential to contribute significantly to the
revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing sector, which will help strengthen both the economies of coastal
states and the U.S. economy as a whole.

__Increasing offshore wind require revitalization of ports and

manufacturing to reduce costs
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry facilities. Due to
the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation structures, it is generally
advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and installation scenarios in order to
maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has
clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purpose built installation, operations, and
maintenance (IO&M) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To
assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements for IO&M
infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and capabilities for the benefit
of all national regions.

Output
__Offshore wind energy has huge potential for expansion to meet
electricity needs
Ocean Energy Council, 2014, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/oceanenergy/offshore-wind-energy/, Accessed 4/9/2014
Wind energy is recognised worldwide as a proven technology to meet increasing electricity demands in a
sustainable and clean way. Offshore wind energy has the added attraction that it has minimal
environmental effects and, broadly speaking, the best resources are reasonably well located relative to the
centres of electricity demand. Moreover, higher wind speeds at sea mean an increased energy production, as
energy output is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Average offshore wind energy increase ranges from
10-20%. It is expected that an important part of the future expansion of wind energy utilisation at least in Europe
will come from offshore sites. The first large offshore wind farms are currently in the planning phase in several
countries in Europe. However, the economic viability of offshore wind farms depends on the favourable wind
conditions compared to sites on land. The higher energy yield has to compensate the additional installation
and maintenance cost. For project planning and siting, especially for large projects, a reliable prediction of the
wind resource is therefore crucial. While the global wind-generation market is growing at a 28% annual clip, it
relies overwhelmingly on fickle government subsidies. Vestas has 40% of the market, almost three times that of
GE Wind Energy, who bought the assets of defunct Enron. The Denmark firm supplies 20% of the electricity used
by the countrys households. . The penetration of wind energy in the U.S. remains low less than 1% of
American consumption but wind players think the long-term opportunities are huge.

__Offshore wind has huge potential for energy development

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
The energygenerating potential of offshore wind is immense due to the lengthy U.S. coastline and the
quality of the resource found there (offshore winds blow stronger and more uniformly than on land, resulting in
greater potential generation). Offshore wind resource data for the Great Lakes, U.S. coastal waters, and the OCS
indicate that for annual average wind speeds above 7 meters per second (m/s), the total gross resource of the
United States is 4,150 GW, or approximately four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric
power system. Of this capacity, 1,070 GW are in water less than 30 meters (m) deep, 630 GW are in water
between 30 m and 60 m deep, and 2,450 GW are in water deeper than 60 m (see Figure 2). More than 66% of
the nations offshore wind resource is in wind class 6 or higher. The scale of this theoretical capacity implies
that under reasonable economic scenarios, offshore wind can contribute to the nations energy mix at
significant levels.

__54 gigawatts worth of offshore wind would supply 20% of U.S.

electricity by 2030
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Achieve 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. In assessing the potential for supplying 20% of U.S.
electricity from wind energy by 2030, NRELs least-cost optimization model found that 54 gigawatts (GW)
of added wind capacity could come from offshore wind. Achieving 20% wind would provide significant
benefits to the nation, such as increased energy security, reduced air and water pollution, and the
stimulation of the domestic economy.

__Offshore wind increases total output in comparison to status quo

technology respective environment ensures continual energy,
reduced visual impact, and decreased noise emission
Diez 10
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Why offshore wind energy? M. Dolores Esteban, J. Javier Diez*, Jose S.
Lpez, Vicente Negro Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, C/Profesor Aranguren S/N, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 444e450
The main difference between onshore and offshore wind installations is on their respective environment,
which are much more complex in the sea not only for the design but also for the construction and
operation works, because of the significant increase of the factors that can condition all of them. In the
following paragraphs, the most emphasized advantages and disadvantages of the offshore wind technology in
comparison with the onshore one are exposed [13e17]. The first advantage is the better quality of the wind
resource in the sea, where wind speed is usually bigger, even increasing with the distance to the coast,
and more uniform (softer), leading to less turbulence effects; therefore the fatigue is less important and let to
increase the lifetime of the offshore wind turbine generator. Other considerations due to the quality relates
to the height at which a wind turbine is placed (the optimum height for a given offshore turbine
diameter is that whose rotating blades are above the maximum wave height at the site). The
characteristics of the layer of turbulent air adjacent to the ground and to the sea surface allow the
offshore turbine to be mounted lower than the equivalent onshore machine. The second advantage
becomes from the bigger suitable free areas in the sea where offshore wind farms can be installed,
leading to greater installations. Its placement (far from population areas) lets to reduce the environmental
regarding the noise emission, nearly all related with the increase of the blade-spit speed. Also, this large
distance allows, in some cases, to reduce the visual impact from the coast. All of these statements, together
with the not such strict limitations in connection with the load to transport, make possible to install bigger
wind turbine units, achieving more production per install unit.

Sustainability
__Offshore wind is key to producing a sustainable energy resource
equivalent to the total US capacity
Melnyk and Andersen 9
Markian and Robert, Atlantic Wind Connection, Offshore Power: Building Renewable Energy Projects in U.S.
Waters, Online 12
Numbers can deceive; so what is really behind NRELs estimate? By no means does the estimate contemplate
a seascape covered with wind turbines. Note also that tidal, wave, and ocean current energy opportunities
were not included in the estimate. All areas within 5 nautical miles of the shore were excluded, as were sensitive
habitats, areas that should be off-limits due to avian and marine mammal use, shipping routes, and certain
viewshed areas. Based on conservative assumptions, the potential offshore wind resource in shallow water
is extremely large. If technology evolves to permit the installation of floating platforms or other kinds of
cost-effective bottom-mounted turbines in deeper waters, the total estimated offshore wind capacity could
be 10 times larger, comparable to the total installed U.S. generating capacity.

Biodiversity
__Offshore wind farms increase ocean biodiversity in two ways:
reduces CO2 emissions and make destructive fishing methods
impossible in the area
The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), 2012, Positive environmental impacts of offshore wind
farms, http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/members-area/information-services/offshore/researchnotes/120801_Positive_environmental_ impacts.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
Offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several ways. First of all, they
contribute to reduce CO2 emissions, the major threat to biodiversity. Secondly, provided that offshore wind
farms do not dramatically affect the initial environment conditions, they provide regeneration areas for fish and
benthic populations. This can be explained not only because of reduced trawling activities but also because
offshore wind farms foundations function as an artificial reef encouraging the creation of new habitats.

__Offshore wind farms boost marine biodiversity with new habitats

and ecosystem recovery
Business Green, Staff Writer, August 11, 2011, Offshore wind farms are good for biodiversity, say researchers,
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2100917/offshore-wind-farms-biodiversity-researchers, Accessed
5/13/2014
Meanwhile, the survey concluded that sea bird species such as gannets tend to avoid the turbines, while
seagulls appear unflustered and local cormorant numbers even increase. "The number of birds that
collided with the turbines was not determined but was estimated to be quite low on the basis of observations
and model calculations," the researchers added in the article, published in online journal Environmental
Research Letters. The study noted that the effects of wind farms will inevitably vary depending on their position,
but that offshore wind farms can contribute to a more diverse habitat and even help nature to recover from
the effects of intensive fishing, pollution, oil and gas extraction, and shipping. However, the report did
recognise that the rotating blades can have a "disruptive impact" on some bird species, and recommends that wind
farms are located in specific areas to minimise the possible impact.

Coral Reefs/Fish
__Turbine foundations boost local fish populations
Ocean Energy Council, 2014, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/oceanenergy/offshore-wind-energy/, Accessed 4/9/2014
The environmental impact of offshore wind farms is considerably reduced compared with those onshore;
both noise and visual impact are unlikely to be issues, but there are still some considerations. For example,
there could be an environmental impact from carrying out work offshore, such as localised disturbance of the
seabed. Studies on existing projects have shown that some foundations can act as artificial reefs with a
resultant increase in fish populations from the new food supply. It has been suggested that the noise from the
turbine travel underwater and disturb sea life. Nonetheless ships, boats and engines have been a fact of life for
over a hundred years.

__Turbine placement creates 2.5 times greater fish habitats

Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Offshore wind turbines may be new habitat for species. The monopile provides up to 2.5 times the amount
of area lost through placement. Although this new habitat is likely to be different than the habitat lost, it
will be a refuge and food source for species. There is a long history of artificial reef complexes associated
with offshore platforms throughout the world. To maximize the carrying capacity of the area around the
monopiles and prevent scour, developers can use different substrates to simulate different environments and thus
attract a variety of species. For example, gravel would simulate a gravel seabed, boulders would simulate a rocky
outcrop, and synthetic fronds would simulate sea grass beds.

__Offshore wind creates a reef effect that increases fish abundance

Science Daily, Staff Writer, January 19, 2010, Offshore wind power and wave energy devices create artificial
reefs, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100118132130.htm, Accessed 5/13/2014
Offshore wind power and wave energy foundations can increase local abundances of fish and crabs. The
reef-like constructions also favour for example blue mussels and barnacles. What's more, it is possible to
increase or decrease the abundance of various species by altering the structural design of foundation. This
was shown by Dan Wilhelmsson of the Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, in a recently published
dissertation.

__Turbines create new habitat structures for fish

Business Green, Staff Writer, August 11, 2011, Offshore wind farms are good for biodiversity, say researchers,
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2100917/offshore-wind-farms-biodiversity-researchers, Accessed
5/13/2014
The research, sponsored by NoordzeeWind, a joint venture of Nuon and Shell Wind Energy, claimed that offshore
wind farms actually have a beneficial long-term effect on wildlife. The wind farm functions as a new type of
habitat, the report said, detailing how new species are attracted to the turbine foundations and surrounding
rocks. The researchers also noted that the turbines help to protect schools of cod, and that porpoises are heard
more often inside than outside the wind farm.

__Ocean renewable systems are proven to create a reef effect that

bolsters fish habitats
George W. Boehlert, Ph.D. in Marine Biology, former Director of the Hatfield Marine Center and Andrew B.
Gill, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Aquatic Ecology, Environmental Science and Technology Department, School of
Applied Sciences at Cranfield University, 2010, Environmental and Ecological Effects Of Ocean Renewable
Energy Development, A Current Synthesis, Oceanography, Volume 23, Number 2,
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/16152/23-2_boehlert_hi.pdf?sequence=1, Accessed
4/13/2014
Below water, devices will include buoys, rotors or other moving structures (ocean current and tidal), cabling
systems, hard-fixed structures (such as monopoles or jackets), rock scour protection, anchors, electrical cables,
or pressurized pipes. In the case of land based ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), large pipes will extend
along the ocean bottom to significant depths. These new hard surfaces will alter bottom communities; for
wave energy in particular, most oscillating devices will be deployed in featureless sandy sedimentary habitats.
The physical structures will result in settlement habitat for different organisms, creating an artificial reef
effect as has been the case for offshore oil and gas platforms and offshore wind farms in Europe (see benthic
habitat receptor discussion). In midwater, if no anti-fouling is used, the new structure will provide settlement
habitat and likely attract pelagic organisms, the principle that makes fish aggregation devices effective.

__Wind farms can substantially boost commercial fish stocks

Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at environmental organisation Friends of the Earth, December
1, 2013, On Reflection: How offshore wind can help marine wildlife, Wind Power Monthly,
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1222618/ reflection-offshore-wind-help-marine-wildlife, Accessed
5/13/2014
But is it really possible to develop marine renewables and help nature? I chaired a session at RenewablesUK's
recent annual conference that addressed this question. Emma Sheehan from the Plymouth University Marine
Institute presented findings from the Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries report produced for
Friends of the Earth. The report summarises research into marine renewables and marine biodiversity. It
concluded that, when done well, marine renewables could indeed help wildlife. It also found that offshore
wind farms can significantly help populations of commercial fish species. Angela de Burgh, a consultant at
Marine Ecological Surveys, told us of soon-to-be-published research on the 300MW Thanet offshore wind farm
off the Kent coast. Prior to its construction, the company's survey found that much of the sea floor was degraded
due to trawling. But some colonies of ross worm that had escaped the damage. Through its burrowing activities
this worm creates a reef structure that other sea creatures colonise. By using this survey information the firm
could locate the turbines in such a way that no further damage to this important reef-forming species was caused.
Because of the wind farm there has been a reduction in damaging trawling activities. The ross worm is now
flourishing and marine wildlife such as the pink shrimp, hermit crab and anemone are returning. This is rewilding
in action.

Federal Policy
__Only Department of Energy support can significantly expand the
offshore wind industry
Elizabeth Harball, ClimateWire Staff Writer, April 28, 2014, Offshore Wind: Can a DOE competition jumpstart wind power in America's vast offshore?, Energy & Environment (E&E) News,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059998514, Accessed 5/14/2014
Speaking at an offshore wind conference held in Boston this February, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel
Poneman acknowledged offshore wind's "incredible potential" for America. But he also implored industry
leaders to prioritize "bringing down every jot and tittle that we can, shaving costs through technology, through
improved installation, and critically, critically lowering the cost of capital." High capital costs can make
offshore wind pilot projects a risky venture -- without the $47 million, several of the competitors conceded it's
unlikely their projects will proceed as planned. "This is an emerging industry and they have no
revenue...without revenue, it's all investment right now," Bowes said. "For the Department of Energy to
step up and join in that investment is really significant."

__The federal government should increase financial and tax

incentives to substantially increase offshore wind energy
Norman Y. Mineta, Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission Initiative and Former U.S. Secretary of Commerce,
Transportation, January 2014, Review of: Time to Chart a New Course For the Health of Our Oceans, Sea &
Technology, http://www.sea-technology.com/ features/2014/0114/7_Mineta.php, Accessed 4/25/2014
Action two is to promote ocean renewable energy development and reinvest in our oceans. With two successful
offshore wind lease sales this past summer and more to come, the U.S. has an opportunity to be a leader in
promoting ocean renewable energy development as a safe, environmentally responsible and economical
energy source. In order to accelerate the development of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy
sources, the Joint Initiative calls on the administration and Congress to provide adequate financial and tax
incentives for companies working to develop these technologies. The Joint Initiative also supports the
establishment of a dedicated ocean investment fund that would use a portion of the revenues from offshore
commercial energy projectsincluding oil and gas, and wind energyto support ocean and coastal science,
management and ecosystem restoration efforts to help managers and commercial interests make the best possible
decisions up and down the coasts.

__Venture capital and private industry increasing alternative energy

now lack of a federal policy to link the United States creates a lack
of progress on energy reform
Campbell 11
Richard J, Congressional Research Service, China and the United States, A Comparison of Green Energy
Programs and Policies, Digital Commons, Online 12
In the United States, while individual states may have renewable electricity mandates, there is no
federal law creating a market for renewable energy. Many believe that renewable energy technologies
need a federal policy driver which creates a national demand for renewable electricity if it is to be a
significant contributor to domestic power generation picture. This opinion is largely based on the view that
renewable energy technologies are not mature technologies, and therefore cannot yet compete with conventional fossilfueled power generation. If increased deployment of renewable electricity technologies is a U.S. policy goal, a recent
analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggests that the United States could also implement both a
renewable electricity standard and a FIT.132 Others believe that renewable energy technologies should rely on venture
capital and private sector investment alone, and the market alone should dictate whether they are employed. However, it
is noted that the United States relies more on investment from venture capitalists for clean energy

technology development than the rest of the world combined.133 Venture capital has driven much

energy innovation in the United States in the past and will undoubtedly play a role in the future in
funding the next generations of clean energy technologies.

Federal Permits
__Federal permitting consolidation is critical to circumvent
opposition to OSW and create the certainty necessary- state action
is insufficient
Kimmell and Stalenhoef 11
Kenneth, general counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, was
responsible for overseeing the state permitting of the Cape Wind project, and now serves as the Commissioner of
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Dawn, environmental law attorney and Counsel
for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, The
Cape Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project: A Case Study of the Difficult Transition to Renewable Energy, p.
The Cape Wind saga reveals that the current permitting process for offshore wind energy projects is broken.
If the nation is serious about developing offshore wind energy projects along its coasts, Congress must advance
reform. One place to look for inspiration, ironically, is Massachusetts. Despite its reputation for long and
protracted siting battles, Massachusetts has instituted two major reforms that could serve as models for federal
reform of offshore wind-project permitting. The first model reform is a one-stop permitting law that enables
the State Energy Facilities Siting Board to issue a single permit and eliminates the need for any additional state or
local permits.85 Enacted during the energy crisis of the early 1970s, this law ensures that state and local
agencies do not block power plants and infrastructure needed for a reliable energy supply. The law allows
the Siting Board to step in when an energy project proponent is denied a necessary permit or experiences
significant delays, including those caused by litigation.86 The Siting Board has broad representation: it is
composed of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the Department of Environmental
Protection, the Department of Energy Resources, the Department of Public Utilities, and three citizen members
representing labor, environmental, and consumer interests.87 It has wide jurisdiction and can review all of the
various impacts of energy facilities that would be examined by state or local permitting agencies. It may also
receive the input of all state and local agencies that would otherwise be called upon to grant permits.88 This
authority ensures that all issues and all possible objections are heard once, rather than multiple times by multiple
agencies. And unlike with most permits issued by state agencies, the appeals process is streamlined. Indeed, there
is but one appeal of a Siting Board approval, which goes directly to the state Supreme Judicial Court.89 As noted
above, this law was crucial to the success of Cape Winds permitting on the state level, because it ensured that the
permitting of the electric cables would not get bogged down in other state and local level permitting, or be
delayed by judicial appeals of such permit decisions. Had this law not been in place, it is likely that Cape Wind
would still be in litigation with the Cape Cod Commission over its denial of the electric cables and would be
defending the license issued by the Department of Environmental Protection allowing the cables to be placed in
Massachusetts tidelands. There is no comparable one-stop permitting option for offshore wind projects
available at the federal level. While the EPACT established that the MMS (now referred to as the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or BOEMRE) plays the leading-agency role for
issuance of an offshore lease, numerous other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Coast Guard will still need to issue
separate approvals for the project. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, will also play significant consultative roles.
Rather than having the appeals of the permits lodged in one court, federal law provides for multiple appeals in
various federal courts that will have to be resolved before the project can finally proceed. This multiplicity
of permitting and consultative agencies, and numerous potential judicial appeals, is a formula for delay,
confusion, redundancy, and inconsistency. In short, it is a boon for the forces of inertia.

Federal Loan Guarantees

__But federal loan guarantees dont exist yet key to offshore wind
expansion uncertainty precludes investment as banks only
partially evaluate potential farms underfunding projects
Caperton et al '12
Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean
Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. ,
"Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development" 1/12/12
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/offshore_wind.html
Loan guarantees Uncertainty around offshore wind turbines operational performance also makes it difficult to finance these projects.
When a bank evaluates a wind farm, it predicts how much power the turbines will produce each year and will only count the power
that theyre extremely confident will be produced. With an innovative technology like offshore wind, this could mean that only
half of the turbines expected output is bankable. This affects whether or not a bank thinks the developer will pay back a
loan, and ultimately influences whether or not a bank offers a loan. This is a significant problem for offshore wind
developers. But the federal government can solve this problem by guaranteeing a loan to a project developer. In this case the
government agrees to pay back a loan if the developer is unable to. This puts banks at ease (after all, the U.S. government
has a perfect track record of paying back loans) and will allow financing to flow freely. Congress has two simple ways to create a
loan guarantee program for offshore wind. They can create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or
Green Bank, which would offer financing tools like loan guarantees for innovative technologies. Or they can
allocate funding to cover the cost of new loan guarantees for offshore wind under the existing Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program.

Either way forward would help drive investment in the burgeoning offshore wind industry.

Government Investment Key

__Government development and demonstration of the technology is
needed for investors to jump on board
DOE 2011
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
In addition to elevated capital costs, offshore wind energy currently has a higher cost of energy3 than
comparable technologies. As discussed throughout this National Offshore Wind Strategy, a critical objective
of the OSWInD initiative is to lower the cost of offshore wind energy. This cost of energy can be broadly
calculated as the sum of all upfront annualized capital equipment costs and operations and maintenance costs
over the life of the project, divided by the total energy output of the project. Cost of energy is thus calculated
as a unit of currency per unit of energy (typically $/MWh or /kWh). The cost of energy can be lowered by
reducing the capital costs, financing costs, or operations and maintenance costs of a project, or by
increasing the amount of energy generated by the project over its operational life. Increased energy
generation will result from larger, more efficient, more reliable turbines with access to the best wind
resource possible. A substantial reduction in costs and increase in energy capture will have a dramatic
effect on lowering the cost of energy. Finally, projects in U.S. waters that demonstrate and validate
offshore wind technologies can help reduce the cost of financing future projects by reducing the
perceived risk of offshore wind systems on the part of investors. Current cost of energy projections must
be cut by more than 50% to enable the offshore wind deployment scenario envisioned in this National
Offshore Wind Strategy. DOE will work with all necessary parties to improve all components of offshore wind
project development, capital expenditures, and operational processes, to reduce capital costs, reduce operations
and maintenance costs, and improve energy production.

AT: Infrastructure Destruction

__New stabilizing technology resolves problems in the Pacific
Emily Atkin, Staff Writer, February 19, 2014, U.S. Offshore Wind Inches Closer To Reality As Dominion Places
Bid On Ocean Lease,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3309181/dominion-offshore-wind-lease/, Accessed 5/14/2014
Stabilizing offshore wind turbines in the Pacific has proven difficult because of the oceans sheer depth, but
Principle has proposed to solve the problem by stabilizing its turbines on floating, triangular platforms,
rather than by singular steel piles driven into the ocean floor. The emerging technology might simplify the
process of installing power equipment at sea, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said, which Principle will now
have to prove in its proposal. There are no floating offshore wind-energy projects in the United States, Jewell
said. How they interact with the fishing industry, how they interact with the marine ecosystem, all of these things
need to be understood.

__Hurricanes wont destroy turbines

The Daily Caller News Foundation, Staff Writer, February 27, 2014, Study claims giant offshore wind turbines
will blow away hurricanes, Red Alert Politics, http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/02/27/study-claims-giantoffshore-wind-turbines-will-blow-away-hurricanes/, Accessed 5/14/2014
Wait, wont the turbines be destroyed by hurricanes? Jacobson says no. The turbines blades create
resistance which slows the speeds of the storms outer winds. This in turn reduces the size of storm waves
and increases the hurricanes central air pressure. But there have been cases of wind turbines being knocked
down or even shut off because of too much wind. Last November a 10-year old wind turbine collapsed due to
high winds hitting the Oregon-Washington border.

AT: Construction Hurts Biodiversity

__Construction disturbances are minor and temporary
Anne-Charlotte Vaissire, IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Marine Economics Unit, ZI Pointe du Diable, France, et
al, September 2014, Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe,
Marine Policy, vol. 48, pp. 172183.
Turbidity and material from stirred-up sediment can impact fish. Suspended particles increase turbidity and
reduce light penetration, and in consequence photosynthesis decreases and the trophic chain balance is broken.
Underwater noise and vibration result from dredging and pile-driving: fish are disturbed and can be injured
(hearing damage, death, distorted behavior). Developers claim that these impacts are minor and temporary and
vary from species to species. Some migratory fish may be disturbed. Most of the reports say that fish usually
avoid the site during construction work. Eleven of the reports propose to avoid important stages in the fish lifecycle (mostly spawning). In 17 of the reports an acoustic startle system and/or soft start procedure during piledriving are recommended to drive fish out of the construction zone, meaning that they are not impacted by
turbidity, noise, etc. In 14 reports it is claimed that this measure can frighten fish but that they usually come
back to the site when construction is finished.

__Loss of seabed is tiny and does not threaten species. The reef
effect outweighs any loss
Anne-Charlotte Vaissire, IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Marine Economics Unit, ZI Pointe du Diable, France, et
al, September 2014, Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe,
Marine Policy, vol. 48, pp. 172183.
In 15 of the reports, the loss of seabed corresponding to the land use of piles (and scour protection when
needed) is often considered negligible in comparison with the size of the seabed as a whole and the surface area
of the wind farms. Additionally, 16 reports note that there are not many species in these sandy areas or that the
species are not threatened. Most of the farms (20) claim that the benthos is resilient: seagrass recovers after a
few years and there is a rapid recolonization and migration of animals from surrounding areas. In 7 of the
reports, some species are described as being used to a changing dynamic environment and to high turbidity (e.g.
polychaete worms and crustaceans). However, one reduction measure proposed in 10 reports is the use of a
plough instead of water jetting for the cable installation, because it affects a smaller surface area and amount of
sediment and keeps turbidity to a minimum. Five reports suggest that the reef effect around turbines is a
positive outcome that offsets the loss of seabed. The reef effect is the creation of an artificial reef leading to an
increase of biodiversity.

__Cable installation effects are non-unique. There are lots of

mitigation methods
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Transmission cable installation may also impact fish and benthic communities. These construction effects are
certainly not unique to the offshore wind industry, because the telecommunications and other electric
power sectors also bury cables. Methods that minimize seabed disturbance through cable trenching and
burial are recommended for offshore wind construction. Several options minimizing the impacts on fish
and the benthic communities from cable installation include using proven construction methods for reducing
the effect of structures and cables on existing fish stocks, food sources, and spawning activities; using
antiscouring substrate at the foundation bases to mitigate erosion; and placing cables in a fishing exclusion
zone. Considering potential impacts during structure foundation design could also minimize scouring, sediment
redistribution, and current flow.

AT: Proximity and Transmission

Offshore wind proximity to population centers decreases
distribution problems
Giordano 2010
Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States' First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind
Energy Industry [comments] University of Richmond Law Review , Vol. 44, Issue 3 (March 2010), pp. 1149-1172
Giordano, Michael P. 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149 (2009-2010)
Environmental concerns, supply uncertainties, and energy prices are driving the United States to rethink its
energy policy, and in turn, to work toward the development of cleaner, renewa- ble energy sources. As
evidence of this policy change, the Energy Information Administration reported that use of renewable ener- gy
in the United States grew 3.3% over the last year, much faster than the 0.5% growth in total energy use.' Wind
power is among the many types of energy that the federal government considers a renewable energy source.2
"Wind energy has been the world's fastest growing energy source on a percentage basis for more than a
decade," and wind energy capacity is expected to double approx- imately every three to four years. The U.S.
Department of Ener- gy ("DOE") considers wind power to be "one of the cleanest and most environmentally
neutral energy sources in the world today."4 Indeed, wind energy does not degrade our air or water, and it
avoids the detrimental environmental effects associated with mining and drilling.' The expanded use of wind
energy also slows the impacts of climate change by removing greenhouse gas emis- sions from the
atmosphere.' Onshore wind resources have the potential to supply much of the nation's energy needs, but the
challenge of transmitting electricity from remote onshore sites to large load centers limits the use of
land-based wind turbines.7 In contrast, offshore wind re- sources "are located in relative proximity to
the country's largest centers of electricity use."8 "The [DOE] estimates that the wind resources along
American ocean and Great Lakes coasts are capable of providing 900,000 megawatts (MW) of
electricity-an amount nearly equivalent to the nation's current total installed capacity."9 Production
creates economic bottlenecks protecting price inflation
Offshore Wind avoids transmission losses
Green 11
Richard Green, Nicholas Vasilakos, Department of Economics,University of
Birmingham,BirminghamB152TT,UK, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 496502 Available online 19 November 2010
Why would governments be interested in promoting offshore wind farms? Higher and steadier offshore
winds make offshore wind farms more productive (UK figures suggest a capacity factor of about 36%
compared to an average of 27% for onshore wind farms (Boyle, 2006)), which in turn implies a higher
capacity credit, and thus smaller back-up costs (Milborrow, 2009). Against this, the costs of building off
shore are much higher, and there are bottlenecks in the supply chain ,mostly due to the relatively limited
number of installation vessels and the long queues in suppliers order booksdue to the (so far) limited
production volumes of equipment and parts (Krohn etal.,2009). In the UK context, where many on shore wind
farms have been delayed or blocked by difficulties in getting planning permission, the lower visual and other
impacts of off shore wind farms are important ,and they can offer the flexibility to locate closer
to(some)load centres, thus helping to reduce transmission losses and avoid congestion bottlenecks. Even
If there were no problems in getting planning permission, the physical space available for on shore turbines in
the UK is limited, and building offshore allows a significant increase in the total potential contribution
(Mackay, 2008).

AT: Onshore
Offshore wind solves better than Onshore quality, distance,
height, and space
Diez 10
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Why offshore wind energy? M. Dolores Esteban, J. Javier Diez*, Jose S.
Lpez, Vicente Negro Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, C/Profesor Aranguren S/N, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 444e450
The main difference between onshore and offshore wind installations is on their respective environment,
which are much more complex in the sea not only for the design but also for the construction and
operation works, because of the significant increase of the factors that can condition all of them. In the
following paragraphs, the most emphasized advantages and disadvantages of the offshore wind technology in
comparison with the onshore one are exposed [13e17]. The first advantage is the better quality of the wind
resource in the sea, where wind speed is usually bigger, even increasing with the distance to the coast,
and more uniform (softer), leading to less turbulence effects; therefore the fatigue is less important and let to
increase the lifetime of the offshore wind turbine generator. Other considerations due to the quality relates
to the height at which a wind turbine is placed (the optimum height for a given offshore turbine
diameter is that whose rotating blades are above the maximum wave height at the site). The
characteristics of the layer of turbulent air adjacent to the ground and to the sea surface allow the
offshore turbine to be mounted lower than the equivalent onshore machine. The second advantage
becomes from the bigger suitable free areas in the sea where offshore wind farms can be installed, leading
to greater installations. Its placement (far from population areas) lets to reduce the environmental
regarding the noise emission, nearly all related with the increase of the blade-spit speed. Also, this large
distance allows, in some cases, to reduce the visual impact from the coast. All of these statements, together
with the not such strict limitations in connection with the load to transport, make possible to install bigger
wind turbine units, achieving more production per install unit.

AT: Other Renewables

Wind energy better than any other renewable energy
Diez 10
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Why offshore wind energy? M. Dolores Esteban, J. Javier Diez*, Jose S.
Lpez, Vicente Negro Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, C/Profesor Aranguren S/N, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 444e450
Wind energy has been clearly the fastest in its development among all the renewable energies (see Fig.
12), although in this statement hydropower must not be taken into account because of its different origin and
way of development in comparison with the other ones. Estimations suggest that global wind energy could
generate between 20,000 TWh and 50,000 TWh of electricity each year; and to put that into some
perspective, annual global electricity consumptions in 2004 was around 17,000 TWh. Anyway, note that a
recent estimate establishes the global offshore resource around 37,000 TWh [12Regarding the first one, it is
clear the huge ]. The importance of wind energy in comparison with other types of renewable
technologies could be explained due to the combination of two factors: the availability of resources and
the maturity of the technology in term of cost efficiency. availability of wind energy, but also of solar, wave
and current, much more than geothermal, small-scale hydropower and biomass. And regarding the second one,
the maturity of wind energy is high because this has been used since olden times in many economic activities:
sailing, irrigation, milling, etc., having not so a long evolution other technologies like solar, wave and currents.
Although the push of offshore wind power is clear, and wind technology should take the opportunity of
the advantages achieved onshore to move forward in the sea as soon as possible, it would be necessary to
push the rest of the technologies (wave, currents, etc.) to achieve a similar evolution as the wind one,
although more concentrated in time. This only will be possible with the government support looking for
research projects and experimental installations. Regarding the levelized cost (See Fig. 7), nowadays onshore
wind is close to the conventional technologies, but offshore is still far, and more even the marine
hydrodynamic ones; but in the future it is expected the distances will be reduced.

AT: Birds
__Bird collisions are unproven with multiple alternate causes and
most just avoid them
Anthony Bicknell, Ph.D., Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre at the Plymouth Marine Institute,
Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine
Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_
renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
Mortality of birds through collision with MRE devices may have direct population-level impacts. However,
quantifying collision rates (inferred mortality) for different species at offshore installations is a major constraint
to assessing its impact. Novel survey methods, such as radar and infrared detection systems, are now being
applied and developed for offshore wind-farms, but there are still limited data on collision rates. Research
indicates the risk of collisions is likely to be species and site specific, and affected by many factors: flight
behavior (e.g. altitude and manoeuvrability), avoidance ability, proximity of migratory corridors and/or feeding
areas, weather conditions and structure lighting. In addition, age and reproductive stage may affect collision risk,
and different mortality between age classes may lead to quite different population-level impacts. Overall, for
offshore wind-farms the evidence suggests that avoidance (see Displacement and barriers to movement) is the
most likely cause of negative impact on local bird abundance (with much site and species variation) rather
than a direct effect of collision.

__The benefits to fish stocks and climate change outweigh the

negligible possibility of avian collisions
Robert Furness, PhD, Professor, and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow & Principle
Ornithologist, MacArthur Green Ltd., et al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries,
Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_
renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
MRE will necessarily play an important role in providing the clean, low carbon energy needed to reduce global
carbon emissions and combat climate change. However, the environmental benefits, where possible, should not
come at detrimental impacts on marine ecosystems and species. The evidence suggests MRE developments will
have both direct and indirect negative effects on certain breeding and migrating birds but whether these
will cause population level impacts is still unclear, and any impacts need to be put into the context of
potentially larger effects of climate change and variations in fishing activity. The potential for cumulative
effects of multiple arrays is one of the major concerns associated with MRE and long-term, wide scale studies are
required to elucidate any impacts on bird populations. Mitigating potential impacts can only be done at the
planning stage of MRE developments and would require both local and international consultation. The impact on
bird populations, however, does not seem to be entirely negative and potential positive effects may counter
these detrimental effects and enhance local habitat and benefit populations.

__Current evidence says no collisions and mitigation efforts take out

the impact
Anthony Bicknell, Ph.D., Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre at the Plymouth Marine Institute,
Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine
Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_
renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
Further research is required on the collision risk with MRE installations, and a standardised framework for
assessment would help enable meta-analyses of impacts over multiple sites. The current evidence suggests the
impact is low and, in isolation, will be unlikely to have population-level impacts. It should not however be
underestimated for vulnerable and/or migratory species and may contribute to potential cumulative effects
(see Cumulative effects) which can be potentially mitigated by the thoughtful siting of wind-farms.

__Danish studies prove avoidance only causes trivial energetic costs

Anthony Bicknell, Ph.D., Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre at the Plymouth Marine Institute,
Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine
Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_
renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
An increase in flight distance while foraging or migrating to avoid a MRE installation will have a higher
energetic cost to birds. In many species, reproductive success is related to body condition, so any reduction in
mass resulting from increased flight requirements could be detrimental and directly impact breeding success and
population size. A study of ~200,000 migrating common eiders at a Danish offshore wind-farm recorded flight
trajectory changes that corresponded to an increase of 500m to a 1400km journey. The increase in energetic
cost was found to be trivial and only an avoidance response equivalent to 100 similar size wind-farms
would cause detectable change in bird body mass. The intrinsic cost of flight, however, varies between species,
as does the energetic requirements and constraints of foraging, so this needs to be considered when assessing
possible impacts of MRE installations. Moreover, cumulative effects of regular avoidance of MRE installations
(e.g. during foraging or provisioning flights, multiple site on migration), may increase the energetic cost and
significantly affect body condition, survival or reproduction in certain species.

__Offshore wind only kills 1 in 100,000 birds

Musail et Al 2010
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by
DOE
Of these risks, assessments suggest that collisions and barrier effects (disturbance) could have the largest
impacts on sea birds and resting birds (COD 2005). In most cases, bird collisions with offshore wind
turbines are only a minor problem (Greenpeace International 2005). A key concern in the topic of avian
risk, however, is the potential harm done to endangered species, where the loss of one individual could
have a measurable impact. Quantitative risk estimates for collision, however, are difficult to calculate
for several reasons: Results are highly site specific and therefore can often appear contradictory
(Desholm and Kahlert 2005). Inadequate data exist on bird migration routes and flight behavior (Exo,
Huppop, and Garthe 2003). Impacts vary for different bird species. Measurements account only for bird
carcasses that are found. The range of methods includes thermal imaging, microphone, and visual
observations. There may not be a direct correlation between pre- and post-construction avian presence.
Several offshore facilities studies suggest minimal or no significant impacts on bird life from offshore
wind farms (CA-OWEE 2001). Precautionary risk reduction and mitigation measures are available to
reduce potential risks from wind turbines, including: Monitoring and understanding transient and
resident bird behaviors Siting in areas with lower activities (e.g., avoiding high-density and migratory
waterfowl areas, breeding areas, and migratory areas of species of concern) Reducing the potential for
cumulative effects through careful monitoring and siting. In contrast, relatively high collision mortality
rates have been recorded in isolated instances at a few poorly sited, land-based wind farms in areas with
large concentrations of birds such as Altamont Pass in California and Tarifa in Spain (BirdLife International
2003). A recent presentation at the IEA Wind Task 28 meeting in October 2009 summarized the latest
avian research from land-based wind studies (Strickland 2009). Individual projects affected individual birds
rather than populations after informed siting and other impact reduction measures were taken. No studies
documented detrimental effects to birds as a result of wind farm lighting. For offshore wind, a recent
study of 1.5 million migrating seabirds from Swedish wind farms in Kalmarsund concluded that the
fatality risk was only 1 in 100,000 passing seabirds (Pattersson 2005). Offshore wind farms in the United
States would most likely be placed along the eastern coast in the Atlantic, in the Great Lakes, and in the Gulf
of Mexico, which are all part of major flyways for hundreds of thousands of migrating birds (Figure 8-4). The
USFWS estimates that 7 to 10 million birds use the Mid-Atlantic to North Atlantic shoals areas.

AT: Noise Pollution

__Theres no impact to noise. Marine mammals are used to it and
effects are temporary
Anne-Charlotte Vaissire, IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Marine Economics Unit, ZI Pointe du Diable, France, et
al, September 2014, Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe,
Marine Policy, vol. 48, pp. 172183.
Noise and vibration can affect marine mammals health if they are on the site (hearing damage). Moreover,
because fish are also leaving the site, food resources for marine mammals can decrease temporarily. Most of the
reports note that marine mammals usually avoid the site during construction work. Thirteen reports propose
avoiding periods of high frequentation by marine mammals (breeding and molting) or limiting disturbance when
mammals are present. A Marine Mammals Observer can be used to determine if activity must be temporarily
halted because of the presence of marine mammals. In 24 of the reports an acoustic startle system and/or a soft
start procedure during pile-driving are recommended to drive marine mammals out of the construction zone. At
least 5 reports propose the use of an air bubble curtain so that animals will not be impacted by noise and vibration.
Nineteen reports note that this measure can frighten marine mammals but that they usually return fairly
quickly after the construction work (even between pile-driving sessions) because they become accustomed
to it. The noise and vibration are also quite comparable to existing activity in the region (marine traffic,
dredging, oil platforms, etc.) according to at least 4 reports. Lastly, for 7 farms in the United Kingdom, marine
mammals are said to be not very numerous, so there should be no significant impact in their case.

__There are mitigation measures to overcome noise and the impacts

are short term with wind power
Manuela Truebano, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, et
al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth
University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed
5/12/2014
Based on the studies presented, there is evidence that noise during the construction of wind farms can cause
physical damage to individuals in close proximity to the source, trigger changes in behavior at greater
distances, and lead to temporary displacement. Mitigation measures are available to minimise the effects of
pile driving. For wind farms, the initial construction noise may induce avoidance reactions, with later
return of the fish to the habitat, provided the sound levels are low and allow habituation to take place. Other
MRE devices are less understood. Neither wave nor tide use pile driving to locate devices and so concerns during
construction may be minimised. Operational noise for most such devices, however, is yet to be measured.

__Fish will get accustomed to noise and vibrations, while the reef
effect will offset
Anne-Charlotte Vaissire, IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Marine Economics Unit, ZI Pointe du Diable, France, et
al, September 2014, Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe,
Marine Policy, vol. 48, pp. 172183.
Underwater noise and vibration from the turbine rotors disturb fish. They can also be sensitive to the
electromagnetic field generated by the cables. These two impacts are not well described at the moment but may
represent a health risk for fish and will probably lead them to avoid offshore wind farms. The impact is likely to
vary depending on the species, and some migratory fish may be disturbed. In 11 reports it is claimed that fish will
get accustomed to noise and vibration. In 19 reports, the reef effect is expected to benefit the fish by
providing them with more food resources: they are attracted by the colonized turbine piles and scour
foundations (this is called the fish aggregating device effect in some reports). A ban on fishing is proposed
around at least 16 wind farms, which ought to create a reserve effect on fish populations. The reserve effect is the
protection of a zone by prohibiting extracting activities like fishing. Generally, very little is known about the

impact of electromagnetic fields. Twelve reports from British wind farms propose to bury, insulate, or armor the
cables so as to reduce the magnitude of their electromagnetic field.

__New technologies will mitigate noise

Martin Attrill, Professor and Director of Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, June 19, 2013, Marine
Renewables,
Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University,
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
New technologies for offshore wind may significantly mitigate the levels of noise from construction and
operation. The development and use of suction pile foundations may significantly mitigate construction
noise impacts, as could a move towards floating wind turbine technology, which would remove the need for
major pile driving (although moorings need fixing) and there are designs for offshore, vertical axis wind turbines
much more suitable for marine conditions and floating platforms. These newer technologies should be encouraged
as they are likely to be a better ecological option, reducing the unequivocally most damaging aspect of MRE
developments, which is pile-driving during construction.

__Noise pollution risks have alternate causes. Theres only a risk

facilities will be good for fish
Manuela Truebano, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, et
al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth
University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed
5/12/2014
Masking of fish communicative signals during operation is a possibility for some species which use lowfrequency sounds, comparable to the low frequency part (95 Hz) of the pile-driving pulse. However, given
the level of marine anthropogenic noise in general, it would be difficult to disentangle those effects
associated with MRE devices, if any. Studies on the potential long term effects of stress due to an increased
noise level and effects of noise disturbance on fish spawning are lacking. For benthic communities, the
colonisation of wind turbines is taken as an indication that noise and vibration have no detrimental effects
on the attached fauna.

AT: General Case Turns

__Mitigation strategies reduce all risks
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Risks associated with offshore wind energy are not as serious or potentially catastrophic compared with
other energy supply technologies. Also wind turbines can be deployed relatively quickly to reduce greenhouse
gases, reduce other air emissions and help conserve water resources. Potential risks in deploying offshore wind
projects can typically be reduced through development and use of best management practices, mitigation
strategies, and adaptive management principles. Although risks are site-specific, research at European installed
projects and U.S. baseline studies are building the knowledge base and helping to inform decision makers and the
public.

__Any negative effects are predictable and minimal

Anne-Charlotte Vaissire, IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Marine Economics Unit, ZI Pointe du Diable, France, et
al, September 2014, Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe,
Marine Policy, vol. 48, pp. 172183.
Residual impacts are not significant because measures for avoiding or reducing environmental offshore
impacts have been efficient. In this case ecological offset is unnecessary. This is the main reason put forward in
the EIA reports. One research paper claims that offshore wind farm development is not benign for the marine
environment but that the impacts are minor and can be mitigated through good siting practices. Another
paper notes this consensus in the EIA reports, suggesting that potential negative effects should be predictable
and even that many are likely to be minimal or not occur at all (e.g. [32]).

AT: Case Outweighs

__Offshore wind costs half as much as fossil fuels, while mitigating
hurricanes, air pollution, and global warming
Mark Z. Jacobson, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Cristina L. Archer,
College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, and Willett Kempton, College of Earth,
Ocean, and Environment, and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Delaware,
March 2014, Taming hurricanes with arrays of offshore wind turbines, Nature Climate Change, vol. 4, pp. 195200, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2120.html, Accessed 5/11/2014
Including hurricane damage avoidance, reduced pollution, health, and climate costs, but not including tax
credits or subsidies, gives the net cost of offshore wind as ~4-8.5kWh, which compares with ~10kWh for
new fossil fuel generation. The health and climate benefits significantly reduce wind's net cost, and
hurricane protection adds a smaller benefit (~10% for New Orleans), but at no additional cost. In sum, large
arrays of offshore wind turbines seem to diminish hurricane risk cost-effectively while reducing air
pollution and global warming and providing energy supply at a lower net cost than conventional fuels.

__Offshore wind is cost-effective, reduces fossil fuel pollution costs,

and save on hurricane damages
James Ayre, Staff Writer for Clean Technica, February 28, 2014, Offshore wind farms hold potential to weaken
hurricanes, research finds, The Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/28/offshore-wind-farms-holdpotential-to-weaken-hurricanes-research-finds/, Accessed 5/14/2014
Jacobson acknowledges that, in the United States, there has been political resistance to installing a few
hundred offshore wind turbines, let alone tens of thousands. But he thinks there are two financial incentives
that could motivate such a change. Those two financial incentives are, of course, the reduction of hurricane
damage costs (Hurricane Sandy caused $82 billion in damages), and the simple fact that wind farms pay for
themselves in the long-term especially when you factor in the health and climate-related costs of fossil
fuel power. The turbines will also reduce damage if a hurricane comes through, Jacobson stated. These
factors, each on their own, reduce the cost to society of offshore turbines and should be sufficient to
motivate their development.

__Offshore wind development avoids problems of wind onshore

Ocean Energy Council, 2014, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/oceanenergy/offshore-wind-energy/, Accessed 4/9/2014
There are several factors which suggest the development of an offshore wind energy industry. The resource is
extremely large, the energy costs, although initially higher than for onshore, are cheaper than other renewable
technologies and the risks are low, as several demonstration projects elsewhere have shown. Many people,
while agreeing that wind turbines are a useful strategy, are not happy to see them in their area. This is the NIMBY
principle not in my back yard. Siting wind turbines at sea will reduce the constraints that can be found on
land, such as the visual impact and planning challenges.

Warming Extensions

Warming is Real - Rahmstorf

__Warming is real and human induced numerous studies prove
Rahmstorf 8
Stefan Rahmstorf is a German oceanographer and climatologist. Since 2000, he has been a Professor of Physics of
the Oceans at Potsdam University. He received his Ph.D. in oceanography from Victoria University of Wellington.
, Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, Edited by Ernesto Zedillo, Anthropogenic Climate Change?, pg.
42-4
It is time to address the final statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is
anthropogenic. A large number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue,
which is generally called the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic
contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent.The
first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected
from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to
explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds
to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake,
would Cause 1.6C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C). With a
current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is O.8c. The point here is not that it
is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is
still very' uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt that the
anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing and
climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming
than has been observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The
second important piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the scientific
literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the observed global warming.
Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well
observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since 1978, solar
irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle,
but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers,
solar cycle length, the geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate
that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation
in previous centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last
sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors
mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling
in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this
volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is downward.The only way out would be either some as
yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by chance from an unforced
internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be completely ruled out, but has to be
considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest
that such internal variability could cause a sustained trend of global warming of the observed
magnitude. As discussed, twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or
even 2,000 years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the
idea of large internal fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar
variability, volcanic activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal
variability." And indeed, it would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the
fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around
different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the
atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops
as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the

ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming.
The heat content of the whole climate system is increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat
other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to
analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, which associate
particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced
climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases. For example, a
characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that, unlike solar
variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such studies have used different
data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical
methods. They consistently conclude that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be
explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered, highly likely' that the observed
warming is indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases. ' This paper
discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of
CO2 on climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a
mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect on climate of 3C 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of
concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies
since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3C
1.0C) This is based on consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the
absence-of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from
climate history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the chance that these
conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows
logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further
warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to
various emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous
range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in
these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other
greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are
not discussed here, although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest
and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean
and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an
optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere
turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the
more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3C above its
preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an
extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As
far as the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable
temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also
highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend
occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of
about 5C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 C per century. 52 The expected magnitude and rate
of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise
(Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets),
extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem
loss. The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and
discussed what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured
and-well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most
of the observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming
is exactly what would be expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable
alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the
very strong evidence accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades

convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical,
including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we need to deal.

Warming is Real - Scientific Consensus

__Consensus of Peer Reviewed evidence says global warming is real
and anthropogenic
Powell 12
(James, Dr., executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,The Earth Is Warming And Human
Activity Is The Primary Cause: The Climate Science Paradigm Grows Stronger
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/16/1203401/the-earth-is-warming-and-human-activity-is-the-primarycause-the-climate-science-paradigm-grows-stronger/)
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold
standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists , based not on opinion but on hard

evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature. I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool,
for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have
the keyword phrases global warming or global climate change. The search produced 13,950 articles. See
methodology. I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify
articles that reject human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and
explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other
process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy,
some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about
methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global
warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and
assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise. This work follows that of
Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase
global climate change. She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected humancaused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and
her findings, but they have held up. Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example,
climate change without the global prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting
global warming would be any higher. By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles , 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly
reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is
here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That
compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to global warming, for example. Four of the rejecting articles have
never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these
articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the mostcited in the history of science.

__Vast scientific consensus warming exists and is anthropogenic

consensus even higher than in the past
Lieberman 12
(Bruce Lieberman, freelance writer covering science and environmental topics, 5/2/12, Scientific Consensus
Stronger than Scientists Thought? http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/scientific-concensusstronger-than-scientists-though/)
More than two decades after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began publishing the
latest scientific consensus on the globes changing climate, widespread doubts persist in the U.S. over
whether there really is widespread agreement among scientists. Its the primary argument of those who
deny basic scientific foundations of warming. But new and innovative survey results suggest the
consensus among scientists might actually be stronger than the scientists themselves had thought. The
battles to define and debunk scientific consensus over climate change science have been fought for years. In
2004, University of California San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote about a broad consensus she
found after studying 928 scientific papers published between 1993 and 2003. Meanwhile, the blow-up over
climate researchers hacked e-mails in 2009 fueled speculation among skeptics that consensus actually is the
closely guarded creation of a small cabal of scientists determined to silence opposing views, accusations now
widely dismissed as unsubstantiated. That perspective has been largely debunked, but the beat goes on. On the
heels of a January 26 skeptics letter (No Need to Panic About Global Warming) in The Wall Street Journal,
there have been several follow-up commentaries. They include a vigorous rebuttal on March 22 in the New
York Review of Books by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus; a follow-up response in the April
26 edition of same journal by climate change skeptics Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen;
and a second response by Nordhaus. Now, from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Minnesota
Institute on the Environment, comes a fresh study on the question of scientific consensus. Its findings offer
something new: scientists appear actually to underestimate the extent to which they, as a group, agree on
key questions related to climate change science. In sum, the newly released poll results identified
surprisingly common points of agreement among climate scientists; and yet for each point, those scientists
underestimated the amount of agreement among their colleagues. The results: Human activity has been the
primary cause of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures in the last 250 years. (About 90
percent of respondents agreed with this characterization, but those respondents estimated that less than 80
percent of their scientist colleagues held that view.

Must Act Now

__Only action now solves future catastrophe
Antholis and Talbott 10 Director and President @ Brookings
William Antholis, managing director of the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow in Governance Studies,
former director of studies at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and Strobe Talbott, president of the
Brookings Institution, deputy Sec. of State under Clinton, The Global Warming Tipping Point, The Globalist,
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8523
Moreover, we need to start reductions now in order to slow temperature rise later. Even if we could flip a
switch and shut down all emissions, gases that are already in the atmosphere will continue to trap heat for
some time to come. Once emitted into the atmosphere, a molecule of carbon dioxide, or CO2, lingers for
decades. So gases emitted today are added to ones that have been around for 50 years or more. The current
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 385 parts per million (ppm) and growing by two ppm each
year. If we continue with current warming trends, the globe could keep warming for millennia. Even if
the human species is biologically resilient enough to survive for centuries, the human enterprise may well be
hard to maintain in anything like its current form. Today, humanity is cumulatively emitting, on a yearly
basis, around 30 gigatons of CO2. A gigaton is a billion tons. Thirty gigatons is about the weight of 8,000
Empire State Buildings, which, if stacked one on top of another, would reach almost 2,000 miles into space. Of
those 30 gigatons of CO2 that will be emitted this year, just under six gigatons are from the United States. To
keep CO2 concentrations below 400 ppm and thereby keep temperature rise below 3.6F, we should use the
next four decades to cut the current output of 30 gigatons a year approximately in half. Thirty gigatons is about
the weight of 8,000 Empire State Buildings, which, if stacked one on top of another, would reach almost 2,000
miles into space. So that is another target for mitigation: a staged process that would bring the global annual
output down to 15 gigatons a year by 2050. To reach that goal, we have to build a new worldwide system for
generating and using energy. We have to begin quickly in order to achieve the bulk of the necessary cuts
between 2020 and 2035 so that there is some hope that, by 2050, emissions will have come down to 15
gigatons, concentrations will have stabilized below the 400 ppm level and temperature rise will have
flattened out before hitting the 3.6F mark. At the heart of this mammoth undertaking is a transition from
a high-carbon to a low-carbon global economy that is, one that is powered as much as possible by forms
of energy that do not burn fossil fuels and therefore do not pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

__Must act now solves risky and expensive solutions in crisis

Carnesale 11 Professor of Engineering @ UCLA
Albert, PhD in Nuclear Engineering, UCLA Chancellor Emeritus, Professor of Public Policy and Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, 3-2011, Americas Climate Choices,
http://americasclimatechoices.org/ACC_Final_Report_Brief04.pdf
In the judgment of this reports authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks
posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate
change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts. There are many reasons why it is imprudent to delay such
actions, for instance: The sooner that serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions proceed, the
lower the risks posed by climate change, and the less pressure there will be to make larger, more rapid,
and potentially more expensive reductions later. Some climate change impacts, once manifested, will
persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, and will be difficult or impossible to undo. In contrast,
many actions taken to respond to climate change could be reversed or scaled back, if they some how prove to
be more stringent than actually needed.

Prefer our Science

__There should be an extremely high standard of evidence in
debates about global warming current climate skepticism ignores
peer-review, comes from unspecialized writers, cherry picks
evidence and is informed by ideology
Somerville 11 Professor of Oceanography @ UCSD
Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I for the
2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3-8-2011, CLIMATE
SCIENCE AND EPA'S GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis
Although the expert community is in wide agreement on the basic results of climate change science, as
assessed in AR4 and The Copenhagen Diagnosis, much confusion exists among the general public and
politicians in many countries, as polling data convincingly shows. In my opinion, many people need to learn
more about the nature of junk or fake science , so they will be better equipped to recognize and reject it.
There are a number of warning signs that can help identify suspicious claims. One is failure to rely on
and cite published research results from peer- reviewed journals. Trustworthy science is not something
that appears first on television or the Internet. Reputable scientists first announce the results of their
research by peer-reviewed publication in well-regarded scientific journals. Peer review is not a guarantee
of excellent science, but the lack of it is a red flag. Peer review is a necessary rather than a sufficient
criterion. Another warning sign is a lack of relevant credentials on the part of the person making
assertions, especially education and research experience in the specialized field in question. For example,
it is not essential to have earned a Ph. D. degree or to hold a university professorship. It is important, however,
that the person be qualified, not in some general broad scientific area, such as physics or chemistry, but in the
relevant specialty. Accomplishments and even great distinction in one area of science do not qualify anybody
to speak authoritatively in a very different area. We would not ask even an expert cardiologist for advice on,
say, dentistry. One should inquire whether the person claiming expertise in some area of climate science
has done first-person research on the topic under consideration and published it in reputable peerreviewed journals. Is the person actively participating in the research area in question, or simply criticizing it
from the vantage point of an outsider? One should be suspicious of a lack of detailed familiarity with the
specific scientific topic and its research literature. Good science takes account of what is already known and
acknowledges and builds on earlier research by others. Other warning signs include a blatant failure to be
objective and to consider all relevant research results, both pro and con a given position. Scientific honesty
and integrity require wide- ranging and thorough consideration of all the evidence that might bear on a
particular question. Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize
those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a
practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science. Mixing science
with ideology or policy or personalities is never justified in research. Scientific validity has nothing to do
with political viewpoints. There are no Republican or Democratic thermometers. Whether a given politician
agrees or disagrees with a research finding is absolutely unimportant scientifically. Science can usefully
inform the making of policy, but only if policy considerations have not infected the science. Similarly, one
should always be alert to the risk of bias due to political viewpoints, ideological preferences, or connections
with interested parties. All sources of funding, financial interests and other potential reasons for bias should be
openly disclosed. Finally, we must always be alert for any hint of delusions of grandeur on the part of
those who would insist that they themselves are correct, while nearly everyone else in the entire field of
climate science is badly mistaken. Scientific progress is nearly always incremental, with very few
exceptions. Occasionally, an unknown lone genius in a humble position, such as the young Einstein doing
theoretical physics while working as a clerk in a patent office, does indeed revolutionize a scientific field,
dramatically overthrowing conventional wisdom. However, such events are exceedingly rare, and claims to be

such a lone genius deserve the most severe scrutiny. For every authentic Einstein, there must be thousands of
outright charlatans, as well as many more ordinary mortals who are simply very badly mistaken.

Brink
__On the brink of runaway warming now Tipping points can be
averted
Kelly 12
[, Kelly 2012. 400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide Levels Cross A Sobering New Threshold.
http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/06/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-levels-cross-sobering-new-threshold (Kelly Levin
is a senior associate with WRIs major emerging economies objective. She leads WRIs Measurement and
Performance Tracking Project, which builds capacity in developing countries to create and enhance systems that
track emissions and emissions reductions associated with climate and energy policies and low-carbon
development goals.)]
Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most responsible for global warming, and its concentration in the
atmosphere provides a strong signal of how close we are in moving toward irreversible climate change.
Because the projected impacts of higher CO2 concentrations are so significant, many advocate that we need
to stay around 350 ppm in order to maintain astable climate system. Present global average atmospheric
CO2 concentrations, however, are 393.9 ppm. If current trends continue, it should take roughly four years
for global levels to reach 400 ppm, according to NOAA. Part of the variation in regional CO2 levels is a
result of the vegetation in mid-latitudes, which absorb CO2 during the spring and summer, causing somewhat
lower concentrations in these areas. Levels then rise again during the fall, when CO2 is emitted from decaying
plant matter. Despite these seasonal ups and downs, growth of global atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide has accelerated over the past half century, increasing roughly 2 ppm annually. To put this data into
context, scientific models show that CO2 concentrations are greater today than at any time in the last
800,000 years This trend has accelerated rapidly in the post-industrial age, leading scientists to draw the
connection between human activity and the heightened CO2 levels. IEA: Record-High Emissions The news of
surpassing the 400 ppm marker was made more troubling as it coincided with new data from the
International Energy Agency (IEA), which indicates that global CO2 emissions increased 3.2 percent over
the past year, reaching a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt). The IEA suggests that the world is now just 1
Gt away from the level at which CO2 emissions must stay if we are to have a 50 percent chance of
keeping the rise in global average temperature to 2C above preindustrial levels. And most scientists
suggest that even a 2C increase is too high, as some parts of the worldsuch as the polar regions
would face temperature increases of two-to-three times the global average. Globally, temperatures have
risen 0.8C since the late 1880s, and we are already seeing climate-related impacts take hold. Global
temperature increases have already led to: earlier springtime and shifts in animal migration patterns;
increased glacial runoff and warming of many rivers; enlargement of glacial lakes; changes to food
chains; and shifts in ranges and abundance of plankton and fish. All of these have significant impacts on
people, ecosystems, and economies around the world.

Internals Economy
__Warming collapses the economy
Burkett 8 Professor of Law
Maxine Burkett, Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School, 2008, Just Solutions to Climate
Change: A Climate Justice Proposal for a Domestic Clean Development Mechanism, 56 Buffalo L. Rev. 169,
Lexis
The EJ communities will also, of course, be subject to the more general and commonly cited negative
effects of climate change; and, further aggravating these outcomes, the dire economic forecasts for the
globe will be felt acutely by EJ communities. The environmental risks these communities disproportionately
suffer, mentioned just above, acquire a more dangerous hue when income is taken into account. A report by
noted economist Sir Nicholas Stern warns that unless urgent action is taken, the planet faces an economic
calamity on the scale of the Great Depression and the world wars. 34 Using formal economic models,
Stern [*180] suggests that climate change will produce "market failure on the greatest scale the world has
seen," 35 which should lead the world to grave concern. 36 This is particularly relevant to EJ communities,
as the first and most severe effects of economic downturn are borne by the poor. 37 Less obvious climate
change risks include increases in the costs of energy and food, employment restructuring within and
across industries, and impacts on the uninsured. With respect to costs of basic goods, increases will come
with clear, attendant disadvantages, as these costs already represent a large proportion of the budgets
for the poor and of-color. 38 Employment restructuring, including layoffs and hiring freezes, with the "last
hired, first fired" phenomenon, will certainly worsen the economic damage of global warming caused to
individuals, families, and communities. 39 [*181] Finally, warming will hit the uninsured hardest. At
present, of the tens of millions of Americans who are without health insurance, for example, the rate for people
of color is twice that for whites. 40 Natural disasters in EJ communities are particularly fierce, as many of the
communities' residents are often renters, without renter's insurance, and lack savings to recover from disasters.
41 Additionally, low-income earners typically are without the resources to compensate for the lack of
insurance. 42 These factors, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will be critically
important as education, health care, prevention initiatives, and infrastructure and economic development
directly shape the health of populations. 43 Existing conditions suggest troubling, substantial impacts on
domestic populations.

__Warming collapses the economy and free trade

Dyer 9 PhD in ME History
Gwynne, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former @ Senior Lecturer in War Studies at
the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Climate Wars
Among the non-linear political events Fuerth foresees in the event of severe climate change are class
warfare "as the wealthiest members of every society pull away from the rest of the population;" an end
to globalization and the onset of rapid economic decline owing to the collapse of financial and pro- .
duction systems that depend on integrated worldwide systems; and the collapse of alliance systems and
multilateral institutions, including the United Nations. He suggests that massive social upheavals will be
accompanied by intense religious and ideological turmoil, in which the principal winners will be
authoritarian ideologies and brands of religion that reject scien tific rationalism. Even more disturbing
(and persuasive) is his observation that "governments with resources will be forced to engage in long,
nightmarish episodes of triage: deciding what and who can be salvaged from engulfment by a disordered
environment. The choices will need to be made primarily among the poorest, not just abroad but at home. We
have already previewed the images, in the course of the organizational and spiritual unravelling that was
Hurricane Katrina. At progressively more extreme levels, the decisions will be increasingly harsh: morally
agonizing to those who must make and execute thembut in the end, morally deadening."

Internals Feedbacks
__Warming creates positive feedbacks exponentially increases the
impact on the brink
Hansen 8 Professor of Earth and Environmental Science
James E. Hanson, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor
in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University, Al Gores science advisor,
Briefing before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, US House of
Representatives, 6-23-2008, Twenty years later: tipping points near on global warming,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Fast feedbackschanges that occur quickly in response to temperature changeamplify the initial
temperature change, begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more
water vapor, which traps additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that
absorb more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to warming, forests and shrubs are moving
poleward into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and warms the
environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West
Antarctica ice sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas,
is bubbling out. Paleoclimatic records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gases methane, carbon
dioxide, and nitrous oxideall increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive feedbacks
amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer. The predominance of positive feedbacks explains
why Earths climate has historically undergone large swings: feedbacks work in both directions, amplifying
cooling, as well as warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed between
colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of Earths
axis.2 The second fundamental property of Earths climate system, partnering with feedbacks, is the great
inertia of oceans and ice sheets. Given the oceans capacity to absorb heat, when a climate forcing (such as
increased greenhouse gases) impacts global temperature, even after two or three decades, only about half of
the eventual surface warming has occurred. Ice sheets also change slowly, although accumulating evidence
shows that they can disintegrate within centuries or perhaps even decades. The upshot of the combination of
inertia and feedbacks is that additional climate change is already in the pipeline: even if we stop increasing
greenhouse gases today, more warming will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present status of
Earths climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years). It has been warm
enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on
Greenland and Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its
warmest level in the Holocene.3 The warming that has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have
been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together have brought us to the precipice
of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate state includes large, ready
positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and much of Greenlands ice.
Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over
the edge, we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by
humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include
more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of coastal cities. An intensified
hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from
central Texas through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for
agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern
Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater source as
glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.

Internals Ocean Feedbacks

__Oceans act as positive feedback
Crueger 8 PhD in Meteorology
Traute, et al, 2008, Ocean dynamics determine the response of oceanic CO2 uptake to climate change, Climate
Dynamics, Springer Link
The increase of the global temperature during the last 150 years can at least partially be attributed to
the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations as a consequence of anthropogenic activities such as the
continuous enhancement of fossil fuel burning and deforestation (Houghton et al. 2001). These emissions
have led to an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm in 1800 (Enting et al. 1994) to
369 ppm in 2000 (Keeling and Whorf 2005). This increase, however, accounts only for a portion of the
total CO2 emissions, since only about half of the emissions have been stored in the atmosphere. The
ocean takes up more than one third of the released CO2 (Sarmiento and Gruber 2002; Houghton et al.
2001). Much effort has been made to assess the ocean carbon cycle, especially the budget and spatial
distributions of the atmosphere/ocean CO2 fluxes (Key et al. 2004; Sabine et al. 2004; McNeil et al. 2003;
Takahashi et al. 2002; Murnane et al. 1999). Furthermore, simulations with coupled atmosphere ocean general
circulation models (AOGCM) with different complexities have been performed to assess the future CO2
uptake of the oceans under the assumption of continuously increasing CO2 emissions and the accompanying
climate change. Firstly, these simulations did not allow estimating the response of atmospheric CO2 content to
changing CO2 uptake of the land and the ocean. More recently, such simulations with a full coupling between
climate and the carbon cycle have been performed in order to assess the magnitude and the mechanisms of the
climate-carbon cycle feedback (Gregory et al. 2005; Dufresne et al. 2002; Friedlingstein et al. 2001, 2003,
2006; Sarmiento et al. 1998; Cao and Woodward 1998).In a pioneering study, Cox et al. (2000) found a
strong positive feedback. Towards the end of the twenty-first century, the atmospheric CO2
concentration additionally increased by around 250 ppm as a consequence of lesser uptake by both, the
land and the ocean, in the warmer climate scenario. Friedlingstein et al. (2003, 2006) investigated the
feedback of 11 coupled climate-carbon cycle models. They showed that the feedback between climate
change and atmospheric CO2 is positive. For all models, the climate change-induced atmosphereland
fluxes account for the main contributions, whereas the oceanic contributions are smaller. For all but one
models a smaller ocean uptake is found in the simulation including climate warming than in the simulation that
suppresses climate warming. This tends to increase atmospheric CO2 and thus represents a positive
feedback contribution of the ocean.Some potential physical and biogeochemical drivers of the ocean
carbon cycle in a warm climate have been discussed earlier, mostly favoring a decrease of oceanic CO2
uptake due to climate change (Sarmiento et al. 1998, 2004, Sarmiento and Hughes 1999; Plattner et al. 2001;
Friedlingstein et al. 2001; Cox et al. 2000; Mignone et al. 2006; Russell et al. 2006):1. Warming of the ocean
decreases the solubility of CO2 and subsequently the CO2 uptake by the oceans (reduced solubility
pump).2. Increasing sea surface temperatures and enhanced freshening of the surface water strengthen the
thermal stratification. On the one hand this is expected to shallow the mixed layer depth (MLD), leading to
less vertical transport of carbon into the deep ocean. On the other hand, the reduced ventilation favors a
reduction of nutrient transport to the surface layers and hence primary production in surface waters.3.
Under climate change conditions, the ocean circulation undergoes some significant changes, e.g. a
weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Stouffer et al. 2006), which is suggested to
reduce the vertical transport of carbon into deep ocean layers.4. An enhancement and a poleward shift of
the main wind belt in the Southern Hemisphere, which are expected in a warmer climate (Bengtsson et al.
2006; Kushner et al. 2001; Yin 2005), are suspected to maintain a robust Southern Ocean Overturning,
allowing the ocean to increase the transport of anthropogenic CO2 into the deep ocean.The main scope of this
study is to investigate the mechanisms responsible for the projected changes in CO2 uptake by the oceans. For
that reason we evaluate two transient simulations of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPIESM), consisting of the atmosphere, the ocean including the biogeochemistry and the land surface including

the vegetation. Both simulations are forced with increasing CO2 emissions. In both simulations, the
atmospheric CO2 interacts with the terrestrial and oceanic carbon cycle. However, greenhouse gas warming
due to increased atmospheric CO2 is only allowed in one simulation, whereas it is inhibited in the other
simulation. Therefore, the differences between CO2 fluxes reflect the effect of greenhouse gas warming on the
carbon cycle. An evaluation of both simulations, with a special focus on the land biosphere, is found in
Raddatz et al. (2007). Their study confirms previous findings of a positive climate-carbon cycle feedback. In
particular, it is found that this feedback is dominated by the tropical land biosphere, which accounts for more
than 80% of the climate change effect, whereas a smaller contribution (<20%) is ascribed to the ocean
(Friedlingstein et al. 2006). These simulations were also included in the model intercomparison study of
Friedlingstein et al. (2006), who found that the additional atmospheric concentration due to global warming
simulated by the MPI-ESM of about 80 ppm in 2100 is within the range of 50100 ppm obtained for most
models. Furthermore they found that the change in CO2 uptake by both the land and the ocean in the MPIESM simulations is also within the range of most models. Although smaller than the contribution of the land,
possibly simply due to its lagged response, the ocean ,carbon-climate feedback is of fundamental interest,
since the ocean represents a dominant sink of anthropogenic carbon. Changes of key features of the
oceans carbon cycle, e.g. SST, circulation, sea ice coverage and export, are supposed to modify the ocean
carbon cycle, which in turn may lead to fundamental changes of atmospheric CO2 and hence climate.

Internals Biodiversity
__Warming collapses biodiversity outweighs all alternate causes
Hansen 8 Professor of Earth Sciences @ Columbia
James E, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University. Al Gores science advisor. Introductory
chapter for the book State of the Wild. Tipping point: Perspective of a Scientist. April.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf
Climate change is emerging while the wild is stressed by other pressures habitat loss, overhunting,
pollution, and invasive speciesand it will magnify these stresses. Species will respond to warming at
differing paces, affecting many others through the web of ecological interactions. Phenological events, which
are timed events in the life cycle that are usually tied to seasons, may be disrupted. Examples of phenological
events include when leaves and flowers emerge and when animals depart for migration, breed, or hibernate. If
species depend on each other during those timesfor pollination or food the pace at which they
respond to warmer weather or precipitation changes may cause unraveling, cascading effects within
ecosystems. Animals and plants respond to climate changes by expanding, contracting, or shifting their
ranges. Isotherms, lines of a specific average temperature, are moving poleward by approximately thirty-five
miles (56 km) per decade, meaning many species ranges may in turn shift at that pace.4 Some already are: the
red fox is moving into Arctic fox territory, and ecologists have observed that 943 species across all taxa and
ecosystems have exhibited measurable changes in their phenologies and/or distribution over the past several
decades.5 However, their potential routes and habitat will be limited by geographic or human-made
obstacles, and other species territories. Continued business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions threaten
many ecosystems, which together form the fabric of life on Earth and provide a wide range of services to
humanity. Some species face extinction. The following examples represent a handful. Of particular concern
are polar species, because they are being pushed off the planet. In Antarctica, Adelie and emperor penguins
are in decline, as shrinking sea ice has reduced the abundance of krill, their food source.6 Arctic polar bears
already contend with melting sea ice, from which they hunt seals in colder months. As sea ice recedes earlier
each year, populations of polar bears in Canada have declined by about 20 percent, with the weight of
females and the number of surviving cubs decreasing a similar amount. As of this writing, the US Fish and
Wildlife Service is still considering protecting polar bears, but only after it was taken to court for failure to act
on the mounting evidence that polar bears will suffer greatly due to global warming. 7 Life in many
biologically diverse alpine regions is similarly in danger of being pushed off the planet. When a given
temperature range moves up a mountain, the area with those climatic conditions becomes smaller and rockier,
and the air thinner, resulting in a struggle for survival for some alpine species. In the Southwest US, the
endemic Mount Graham red squirrel survives on a single Arizona mountain, an island in the sky, an
isolated green spot in the desert. The squirrels, protected as an endangered species, had rebounded to a
population of over 500, but their numbers have since declined to between 100 and 200 animals.8 Loss of the
red squirrel will alter the forest because its middens are a source of food and habitat for chipmunks,
voles, and mice. A new stress on Graham red squirrels is climatic: increased heat, drought, and fires. Heatstressed forests are vulnerable to prolonged beetle infestation and catastrophic fires. Rainfall still occurs,
but it is erratic and heavy, and dry periods are more intense. The resulting forest fires burn hotter, and the
lower reaches of the forest cannot recover. In the marine world, loggerhead turtles are also suffering. These
great creatures return to beaches every two to three years to bury a clutch of eggs. Hatchlings emerge after
two months and head precariously to the sea to face a myriad of predators. Years of conservation efforts to
protect loggerhead turtles on their largest nesting area in the US, stretching over 20 miles of Florida coastline,
seemed to be stabilizing the South Florida subpopulation. 9 Now climate change places a new stress on these
turtles. Florida beaches are increasingly lined with sea walls to protect against rising seas and storms. Sandy
beaches seaward of the walls are limited and may be lost if the sea level rises substantially. Some creatures
seem more adaptable to climate change. The armadillo, a prehistoric critter that has been around for over 50

million years, is likely to extend its range northward in the US. But the underlying cause of the climatic
threat to the Graham red squirrel and other speciesfrom grizzlies, whose springtime food sources may shift,
to the isolated snow vole in the mountains of southern Spainis business-as-usual use of fossil fuels.
Predicted warming of several degrees Celsius would surely cause mass extinctions. Prior major warmings
in Earths history, the most recent occurring 55 million years ago with the release of large amounts of Arctic
methane hydrates,10 resulted in the extinction of half or more of the species then on the planet. Might
the Graham red squirrel and snow vole be saved if we transplant them to higher mountains? They would
have to compete for new niches and there is a tangled web of interactions that has evolved among species
and ecosystems. What is the prospect that we could understand, let alone reproduce, these complex
interactions that create ecological stability? Assisted migration is thus an uncertain prospect. 11 The best
chance for all species is a conscious choice by humans to pursue an alternative energy scenario to
stabilize the climate.

__Warming collapses key biodiversity hotspots

-makes adaptation impossible
Lynas 7 Associate @ Oxfords School of the environment
Mark, advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives, Educational focus on Politics and History, Six
Degrees, pg. 63-64
This memorable animal may be the first, but it is no longer the only amphibian to have gone extinct because of
rising temperatures: Frog populations have crashed all around the tropics, with more than 100 out of 110
tropical American harlequin frog species disappearingeven in seemingly pristine forests far away from
direct human disturbance. Although no one knows exactly why, some biologists blame the chytrid fungal
pathogen, which is invading new areas and may be causing sudden population crashes. Others blame mystery
diseases that are so far undiscovered and unidentified. But experts are largely agreed on one thing: Rising
temperatures are central to the extinction epidemic, either by helping the new diseases spread or by
stressing amphibian populations and making them more susceptible to die-offs. In this particular murder
scene, the weapon may still be in dispute but the overall culprit is clear. Nowhere, it seems, is safe. One
degree of global warming will have severe impacts in some of the world's rarest environments, adding to
the biodiversity crisis that is now well under way for reasons unrelated to our changing climate. Pushed
out to the margins and isolated in smaller and smaller pockets of natural habitat by ever expanding zones of
human influence, vulnerable wild species will find it impossible to adapt to rapidly changing
temperatures by migrating or altering their behavior.

Internals Ocean Biodiversity

__Warming tanks ocean biodiversity
Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 10 Both Professors in Relevant Fields
Ove, Professor of Oceanic Biology and John, Professor of Marine Sciences, 6-2010, The Impact of Climate
Change on the Worlds Marine Ecosystems, Science Mag, Science
Marine ecosystems are centrally important to the biology of the planet, yet a comprehensive
understanding of how anthropogenic climate change is affecting them has been poorly developed.
Recent studies indicate that rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems
toward conditions not seen for millions of years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible
ecological transformation. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean
productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species
distributions, and a greater incidence of disease. Although there is considerable uncertainty about the spatial
and temporal details, climate change is clearly and fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems. Further
change will continue to create enormous challenges and costs for societies worldwide, particularly those in
developing countries.

__Warming collapses ocean biodiversity cuts are key to limit

nonlinear transformation
Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 10 Both Professors in Relevant Fields
Ove, Professor of Oceanic Biology and John, Professor of Marine Sciences, 6-2010, The Impact of Climate
Change on the Worlds Marine Ecosystems, Science Mag, Science
Earth, with its life-filled ocean, is unusual among planets (1). Covering 71% of Earths surface, the ocean
nurtured life on our planet and continues to play a dominating role in regulating its climate. Change has
been the norm as Earth has swung through a variety of states in which life has prospered, dwindled, or
experienced calamitous declines. In the latter case, intrinsic events (e.g., volcanic activity) or extrinsic events
(e.g., large meteorite strikes) have sometimes resulted in hostile conditions that have increased extinction rates
and driven ecosystem collapse. There is now overwhelming evidence that human activities are driving rapid
changes on a scale similar to these past events (2). Many of these changes are already occurring within
the worlds oceans (Figs. 1 and 2), with serious consequences likely over the coming decades. Our
understanding of how climate change is affecting marine ecosystems has lagged behind that of terrestrial
ecosystems. This is partly due to the size and complexity of the ocean, but also to the relative difficulty of
taking measurements in marine environments. Long-term studies of climate change in the oceans are rare by
comparison to those on land (3). Here, we review the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on marine
ecosystems, revealing that the majority are changing rapidly with an increased risk of sudden nonlinear
transformations. Given the overwhelming importance of the ocean to life on our planet, these changes
underscore the urgency with which the international community must act to limit further growth of
atmospheric greenhouse gases and thereby reduce the serious risks involved.

Impacts Extinction
__Leads to human extinction via biodiversity collapse
Lynas 7 Associate @ Oxfords School of the environment
Mark, advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives, Educational focus on Politics and History, Six
Degrees, pg. 118-119
Nor is the loss of biodiversity just an aesthetic concern. While I along with many people feel that natural life
and biodiversity have an intrinsic value, separate from their use to humans, all of human society is at root
dependent on natural ecosystems. This might come as news to the average city dweller digging in to a ready
meal in front of the TV, but it doesn't make it any less true. From fish to fuel wood, nature's bounty feeds us,
houses us, warms us, and clothes us. Soils wouldn't support agriculture were it not for the organic matter
broken down by bacteria. Crops wouldn't set seed unless pollinated by bees. The air wouldn't be
breathable were it not for photosynthesis by trees and plankton. Water wouldn't be drinkable were it not
for the cleansing action of forests and wetlands. Many of the medicines that extend our life spans were first
developed from natural substances produced by plants and animals, and many more undoubtedly remain to be
discovered. Life even regulates the nutrient cycles of the planet: Had ocean-dwelling organisms not
sequestered excess carbon into limestone and chalk over millions of years, our habitable planet would long
ago have turned into Venus, which suffers blistering surface temperatures of 500C (932T)hot enough to
melt lead thanks to an inhospitable atmosphere composed 96 percent of carbon dioxide. Some of these
ecosystem services can be replaced by technology, as many economists might suggest. Think, for example, of
hydroponics: the replacing of natural soil with synthetic rooting material and a cocktail of chemicals. Hut
ecology is such a complicated web that we cannot even understand many of the living interactions that go on
within ecosystems, let alone imagine that we can somehow redesign and replace them. Scientists once tried to
build a sealed living world, nicknamed Biosphere 2, from scratch in a big greenhouse in the Arizona desert.
They failed. As carbon dioxide levels rose within the sealed greenhouses, Biosphere 2'8 human inhabitants
must have reflected on the lessons they were learning as they gasped for air. Functioning ecosystems cannot
be created artificially. Life keeps us alive, and we lay waste to it at our peril.

__Warming leads to extinction

Burkett 8 Professor of Law
Maxine Burkett, Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School, 2008, Just Solutions to Climate
Change: A Climate Justice Proposal for a Domestic Clean Development Mechanism, 56 Buffalo L. Rev. 169,
Lexis
The unparalleled scale of impact the climate crisis has had, and will continue to have, on the globe has been
forecasted for almost a century. 3 Most recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
concluded that the warming of the climate system is "unequivocal." 4 With this warming comes the threat of
more [*174] extreme weather, including more intense and longer droughts than have already been observed, 5
heavy precipitation including increased intensity of tropical cyclones, 6 and hot extremes and heat waves. 7
While these changes sound merely inconvenient and perhaps costly, they have been described by the IPCC
Chairman, without hyperbole, as dangers that risk "the ability of the human race to survive." 8 In the short
term, these extremes will risk the survival of communities that are ill-equipped to adapt to warming as they
struggle to moderate and cope with its consequences

Impacts Biodiversity
__Protecting every ecosystem possible is essential to human
survival
Reese Halter, PhD, Biology, December 13, 2013, Why Biodiversity Matters, Malibu Times,
http://www.malibutimes.com/blogs/ article_4fe268e4-6365-11e3-bf88-001a4bcf887a.html, Accessed 5/14/2014
In order for 7.1 billion people (and growing to 8 billion by 2023) to exist on Earth, we require old growth
forests and tropical jungles to provide fresh water, white clouds to reflect incoming solar radiation at the
tropics, oxygen and habitats for all the critters. Scientists must be allowed to study these magnificent ancient
forests to understand how they work. Accordingly, a moratorium on logging any ancient forests on Earth is
requisite. Wild forests contain untold cancer fighting and pain-relieving medicines. In addition, big trees are the
most remarkable carbon warehouses to have ever evolved on our planet! If we deprive a species of what it needs
to live, it becomes extinct. Globally, over the past 50 years, thousands of species have gone extinct due to
human population pressures and destruction of habitat from mining and logging. Conservation biology is a
relatively new, exciting and challenging branch of science. The discipline is charged with the responsibility of
maintaining biological diversity or the tapestry of life on our planet. Protecting all remaining wild ecosystems
brimming with biodiversity -- in face of rapid human-induced climate change -- is our salvation.

__Biodiversity is essential to all life on the planet

Bryan Walsh, Staff Writer, September 18, 2010, Wildlife: A Global Convention on Biodiversity Opens in Japan,
But Can It Make a Difference?, TIME, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/18/wildlife-a-globalconvention-on-biodiversity-opens-in-japan-but-can-it-make-a-difference/#ixzz131wU6CSp, Accessed 5/16/2014
With that cheery backdrop, representatives from nearly 200 nations are meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya
home to Toyota and not a whole lot elsefor the 10th summit of the CBD, where they will set new goals for
reducing species loss and slowing habitat destruction. At the very least, they should know how critical the
biodiversity challenge isas Japanese Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said in an opening speech: All life
on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air.
We are now close to a tipping point that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity
loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive
efforts for conserving biodiversity.

Impacts War
__Global warming leads to nuclear war
Dyer 9 PhD in ME History
Gwynne, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former @ Senior Lecturer in War Studies at
the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Climate Wars
THIS BOOK IS AN ATTEMPT, peering through a glass darkly, to understand the politics and the strategies of
the potentially apocalyptic crisis that looks set to occupy most of the twentyfirst century. There are now many
books available that deal with the science of climate change and some that suggest possible approaches to
getting the problem under control, but there are few that venture very far into the grim detail of how real
countries experiencing very different and, in some cases, overwhelming pressures as global warming proceeds,
are likely to respond to the changes. Yet we all know that it's mostly politics, national and international, that
will decide the outcomes. Two things in particular persuaded me that it was time to write this book. One was
the realization that the first and most important impact of climate change on human civilization will bean
acute and permanent crisis of food supply. Eating regularly is a non-negotiable activity, and countries
that cannot feed their people are unlikely to be "reasonable" about it. Not all of them will be in what we
used to call the "Third World" -the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The other thing
that finally got the donkey's attention was a dawning awareness that, in a number of the great powers,
climate change scenarios are already playing a large and increasing role in the military planning
process. Rationally, you would expect this to be the case, because each country pays its professional
military establishment to identify and counter "threats" to its security, but the implications of their
scenarios are still alarming. There is a probability of wars, including even nuclear wars, if temperatures
rise two to three degrees Celsius. Once that happens, all hope of international cooperation to curb
emissions and stop the warming goes out the window.

__Climate change outweighs conflict

Lee 9 Professor of environment, conflict, and trade @ American
James, PhD, runs American University's Inventory of Conflict and Environment project, Climate Change and
Armed Conflict
The path from climate change to conflict will not be a direct one. For that matter, most roads to conflict are
indirect and lie in structural and behavioral patterns that make the path easier to travel. There are three
structural pathways from climate change to armed conflict: sustained trends, intervening variables, and
the need for conflict triggers. First, conflict only emerges after a sustained period of divergent climate patterns. People can survive aberrant, short-term climate change through exploitation of saved resources, but this
strategy has temporal limits. The issue is not one of surviving a particularly fierce rain or a harsh winter, but
the accumulation of many rain events and many harsh winters. Human society is capable of enduring events
and seasons, but as these events and seasons accumulate over many years or even decades, accumulated
wealth begins to draw down and eventually dissipates. Without renewal of society's wealth, human health
and well-being decline, and over time the society itself may collapse. Societies with few savings will be more
vulnerable to adverse impacts from climate change. Societies that already heavily exploit their environment
will be closer to possible conflict than those that do not. Brian Fagan offers a context for climate-induced
conflict in places where people already live on the edge of survival: In a telling analysis on nineteenth century
droughts, the historian Mike Davis has estimated, conservatively, that at least 20 to 30 million people, and
probably many more, most of them tropical farmers, perished from the consequences of harsh droughts
caused by EI Ninos and monsoon failures during the nineteenth century, more people than in virtually
all the wars of the century. (Fagan 2008: 235)

__All root causes of war magnified by warming

-resources, mass migration, border tensions, energy supplies, societal stress and humanitarian crises
Lee 9 Professor of environment, conflict, and trade @ American
James, PhD, runs American University's Inventory of Conflict and Environment project, Climate Change and
Armed Conflict
Just as in the Cold War, the threat from climate change has the potential for dire consequences - namely,
armed conflict. What does the end of the Cold War have to do with climate change? John Ashton, UK Climate
Change Representative, tied the two issues together: There is every reason to believe that as the twenty-first
century unfolds, the security story will be bound together with climate change. . .. The last time the world
faced a challenge this complex was during the Cold War. Yet the stakes this time are even higher, because the
enemy now is ourselves, the choices we make. (Vogel 2007) Alarm at the warming trend is shared by
climatologists and others. Defense agencies see the link between climate change and conflict. A 2007 report by
retired "senior admirals and generals" laid out a casual chain from climate instability to political instability.
The latter opens the door for conflict and military involvement, and produces feedback that is a "threat
multiplier" (CAN 2007:1). The seeds of conflict will lie in massive migrations, border tensions, and dis putes over essential resources. At the urging of the United Kingdom, the United Nations Security Council
debated the climate change and conflict link in April 2007. The argument was that climate change would
exacerbate traditional and long-standing security issues. Six areas of linkage were identified: border
disputes, migration, energy supplies, resource shortages, societal stress, and humanitarian crises. The
Cold War lasted nearly half a century. The Climate Change War will be a global period of instability that
will last centuries. The period of greatest instability will be the twenty-first century. As in the Cold War, it
will be a long struggle over core issues regarding rights and responsibilities in society. Throughout this period,
there will be a new Cold War, and an existing Hot War that will intensify. Changes in climate will produce
unique types and modes of conflict, redefine the value of important resources, and create new challenges
to maintaining social order and stability

Modelling Solvency
__Bold US action is modeled internationally
McGinn 10 Fellow in Strategic Studies @ Naval War College
Dennis McGinn, senior policy advisor to the American Council on Renewable Energy and is an international
security senior fellow at the Rocky Mountain Institute, previously served as chairman of the U.S. Naval Institute
Board of Directors, 12-1-2010, ENERGY CHALLENGES; COMMITTEE: HOUSE SELECT ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis
Perhaps most important is the opportunity these challenges create for us to demonstrate, once again, the
core values of America leadership to the world. How can we expect our enemies, or even our friends and
allies, to understand the value of freedom and democracy if we are not actively engaged in protecting the
essential air, water and soil that are its seeds? Ensuring that fragile democracies have the technologies
needed to prevent, mitigate and adapt to climate change and to produce clean energy self reliance will help
grow our economy and protect theirs. Most importantly, America's leadership and key partnership in
addressing these truly global challenges will act as a powerful catalyst for international collaboration to
better address a whole host of pressing issues. The United States has an opportunity and obligation to lead.
We can untie the Gordian knot of economy, energy, climate and national security - and lead to much
greater global security. Members of the Committee, if we act with boldness and vision now, future
generations will look back on this as a time when we stopped clinging to the status quo and rose above
narrow special interests and partisan divides to address the most pressing issues of this century.
Through thoughtful dialogue, effective legislation and united action, we can transform daunting challenges
to America into sustained security and prosperity, creating a better quality of life for our nation and for
our world.

__Only US action gets other nations on board

Appleby 10 MBA from UMass-Amherst
Andrew Appleby, Graduate Tax Scholar in the LL.M. in Taxation program at Georgetown University Law Center,
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY POLICY IN NATIONAL AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: A NEW
BEGINNING?: PAY AT THE PUMP: HOW $ 11 PER GALLON GASOLINE CAN SOLVE THE UNITED
STATES' MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES, Cumberland Law Review, Lexis
The United States needs to be a catalyst to encourage governments across the world to embrace energy
efficiency, environmental conservation, and clean energy generation. 554 Only if we set an example, can
we expect developing nations to follow in our footsteps. 555 The United States can achieve far better
results if it "attract[s] others to the same goals, rather than bending them to [its] will." 556 Leadership
needs to come from the United States; however, that has yet to occur. 557 President Obama aptly noted that
"[a]s we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in all nations are once again upon us -watching to see what we do with this moment; waiting for us to lead." 558 If the United States [*84] does
not act, "nothing will get done and the danger of dramatic climate change will only grow." 559 Fighting
climate change requires global cooperation. The United States needs to lead this effort and make up for
its embarrassing showing at Kyoto 560 In late 2009, leading nations met at Kyoto's successor in Copenhagen
for renewed climate talks 561 President Obama appeared personally in Copenhagen and asserted the United
States' commitment to fight climate change; however, many question whether Congress will follow through on
President Obama's pledge. 562

AT: Ice Age/Cooling

__No ice age comingwarming is the clear trend
Plumer 12
Brad, No, were not about to enter another ice age [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/nothe-thames-isnt-about-to-freeze-over/2012/01/30/gIQAlfzWcQ_blog.html] January 21 //mtc
The piece cites recent research from the UK Met Office on how solar activity is set to decrease in the
coming years which, in turn, will cool the planet. Thats technically true, but the decrease in solar
activity wont be enough to counteract the warming effects of all the greenhouse-gas pollution were
putting into the air. How do we know? Just ask the UK Met Office. In a post refuting the Daily Mail, the
climate research center notes that greenhouse gases are on pace to warm the planet 2.5C over the next
90 years. At most, the decrease in solar activity is expected to cool the planet by about 0.13C. The math
here is simple: 2.5C minus 0.13C equals 2.37C. Thats not an ice age. Thats the Earth getting hotter.

__Current emission levels make an ice age impossible

Chestney 12
Nina, Next ice age not likely before 1,500 years: study [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-ageemissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109] January 9 //mtc
(Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to
begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.
Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in
the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping out emissions today, according to the
U.N.'s weather agency. An ice age is a period when there is a long-term reduction in the earth's surface and
atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers. There have been at least five ice
ages on earth. During ice ages there are cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating.
Officially, the earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, and
estimates vary on how long such periods last. "(Analysis) suggests that the end of the current interglacial
(period) would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed
(around) 240 parts per million by volume (ppmv)," the study said. However, the current carbon dioxide
concentration is of 390 ppmv, and at that level an increase in the volume of ice sheets would not be
possible, it added. The study based on variations in the earth's orbit and rock samples was conducted by
academics at Cambridge University, University College London, the University of Florida and Norway's
University of Bergen.

__No ice age coming

Blackburn 10 climate scientist, Diploma in Environmental Policy and a BSc in Environmental Biology
(Anne-Marie, How we know an ice age isnt just around the corner, http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-weknow-an-ice-age-isnt-just-around-the-corner.html)
According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also
known as ice ages, that last about 100,000 years. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short
warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica
changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted
approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid
claim? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and
interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earths orbit and tilt,
which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the
rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight
reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and
lasts for about 100,000 years. So what are todays conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the
Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age
is unlikely: These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale
they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too
weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions,
and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases
is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earths
orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global
cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise. It can therefore be concluded that with CO2
concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures
are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

AT: CO2/Agriculture Turn

__We control uniqueness ag collapsing now
Gillis 11
Justin Gillis, Editor @ NYT, 6-11-2011, A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself, Factiva
Sitting with a group of his fellow wheat farmers, Francisco Javier Ramos Bours voiced a suspicion. Water
shortages had already arrived in recent years for growers in his region, the Yaqui Valley, which sits in the
Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico. In his view, global climate change could well be responsible. All the
world is talking about it, Mr. Ramos said as the other farmers nodded. Farmers everywhere face rising
difficulties: water shortages as well as flash floods. Their crops are afflicted by emerging pests and
diseases and by blasts of heat beyond anything they remember. In a recent interview on the far side of the
world, in northeastern India, a rice farmer named Ram Khatri Yadav offered his own complaint about the
changing climate. It will not rain in the rainy season, but it will rain in the nonrainy season, he said.
The cold season is also shrinking.

__Co2 doesnt boost yields any evidence of growth is short -term

and hypothetical
Jackson 9 Research molecular biologist @ USDA
Eric, 2009, The international food system and the climate crisis, The Panama News, Lexis
A major weakness in the forecasts of the IPCC and others when it comes to agriculture is that their
predictions accept a theory of carbon fertilization, which argues that higher levels CO2 in the atmosphere
will enhance photosynthesis in many key crops, and boost their yields. Recent studies show that this is a
mirage. Not only does any initial acceleration in growth slow down significantly after a few days or
weeks, but the increase in CO2 reduces nitrogen and protein in the leaves by more than 12 percent. This
means that, with climate change, there will be less protein for humans in major cereals such as wheat and
rice. There will also be less nitrogen in the leaves for bugs, which means that bugs will eat more leaf, leading
to important reductions in yield.

AT: Warming doesnt Kill Oceans

__Acidification will occur absent Climate Change
Rahmstorf 8 Professor of Physics
Stefan, Professor of Physics of the Oceans Potsdam University, Looking Beyond Kyoto, pg. 36
We now come to the second part: the recent rise in CO2 is entirely anthropogenic. This is also undisputed.
We have tracked and we know how much fossil fuel has been burned and therefore how much CO2 we
have injected directly into the atmosphere. The observed increase in C02 concentration over the past
decades is equal to 57 percent of our cumulative emissions. Other parts of the climate systemthe ocean
and the land biospherehave absorbed the remaining 43 percent of emissions from the atmosphere. For the
ocean, this is documented by around 10,000 occanographic measurements, which show that the ocean has
taken up about 2 gigatons (Gt) of carbon per year, or 30 percent of anthropogenic emissions (see figure 3-2).w
This CO2 uptake of the ocean makes the sea water more acidic and threatens marine life, which in itself
is sufficient reason to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions significantly, even in the absence of climate
change."

AT: Warming Inevitable

__Large-scale warming is not inevitable can avoid 4 degrees
Schellnhuber 12 PhD in theoretical physics, advisor to the President of the EU Commission, Lead analyst at
the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics
(Joachim, et al, Contributors to the World Bank report: Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4C Warmer World Must be
Avoided, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)
The emission pledges made at the climate conventions in Copen- hagen and Cancun, if fully met, place the
world on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3C. Even if these pledges are fully
implemented there is still about a 20 percent chance of exceeding 4C in 2100.10 If these pledges are not met
then there is a much higher likelihoodmore than 40 percentof warming exceeding 4C by 2100, and a 10
percent possibility of this occurring already by the 2070s, assuming emissions follow the medium business-asusual reference pathway. On a higher fos- sil fuel intensive business-as-usual pathway, such as the IPCC
SRESA1FI, warming exceeds 4C earlier in the 21st century. It is important to note, however, that such a level
of warming can still be avoided. There are technically and economically feasible emission pathways that
could still limit warming to 2C or below in the 21st century.

__Decreasing CO2 emissions now will decrease concentration of CO2

in the atmosphere
Matthews and Solomon 13 - Damon Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia
University Susan Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
(Irreversible does not mean unavoidable, Scholar)
The distinction between how much irreversible warming is expected based on past emissions versus how
much can be avoided through our coming choices is linked not only to inertia in how the climate
responds to CO2 concentration changes, but also to inertia in the uptake of CO2 emissions by the global
carbon cycle. The climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by warming, but the warming is
slowed by the long timescale of heat storage in the ocean, which represents the physical climate inertia. There
would indeed be unrealized warming associated with current CO2 concentrations, but only if they were
held fixed at current levels(2). If emissions decrease enough, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere can also
decrease. This potential for atmospheric CO2 to decrease over time results from inertia in the carbon
cycle associated with the slow uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean. This carbon cycle inertia affects
temperature in the opposite direction as the physical climate inertia, and is of approximately the same
magnitude(1, 5). Because of the equal and opposing effects of physical climate and carbon cycle inertia,
there is almost no additional unrealized warming from past CO2 emissions. If emissions were to
abruptly cease, global average temperatures would remain approximately constant for many centuries, but
they would not increase very much, if at all. Similarly, if emissions were to decrease, temperatures would
increase less than they otherwise would have.

AT: Models Flawed

__Climate models are accuratemodels inputted with natural
forcings cant explain temperature trends
Nordhaus 12professor of environmental studies @ Yale
(William D Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?
pagination=false] March 22
A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by the models. What is the evidence on the
performance of climate models? Do they predict the historical trend accurately? Statisticians routinely
address this kind of question. The standard approach is to perform an experiment in which (case 1)
modelers put the changes in CO2 concentrations and other climate influences in a climate model and
estimate the resulting temperature path, and then (case 2) modelers calculate what would happen in the
counterfactual situation where the only changes were due to natural sources, for example, the sun and
volcanoes, with no human-induced changes. They then compare the actual temperature increases of the
model predictions for all sources (case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case 2). This
experiment has been performed many times using climate models. A good example is the analysis
described in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (for the actual
figure, see the accompanying online material4). Several modelers ran both cases 1 and 2 described above
one including human-induced changes and one with only natural sources. This experiment showed that the
projections of climate models are consistent with recorded temperature trends over recent decades only
if human impacts are included. The divergent trend is especially pronounced after 1980. By 2005,
calculations using natural sources alone underpredict the actual temperature increases by about 0.7 degrees
Centigrade, while the calculations including human sources track the actual temperature trend very closely. In
reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded: No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural
warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the
twentieth century.

Ocean Biodiversity Brink

__On the brink of massive biodiversity loss
Speth 8 Dean of Yale school of Forestry
James, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut. Currently he serves the school as the Carl W. Knobloch, Jr. Dean and Sara Shallenberger Brown
Professor in the Practice of Environmental Policy, The Bridge @ the Edge of the World, pg. 37
The cumulative effect of all the factors is that species loss today is estimated to be about a thousand
times the natural or normal rate that species go extinct.65 Many scientists believe we are on the brink of
the sixth great wave of species loss on earth, the only one caused by humans. The World Conservation
Union, which keeps the books on species, estimates that two of every five recognized species on the planet
risk extinction, including one in eight birds, one in four mammals, and one in three amphibians.66
Almost 95 percent of the leather-back turtles in the Pacific have disappeared in the past twenty years;67
at least nine and perhaps 122 amphibian species have gone extinct since 1980;68 tigers are on the verge
of extinction in the wild 69 populations of nearly half the world's waterbird species are in decline, and
populations of twenty common American meadow birds like the bobwhite and the meadowlark have lost
more than half their populations in forty years.

Ocean Biodiversity Plankton

Warming collapses plankton
Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 10 Both Professors in Relevant Fields
Ove, Professor of Oceanic Biology and John, Professor of Marine Sciences, 6-2010, The Impact of Climate
Change on the Worlds Marine Ecosystems, Science Mag, Science
Warming hurts phytoplankton Variation in temperature can also have impacts on key biological
processes. For example, the dis- tribution and abundance of phytoplankton com- munities throughout
the world, as well as their phenology and productivity, are changing in re- sponse to warming, acidifying,
and stratifying oceans (7, 13). The annual primary production of the worlds oceans has decreased by at least
6% since the early 1980s, with nearly 70% of this decline occurring at higher latitudes (29) and with large
relative decreases occurring within Pacific and Indian ocean gyres (13). Climate variability strongly
influences ocean productivity, such as seen in the anomalous conditions of 1998, which that left a clear
fingerprint on global ocean phytoplankton pro- ductivity and chlorophyll stand- ing stocks (30). Overall,
these changes in the primary produc- tion of the oceans have profound implications for the marine biosphere, carbon sinks, and bio- geochemistry of Earth (31).

Ocean Acidification
Emissions cause ocean acidification
Romm 12 physicist and climate expert, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
(Joseph J., Science: Ocean Acidifying so fast that it threatens humanitys ability to feed itself, 3/2/12;
http://earthlawcenter.org/news/headline/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanitys-ability-to-feeditself/)
The worlds oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did
during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global
temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic
record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. What were doing today really stands
out, said lead author Brbel Hnisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped outnew species
evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we
may lose organisms we care aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon. James Zachos, a paleoceanographer at
University of California, Santa Cruz, with a core of sediment from some 56 million years ago, when the
oceans underwent acidification that could be an analog to ocean changes today. Thats the news release from a
major 21-author Science paper, The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew from
a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million
years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million
and found that the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place has put marine life at
risk in a frighteningly unique way: the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as
capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled
in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown
territory of marine ecosystem change. That is to say, its not just that acidifying oceans spell marine
biological meltdown by end of century as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the
ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction.

Carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans

Ward 2010
(Peter, PhD, professor of Biology and Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, paleontologist
and NASA astrobiologist, Fellow at the California Academy of Sciences, The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a
World Without Ice Caps, June 29, 2010,)
The rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing into the atmosphere is accelerating. Models using the latest
values of the measured rise for the past decade, and projecting forward, lead to an estimate that CO2
levels will nearly double in the next two centuries. By 2200, we might expect to see CO2 levels approaching
1,200 ppm. Sooner than that, in as little as a century, levels might approach 1,000 ppm. That is the level of
the Mesozoic Period and will cause the ice sheets to rapidly meltall of them. Not only do greenhouse
gases destroy ice caps, but they themselves are lethal as well. The activity of these gases directly kills by
carbon-dioxide or methane toxicity. To this we can add another potentially lethal process: acidification.

Ocean Acidification Biodiversity

Acidic oceans collapse biodiversity
Walker and King 8 Both PhDs in Chemistry
Gabrielle, PhD in Chemistry, Sir David, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the
University of Oxford, and a senior scientific adviser to UBS, The Hot Topic, pg. 38-39
Increasing carbon dioxide has another side effect that will also be bad news for corals. To date, the oceans
have soaked up around half of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, making cement, and
land-use changes. That's just as well; otherwise there would be even more carbon dioxide in the air and hence
even more warming than we have seen so far. But the benefit has come at a price: All that additional carbon
dioxide is gradually acidifying the ocean. This seems hard to believe and, indeed, many scientists initially
discounted the possibility. The oceans, after all, are vast and are also expert at neutralizing any material that
threatens to acidify their waters. However, the carbon dioxide is arriving too fast. It's overwhelming the
ocean's natural capacity to compensate. A report produced by Britain's Royal Society in 2005 estimated that
the world's oceans had already increased their acidity by 0.1 units, which translates to an increase in the ions
that cause acidity of some 30 percent.11 And one study calculated that unfettered carbon dioxide increases
over the next few centuries could make the oceans more acid than they have been for three hundred
million years.12 Nobody yet knows whether this is having an impact on the world's sea creatures, mainly
because it is hard to measure. But most agree that the effects will be felt soon, if, indeed, they are not already
with us. According to the Royal Society report, animals with a high metabolism, such as squid, are likely to
suffer in more acidic waters. But the real danger is to any animal that makes itself a shell, or skeleton,
out of the calcium carbonate (the same stuff as common chalk) dissolved in seawater. The more acidic the
seawater, the harder it is to make this shell, and in the extreme the shells already made will begin to dissolve.
This danger applies to creatures that span a wide part of the food chainfrom tiny plankton and
pteropods, which feed cod, salmon, and whales, to mussels, conch, and sea urchins. It applies particularly to
corals. Sixty-five million years ago a meteor the size of New York slammed into Earth. The environmental
chaos that ensued is widely believed to have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. But it also had a less wellknown effect. According to Ken Cal-deira at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in California, the meteor
also threw up vast amounts of sulfur, which then rained down on the ocean as sulfuric acid. The upper ocean
became acidified for a brief moment, perhaps only one or two years. But that was enough. More or less every
sea creature that built shells or skeletons out of calcium carbonate became either rare or extinct. A
handful of corals must have survived, or we would not still have them on Earth today. But they were
nonetheless too scarce to leave their imprint; they did not reappear in the fossil record for a full two million
years.

Ocean Acidification AT: Not Anthropogenic

Ocean acidification is anthropogenicoutweighs natural variability
Friedrich 12Postdoctoral Fellow @ International Pacific Research Center
Tobias Detecting regional anthropogenic trends in ocean acidification against natural variability Nature Climate
Change 2, 167171(2012)
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution humans have released ~500 billion metric tons of carbon to
the atmosphere through fossil-fuel burning, cement production and land-use changes 1, 2. About 30% has been
taken up by the oceans3. The oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide leads to changes in marine carbonate
chemistry resulting in a decrease of seawater pH and carbonate ion concentration, commonly referred
to as ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is considered a major threat to calcifying organisms4, 5, 6.
Detecting its magnitude and impacts on regional scales requires accurate knowledge of the level of natural
variability of surface ocean carbonate ion concentrations on seasonal to annual timescales and beyond. Ocean
observations are severely limited with respect to providing reliable estimates of the signal-to-noise ratio of
human-induced trends in carbonate chemistry against natural factors. Using three Earth system models we
show that the current anthropogenic trend in ocean acidification already exceeds the level of natural
variability by up to 30 times on regional scales. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the current rates of
ocean acidification at monitoring sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans exceed those experienced
during the last glacial termination by two orders of magnitude.

Ocean acidification is anthropogenic

Friedrich 12Postdoctoral Fellow @ International Pacific Research Center
Tobias Detecting regional anthropogenic trends in ocean acidification against natural variability Nature Climate
Change 2, 167171(2012)
The observed present-day, anthropogenic rate of change in is one to two orders of magnitude larger
than estimated for the last glacial termination (Fig. 3hl). Already, the weakest observed rate of change
in Bermuda exceeds the glacialinterglacial trend by a factor of 32(56) over the LOVECLIM (MIROC)
estimates for the last glacial termination. In the Caribbean, where the largest regional trends are reported,
the decrease over the past ~20 years reaches 78(136) times the glacialinterglacial rate of change documented
by LOVECLIM (MIROC). Summarizing, we conclude that it is virtually certain that anthropogenic trends
already exceed the natural variability on regional scales and are hence detectable in many areas of the
worlds ocean. However, the eastern tropical Pacific is an exception and exhibits the weakest signal-to-noise
ratio owing to high ENSO-related natural variability in carbonate chemistry.

Economy Extensions

Uniqueness
__The U.S. and global economies are in a holding pattern with
minimal growth
Zachary Karabell, Guest contributor and a money manager, May 1, 2014, Cassandras Everywhere, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/
articles/business/the_edgy_optimist/2014/05/global_economic_collapse_the_cassandras_who_are_predicting_a_c
rash.html, Accessed 5/18/2014
All is placid in financeland. Stocks in the U.S. and globally have been in a holding pattern since December;
bonds as well. Overall economic datalimited though it may be and flawed though it certainly isshows
-steady unspectacular growth in the United States and similar patterns worldwide. Not the most stirring
big picture, and certainly one with many challengesfrom wages to global stabilitybut hardly the most
unnerving.

__The U.S. is key to global economic growth in 2015

Nicholas J. Mangee, an assistant professor of economics at Armstrong Atlantic State University, April 24, 2014,
Our economic times: IMF reports U.S. economy to drive global growth, Business in Savannah,
http://businessinsavannah.com/bis/2014-04-24/our-economic-times-imf-reports-us-economy-drive-globalgrowth#.U3jaf_k8CSo, Accessed 5/18/2014
The latest report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) states that the U.S. will lead global
economic growth through 2015. This is welcome news as our nation continues to battle with notions of the new
economic norm characterized by droves of long-term unemployed and dysfunctional politics. Although U.S.
economic growth has shown sloth-like progress on the heels of the great recession, our recovery has
outpaced that of other advanced economies. And, in light of weakened financial positions and mounting
geopolitical risks, emerging nations such as Brazil and Russia, once anointed as the new global economic engines,
have had their 2014-15 growth estimates slashed by the IMF.

Ports No Investment Now

__Changes to port infrastructure arent coming now
Paul Davidson, 12
USA's creaking infrastructure holds back economy
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-20/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1, accessed
10/28/12
The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was
shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show
delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call this a stealth attack on our
economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks
and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S. economic output, according to a report last
year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of
commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the economy. Yet, there's little
prospect for more infrastructure investment as a divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion
federal deficit, and state and local governments face their own budget shortfalls. Government investment in
highways, bridges, water systems, schools and other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global
Insightexpects such outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013.

Internals Manufacturing Sector

__Continued decline of the manufacturing sector eliminates the
chance for robust economic growth
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
The nation is also recovering from the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Economists are raising concerns about a return to economic slowdown (gross domestic product [GDP] growth fell
from 3.7% in the first quarter of 2010 to 2.4% in the second quarter of 2010) and the prospect of a jobless
recovery (as of this writing, the unemployment rate is at 9.5%, down just 0.6 percentage points from its high of
10.1% in October 2009; see Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). In addition,
the U.S. manufacturing sector, traditionally a source of economic strength, has been buffeted by the
outsourcing of production operations overseas and, more recently, the recession. Data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics show that the manufacturing industry as a whole lost more than 4.1 million jobs between 1998
and 2008 and suggest that the sector will lose an additional 1.2 million jobs by 2018. A continued decline in
manufacturing activity will likely increase our nations trade deficit; eliminate stable, high-wage jobs for
skilled domestic workers; and generally reduce the potential for robust economic growth.

__Current offshore wind energy program is behind the curve

expanded funding, updated grid infrastructure, and streamlined
process for permitting and location to manage the difference
reinvigorates the manufacturing industry
Casey 12
Tina, Triple Pundit Online, April 24,US and UK to collaborate on Offshore Wind Power,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/us-and-uk-partner-on-floating-wind-turbines/,
The U.S. has to play a bit of catch-up, but the Obama Administration had the foresight to get itself into a
good position just ahead of the conference with the March 1 announcement of a six-year, $180 million round
of funding for four innovative offshore wind energy installations that will demonstrate the potential for
lowering the cost of wind power through utility-scale planning. The Department of Energy will also
provide support for reducing associated expenses including grid connection, permitting and approval
processes though unfortunately it seems that at least one state legislature (okay, so Wisconsin) will not be of
much assistance. Also coming into play is a five-year, $41 million round of funding for offshore wind
projects announced by the Department of Energy last fall, aimed at getting new technologies out of the lab
and into the water more quickly, partly by helping to spur domestic manufacturing and other aspects of
the wind industry supply chain. The two latest funding rounds join a $24 million wind energy research
program funded by the Recovery Act near the beginning of the Obama Administration in 2009. That funding
went to three consortia headed by the Illinois Institute of Technology, the University of Maine and the
University of Minneapolis to develop both onshore and offshore technologies, while establishing a long term
academic platform for the development of career innovators in advanced wind power tech.

__Offshore wind key to port revitalization, manufacturing and the

steel industry
LEED 12
Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, Ports and Maritime 8.8.2012. http://www.leedco.org/whyoffshore/ports/
The scale and magnitude of offshore wind energy requires a significant amount of maritime capabilities,
capacity, and onshore land availability. As the industry launch pad and staging area for all installation and

assembly activity, port revitalization is an essential backbone to a thriving offshore industry. This includes
a number of vessels and shipbuilding activity required to service the industry. To this end, Ohio's ports could
sustain its own industry in addition to projects in other states and Canada. Here's a look at the landscape of Ohio's
existing ports. In 1999, Germanys ports became involved in offshore wind for the same reasons Ohio is seeking
out today. Offshore wind is a plays a role in reversing the rapid decline of its ports' productivity. Similarly,
with decline of the manufacturing and steel presence in Northeast Ohio, the region can benefit from an industry
with a variety of maritime activities, raw material needs, and port facilities; all to the benefit of the local
economy. According to TeamNEO, Ohio has six deepwater ports. Offshore wind is one of the few industries of
current relevance which offers the scale of development to bring about significant revitalization while employing
thousands. Multiple German ports are involved at various levels (see report, page 2). A similar model for Ohio is
realistic as no single port can support an entire industry simply based on space constraints. This, in effect,
guarantees (what is already a multi-county regional economic development project) a more efficient build out,
across Ohio's North shore. Commercial scale farms will require a network of supporting facilities. While
location drives logistics, outfitting one port for a particular use may not be economically feasible for the same
purpose at an adjacent county. Therefore it is likely one port may specialize in foundation construction and
another in turbine assembly. Beyond Ohio, the entire Great Lakes is outfitted with suitable ports for offshore
wind. Check out an inventory of all the ports in a report called The Role of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
Ports in the Advancement of the Wind Energy Industry by the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. A similar
infrastructural inventory was completed in Massachusetts.

Internals Competiveness
__Port expansion is vital to economic and agricultural export
competitiveness
Gibbs 11 Legislative Hearing on RAMP Act with the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bob Gibbs is the chairman of the
subcommittee (Bob, Legislative Hearing on the RAMP Act, Legislative Hearing, 7/8/11,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg67286/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg67286.pdf)
Mr. GIBBS. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. Today, we
will have a legislative hearing on H.R. 104, Realize Americas Maritime Promise Act of 2011. This hearing will
give Members a chance to hear and review the challenges and opportunities facing Americas navigation system,
the current and future roles played by our ports and waterways, and Mr. Boustanys legislation. Ninety-five
percent of the Nations imports and exports go through the Nations ports. Our integrated system of
highways, railroads, airways, and waterways has efficiently moved freight in this Nation. But as we enter a
new era of increased trade, our navigation systems have to keep pace. If not, this will ultimately lead to further
delays in getting the Nations economy back on its feet. In May 2010, the President proposed an export initiative
that aims to double the Nations exports over the next 5 years. However, with the Corps of Engineers navigation
budget slashed by 22 percent over the previous 5 years, and the President only requesting $691 million from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the export initiative will not be a success. Only if our ports and waterways are
at their authorized depths and widths will products be able to move to their overseas destinations in an
efficient and economical manner. Since only 10 of the Nations largest ports are at their authorized depths and
widths, the Presidents budget does nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets. Modern ports and
waterways are critical in keeping the U.S. manufacturers and producers competitive in the world markets.
For instance, Americas farmers, like the rest of the economy, depend on the modern and efficient waterways and
ports to get the products to market. Improved transportation systems in South America have allowed South
American farmers to keep their costs low enough to underbid U.S. green farmers for customers located in
this country. With an outdated navigation system, transportation costs will increase and goods transported by
water may switch to other congested modes of transportation. With todays overcrowded highways, like the I
95 corridor, we should be looking to water transportation to shoulder more of the load. Unless the issue of
channel maintenance is addressed, the reliability and responsiveness of the entire intermodal system will
slow economic growth and threaten national security.

__The U.S. cant compete without ports, increasing domestic energy

production is also key
Marber, 12
Peter Marber is an adjunct associate professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University How
the United States Can Maintain Its Global Edge http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/howthe-united-states-can-maintain-its-global-edge/265011/
New infrastructure and energy production: We can't compete using crumbling bridges, roads, and ports.
American infrastructure is ranked 25th globally, according to the Global Competitiveness Report. Equally
important is expanding our domestic energy production capabilities -- from fracking to renewables -- which
would reduce imports, lower electricity costs, reshore lost manufacturing, and boost employment. Combined,
these could be game-changers and reverse America's 30-year decline in trade. Michael Lind and Sherle
Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have called for a federal Works Progress Administration-style
infrastructure bank to help finance more than $2 trillion over five years. With interest rates low, and returns on
infrastructure high, there may never be a better time.

Internals Electricity Prices

__Solves for electric prices for the middle class
DOE 2011
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
High electricity costs in coastal regions, more energetic wind regimes offshore, and close proximity of
offshore wind resources to major electricity demand centers could allow offshore wind to compete
relatively quickly with fossil fuelbased electricity generation in many coastal areas. The 28 coastal and
Great Lakes states in the continental United States use 78% of the nations electricity (Department of Energy
2008) while facing higher retail electricity rates than their inland neighbors (Figure 3). MidAtlantic and
Northeastern coastal states in particular face a dual problem: high electricity costs and dependence on high
carbon, pricevolatile supplies of fossil fuel for generation. In states without substantial landbased
renewable resources, offshore wind deployment will be critical to meet their renewable energy standards
or goals. In states with high electricity rates, offshore wind energy may quickly become costcompetitive.
Finally, the proximity of offshore wind resources to major electrical load centers minimizes the need to
build new transmission capacity to serve those centers.

Impacts Nuclear War

__Economic decline increases the likeliness of nuclear conflict
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow-in-Residence of Post Carbon Institute, December 12, 2012, Conflict and
Change in the Era of Economic Decline: Part 2: War and peace in a shrinking economy,
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-12/conflict-and-change-in-the-era-of-economic-decline-part-2-war-andpeace-in-a-shrinking-economy, Accessed 5/18/2014
When empires crumble, as they always do, the result is often a free-for-all among previous subject nations and
potential rivals as they sort out power relations. The British Empire was a seeming exception to this rule: in that
instance, the locus of military, political, and economic power simply migrated to an ally across the Atlantic. A
similar graceful transfer seems unlikely in the case of the U.S., as economic decline during the 21st century
will be global in scope. A better analogy to the current case might be the fall of Rome, which led to centuries of
incursions by barbarians as well as uprisings in client states. Disaster per se need not lead to violence, as Rebecca
Solnit argues in her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. She
documents five disastersthe aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; earthquakes in San Francisco and Mexico City; a
giant ship explosion in Halifax, Canada; and 9/11and shows that rioting, looting, rape, and murder were not
automatic results. Instead, for the most part, people pulled together, shared what resources they had, cared for the
victims, and in many instances found new sources of joy in everyday life. However, the kinds of social stresses
we are discussing now may differ from the disasters Solnit surveys, in that they comprise a long emergency, to
borrow James Kunstlers durable phrase. For every heartwarming anecdote about the convergence of rescuers and
caregivers on a disaster site, there is a grim historic tale of resource competition turning normal people into
monsters. In the current context, a continuing source of concern must be the large number of nuclear weapons
now scattered among nine nations. While these weapons primarily exist as a deterrent to military aggression, and
while the end of the Cold War has arguably reduced the likelihood of a massive release of these weapons in an
apocalyptic fury, it is still possible to imagine several scenarios in which a nuclear detonation could occur as
a result of accident, aggression, pre-emption, or retaliation. We are in a racebut its not just an arms race;
indeed, it may end up being an arms race in reverse. In many nations around the globe the means to pay for
armaments and war are starting to disappear; meanwhile, however, there is increasing incentive to engage
in international conflict as a way of re-channeling the energies of jobless young males and of distracting the
general populace, which might otherwise be in a revolutionary mood. We can only hope that historical
momentum can maintain The Great Peace until industrial nations are sufficiently bankrupt that they
cannot afford to mount foreign wars on any substantial scale.

Impacts Biodiversity
__Economic growth benefits biodiversity
Emma Duncan, Staff Writer, September 14, 2013, All creatures great and small, The Economist, p. 4.
Endangered species have benefited from some of the concomitants of growth, too. Improved sanitation has
made the planet healthier, as has regulation of pesticides. Cleaner air is better for biodiversity. As countries
get richer, they tend to become more peaceful and better governed and their population growth slows
down. Technological progress has improved life for other species, making conservation efforts more
effective.

AT: Offcase

AT: States CP
__Federal government has the ability to manage and regulate
shoreline- Plan solves permits
Musail et Al 2010
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by
DOE
Rights, restrictions, and responsibilities in the marine environment are contingent on designated ocean
jurisdictions and administrative boundaries (MMS 2010a) as well as on multiple and overlapping use
rights. This complex regulatory environment determines whether a state or federal agency is the lead for the
approval process. Section 7.2.1 below outlines the laws regulating ocean jurisdictions and Section 7.2.2
discusses the emerging ocean policy of coastal and marine spatial planning. This policy could further
define ocean space boundaries, but is currently in its infancy. 7.2.1 Jurisdiction The federal government
retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation, national defense, and international
affairs throughout state waters. States, however, are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease
resources throughout the water column and on and under the seafloor (MMS 2006). As explained in Figure 71, for most states, jurisdiction extends to 3 nm from the shoreline, in accordance with the Submerged Lands
Act (2002), and federal jurisdiction extends the breadth of the territorial sea (out to 12 nm) and then out to at
least 200 nm on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or to the outer edge of the continental margin. The
jurisdictions of the Great Lakes, on the other hand, fall under state agencies until they meet the international
borders with Canadian provinces. Bays and sounds are likewise under state jurisdiction (see Section 7.5 for
more details).

__Counter-plan has a massive solvency deficit It does not access

our pedagogical transformation solvencyFederal signals are key
to transform societal attitudes--Federal policy is the key to
constructing new norms to challenge racialization
Johnson 11
Olatunde C.A. Johnson* Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Columbia Law Review January, 2011
Columbia Law Review 111 Colum. L. Rev. 154
At the same time, this Essay argues, the stimulus provides a powerful occasion for using federal funds to
promote racial equity. Federal law now provides tools unavailable to racial reformers of the New Deal era for
guiding how federal money is spent. Indeed, as a result of the legislative gains of the 1960s, federal spending
has become a potent vehicle for advancing antidiscrimination norms. By conditioning spending, federal
statutes prohibit intentional racial exclusion by federally funded grantees, and even impose affirmative duties
on federal agencies and grantees to [*159] attend to, and to interrupt, the varied and complex ways in which
federal funds sustain racial inequality. n14 These statutes are useful not only in litigation but also in allowing
civil rights and equity groups to mobilize around the broad idea that government spending should not
entrench or subsidize racial inequality. Beyond antidiscrimination law, however, the stimulus reveals new
mechanisms for advancing equity. Federal statutes require transparency in federal spending programs. New
regulatory institutions at the federal, state, and local levels track stimulus spending. Recent technology allows
governments and nongovernmental organizations to document and disseminate spending information to the
broader public. These tools render the oft hidden racial impacts of federal spending visible and allow
equity groups to map racial harms in compelling ways. Thus, the stimulus has potential, this Essay
suggests, for engendering a new regulatory and advocacy framework for advancing racial equity
through federal spending.

__Permutation is normal means

Salkin and Ostraw 11
Patricia, Prof of Law @ Albany Law School, Ashira, Associate Prof of Law @ HOFSTRA, Cooperative
Federalism and Wind: A New Framework for Achieving Sustainability, Hofstra Law Review, Vol 37, pp 10491097, online 12
Wind energy developers must also coordinate with several federal agencies to ensure that proposed wind
sites do not interfere with other national concerns. For example, the FAA requires any person or
organization who intends to sponsor any construction that may affect navigable airspace to undergo an
Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis. 167 The Department of Defense and Department of
Homeland Security Policy on Proposed Wind Farm Locations requires the DOD to work with the FAA and
other federal agencies as needed to evaluate wind-farm proposals on a case-by-case basis to mitigate the
potential effect of wind farms on air defense radars. 168 The NTIA also reviews wind siting applications
to ensure proposed wind turbines do not interfere with radio, microwave, radar, and other frequencies.
169 In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for wind projects that affect wetlands,
170 and the MMS oversees permitting for all off-shore wind projects located on the outer continental
shelf.

__Combination of regulatory oversight produces the best policies

Engel 7
(Kristin, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic
Federalism in Environmental Law, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed
7/7/08 from ssrn.com)
The states failure to restrict their regulatory authority to issues impacting only their own jurisdictions, and the
federal governments failure to regulate only when the states ability to address an issue effectively is hobbled
by collective action problems, are inconsistent with the policy implications of the scholarly debate over
environmental federalism, in which scholars have supported a particular allocation of at least primary
regulatory authority between the states and the federal government.9 The purpose of this Article is not to
reengage in the long-running debate over whether, and when, the federal or the state governments are the more
appropriate environmental regulators.10 Rather, the purpose is to question the fundamental assumption
underlying the debate: that regulatory authority to address environmental ills should be allocated to one or the
other level of government with minimal overlap. This Article argues first that a static allocation of authority
between the state and federal government is inconsistent with the process of policymaking in our federal
system, in which multiple levels of government interact in the regulatory process. Absent constitutional
changes that would lock in a specific allocation of authority, broad, overlapping authority between levels
of government may be essential to prompting regulatory activity at the preferred level of government.
This Article further argues that a static allocation of authority deprives citizens of the benefits of
overlapping jurisdiction, such as a built-in check upon interest group capture, greater opportunities for
regulatory innovation and refinement, and relief for the courts from the often futile and confusing task of
jurisdictional line-drawing. Part I.A of this Article critiques the scholarly adherence to a generally rigid
separation between state and federal jurisdiction, which I argue is rooted in the dominance of economic models
in the environmental federalism debates. In Part I.B, I contrast the scholarly preoccupation with the separation
of federal and state power with environmental federalism in practice, which is marked by a large degree of
jurisdictional overlap and interaction between the states and the federal government. Part II of this Article sets
forth an alternative vision of environmental federalism, drawing upon recent scholarship that conceives
the states and the federal government as alternativenot mutually exclusive sources of regulatory
authority. Such a conception views the interaction between the two levels of government as a means of
improving the quality and responsiveness of regulation.

__Distance of offshore wind based on governmental oversight

Federal programs create Outer Continental Shelf wind
Musail et Al 10
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by
DOE
Rights, restrictions, and responsibilities in the marine environment are contingent on designated ocean
jurisdictions and administrative boundaries (MMS 2010a) as well as on multiple and overlapping use
rights. This complex regulatory environment determines whether a state or federal agency is the lead for the
approval process. Section 7.2.1 below outlines the laws regulating ocean jurisdictions and Section 7.2.2
discusses the emerging ocean policy of coastal and marine spatial planning. This policy could further define
ocean space boundaries, but is currently in its infancy. 7.2.1 Jurisdiction The federal government retains the
power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation, national defense, and international affairs
throughout state waters. States, however, are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease
resources throughout the water column and on and under the seafloor (MMS 2006). As explained in
Figure 7-1, for most states, jurisdiction extends to 3 nm from the shoreline, in accordance with the Submerged
Lands Act (2002), and federal jurisdiction extends the breadth of the territorial sea (out to 12 nm) and
then out to at least 200 nm on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or to the outer edge of the continental
margin. The jurisdictions of the Great Lakes, on the other hand, fall under state agencies until they meet the
international borders with Canadian provinces. Bays and sounds are likewise under state jurisdiction (see
Section 7.5 for more details).

__States only have jurisdiction 3 miles from the coast not far
enough from the coast for deepwater
Vann 10
Adam, Legislative Attorney, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, CRS Online,
http://crs.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/10Sep/R40175.pdf, online 12
The relative jurisdiction of the federal government with respect to individual states is also of
importance. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 assured coastal states title to the lands beneath coastal
waters in an area stretching, in general, three geographical miles from the shore. Thus, states may
regulate the coastal waters within this area, subject to federal regulation for commerce, navigation,
national defense, and international affairs and the power of the federal government to preempt state
law. 14 The remaining outer portions of waters over which the United States exercises jurisdiction are
federal waters. 15

__State-based Offshore Wind projects result in Not-In-My-Backyard

backlash against development Virginia proves
Heaton 12
Brian, Staff Writer for Government Technology, April 3, Wind Turbine Offshore of Virginia May Be First Up in
U.S., http://www.govtech.com/technology/Wind-Turbine-Offshore-Virginia.html, online 12
Since the Virginia project sits in state-controlled waters, three miles off the coast, the process had less
red tape. But Gamesa had to agree to various monetary and environmental stipulations to gain
approval to construct the turbine. Those included: posting of a bond or letter of credit totaling at least
$2.1 million to remove the wind turbine structure if it is decommissioned; one-time payment of
$52,667 for use of the Virginia-owned water bottom; and a comprehensive scientific study of the
turbines underwater acoustical potential impact on marine life under a variety of wind and weather
conditions. Matsen said the state is proud of the way it was able to bring together business and political
groups to streamline the permitting process for the Gamesa wind energy turbine project. But the state was
cognizant of the hurdles faced in New England, and Matsen believes acceptance from the community was
one of the reasons Gamesa chose Cape Charles as its starting point. As with land-based wind projects
and certainly as folks in Massachusetts have learned, offshore wind, particularly in state waters
which means youre close to the shore faces some NIMBY [not in my backyard] pushback that
cant be discounted or ignored, Matsen said.

__Federal policy key to implementing Offshore wind establishes a

unified policy
Campbell 11
Richard J, Congressional Research Service, China and the United States, A Comparison of Green Energy
Programs and Policies, Digital Commons, Online 12
In the United States, while individual states may have renewable electricity mandates, there is no
federal law creating a market for renewable energy. Many believe that renewable energy technologies
need a federal policy driver which creates a national demand for renewable electricity if it is to be a
significant contributor to domestic power generation picture. This opinion is largely based on the view
that renewable energy technologies are not mature technologies, and therefore cannot yet compete with
conventional fossil-fueled power generation. If increased deployment of renewable electricity technologies is
a U.S. policy goal, a recent analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggests that the United
States could also implement both a renewable electricity standard and a FIT.132 Others believe that
renewable energy technologies should rely on venture capital and private sector investment alone, and the
market alone should dictate whether they are employed. However, it is noted that the United States relies
more on investment from venture capitalists for clean energy technology development than the rest of
the world combined.133 Venture capital has driven much energy innovation in the United States in the
past and will undoubtedly play a role in the future in funding the next generations of clean energy
technologies.

__Counterplan cant solve the affirmative federal uniformity is key

to wind projects, must have interstate trade and predictable
frameworks
Salkin and Ostraw 11
Patricia, Prof of Law @ Albany Law School, Ashira, Associate Prof of Law @ HOFSTRA, Cooperative
Federalism and Wind: A New Framework for Achieving Sustainability, Hofstra Law Review, Vol 37, pp 10491097, online 12
A national wind siting policy would increase regulatory uniformity in the siting process. 197 According
to the DOE, [i]ncreased uniformity of regulatory requirements across regions would greatly facilitate
the increased deployment of wind projects necessary to reach [federal renewable energy goals]. 198 A

unitary federal policy would benefit wind energy developers by reducing barriers to interstate trade and
providing a consistent and predictable regulatory environment. 199 Although benefiting industry is
sometimes a reason to suspect, rather than endorse, federal preemption, 200 in the case of wind energy, the
national goal of developing a renewable, domestic energy source seems aligned with industry interests. In
contrast, local control of wind siting increases application and compliance costs for developers and
enables individual communities to stymie wind energy development. According to a pro-wind energy
group in Wisconsin, [o]pponents of wind energy developments have tied the hands of wind developers by
successfully changing local laws to ensure wind turbines cannot be built in their area. This system of overly
restrictive local ordinances has brought the construction of wind farms in Wisconsin to a screeching halt. 20

__No risk of Counterplan solvency business lobbies will determine

direction of State level policies ensure the counterplan cant solve
environmental progress States lack constrictive oversight
Graham 98
(Mary, Brookings Institute, Environmental Protection & the States: ""Race to the Bottom"" or ""Race to the
Bottom Line""? Winter, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1998/12/winter-environment-graham, TGA)
To call attention to these changes is not to deny that state and local governments face tough trade-offs, that
businesses often lobby to weaken environmental rules, or that some polluters still try to beat the system.
Hiring inspectors to enforce the law or buying land to protect a watershed is expensive and must vie for
limited state funds with improving schools, building roads, and paying for Medicaid and welfare.
Environmental issues continue to be contentious because they often do pit jobs against cleaner air or
more conservation, and sometimes both choices offer economic benefits. When stakes are high, business,
labor, homeowners, and other groups will fight for their interests. And, of course, there will always be
cheaters. Thirty years ago, the assumption that there was a race to the bottom among the states was
important because Congress was debating the need for a national framework of environmental protection. That
question is now settled. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans agree that air pollution, water pollution, and
other environmental problems that cross state lines should continue to be controlled by federal rules. Because
most of our daily attention is drawn to hard-fought battles at the perimeter of government authority, it is easy
to forget that we have witnessed an exceptional event in the past three decades: the successful introduction of a
new theme in national policy. Today, the question of whether states shortchange environmental protection
to attract business is important for different reasons. First, we have reached a turning point in national
environmental policy in which some readjustment of federal and state roles is inevitable. Thanks in part to the
considerable success of national laws aimed at controlling major sources of pollution and encouraging
conservation on large tracts of federal land, public attention is now turning to problems that are harder to solve
from Washington. The next generation of environmental policies will tackle widely scattered sources of
pollution and conservation opportunities that affect farms and housing developments as well as forests and
meadows.

AT: Federalism DA
__CZMA ensures that Cooperative Federalism would exist
CZMA = Coastal Zone Management Act
Schroeder 10
Erica, JD UC-Berkeley, Turning Offshore Wind On, http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/985/Schroeder.FINAL.pdf, online 12
Before the CZMA was promulgated, the coastal zone had long been subject to decentralized
management. 124 The CZMA continues this tradition with its own approach to federalism, explicitly
encouraging cooperation between local, state, and federal levels of government in their management of
coastal resources. 125 Specifically, under the CZMA, each state makes its own CZMP. 126 The CZMA
provides a variety of policy considerations for states to incorporate into their management programs.
Prioritizing construction of certain facilities, specifically energy facilities, in states coastal zones is one of
several listed considerations. 127 Others include protecting natural resources; minimizing the loss of life and
property to flooding and sea level rise; improving coastal water quality; allowing public recreational access to
the coast; restoring urban waterfronts and preserving coastal features; coordinating and simplifying
governmental management procedures for coastal resources; consulting and coordinating with federal
agencies; giving timely and effective notice for public and local participation in governmental decision
making; comprehensive planning for marine resource preservation; and studying sea level rise and land
subsidence. 128 The Secretary of Commerce examines states CZMPs, making sure they are in
accordance with the CZMAs policy considerations and other mandates, and any other federal
regulations. 129 In particular, the CZMA requires that states adequately consider the national interest in
siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of
energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any applicable
national or interstate energy plan or program. 130 Once approved by the Secretary of Commerce,
however, state CZMPs are subject to very little federal constraint under the CZMA, leaving states with nearly
complete discretion within their coastal zones.

__Solves the impact to the disadvantage Wind Specific

Salkin and Ostraw 11
Patricia, Prof of Law @ Albany Law School, Ashira, Associate Prof of Law @ HOFSTRA, Cooperative
Federalism and Wind: A New Framework for Achieving Sustainability, Hofstra Law Review, Vol 37, pp 10491097, online 12
The TCAs innovative combination of local control subject to federal limits has been described as
perhaps the most ambitious cooperative federalism regulatory program to date. 27 Unlike traditional
notions of dual federalism, which seek to delineate separate spheres of state and federal regulation, 28
cooperative federalism regulatory programs involve federal-state collaboration. 29 Cooperative
federalism statutes typically outline the contours of a regulatory program and empower states to implement the
program in accordance with federal guidelines. 30 Cooperative federalism thus strikes a functional balance
between federal preemption on the one hand and decentralization on the other, harnessing the benefits
of diversity in regulatory policy within a federal framework. 31

__Federal power inevitable

Sampson 12
(President and CEO of the Property Casualty Insurers Association, David, 04/16, Property Casualty Insurance: A
Case Study in Federalism, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/16/propertycasualty-insurance--a-case-study-in-federalism)
Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act. While the focus was primarily on the individual mandate and the application of the Commerce
Clause, the fundamental debate surrounding the healthcare law is really about the proper size and scope
of the federal government. Since 2009, Americans have seen an unprecedented expansion of the power
of the federal government; the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, and the aforementioned Affordable Care Act are just a few high-profile examples. The trend in
recent yearsand especially since the economic crisishas been to nationalize every issue and cede
control of state or private matters to a federal bureaucracy in Washington.

__The Roberts Courts has a pro-federal agenda US vs. Comstock

proves
Pickerill and Gamkhar 11
(Washington State University and Northern Illinois University, Associate Professor in the Department of Political
Science, American politics, law and courts, constitutional law and theory, and federalism, and Shama, co-editor of
the Annual Review of American Federalism, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press,
committee member of the transportation Research Board, The State of American Federalism 2010 2011: The
Economy, Healthcare Reform and Midterm Elections Shape the Intergovernmental Agenda, Publius:The Journal
of Federalism, 41(3), pp. 361-394
In its 2009 term, the Supreme Court handed down one particularly notable decision for students of
federalism. At issue in United States v. Comstock (2010) was a provision of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection Act of 2006 (at 18 U.S.C. Section 4248), which allows the federal government to initiate civil
commitment proceedings against federal prisoners convicted of certain sex crimes who are about to be
released from prison by the Federal Bureau of Prison. Under the legislation, if a U.S. District Court Judge
finds by clear and convincing evidence that an individual has committed (or attempted to do so) child
molestation or violent sex crime, is mentally ill, and would "serious difficulty" from engaging in that behavior
after being released, the judge may civilly commit the person to a treatment facility where he will remain until
he no longer presents a danger. In this case, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated civil commitment
proceedings under the law against Graydon Comstock 6 days before he was about to complete a 37-month
prison term for receiving child pornography. Comstock (and five other prisoners who were also parties in the
legal action) claimed that the statute was not within Congress's Article I powers and should be struck
down for being unconstitutional. The District Court as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit held the law violated the Constitution because it did not fall within a power granted to Congress
under its enumerated powers. On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision
reversing the lower courts and upholding constitutionality of the law, with only Justices Scalia and
Thomas dissenting. Writing for the majority, Justice Brever reasoned that the Necessary and Proper Clause
has long been understoodsince at least McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)to convey broad authority to
Congress to use means that are "rationally related" to legitimate ends, or that is, to enumerated powers.
Congress has frequently used federal crimes to help exercise enumerated powers. Moreover, it is
reasonable for Congress to regulate prisoners in its custody, and it has a long history of regulating mental
health issues in federal prisons; and it is equally reasonable for the federal government to consider public
safety in its regulation of prisoners within its custody. Because the law is within Congress's power, it cannot
have been reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment, and in any event, provisions of the law give
states an opportunity to take custody of their prisoners. In fact, twenty-nine states joined as amid to support the
constitutionality of the law. Finally, the statute is narrow in scope and does not purport to create a general
national police power, and it can be connected to enumerated powers without "piling inference upon inference"

(citing United States v. Lopez, 1995). The Comstock decision is significant in its own right, and for future
challenges to federal laws based on federalism principles (such as challenges to federal healthcare
legislation). It is perhaps the most extensive analysis of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper
Clause in decades, and the holding in the case arguably broadens congressional powers under that clause. The
majority clearly endorses an expansive understanding of implied powers, and the case could be used in the
future to circumvent legal arguments based on limitations of federal powers as being outside enumerated
powers, such as the Court's holdings placing limitations on the commerce power in United States v. Lopez
(1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000). Moreover, the composition of the seven-justice majority,
which included Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alitoboth appointed by Republican President George W.
Bushadds further support to the characterization of the Roberts Court as being uninterested in
furthering the Rehnquist Court's new federalism agenda. If true, it could have important implications
for future judicial challenges, including those involving federal healthcare legislation.

__Recent court decision proves expansion of federal power

Meyers 12
(D.G., Melton Center for Jewish Studies at the Ohio State University, Commentary Mag., An Enormous
Expansion of Federal Powers, June 29th, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/29/enormousexpansion-of-federal-powers/, 7/7/12)
The most important sentence in Justice Robertss opinion yesterday upholding the Affordable Care Act is the
least arresting. The new ObamaCare tax, which Roberts created in order to uphold the Act, makes going
without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn ing income.
Despite Robertss blithe assurance that a tax on going without insurance is nothing new, the fact is that this
one sentence expands the powers of the federal government beyond anything previously known. For the
first time in U.S. history, the government may tax what you and I do not do. Roberts calls these failures to
act omissions. For the life of me, I cant think of an omission a refusal to act the government now
taxes. Penalties may be imposed for failing to do something (library fines for not returning a book on time,
speeding tickets for not observing the speed limit, restaurant fines for not adhering to the health code). But
even these require affirmative acts first: I must first check out the book, drive too fast, open a restaurant and
scatter food about for the roaches and the rats. But just sitting around and minding my own business? For the
first time in U.S. history, I can be taxed for that.

__No impact to federalism political safeguards check

Blackmun 85
(Harry, 02/19, former Supreme Court Justice , Opinion of the Court, Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, No.
82-1913, 469 U.S. 528, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0528_ZO.html)
Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional
system, and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But
the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action -the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The
political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated. In the factual
setting of these cases, the internal safeguards of the political process have performed as intended. These cases
do not require us to identify or define what affirmative limits the constitutional structure might impose
on federal action affecting the States under the Commerce Clause. See Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559
(1911). We note and accept Justice Frankfurter's observation in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 583
(1946): The process of Constitutional adjudication does not thrive on conjuring up horrible possibilities
that never happen in the real world and devising doctrines sufficiently comprehensive in detail to cover the
remotest contingency. Nor need we go beyond what is required for a reasoned disposition of the kind of
controversy now before the Court.

__American Federalism leads to systems of racism allows federal

government to scapegoat discrimination plan passage necessary
to remedy issues
Miller 10
Lisa, PhD Poli Sci @ Rutgers, The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates Racial
Inequality in Criminal Justice, Law and Society Review, Online 12
Conventional narratives of federalism and racial inequality in the U.S. typically focus on the problems of
regional politics at the state and local levels and the successes of national political strategies in forcing
these governments to accept more equitable legal standards and political outcomes. In contrast, the
analysis of crime, law and political mobilization presented here suggests that the limitations of American
federalism run far deeper, and are not confined to the parochialisms of regional politics. For much of the
nations history, American-style federalism has allowed the national government to escape pressure and
responsibility for addressing inequality and stagnation in racial progress (see Riker 1964). Today, it
continues to winnow debates about crime and justice in ways that undermine the political voice,
representation and empowerment of those most affected by crime and criminal justice urban racial
minorities. The effect of federalism on crime and punishment is to reinforce existing racially-stratified
access to power by: Balkanizing mobilization efforts among urban minority groups that would otherwise
be natural allies; diffusing political pressure about poverty across a wide range of political and legal
venues; and limiting the scope and tenor of the central governments power to address social problems.
The nature of the American federal system thus makes it difficult to see disparities in crime and
punishment as linked to broader socio-economic patterns of racialized policymaking and the reframing
of crime and punishment from local to national venues changes not only the participants involved but
also the very nature of the problem itself, such that minority interests are at best obfuscated and, at
worst, rendered invisible.

__The CZMA provisions give state and local opposition a platform to

directly veto federal permitting of OSW in federal waters because it
gives them standing to review and reject federal projects. This
creates excessive uncertainty that destroys OSW. Removing this
restriction would jumpstart the OSW industry
Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental
Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Turning Offshore Wind On, California
Law Review, p.
The Cape Wind example poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local costs and national benefits with
regard to offshore wind power development, and the potential for local interests to hijack state and federal
processes and stall a project. The federal government needs a stronger role in the process to counteract
narrow-minded state and local opposition. With a well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and
developers could properly weigh regional, national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its limited
local costs. The CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory framework. It already covers
the states coastal zonesthat is, the area three miles or less from the shoreand leaves states with substantial
power.227 However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the national interest in the benefits of
offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and
minor.228 Now is a time for more decisive and bold action. With the change in the United States administration,
the deteriorating climate situation, and the nations ongoing energy and economic crises, the country has both the
opportunity and the need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new regulatory scheme, as
some have suggested,229 goes too far: it fails to acknowledge what Congress can realistically accomplish and
ignores the tools we already have in our hands in the CZMA. With some strengthening revisions, the CZMA
might become the simple solution that helps the United States turn offshore wind on. A. An Ineffective Tool to

Promote Offshore Wind The CZMA has had some measure of successalmost every coastal state participates and
it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as unified ecological areas. 230 Still, despite clear undertones of
environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to promote offshore wind power
development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the Cape Wind project. The CZMAs failure with
respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is, without more
explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMAthe
development of CZMPswhile not meeting any particular standards.231 This leaves states with substantial
discretion, but without a coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan. In particular, with its
decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of the national benefits of offshore energy
development, the CZMA gives insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore
wind power in their CZMPs.232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that coastal states anticipate
and plan for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other adverse effects.233 However, it fails to specify
the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in such climate-change
planning and in state CZMPs.Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given adequate
consideration to the national interest in its CZMP, the federal government no longer has control over energy
facility development in state waters.234 Thus coastal states can block proposed turbines in state waters and
proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind
saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address,
renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in litigation and administrative processes.
In a more extreme situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a reverse-preemption
power for federal projects and permits in state and federal waters, as long as these projects affect the
states coastal zone.235 Therefore, as projects outside of a states CZMP will frequently impact a states coastal
zone, states can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only in their coastal
zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMPs jurisdiction. Through these two mechanismsstate
CZMPs and federal consistency reviewlocal interests focused on local costs in coastal states can stall or block
offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and global reasons to promote it. The CZMA
offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a pro-offshore wind federal mandate. In addition, the
federal government has offered only low levels of funding for renewable energy activity offshore.236 When this
factor is combined with the regulatory uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each
individual state, it is not surprising that the CZMA has been an ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind
power development.

AT: Disadvantage / Turn Uniqueness

__Private companies are expanding ocean wind energy globally now
Llewellyn King, Staff Writer, October 2012, Ocean Power the Ignored Alternative, Oil Price.com,
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/ Renewable-Energy/Ocean-Power-the-Ignored-Alternative.html, Accessed
4/11/2014
At the semi-annual International Conference on Ocean Energy, held here this year, unfettered, engineering is the
driver. One participant told me, This is a sandbox for engineers to play in. Since the beginning of time man has
dreamed of the challenge of harnessing the power of the oceans, with their currents, tides and waves. It was talked
about seriously during the energy crisis of the 1970s, and then largely forgotten. In the early years of the
alternative energy industry, engineers enthused about the tidal rise of Canadas Bay of Fundy and Frances Bay of
Biscay as sources of power. Ocean power is more energy dense than wind power. But when it was apparent that
no single machine could be developed to generate ocean power, enthusiasm waned. Wind turbines can be
standardized, but currents, tides and waves are a site-specific energy source. As a result wind, solar, geothermal
and biomass got the alternative energy development attention and the bulk of the funding. Ocean energy stayed in
the speeches, a gleam in the eye of a small group of developers scattered around seafront nations. Now there is an
ocean energy movement. In more than 20 countries, private companies are developing first-generation
water turbines.

AT: Politics Bipartisan Support

__There is bipartisan support for extending wind tax credits
NAWP (North American Wind Power), Staff Writer, March 25, 2014, 144 Congress Members Call For Wind
PTC, ITC Extensions,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12761, Accessed 5/14/2014
Members from the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have signed bipartisan letters urging their
colleagues to act quickly and extend the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) and the investment tax
credit (ITC). Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Dave
Loebsack, D-Iowa, headed the effort. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the letters
call on Congress to encourage more private investment by stabilizing the U.S. industry and averting
another falloff like 2013s 92% drop in domestic wind power installations.

AT: Agency CPs

__Permutation: Do both. Concurrent action leads to greater
efficiency
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Agencies must consider a range of environmental and cultural resources, protected areas, and competing
uses when permitting the installation of offshore wind power projects. Some of the key environmental
resources of concern are bird and bat species, marine mammals, pelagic and benthic species and habitats, and
water quality. Historic preservation sites, such as notable shipwrecks or coastal structures, and tribal resources,
such as burial grounds or other ocean areas with cultural or religious significance, must also be considered in the
siting process. Certain ocean areas are protected or restricted from development, including NOAAs National
Marine Sanctuaries, coastal National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, DoD limited access areas, or
designated ship navigation lanes. Finally, wind project siting must consider competing uses of the ocean space,
including ship navigation, commercial fishing, DoD training and operations, and other activities.
Coordinated and concurrent project review processes can lead to efficiency gains in the permitting of
offshore wind projects. In some cases, these opportunities for increased efficiency are already recognized and
can be quickly adopted. In other cases, collaboration is needed to identify the potential efficiencies to be gained
through coordinated and concurrent project review. Adoption of such process efficiencies, including
implementation of the National Ocean Policy and coastal and marine spatial planning, can help protect natural
resources, protected areas, and competing uses when permitting offshore wind energy facilities in the
nations ocean and Great Lakes waters. Additionally, the development and use of best management practices can
provide valuable tools for mitigating the impacts of offshore wind projects on wildlife and ecosystems.

__The CP is normal means. The Departments of Energy and the

Interior already work closely and would coordinate for offshore
wind
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
DOE is uniquely positioned to play a catalytic role in addressing market barriers by bringing depth of
knowledge of the technology and the industry, technical and financial resources, and a positive history of
working across agencies and stakeholders, which will help in identifying administrative efficiencies to
overcome regulatory barriers. Similarly, as the primary agency with jurisdiction over proposed offshore
wind projects in federal waters, DOI can convene agencies and stakeholders to share information, identify
challenges, and find solutions. The OSWInD and Smart from the Start initiatives will engage federal and state
regulators, resource management agencies, and outside stakeholders to drive collective action toward creating an
offshore wind industry. This engagement will include the establishment of additional formal working
arrangements such as memoranda of understanding with key agencies, as well as interagency working groups. For
example, DOE and DOI entered into an MOU on the future development of commercial offshore renewable
energy projects on the OCS (see DOE/DOI MOU and Action Plan text box), which formalizes the close
working relationship between the two agencies and their shared goal of supporting commercial offshore
renewable energy projects. DOE is also working with ACOE to develop permitting processes for offshore wind
energy in the Great Lakes under the auspices of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. DOI has
entered into an MOU with 11 coastal states to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium
(AOWEC), which will identify ways to facilitate the development of Atlantic offshore wind energy. AOWEC

action plans are being incorporated into the Smart from the Start initiative and will identify means to reduce
deployment timelines and support the development of the offshore wind industry.

Negative

AT: Inherency
__The DOE just handed out $141 million to expand offshore wind
development
Business Green, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, US awards $141m to innovative offshore wind farm projects,
Accessed 5/13/2014, http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2343636/us-awards-usd141m-to-innovativeoffshore-wind-farm-projects
The US Department of Energy (DoE) has handed out $141m to three developers planning wind farms off the
coasts of New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia. The three projects are set to add 67MW of offshore wind capacity
in US waters by 2017 and make use of new technologies designed to drive down costs for future wind farms, the
DoE said in a statement. "Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can
create thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive billions of
dollars in local economic investment," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in a statement. "The offshore wind
projects announced today further this commitment - bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes
and businesses, diversifying our energy portfolio, and reducing costs through innovation."

__The Department of the Interior is increasing offshore wind now

Bureau of Ocean Management, 2014, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-EnergyProgram/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Offshore-Wind-Energy.aspx, Accessed 4/9/2014
The first offshore wind project was installed off the coast of Denmark in 1991. Since that time, commercial-scale
offshore wind facilities have been operating in shallow waters around the world, mostly in Europe. With the U.S.
Department of the Interiors Smart from the Start initiative, wind power projects will soon be built
offshore the United States. Newer turbine and foundation technologies are being developed so that wind
power projects can be built in deeper waters further offshore.

__The DOE is already expanding offshore wind energy now

Jos Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014,
Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States, Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.seatechnology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014
In 2013, the Energy Department finalized awards for support of the initial design and permitting phase of
seven competitively selected offshore wind demonstration projects. Through cost-share funding, technical
assistance and interagency coordination to accelerate the deployment of these projects, the Department intends
to validate new technologies to reduce costs, eliminate uncertainties and mitigate risks to support growth of
a robust offshore wind energy industry. In 2014, the Department plans to select up to three of the seven
projects to support, with up to $47 million in additional funding each to progress through final design,
fabrication, construction and, finally, to full operation. These projects are anticipated to be grid-connected by
the end of 2017.

AT: Warming

No Warming Temperatures Stable

__No runaway warmingglobal temperature has stabilized over the
past decade despite massive increases in Co2
Taylor 13senior fellow for environment policy @ Heartland Institute
James, As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-globaltemperatures-are-not-following-suit/] March 6 //mtc
New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut
assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis. NOAA data show
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the
second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Global
temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012,
yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining
the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. This isnt the first
time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists.
From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global
temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUVs, and substantial carbon dioxide
emissions. Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse
global warming crisis than they have been predicting. The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air
jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees
as many global leaders have hoped, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Actually, the fact that
temperatures remain flat even as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is a devastating rebuke to
assertions that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing a global warming crisis. On a related
front, the NOAA data amplify the futility of imposing costly carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy
in the name of fighting global warming. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined 10 percent during the past
decade, yet global emissions rose by more than 30 percent. Regardless of the future pace of ongoing reductions
in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. Even if the United
States committed economic suicide by imposing all or most of the carbon dioxide restrictions advocated by
global warming activists, the ensuing U.S. carbon dioxide reductions would amount to merely a drop in the
bucket compared to the flood of emissions increases by the world as a whole and by developing nations such
as China and India in particular. Fortunately, as the new NOAA data show, and as global warming skeptics
have observed all along, rising carbon dioxide emissions are having only a modest impact on global
temperatures and are not creating a global warming crisis.

No Warming Cooling Now

__Cooling is coming now its fast and outweighs the effects of
warming
Carlin 11 PhD in Economics from MIT
Alan Carlin, PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND, 3-2011, A Multidisciplinary,
Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change, International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 8
On the contrary, the evidence is that during interglacial periods over the last 3 million years the risks are
on the temperature downside, not the upside. As we approach the point where the Holocene has reached
the historical age when a new ice age has repeatedly started in past glacial cycles, this appears likely to
be the only CAGW effect that mankind should currently reasonably be concerned about. Earth is
currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the glacial periods
that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years. During these interglacial periods there is currently
no known case where global temperatures suddenly and dramatically warmed above interglacial temperatures,
such as we are now experiencing, to very much warmer temperatures. There have, of course, been interglacial
periods that have experienced slightly higher temperatures, but none that we know of that after 10,000 years
experienced a sudden catastrophic further increase in global temperatures. The point here is that there does
not appear to be instability towards much warmer temperatures during interglacial periods. There is
rather instability towards much colder temperatures, particularly during the later stages of interglacial
periods. In fact, Earth has repeatedly entered new ice ages about every 100,000 years during recent
cycles, and interglacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. We are currently very close to the 10,000
year mark for the current interglacial period. So if history is any guide, the main worry should be that of
entering a new ice age, with its growing ice sheets, that would probably wipe out civilization in the
temperate regions of the Northern Hemispherenot global warming. The economic damages from a new
ice age would indeed be large, and almost certainly catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very likely to occur
sooner or later.

Warming Inevitable
__Warming is inevitablepeer reviewed study shows no plausible
solution
Kerr 11
Richard Bleak Prospects for Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming
[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/bleak-prospects-for-avoiding-dangerous.html] October 23
The bad news just got worse: A new study finds that reining in greenhouse gas emissions in time to avert
serious changes to Earth's climate will be at best extremely difficult. Current goals for reducing
emissions fall far short of what would be needed to keep warming below dangerous levels, the study
suggests. To succeed, we would most likely have to reverse the rise in emissions immediately and follow
through with steep reductions through the century. Starting later would be far more expensive and require
unproven technology. Published online today in Nature Climate Change, the new study merges model
estimates of how much greenhouse gas society might put into the atmosphere by the end of the century
with calculations of how climate might respond to those human emissions. Climate scientist Joeri Rogelj
of ETH Zurich and his colleagues combed the published literature for model simulations that keep global
warming below 2C at the lowest cost. They found 193 examples. Modelers running such optimal-cost simulations tried to
include every factor that might influence the amount of greenhouse gases society will produce including the rate of technological progress in burning
fuels efficiently, the amount of fossil fuels available, and the development of renewable fuels. The researchers then fed the full range of emissions from
the scenarios into a simple climate model to estimate the odds of avoiding a dangerous warming. The results suggest challenging times ahead for
decision makers hoping to curb the greenhouse. Strategies that are both plausible and likely to succeed call for

emissions to peak this decade and start dropping right away. They should be well into decline by 2020
and far less than half of current emissions by 2050. Only three of the 193 scenarios examined would be
very likely to keep the warming below the danger level, and all of those require heavy use of energy
systems that actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. That would require, for example,
both creating biofuels and storing the carbon dioxide from their combustion in the ground.

__Even if the aff ceased all emissions 4 degree warming is inevitable

and would trigger their impacts
Hamilton 10 Professor of Public Ethics @ ANU
Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics in Australia, 2010, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth
About Climate Change, pg 27-28
The conclusion that, even if we act promptly and resolutely, the world is on a path to reach 650 ppm is
almost too frightening to accept. That level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be associated with
warming of about 4C by the end of the century, well above the temperature associated with tipping
points that would trigger further warming.58 So it seems that even with the most optimistic set of
assumptionsthe ending of deforestation, a halving of emissions associated with food production, global emissions peaking in 2020 and then
falling by 3 per cent a year for a few decadeswe have no chance of preventing emissions rising well above a number
of critical tipping points that will spark uncontrollable climate change. The Earth's climate would enter
a chaotic era lasting thousands of years before natural processes eventually establish some sort of
equilibrium. Whether human beings would still be a force on the planet, or even survive, is a moot point. One
thing seems certain: there will be far fewer of us. These conclusions arc alarming, co say the least, but they
are not alarmist. Rather than choosing or interpreting numbers to make the situation appear worse than it could be, following Kevin Anderson
and Alice Bows 1 have chosen numbers that err on the conservative side, which is to say numbers that reflect a more buoyant assessment of the
possibilities. A more neutral assessment of how the global community is likely to respond would give an even bleaker assessment of our future. For
example, the analysis excludes non-CO2, emissions from aviation and shipping. Including them makes the task significantly harder, particularly as
aviation emissions have been growing rapidly and are expected to continue to do so as there is no foreseeable alternative to severely restricting the
number of flights.v' And any realistic assessment of the prospects for international agreement would have global emissions peaking closer to 2030 rather
than 2020. The last chance to reverse the trajectory of global emissions by 2020 was forfeited at the

Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009. As a consequence, a global response proportionate to

the problem was deferred for several years.

Not Human Induced

__Warming is not anthropogeniccomparative climate models prove
a) the climate is not as sensitive as previously though and b) Co2
concentrations cant explain past warming
Spencer 8 former head climate scientist @ NASA
(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, former senior scientist for climate studied at
NASA and now leads the U.S. science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on
NASAs Aqua satellite. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/]
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
(PDO)/December 29)
A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earths radiative budget associated with
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change
during the 20th Century including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global
warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive
to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCCs climate models simulate. 1. INTRODUCTION The main
arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: What else COULD it be? After
all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so whats
the point of looking for any other cause? But for those who have followed my writings and publications in the
last 18 months (e.g. Spencer et al., 2007; Spencer, 2008), you know that we are finding satellite evidence
that the climate system is much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) climate models suggest that it is. And if that is
true, then mankinds CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming weve seen
over the last 100 years. To show that we are not the only researchers who have documented evidence
contradicting the IPCC models on the subject of climate sensitivity, I made the following figure (Fig. 1) to
contrast the IPCC-projected warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the warming
that would result if the climate sensitivity is as low as implied by various kinds of observational
evidence.The dashed line in Fig. 1 comes from our recent apples-to-apples comparison between satellite-based
feedback estimates and IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks, all computed from 5-year periods (see Fig. 2). In
that comparison, there were NO five year periods from ANY of the IPCC model simulations which
produced a feedback parameter with as low a climate sensitivity as that found in the satellite data.The
discrepancy between the models and observations seen in Figs. 1 and 2 is stark. If the sensitivity of the
climate system is as low as some of these observational results suggest, then the IPCC models are grossly
in error, and we have little to fear from manmade global warming. [I am told that the 1.1 deg. C sensitivity
of Schwartz (2007) has more recently been revised upward to 1.9 deg. C.] But it also means that the
radiative forcing caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is not sufficient to cause
PAST warming, either. So, this then leaves a critical unanswered question: What has caused the warming seen
over the last 100 years or so? Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a
natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and
oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also
influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern
Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).
The IPCC has simply ASSUMED that these natural fluctuations in weather patterns do not cause
climate change. But all it would take is a small change in global average (or Northern Hemispheric
average) cloudiness to cause global warming. Unfortunately, our global observations of cloudiness have not
been complete or accurate enough to document such a changeuntil recently.

No Runaway Warming
__No runaway warmingsatellite data proves the climate system
isnt sensitive to human causes and would cause less than 1 degree
of warming
Spencer 10former head climate scientist @ NASA
(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at
NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on
NASAs Aqua Satellite The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top
Climate Scientists, pg 100-102)
Dont be discouraged if you dont understand these plots of data and my interpretation of them. All this has
just been a quantitative way of demonstrating that climate researchers have not accounted for clouds
causing temperature changes (forcing) when trying to estimate how much temperature change causes
clouds to change (feedback). In simple terms, they have mixed up cause and effect when analyzing cloud
and temperature variations. As a result of this mix-up, the illusion of a sensitive climate system (positive
feedbacks) emerges from their analysis. Thinking that the climate system is very sensitive, the climate
modelers then built overly sensitive models that produce too much global warming. Or, to illustrate the
issue another way, let's return to the question I had when I got involved in this line of research. When
researchers have observed clouds decreasing with warming, they have claimed that this is evidence of positive
feedback - a sensitive climate system. They have explained that the warming causes the clouds to decrease,
which then amplifies the warming. But how did the researchers know that the warmer temperatures caused the
clouds to decrease, rather than the reverse? In other words, how did they know they weren't mixing up cause
and effect? It turns out they didn't know. We now have peer- reviewed and published evidence of decreases
in cloud cover causing warmer temperatures, yet it has gone virtually unnoticed. I believe that this
misinterpretation of how clouds really behave in the climate system helps explain why the scientific
consensus is so sure that mankind is causing global warming. By confusing natural variability in clouds
with positive feedback, researchers have been led to believe that the climate system is very sensitive.
This, in turn, has led them to conclude that the small amount of forcing from humanity's greenhouse gas
emissions is being amplified enough to explain most of the global warming that we have seen in the last fifty
years or more. They claim that no natural explanation is needed for warming-that humanity's
pollution
is sufficient. By ignoring natural variations, they have concluded that they can ignore natural variations. The circular nature
of their reasoning has not occurred to them. Furthermore, natural variability in clouds probably
also explains why climate
sensitivity estimates have been so variable when previous researchers have diagnosed feedbacks from satellite data. Depending on how
much natural cloud variability was occurring when the satellites made their observations, a wide variety of feedback (climate
sensitivity) estimates would result-- some bordering on a catastrophically sensitive climate system. And as long as the IPCC can claim
that feedbacks in the real climate system are very uncertain, they can perpetuate their warnings that disastrous global warming cannot
be ruled out. They tell us that the sensitivity of the climate system is high, but just how high isn't really known for sure. Therefore, we
must prepare for catastrophic warming, just in case. One detail that 1 did not discuss in this chapter is how the infrared and solar parts
of feedback behaved during the period for which we have satellite data . It turns out that the negative feedback seen by

the satellites was entirely in the reflected solar component, which is most likely due to low clouds. The
infrared portion of the feedback supported positive water vapor feedback, which is consistent with
feedback estimates from other researchers. But it is the total feedback-solar plus infrared-that
determines climate sensitivity. If negative feedbacks outweigh positive feedbacks, then the net feedback
is still negative. Even the IPCC recognized the uncertainty associated with reflected solar feedback from
low clouds in their 2007 report when they concluded: "Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of intermodel differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor." Taken
together, all this evidence indicates that the climate models are too sensitive, which is why they
predict so much global warming for the future. In contrast, the satellite evidence indicates that the
climate system is quite insensitive, which means that it doesn't really care how big your carbon footprint
is. Rather than 15 to 6 deg. C (or more) of warming as predicted by the IPCC, a careful examination of the

satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be
less than 1 deg. C (1.8 deg. F)-possibly much less.

No Consensus
__Correction97% of scientists agree warming is happening and
humans have contributed to some extentnot that its dangerous or
humans are the largest cause
Taylor 13senior fellow for environment policy @ Heartland Institute
James, Alarmists Attack Scientists to Salvage Mythical Consensus [http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2013/02/22/alarmists-attack-scientists-salvage-mythical-consensus] February 22
Additionally, an often misrepresented survey claiming 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are
causing a global warming crisis (actually, the survey asked merely whether some warming has occurred
and whether humans are playing at least a partial role two questions to which I would answer yes)
restricted its participant pool to government scientists and scientists working for institutions dependent
on government grants. Scientists who work for or are funded by government institutions know their
funding will dry up and their jobs will disappear if and when global warming stops being an asserted
crisis.

__Consensus is non-existent
Armstong 11 Professor @ U Wharton School
J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing specializing in forecasting technology, 3-31-2011, Climate Change
Policy Issues, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis
The claim by alarmists that nearly all scientists agree with the dangerous manmade global warming
forecasts is not a scientific way to validate forecasts. In addition, the alarmists are either misrepresenting
the facts or they are unaware of the literature. International surveys of climate scientists from 27
countries, obtained by Bray and von Storch in 1996 and 2003, summarized by Bast and Taylor (2007), found
that many scientists were skeptical about the predictive validity of climate models. Of more than 1,060
respondents, 35% agreed with the statement "Climate models can accurately predict future climates,"
while 47% percent disagreed. More recently, nearly 32,000 scientists have disputed the claim of
"scientific consensus" by signing the "Oregon Petition"3.

AT: Computer Models

__Warming models inaccurateto many generalized assumptions
and inputs
Maslin et al 12 - Environment Institute and Department of Geography, University College London
Mike, Patrick Austin, 14 June 2012, International Weekly Journal of Science Uncertainty: Climate models at
their limit? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486183a.html?
WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureClimate
Why do models have a limited capability to predict the future? First of all, they are not reality. This is
perhaps an obvious point, but it is regularly ignored. By their very nature, models cannot capture all the
factors involved in a natural system, and those that they do capture are often incompletely understood.
Science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues have argued
convincingly that this makes climate models impossible to truly verify or validate1. The more-concrete,
less-philosophical problems can be illustrated by following the path of cascading uncertainties that are
building up in the models used today. One of the first inputs into any climate model is the expected
accumulation of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere by the end of the century. These projections
are based on economic models that predict global fossil-fuel use over 100 years given broad assumptions about
how green the global economy will become. The economic collapse of 2008 showed dramatically, and to our
cost, how difficult it is to predict changes in the economy. And economic unpredictability is just the
beginning. Another layer of uncertainty comes from how the global climate models are weighted. For
example, in the most recent IPCC assessment, released in 2007, the economic scenarios were input into
more than 20 general circulation models. Every model has its own design and parameterizations of key
processes, such as how to include the effects of clouds; and every model and its output was assumed to be
equally valid, even though some perform better than others in certain ways when tested against historic
records. The differences between the models will be exacerbated in the 2013 IPCC assessment, because
many, but not all, of the models have improved spatial resolution. The outputs from the circulation models are
then often used to drive detailed regional climate models to predict local environmental variations. Such
regional models have huge uncertainties, thanks largely to the fact that precipitation is highly variable
over small scales of time and space. This leads to a large range of potential futures, some of which
contradict others. For example, detailed hydrological modelling of the Mekong River Basin using climate
model input from the UK Met Office's HadCM3 model projects changes in annual river discharge that range
from a decrease of 5.4% to an increase of 4.5% (ref. 2). Changes in predicted monthly discharge are even more
dramatic, ranging from a fall of 16% to a rise of 55%. Advising policymakers becomes extremely difficult
when models cannot predict even whether a river catchment system will have more or less water.
Projected regional changes are then used as a basis for 'impact models' that estimate the effect on the
quality of human life. But these effects often depend more on the relative resilience of a given society
than on the magnitude of environmental change. Even the most advanced socioeconomic models, which
look at the monetary costs arising both in market and non-market sectors, often fail to account
adequately for major aspects of human suffering that are hard to quantify3.

AT: Ocean Temperatures

__Impossible to determine ocean temperature trendvarying
measuring depths and limited measurement points over the last
100 years
Spencer 10 former head climate scientist @ NASA
(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at
NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on
NASAs Aqua Satellite The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top
Climate Scientists, pg 11)
Thermometer data, available since 1900 or earlier, are clearly better than temperature proxies, but they are
still rather limited in their geographic sampling. Until recently there have been very few measurements
over two-thirds of the Earth: the oceans. Early measurements of ocean temperatures were taken from
buckets dipped in the ocean from the decks of ships. Later, temperatures would be taken well below a
ships water line, in the intake ports for water that cooled the ship's engine. Most recently, a global
network of over a thousand drifting buoys has been deployed specifically for measuring sea surface
temperature, salinity, currents, and weather. The differences between these various observing systems
scattered through time mean that our estimates of ocean warming to a fraction of a degree over the last
hundred years are, at best, uncertain.

AT: Positive Feedbacks

__Feedbacks already triggered, developing countries outweigh, and
methane releases cause the impact
Mims 12 (Christopher, Science and technology correspondent BBC and Grist, Climate scientists: Its basically too late to stop
warming, http://grist.org/list/climate-scientists-its-basically-too-late-to-stop-warming/, March 26, 2012)
If you like cool weather and not having to club your neighbors as you battle for scarce resources, nows the time to move to Canada,
because the story of the 21st century is almost written, reports Reuters. Global warming is close to being
irreversible, and in some cases that ship has already sailed. Scientists have been saying for a while that we have until
between 2015 and 2020 to start radically reducing our carbon emissions, and what do you know: That deadlines almost past! Crazy
how these things sneak up on you while youre squabbling about whether global warming is a religion. Also , our science got

better in the meantime, so now we know that no matter what we do, we can say adios to the planets ice
caps. For ice sheets huge refrigerators that slow down the warming of the planet the tipping point has
probably already been passed, Steffen said. The West Antarctic ice sheet has shrunk over the last decade and the Greenland
ice sheet has lost around 200 cubic km (48 cubic miles) a year since the 1990s. Heres what happens next: Natural
climate feedbacks will take over and, on top of our prodigious human-caused carbon emissions, send us over
an irreversible tipping point. By 2100, the planet will be hotter than its been since the time of the
dinosaurs, and everyone who lives in red states will pretty much get the apocalypse theyve been hoping for. Th e subtropics
will expand northward, the bottom half of the U.S. will turn into an inhospitable desert, and everyone
who lives there will be drinking recycled pee and struggling to salvage something from an economy
wrecked by the destruction of agriculture, industry, and electrical power production. Water shortages,
rapidly rising seas, superstorms swamping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure : Its all a-coming, and
anyone who is aware of the political realities knows that the odds are slim that our government will move in time to do anything to
avert the biggest and most avoidable disaster short of all-out nuclear war. Even if our government did act, we cant

control the emissions of the developing world. China is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on the
planet and its inherently unstable autocratic political system demands growth at all costs. That means
coal. Meanwhile, engineers and petroleum geologists are hoping to solve the energy crisis by harvesting
and burning the nearly limitless supplies of natural gas frozen in methane hydrates at the bottom of the
ocean, a source of atmospheric carbon previously considered so exotic that it didnt even enter into existing
climate models.

Positive feedbacks dont existcurrent models dont account for

natural cloud fluctuations
Spencer 10 former head climate scientist @ NASA
(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at
NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on
NASAs Aqua Satellite The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top
Climate Scientists, pg XXIV-XXV)
The research communitys confusion of forcing and feedback-cause and effect-is a major them of this
book. In particular, the role of causation in cloud behavior is at the core of what I believe to be the greatest
scientific faux pas in history. The mistake that researchers have made can best be introduced in the
form of a question: When the Earth is observed to warm, and cloud cover decreases with that warming,
did the warming cause the clouds to decrease, or did the decrease in clouds cause the warming? In the big
picture of climate change, cloud changes causing temperature changes would be called forcing, while temperature changes causing
cloud changes would be called feedback. Both occur in nature all the time. Yet when researchers have estimated feedbacks

by analyzing natural climate variations, they have assumed causation in only one direction. Because
researchers have not accounted for natural cloud fluctuations forcing temperature variations, the
illusion of a climate system dominated by positive feedback has emerged. 1had always suspected that
researchers were mixing up cause and effect even before I got into this line of research, but until recently I was
not able to prove it.

AT: Reducing Emissions

__Arctic warming means even ending all emissions will not solve
Bobby Magill, Staff Writer, May 1, 2014, Arctic Methane Emissions Certain to Trigger Warming, Climate
Central, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-methane-emissions-certain-to-trigger-warming-17374,
Accessed 5/16/2014
Warming and thawing permafrost stimulate methane release, which enhances the greenhouse effect, creating a
feedback loop, she said. Even if we ceased all human emissions, permafrost would continue to thaw and
release carbon into the atmosphere, Turetsky said. Instead of reducing emissions, we currently are on
track with the most dire scenario considered by the IPCC. There is no way to capture emissions from
thawing permafrost as this carbon is released from soils across large regions of land in very remote spaces.

__Temperatures would be constant or increase for 50 years after we

stopped CO2 emissions
Thomas Lukas Frlicher, Et al, November 24, 2013, Environmental Physics, Institute of Biogeochemistry and
Pollutant Dynamics, and Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, Continued global
warming after CO2 emissions stoppage, Nature Climate Change,
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2060.html, Accessed 12/14/2013, JT
Recent studies have suggested that global mean surface temperature would remain approximately constant
on multi-century timescales after CO2 emissions are stopped. Here we use Earth system model simulations of
such a stoppage to demonstrate that in some models, surface temperature may actually increase on multicentury timescales after an initial century-long decrease. This occurs in spite of a decline in radiative forcing
that exceeds the decline in ocean heat uptakea circumstance that would otherwise be expected to lead to a
decline in global temperature. The reason is that the warming effect of decreasing ocean heat uptake together
with feedback effects arising in response to the geographic structure of ocean heat uptake overcompensates
the cooling effect of decreasing atmospheric CO2 on multi-century timescales. Our study also reveals that
equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates based on a widely used method of regressing the Earths energy
imbalance against surface temperature change are biased. Uncertainty in the magnitude of the feedback effects
associated with the magnitude and geographic distribution of ocean heat uptake therefore contributes substantially
to the uncertainty in allowable carbon emissions for a given multi-century warming target.

AT: Extinction Impact

__And, consensus of experts agree no impact to warming
Hsu 10
Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinctiondoomsday-100719.html
His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for
humans. Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't
foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are
not end-of-humanity, catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the
University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the technological tools to begin tackling climate change, if
not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added that doom-mongering did little to encourage
people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term, high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use
to motivate short-term, incremental action," Pielke explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people
tend toward is counterproductive." Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change
already exists through carbon capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and
renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City.
But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow
the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become
necessary to stabilize the planet. "The rise in CO2 isn't going to kill many people, and it's not going to kill
humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet, melt a lot of ice,
acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an
experiment whose result remains uncertain."

AT: Ocean Acidification Impact

__No impact to ocean acidification and its not caused by
anthropogenic warming
Eschenbach 10
** cites Robert Byrne, Ph.D from University of Rhode Island, Professor of Seawater Physical Chemistry at the
University of South Florida
Willis The Electric Oceanic Acid Test [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acidtest/#more-20792 SJE] June 19
There is a recent and interesting study in GRL by Byrne et al., entitled Direct observations of basin-wide
acidification of the North Pacific Ocean. This study reports on the change in ocean alkalinity over a 15
year period (1991-2006) along a transect of the North Pacific from Hawaii to Alaska. (A transect is a path
along which one measures some variable or variables.) Here is the path of the transect: I love researching
climate, because theres always so much to learn. Heres what I learned from the Byrne et al. paper.The first
thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water
becomes less and less alkaline. Who knew? So even without any CO2, if you want to experience
acidification of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska you didnt notice the change from the
acidification? You didnt have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity? Well, the sea creatures
didnt notice either. They flourish in both the more alkaline Hawaiian waters and the less alkaline
Alaskan waters. So lets take a look at how large the change is along the transect. Changes in
alkalinity/acidity are measured in units called pH. A neutral solution has a pH of 7.0. Above a pH of 7.0, the
solution is alkaline. A solution with a pH less than 7.0 is acidic. pH is a logarithmic scale, so a solution with a
pH of 9.0 is ten times as alkaline as a solution with a pH of 8.0. Figure 2 shows the measured pH along the
transect. The full size graphic is here. The second thing I learned from the study is that the pH of the ocean is
very different in different locations. As one goes from Hawaii to Alaska the pH slowly decreases along
the transect, dropping from 8.05 all the way down to 7.65. This is a change in pH of almost half a unit. And
everywhere along the transect, the water at depth is much less alkaline, with a minimum value of about 7.25.
The third thing I learned from the study is how little humans have changed the pH of the ocean. Figure 3
shows their graph of the anthropogenic pH changes along the transect. The full-sized graphic is here: The area
of the greatest anthropogenic change over the fifteen years of the study, as one might imagine, is at the surface.
The maximum anthropogenic change over the entire transect was -0.03 pH in fifteen years. The average
anthropogenic change over the top 150 metre depth was -0.023. From there down to 800 metres the average
anthropogenic change was -0.011 in fifteen years. This means that for the top 800 metres of the ocean, where
the majority of the oceanic life exists, the human induced change in pH was -0.013 over 15 years. This was
also about the amount of pH change in the waters around Hawaii. Now, remember that the difference in pH between the surface water
in Hawaii and Alaskan is 0.50 pH units. That means that at the current rate of change, the surface water in Hawaii will be as alkaline as
the current Alaskan surface water in well um lessee, divide by eleventeen, carry the quadratic residual I get a figure of 566
years. But of course, that is assuming that there would not be any mixing of the water during that half-millennium . The ocean is a

huge place, containing a vast amount of carbon. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatonnes of carbon in
the form of CO2. The ocean contains about fifty times that amount. It is slowly mixed by wind, wave, and
currents. As a result, the human carbon contribution will not stay in the upper layers as shown in the
graphs above. It will be mixed into the deeper layers. Some will go into the sediments. Some will
precipitate out of solution. So even in 500 years, Hawaiian waters are very unlikely to have the alkalinity of
Alaskan waters. The final thing I learned from this study is that creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide
range of alkalinities, from a high of over 8.0 down to almost neutral. As a result, the idea that a slight
change in alkalinity will somehow knock the ocean dead doesnt make any sense. By geological standards,
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently quite low. It has been several times higher in the
past, with the inevitable changes in the oceanic pH and despite that, the life in the ocean continued to
flourish. My conclusion? To mis-quote Mark Twain, The reports of the oceans death have been greatly
exaggerated.

AT: Biodiversity Impact

__No biodiversity losshistoric extreme climate events prove
Hof et al 11professor @ Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate @ University of Copenhagen
Christian, Rethinking species ability to cope with rapid climate change Global Change Biology (2011) 17

Ongoing climate change is assumed to be exceptional because of its unprecedented velocity. However,
new geophysical research suggests that dramatic climatic changes during the Late Pleistocene occurred
extremely rapid, over just a few years. These abrupt climatic changes may have been even faster than
contemporary ones, but relatively few continent-wide extinctions of species have been documented for
these periods. This raises questions about the ability of extant species to adapt to ongoing climate change. We
propose that the advances in geophysical research challenge current views about species ability to cope
with climate change, and that lessons must be learned for modelling future impacts of climate change on
species.

__Ice core samples prove

Willis et al 10researcher @ the institute of biodiversity @ Oxford
(K, RM Bailey, SA Bhagwat, HJB Birks. Biodiversity baselines, thresholds and resilience: testing predictions
and assumptions using palaeoecological data)
Another critical question relating to future climate change is whether rates of predicted change will be
too rapid for ecological processes to react and so prevent species and communities persisting. There is
also the question of whether species will be able to migrate quickly enough to new locations with a suitable
climate. Studies based on data from extant populations and modelling suggest that rapid rates of change could
pose a serious threat for many species and communities unable to track climate space quickly enough,
resulting in extensive extinctions [9,31]. But it is also known from fossil records that there have been
numerous previous intervals of abrupt climate change [32,33]. What were the responses of past
biodiversity to these previous intervals of rapid climate change? The existence of highly detailed evidence
from ice-core records (Box 2) spanning the last full glacial cycle provides an ideal opportunity to
examine biodiversity responses to rapid climate change. For example, ice-cores indicate that
temperatures in mid to high latitudes oscillated repeatedly by more than 4oC on timescales of decades or
less [34] (Box 2). Numerous records of biodiversity response from North America and Europe across this
time-interval reflect ecological changes with a decadal resolution [3537]. While they demonstrate clear
evidence for rapid turnover of communities (e.g. Figure 2), novel assemblages, migrations and local
extinctions, there is no evidence for the broad-scale extinctions predicted by models; rather there is
strong evidence for persistence [25]. However, there is also evidence that some species expanded their range
slowly or largely failed to expand from their refugia in response to this interval of rapid climate warming [38].
The challenge now is to determine which specific factors enable persistence during intervals of rapid climate
change, since such information is crucial to conservation strategies for the future. Palaeoecological archives
suggest that rapid rates of spread [39], realised niches broader than those seen today [40], landscape
heterogeneity in space and time [41,42], and the occurrence of many small populations in locally favourable
habitats [29,37,4344] might all have contributed to persistence during the rapid climate changes during the
transition to interglacial conditions approximately 11 500 years ago.

AT: Economy Impact

__Climate change wont collapse the economymost comprehensive
study proves that even if we dont act it would take a century
Kenny 12 senior fellow at the Center for Global Development
Charles Not Too Hot to Handle [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/09/not_too_hot_to_handle]
April 9
Start with the economy. The Stern Review, led by the distinguished British economist Nicholas Stern, is
the most comprehensive look to date at the economics of climate change. It suggests that, in terms of
income, greenhouse gasses are a threat to global growth, but hardly an immediate or catastrophic one.
Take the impact of climate change on the developing world. The most depressing forecast in terms of
developing country growth in Stern's paper is the "A2 scenario" -- one of a series of economic and
greenhouse gas emissions forecasts created for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It's a model that predicts slow global growth and income convergence (poor countries catching up to rich
countries). But even under this model, Afghanistan's GDP per capita climbs sixfold over the next 90
years, India and China ninefold, and Ethiopia's income increases by a factor of 10. Knock off a third for
the most pessimistic simulation of the economic impact of climate change suggested by the Stern report,
and people in those countries are still markedly better off -- four times as rich for Afghanistan, a little
more than six times as rich for Ethiopia. It's worth emphasizing that the Stern report suggests that the costs
of dramatically reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is closer to 1 (or maybe 2) percent of world GDP -- in the
region of $600 billion to $1.2 trillion today. The economic case for responding to climate change by pricing
carbon and investing in alternate energy sources is a slam dunk. But for all the likelihood that the world will be
a poorer, denuded place than it would be if we responded rapidly to reduce greenhouse gases, the global
economy is probably not going to collapse over the next century even if we are idiotic enough to delay
our response to climate change by a few years. For all the flooding, the drought, and the skyrocketing bills
for air conditioning, the economy would keep on expanding, according to the data that Stern uses.

AT: War Impact

__Warming wont cause war
Lewis 10 Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Marlo, The Department of Defense Should Assess the Security Risks of Climate Change Policiesm April 20,
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/On%20Point%20-%20Marlo%20Lewis%20-%20Climate%20Change%20and%20National%20Security
%20-%20FINAL.pdf]
Instability Accelerant: A Skeptical Perspective. The Quadrennial Defense Review cautions that climate change can weaken fragile governments by
increasing the frequency and severity of environmental stresses such as droughts, floods, and disease. Although climate change undoubtedly has
this potential, the risks

have been highly exaggerated.

One of the principal ways in which climate change supposedly undermines

real-world evidence
doesnt support this gloomy prediction. Wendy Barnaby, editor of People & Science, the journal of the British Science Association,
wrote a fascinating essay in Nature magazine on this topic.6 But as Barnaby dug into her topic, she discovered that cooperation
rather than conflict is the dominant response to shared water resources. Of 1,831 interactions over
international fresh water resources spanning five decades, she could not find a single declared warnot even in the
stability is by intensifying droughts and water shortages, thus leading to crop failure, famine, and armed conflict. Yet

conflict-ridden, water-scarce Middle East. Egypt and Jordan have gone to war with Israel several times, but never over water. Rather
than fight about water, they cooperate and import virtual water in the form of grain. Irrigated agriculture consumes far more water
than people consume for personal use. By importing grain, Mideast nations free up scarce water supplies for drinking and bathing.
More virtual water flows into the Mideast each year embedded in grain than flows She had been researching a book on the coming
century of water wars. She assumed that water scarcity is already a significant source of conflicta pervasive problem just waiting to
be threat multiplied by climate change. down the Nile to Egyptian farmers. Barnaby concludes her essay by rejecting the fashionable
notion that water wars are inevitable in a warming world.7 The most pessimistic (and influential) assessment of the impact of global
warming on developing countries is the British governments Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. 8 The Stern Review
is famous for the assertion that climate change damages could rise as high as 20 percent of GDP or more. This estimate is an outlier
in the climate economics literature.9 However, for the sake of argument , let us assume that the Stern Reviews gloomy

assessment is correct. Even then , climate change would likely be a bit player in the fate of nations. As
economist Indur Goklany shows,10 even if we accept the Stern Reviews 95th-percentile GDP loss estimates under
the warmest scenario presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, developing countries net welfare (after
accounting for climate change) would increase from $900 per capita in 1990 to $61,500 in 2100 and $86,200 in 2200 (all in 1990 U.S. dollars). For
perspective, Goklany notes that, in 2006, GDP per capita was $19,300 for industrialized countries, $30,100 for the United States, and $1,500 for
developing countries. In addition to being wealthier, future generations are bound to develop superior technologies in such
critical endeavors as agriculture, medicine, water resource management, disaster preparedness, and emergency response.11 Thus ,

regardless of
climate change, it is very likely that global welfare will improve dramatically over the next two
centuries, and developing countries adaptive capacity will far surpass that of industrial countries today. Therefore , climate change is
unlikely to become an important instability accelerant in the decades ahead.

__Warming doesnt lead to war

-no relationship between environmental degradation and war
Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic
Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 38
Over the last 20 years, three broad research approaches to the nexus between environment and conflict

have emerged: case-based methodologies used by the Toronto group around the Toronto Project on Environmental Change and Acute
Conflict under Thomas Homer-Dixon and the Zurich group around the Environment and Conflicts Project at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
and the quantitative approach of the Oslo group around the International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) under Otto

The various approaches have produced broad agreement in a number of areas: Environmental
factors are only one, and rarely the decisive, contribution to a complex interaction of other political,
social and economic factors underlying conflict. The adaptive and problem-solving capacity of a state or society is perhaps the
most critical factor affecting whether environmental crises will lead to conflict. There is no evidence to date that environmental
problems have been a direct cause of inter-state warfare. Conflicts involving environmental factors
occur predominantly within states, and where they do transcend state borders they tend to be subnational rather man classic inter-state conflicts.
Gleditsch.

Offense Biodiversity
__Warming increases biodiversityresponsible for the existence for
1/7 organisms
Zubrin 12PhD and aerospace engineer
Robert, Carbon Emissions Are Good [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295098/carbon-emissions-aregood-robert-zubrin] April 3
Now let us consider the question of warming: If it is occurring and I believe it is, based not on disputable
temperature measurements but on sea levels, which have risen two inches in two decades is it a good thing
or a bad thing? Answer: It is a very good thing. Global warming would increase the rate of evaporation
from the oceans. This would increase rainfall worldwide. In addition, global warming would lengthen the
growing season, thereby increasing still further the bounty of both agriculture and nature. In other
words, from any rational point of view, global warming would be a very good thing. By enriching the
carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere from its impoverished pre-industrial levels, human beings
have increased the productivity of the entire biosphere so much so that roughly one out of every
seven living things on the planet owes its existence to the marvelous improvement in nature that humans
have effected. Through our CO2 emissions we are making the earth a more fertile world.

Offense CO2 Good

__CO2 increases forest and vegetative productivity that offsets
warming
James M. Taylor, J.D., Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute; Managing Editor, Environment and Climate News,
April 8, 2014, Comprehensive Report Documents Beneficial Impacts of Global Warming,
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/04/08/ comprehensive-report-documents-beneficial-impactsglobal-warming, Accessed 5/18/2014
Biological Impacts documents increasing productivity of forests and grasslands as CO2 levels have
increased both in recent decades and in centuries past, countering IPCC assertions to the contrary. The new
volume also presents the scientific evidence that a more productive biosphere effectively sequesters much of
the carbon dioxide IPCC claims will cause additional warming. The ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content
is causing a great greening of the Earth. All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmospheres
CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity. This observed stimulation, or greening of the
Earth, has occurred in spite of many real and imagined assaults on Earths vegetation, including fires,
disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and climatic change, Biological Impacts reports.

__Studies prove CO2 is key to global agriculture

Craig D. Idso, October 21, 2013, Ph.D. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, The
Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2
Concentrations on Global Food Production, CO2 Science,
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction
.pdf, Accessed 5/18/2014
Numerous studies conducted on hundreds of different plant species testify to the very real and measurable
growth-enhancing, water-saving, and stress-alleviating advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2
concentrations bestow upon Earths plants. In commenting on these and many other CO2-related benefits,
Wittwer (1982) wrote that the green revolution has coincided with the period of recorded rapid increase in
concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it seems likely that some credit for the improved [crop] yields
should be laid at the door of the CO2 buildup. Similarly, Allen et al. (1987) concluded that yields of soybeans
may have been rising since at least 1800 due to global carbon dioxide increases, while more recently, Cunniff et
al. (2008) hypothesized that the rise in atmospheric CO2 following deglaciation of the most recent planetary
ice age, was the trigger that launched the global agricultural enterprise.

__CO2 key to the economy, the biosphere, and global food

production
Idso 10
[Sherwood, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University
of Minnesota, **Keith, B.S. in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his
M.S. from the same institution with a major in Agronomy and Plant Genetics. He completed his Ph.D. in Botany
at Arizona State University, and **Craig Idso, B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in
Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University,
Feeding the World in 2050, Volume 13, Number 32: 11 August 2010,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N32/EDIT.php]
In a recent editorial in Science, Uma Lele (2010) -- a former senior advisor to the World Bank -- begins her
short treatise on the subject of world food needs with the remarkable statement that "there are at least one
billion poor people living with chronic undernourishment, and the United Nations Millennium
Development Goal of substantially reducing the world's hungry by 2015 will not be met." Well, perhaps
"remarkable" is not the best word to describe Lele's assessment of the world's future food outlook,
considering the fact that the UN's Millennium Development Goal was little more than a lofty-sounding
expression of wishful thinking by an organization that seems to specialize in making such noble
pronouncements. But we digress. "The main battlegrounds for poverty reduction are Asia and Africa,"
according to Lele, where, as she continues, "97% of the world's food-insecure reside." And she adds that
"according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [another creation of the United Nations], a
2C increase in temperature could lead to a further 20 to 40% fall in cereal yields, mostly in Asia and
Africa." Therefore, she states that "lifting a billion people out of poverty and feeding an extra 2.3 billion by
2050 will require increasing cereal production by 70%," which is equivalent to "doubling the output of
developing countries," for which quantitative statements Lele cites the findings of the World Summit on
Food Security held in Rome (Italy) in mid-November 2009, which was sponsored by the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization -- yet another construct of that less-than-illustrious multi-country entity. So how
are the tremendous food needs of the world's teeming masses to be met? Lele lists such things as improved
access to knowledge, technologies and markets, as well as innovations involving natural resource
management, restructuring the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and "the 2009
pledge of the G8 countries of $20 billion in new aid to food and agriculture over the next three years, with a
focus on Asia and Africa." This new listing of good intentions is, again, little more than a litany of
lofty-sounding expressions of both wishful thinking and meddlesome tinkering, which leads us to
wonder: Does anyone really believe that the United Nations' new lip service will prove any more effective
than its old lip service? Fortunately, nature herself will come to our aid, as the air's CO2 content
continues to climb ever higher, enhancing both the productivity and the water use efficiency of the
world's crops, which sustain people, and the planet's natural vegetation, which sustains the rest of the
biosphere ... if we let it. Unfortunately, we may not, as many in the world seem intent on turning back
the clock on industrial and technological development by curtailing the use of fossil fuels to produce
the energy we require to (1) sustain or improve our economies, (2) elevate or maintain our standard
of living, and (3) protect and preserve what yet remains of wild nature. Will we the people do what
we must do to save ourselves and the rest of the biosphere? ... and at one and the same time? Well, will
we? The answer does not reside with us. It resides with you.

Offense CO2 Good for Agriculture

__CO2 key to ag production and plant growth peer reviewed metaanalysis of over 529 independent observations
NIPCC 13citing Vanuytrecht, PhD Researcher in ag and biology
***peer reviewed, Vanuytrecht, E., Raes, D., Willems, P. and Geerts, S. 2012. Quantifying field-scale effects of
elevated carbon dioxide concentration on crops. Climate Research 54: 35-47
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Field-Scale Impacts of Elevated CO2 on the World's
Major Crops [http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2013/feb/19feb2013a2.html] February 19 //mtc
Working with peer-reviewed publications that report the results of Free-Air CO2-Enrichment (FACE)
studies - which they acquired via searches of the ISI Web of Science citation database (Thomson) and the
ScienceDirect citation database (Elsevier BV) - Vanuytrecht et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 529
independent observations of various plant growth responses to elevated CO2 that they obtained from 53
papers that contained relevant data in graphical or numerical format pertaining to the following major crops:
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), soybean (Glycine max L.),
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), maize (Zea
mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), as well as the two major pasture species of perennial ryegrass
(Lolium perenne L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Considered en masse, Vanuytrecht et al.
determined that for an approximate 200-ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration (the mean
enhancement employed in the studies they analyzed), water productivity was improved by 23% in the case
of aboveground biomass production per unit of water lost to evapotranspiration, and by 27% in the case of
aboveground yield produced per unit of water lost to evapotranspiration, which two productivity increases
would roughly correspond to enhancements of 34% and 40% for a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's
CO2 concentration. It is also important to note in this regard that although "the FACE technique avoids the
potential limitations of (semi-) closed systems by studying the influence of elevated CO2 on crop growth
in the field without chamber enclosure," as the team of Belgian researchers write, other studies have
demonstrated a significant problem caused by the rapid (sub-minute) fluctuations of CO2 concentration about
a target mean that are common to most FACE experiments, as described by Bunce (2011, 2012), who found
most recently that total shoot biomass of vegetative cotton plants in a typical FACE study averaged 30% less
than in a constantly-elevated CO2 treatment at 27 days after planting, while wheat grain yields were 12% less
in a fluctuating CO2 treatment compared with a constant elevated CO2 concentration treatment. Looking
toward the future, getting higher crop yields per unit of water used in the process of obtaining them will
be a key element of mankind's struggle to feed our ever-increasing numbers over the next four decades,
when our food needs are expected to double (Parry and Hawkesford, 2010); and with both land and water
shortages looming on the horizon, we are going to need all of the help we can possibly get to grow the extra
needed food. Fortunately, the results of this meta-analysis coming out of Belgium point to one important
avenue by which such very substantial help can come, but it will only come if the air's CO2 content is
allowed to rise unimpeded.

__Food insecurity independently collapses the environment

Trudell 5
J.D. Candidate 2006, Syracuse University College of Law [Robert H, ARTICLE: FOOD SECURITY
EMERGENCIES AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: A DOMESTIC LEGAL TOOL TO TREAT A
GLOBAL PROBLEM, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Fall, lexis]
B. Want This: A Sustainable Environment In 1994, the United Nations Development Program, an organization
dedicated to sustainable development in the developing world, identified seven main categories of threats to
human security: economic, health, environmental, personal, community, political, and food security. 71
Certainly, food security is fundamental to each of the other listed threats because a population that cannot
feed itself will not be able to thrive, will be increasingly unhealthy, and will destroy the environment of
the land it depends upon in its desperate pursuit of food. [*288] The lack of food security in sub-Saharan
Africa makes it one of the least stable regions of the world. 72 Such instability has a negative effect on global
security, especially in the poorer countries of the world, which suffer from major violent conflicts. 73 One
cause of this instability can be seen in the connection of food insecurity with the degrading sub-Saharan
environment. 74 In the search for sustainable agriculture, the pressures of a growing population have
resulted in a reduction of cropland. 75 In Africa, forests are cut down to make grazing pastures, then
grazing pastures erode away and become deserts or areas of land incapable of producing any
sustainable harvest because the soil has no more nutrients. 76 One commentator, writing about subSaharan Africa, noted: "the relationship that exists between human security and environmental
degradation is best illustrated in the agricultural sector." 77 Many of the farmers in this region still use the
"slash-and-burn" method of subsistence farming. 78 The forests of sub-Saharan Africa are cut down for
agriculture because, as will be further discussed below, the African soil quickly loses its ability to sustain plant
life so more and more land is needed to grow the same amount of food.

__Collapses civilization bigger risk that nuclear war

Trudell 5
J.D. Candidate 2006, Syracuse University College of Law [Robert H, ARTICLE: FOOD SECURITY
EMERGENCIES AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: A DOMESTIC LEGAL TOOL TO TREAT A
GLOBAL PROBLEM, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Fall, lexis]
2. But, Is It Really an Emergency? In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses
the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ...
resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because
history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of
any major environmental change. 102 This may be so. However, as the events in Rwanda illustrated, the
environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when food insecurity drives
people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices. 103 Furthermore, as
Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can
contribute to a breakdown of society itself. 104 Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles those of many
critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g., environmental change or
overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the problem long before any calamity
sets in. 106 This wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and
innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today, with up to 300,000 child soldiers fighting in conflicts or
wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure. 107
Genocide, anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose
problems threaten global security and challenge all of humanity. 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary
general of the World Social Summit, said: "We've replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat
of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part of the fuse burning to set that bomb off. It is an
emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late.

Impact Calculus War Outweighs

__Can adapt to warming, not war
Scheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for
the World Future Council
Jurgen, Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace,
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf
SPATIAL SCALE | Nuclear proliferation is a global problem like climate change, even though the sources and
impacts of either problem occur on a local scale. Nuclear proliferation and terrorism are driven by regional
security problems and power structures. Global warming is caused by local emissions that accumulate in the
atmosphere to induce global change which in turn affects ecological and social systems locally. While an allout nuclear war can lead to human extinction, this is more unlikely for global warming because the
consequences can be moderated by adaptive capacities that reduce the vulnerability of affected systems.
Despite large uncertainties about the magnitude, frequency and distribution of risks, climate change is now
widely recognized, including the impact of human behaviour on it. The likelihood of nuclear war increases
with nuclear proliferation and hawkish doctrines, but can hardly be quantified.

__Nuclear war is faster

Scheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for
the World Future Council
Jurgen, Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace,
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf
A nuclear war would result from short-term decisions of a small group of political and military leaders. It
may be fought in a time span from hours to days and decisions are made within hours, even minutes. The
consequences are felt within the same time span, e.g. a nuclear explosion can eradicate a whole city within
seconds, but there are also long-term consequences spanning multiple generations, e.g. due to radioactive
fallout. For comparison, climate change occurs over long timescales and gradually undermines the living
conditions of humanity and other life on earth over an extended period. Decisions on climate change have
an impact decades and centuries later and can hardly be attributed to anyone in particular. Nevertheless,
extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornados or floods and landslides may occur on rather short
notice and affect millions of people who are unable to get out of harms way in time. With the possibility of
abrupt climate change, a sequence of cascading events and tipping points could make humanity feel the drastic
changes within decades (Lenton, et al. 2008).

Impact Calculus War = Climate

Nuclear war leads to massive climactic shifts
Scheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for
the World Future Council
Jurgen, Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace,
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf
Although US-Russian nuclear arsenals have been significantly reduced (by more than two-thirds since
1989) the total number of nuclear weapons in the world is still sufficient to destroy the planet
multiple times over. A comprehensive nuclear attack would eject so much debris into the atmosphere
that it could result in a drastic cooling on a global scale (nuclear winter). Huge fires caused by
nuclear explosions, in particular from burning urban areas, would lift massive amounts of dark
smoke and aerosol particles into the upper parts of the atmosphere where the absorption of sunlight
would further heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere. Here the smoke could persist for years
and block out much of the suns light from reaching the earths surface, causing surface
temperatures to drop drastically. Recent scientific studies on nuclear winter suggest that even a limited
regional nuclear exchange could rapidly cool down the planet to temperatures not felt since the ice
ages and significantly disrupt the global climate for years to come. In a regional nuclear conflict
scenario where two opposing nations (such as India and Pakistan) would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized
nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated that as
much as five million tons of soot (impure carbon particles) would be released (Robock 2010)

Wind Xs Biodiversity Avian Collisions

__Only a site and species specific approach can avoid the risk of
avian collisions
Anthony Bicknell, Ph.D., Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre at the Plymouth Marine Institute,
Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine
Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_
renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014
The impact of these non-lethal effects will be highly dependent on the species and location, size, and number of
MRE installations. Wind-farms are of most concern as they are highly visible to birds and known to invoke
strong avoidance responses in some species, but tidal and wave may still cause displacement from feeding
habitat if badly located, especially during construction. A site- and species specific approach needs to be taken
to assess the effects, but sensible development planning to avoid sensitive foraging areas and improve windfarm design (e.g. spacing of turbines and flight corridors) will help mitigate possible population impacts.

Wind Xs Biodiversity Noise Pollution

__Wind renewables generate noise pollution that is lethal to fish
Manuela Truebano, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, et
al., June 19, 2013, Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries, Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth
University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed
5/12/2014
Fish utilise biological noise to obtain information about the environment in terms of presence of prey
and/or predators, communication and orientation using a number of morphological structures to detect
sound (noise and vibrations). These hearing structures are extremely diverse among fishes, resulting in different
auditory capacity and sensitivity and, consequently, different responses to noise between fish species. Different
aspects of the construction and operation of MRE devices result in noise levels that could have a negative
effect in some fish. During the construction phase, wind turbine foundation installation can generate acute
noise (peak levels around 206 dB re 1 Pa), potentially leading to mortality, physical injury, hearing loss and
avoidance responses. During wind farm operation, more subtle effects could be expected, including
physiological and behavioural changes, such as impairment of aggressive and reproductive strategies
through masking of communicative signals.

__Offshore wind construction causes noise pollution that harms

endangered marine species
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Staff Writer, November 4, 2013, Assessing
impact of noise from offshore wind farm construction may help protect marine mammals,
http://www.umces.edu/cbl/release/ 2013/oct/16/assessing-impact-noise-offshore-wind-farm-construction-mayhelp-protect-marine-m, Accessed 5/18/2014
Growth in offshore wind generation is expected to play a major role in meeting carbon reduction targets around
the world, but the impact of construction noise on marine species is yet unknown. A group of scientists from the
United Kingdom and the United States have developed a method to assess the potential impacts of offshore wind
farm construction on marine mammal populations, particularly the noise made while driving piles into the seabed
to install wind turbine foundations. Their work is published in the November issue of Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. Pile-driving during the construction of offshore wind farms produces an incredible
amount of noise, said Helen Bailey, one of a group of scientists at the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science who are studying the impacts of wind turbines on the environment. This is
potentially harmful to marine species and has been of greatest concern to marine mammal species, such as
protected populations of seals, dolphins and whales.

AT: Economy

Econ Up
__U.S. and global economic growth will grow this year
Moody's Investors Service, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, Advanced economies likely to drive global growth in
2014-15 as emerging markets slow down, Global Credit Research, https://www.moodys.com/research/MoodysAdvanced-economies-likely-to-drive-global-growth-in-2014--PR_298858, Accessed 5/18/2014
Moody's notes that reforms and accommodative monetary policy in the aftermath of the global financial and
the euro area crises are slowly bearing fruit in advanced economies. After a soft patch at the start of the
year, US economic activity is set to pick up during 2014 on the back of strong corporate balance sheets,
favourable financing conditions, a smaller fiscal drag and strong price competitiveness. Moreover, after two
years of recession, the euro area will contribute positively to global growth in 2014 as exporters benefit from
competitiveness-improving reforms and as constraints on households' budgets ease.

__Global economic growth will be steady this year

Moody's Investors Service, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, Advanced economies likely to drive global growth in
2014-15 as emerging markets slow down, Global Credit Research, https://www.moodys.com/research/MoodysAdvanced-economies-likely-to-drive-global-growth-in-2014--PR_298858, Accessed 5/18/2014
Overall, positive developments in advanced economies will raise global growth this year to around 3%. For
emerging markets, growth in 2014 is likely to be lower than in 2013. In 2015, as stronger trade spills over to
improved domestic activity in most countries, global growth is expected to rise further, to reach close to
3.5% for the G20 economies, in line with historical averages.

AT: U.S. Key

__China will outpace the U.S. role in global growth this year
The Economic Times, Staff Writer, April 30, 2014, China poised to overtake US economy: World Bank
ranking, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-poised-to-overtake-useconomy-world-bank-ranking/articleshow/34433509.cms, Accessed 5/18/2014
In 2005, on a PPP basis, Chinese output amounted to about 43.0 percent of US GDP, but in 2011 this had risen to
nearly 87.0 percent, doubling its relative performance. China has been catching up for several years, since it
became a player across the global economy. It now looks possible that in the course of this year, the Asian
behemoth will overtake the United States in terms of output on a purchasing-power basis.

__China will surpass the U.S. this year as the most important
economy
Kevin Lamarque, Staff Writer, May 02, 2014, No longer #1? China may replace US as biggest economy this
year World Bank, RT, http://rt.com/business/155892-china-overtake-us-economy/, Accessed 5/18/2014
Sometimes size DOES matter. China may pass the US and become the worlds most important economy
this year, according to the World Bank. It would take the position the US has held since 1872. Previous studies
have suggested China could become the world's biggest economy by 2019. Ever since the 2008 financial crisis,
the Chinese economy has contributed a quarter of total global growth. Between 2011-2014, Chinas economy
will account for 24 percent, according to IMF estimates.

AT: Impacts
__Economic doomsaying deters investment and lending, which hurts
the economy
Zachary Karabell, Guest contributor and a money manager, May 1, 2014, Cassandras Everywhere, Slate,
http://www.slate.com/
articles/business/the_edgy_optimist/2014/05/global_economic_collapse_the_cassandras_who_are_predicting_a_c
rash.html, Accessed 5/18/2014
The cult of doom has been thriving ever since the meltdown of 2008. With so many having been caught off
guard by the cascading crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, a never-again
mentality took hold, especially in the United States. Europe had its own reckoning over the euro soon after, and
has been mired not just in stagnant growth but pessimism ever since. The reasons for todays caution verging
on paranoia are understandable, but the effects are no less destructive. Trillions of dollars sit on corporate
balance sheets unused as companies and their CEOs wonder whether now is a good time to spend. Banks,
trying to preserve capital provided to them largely by government, have been reluctant to lend, though they are
certainly doing so more now than in the immediate aftermath of 20082009. Believing that the financial system is
imperiled by a Fed out of control and by trillions in debt, wide swaths of the political class emboldened by the Tea
Party continue to sound the klaxon of austerity, forcing ever more shrinkage of what little government spending
there is on infrastructure, science, and investment.

__Economic decline does not lead to war

Robert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science, and
a Member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, July 2011,
Force in Our Times, Saltzman Working Paper No. 15,
http://www.siwps.com/news.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper15-842/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF, Accessed
5/18/2014
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to
arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community
into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in
nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce
greater nationalism, undermine democracy, and bring back old-fashioned beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies.
While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the
members of the community to contemplate fighting each other . It is not so much that economic
interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed states that were more internally
interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the
more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how
without building on a pre-existing high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to
believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that
problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by
war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial
crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp
economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad
times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

AT: Jobs
__Offshore wind wont generate new jobsaccounts for less than 1%
of total manufacturing jobs
Platzer '11
Michaela D. Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an
Emerging Industry" 9/23/11 Cornell University ILR School,
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=key_workplace, 8/21/12
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share of the 11.5 million domestic manufacturing jobs in 2010, well under 1%. It
seems unlikely, even given a substantial increase in U.S. manufacturing capacity, that wind turbine manufacturing will become a major source
of manufacturing employment. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy forecast that if wind power were to provide 20% of the nations
electrical supply in 2030, U.S. turbine assembly and component plants could support roughly 32,000 full-time manufacturing workers in
2026.82 AWEAs more optimistic projection is that the wind industry could support three to four times as many manufacturing workers as at present if
a long-term stable policy environment were in place, which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83 Further employment growth in the sector is likely to
depend not only upon future demand for wind energy, but also on corporate decisions about where to produce towers, blades, nacelles, and their most
sophisticated components, such as gearboxes, bearings, and generators.

__Empirics prove all the jobs will go overseas even with massive
stimulus
Stewart 10
Brandon, Solar Subsidies Fail to Create Green Jobs, Again [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/10/solar-subsidiesfail-to-create-green-jobs-again/] February 10
As we reported in todays Morning Bell, ABC News reports that despite massive amounts of stimulus
funding being spent on wind farmsnearly $2 billionthe vast majority (80%) of it has been spent on
overseas companies. ABC contacted Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop who suggested
that the project has resulted in nearly 6,000 jobs for overseas manufacturers and only a few hundred
over here.

__Offshore wind developed overseasno domestic jobs

ASBC '11
American Sustainable Business Council, "American Sustainable Business Council White House Briefing:
Creating Jobs and Building a Sustainable Economy," 6/2/11 http://www.communitywealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/10-11/paper-asbc.pdf AD 8/19/11
Despite its hardships, American manufacturing still represents a considerable share of the U.S. economy. The sectors gross output in 2005 was $4.5
trillion, and it still supports nearly 13 million jobs, or nearly 10 percent of total non-farm employment. The clean energy sector is projected to reach
$226 billion annually by 2016. Demand for solar and wind power will continue to expand over the next twenty years, and upwards to 80% of these new
jobs will be in the manufacturing sector. Clean energy manufacturing offers an opportunity to strengthen and expand Americas middle class. But
theres one big problem: we dont make most of these systems here in the U.S. Fully half of Americas existing wind turbines were manufactured
overseas. We rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components, even though the solar cell was born in America. The fact that other
countries are prepared to deliver these products and we are not means that every new American bill creating demand for renewable
energy systems and energy efficiency services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we the US has a robust manufacturing infrastructure
and skilled workforce.

AT: Jobs - Bad Methods

__Their evidence exaggerates; jobs estimates use faulty
methodology
Linowes 12
Lisa Linowes, blogger for MasterResource.com. Lisa Linowes is cofounder and executive director of the
Industrial Wind Action Group, a national advocacy group focusing on the impacts and public policy associated
with industrial-scale wind energy development. Ms. Linowes, who holds a B.S. in computer science and an MBA,
has served as technical advisor for Laura Israels Windfall, the award-winning documentary on the impact of
large-scale wind development on rural communities. Wind Energy Jobs: Mysterious Numbers from AWEA
(75,000 claim bogus) 7/12/2012
The numero uno goal of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) beyond its current
expiration date of December 31, 2012. Documents available on the trade groups website show that about $4 million of AWEAs 2012 budget ($30
million) was directed toward PTC lobbying. With job growth the top political issue in this election season, AWEAs strategic plan calls for
rebranding of the wind industry as an economic engine that will produce steady job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector. But
therein lies a problem: the wind industrys own record on job growth lacks credibility. Public information suggests that AWEA has inflated its
overall job numbers. Section 1603 Job Inflation: Seventy-five percent of the Section 1603 largesse was lavished on big wind, yet, despite billions of
taxpayer dollars, this sector experienced a loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010. This lowers AWEAs reported total to 75,000 jobs. [1]
In April, the DOE subsidiary National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released its estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by wind
projects receiving 1603 funding. The agency relied on the JEDI (Jobs and Economic Development Impacts) model to estimate gross jobs,
earnings, and economic output supported through the construction and operation of large wind projects. But an investigation by the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rightly objected to NRELs conclusions. The Subcommittee found that NREL overstated the
number of jobs created under 1603, that it failed to report on the more important net job creation, and ignored potential jobs that would be
created given alternative spending of federal funds. The key sticking point was that NREL did not validate its models using actual data from
completed projects. The Subcommittee concluded that models like JEDI which are used to estimate job creation were no substitute for actual data and
added: The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a necessary stimulus jobs program, and yet, the Treasury and Energy
Departments do not have the numbers to back up the Obama Administrations claims of its success in creating jobs. JEDI Magic: Since NRELs JEDI
model provides a gross analysis only, it does not consider how building a renewable energy facility might displace energy or associated jobs,
earnings, and output related to other existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost or gained related to changes in electric utility
revenues and increased consumer energy bills, among other impacts). In other words, the model is one-sided, considering only the benefit side of a
cost-benefit comparison and ignoring everything else.

AT: Jobs - No New Employment

__People wont work on offshore wind projects---qualified people
choosing fossil fuel jobs
Edwards 11
Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil
and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU
%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF
UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY &
HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE
DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND
BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)
A large offshore wind industry will require engineers and technicians to install and operate them. There
is a concern over the availability of suitably qualified people which leads to a requirement to establish
education and training courses to provide a supply of qualified personnel. There is an associated concern
that because many of the basic qualifications required for the offshore wind industry are very similar to
the offshore oil and gas industry there will be competition between the two industries for personnel.
Operators of offshore wind farms are already reporting a migration of skilled workers from the offshore
wind sector to the offshore oil and gas sector, because this sector is offering better pay and conditions. In
the long term both industries have to attract more young people to offshore industries and to encourage them to
take science and engineering subjects at school and university. A joint approach to this problem, coordinated
by a group of trade and industry associations, is more likely to be successful and should aim to promote
common courses in basic offshore technology, safety systems and survival techniques are offered, because it
would provide young people with career options, before they have to take a specialist course in a particular
technology.

AT: Manufacturing High Now

__US manufacturing trending toward an industrial revolution now--multiple different stats show US taking lead from China
Monan 12
Zhang Monan, contributor for China Daily and economics researcher for Chinese State Information Center, Wake-up call for industry, August 20, 2012
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-08/20/content_15688515.htm

The speed with which the US is "returning" to manufacturing poses a major challenge to China's sizefocused manufacturing sector, large as it may be. The "factor dividend" has long been the largest
driving force behind China's fast-growing economy. The world's largest population and its demography have not only supplied
sufficient labor for China's economic growth, but also created favorable conditions for its high accumulation rate and enormous capital inputs. Because
of its abundant resources and their comparatively low prices, China's marginal return ratio on capital has usually been higher than that in developed
countries. As a result, global production capital allocation has favored China under the principle of profit

maximization and made it the world's "manufacturing workshop". However, this situation is
undergoing some delicate changes with the change in China's factor prices, especially the weakening of
its "demographic dividend". Latest data show that the gap between the production costs in China and
the US is narrowing because of a decline in the US' manufacturing labor cost, although China's labor cost is far
below that of the US average. In 2010, the US' manufacturing productivity increased by 6.1 percentage points and its labor cost per unit of output fell by
4.2 percentage points, according to official data. In fact, its labor cost per unit of manufacturing output fell by an

accumulated 10.8 percent from 2002 to 2010. In comparison, the growth rate of labor cost in China has
been much faster than that of its productivity over the past years. Figures show that workers' pay in China on average
grew 19 percent year-on-year from 2005 to 2010, compared to just 4 percent in the US. An ever-growing labor cost will pose a
major challenge to China's manufacturing that has long been profiting from cheap labor. To make its
manufacturing sector more attractive to overseas capital, the US has taken measures to reduce tax
burdens through some policy adjustments and is trying to make temporary tax cuts a permanent affair. The Obama administration is
also trying to review and revise the North America Free Trade Agreement and its agreements with Colombia and the Republic of Korea for setting up a
free trade area with them. With these, the US aims to repeal the preferential policies that American companies were

offered to shift their businesses overseas and make them return to the US. Apart from the ever-narrowing labor cost
with the US and various stimulus measures that Washington has taken, China also faces the challenge of promoting innovation
in and development of its manufacturing technologies. The US has vowed to continue leading high-end
manufacturing and seems well poised for a new "industrial revolution". This will lay the foundation for
the US to achieve more technological breakthroughs in manufacturing, and ensure faster economic
growth and increase in competitiveness. To push forward its "re-industrialization" strategy, the US is aiming to promote industrial
upgrade and raise its high-end manufacturing level. As concrete steps toward this goal, the US has released a high-end manufacturing plan and
expedited the flow of funds and technological inputs into nanotechnology, high-grade batteries, energy materials, bio-manufacturing, new-generation
microelectronics and advanced robots. The US expects these moves to boost the development of high-end

technologies and help it become the leader in high-end manufacturing technologies. The US' "re-industrialization"
strategy, which coincides with changes in and upgrade of China's industrial structure, will result in some direct competition between the two countries in
the manufacturing sector. Given that the US is on the threshold of a new "technological and industrial revolution",
China should change its manufacturing strategy in order to overcome its insufficient technological innovation capacity and low competitiveness.

__Manufacturing industry making huge recovery now---growing

faster than any other industry, jobs and manufacturers coming back
to US prove
Kotkin 12
Joel Kotkin, contributor for Forbes, Cities Leading An American Manufacturing Revival, May 24, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/24/seattle-is-leading-an-american-manufacturing-revival/
In this still tepid recovery, the biggest feel-good story has been the resurgence of American
manufacturing. As industrial production has fallen in Europe and growth has slowed in China, U.S.
factories have continued an expansion that has stretched on for over 33 months. In April, manufacturing
growth was the strongest in 10 months. There are a number of reasons for this revival. Rising wages in
China up from roughly one-third U.S. levels to half that in a decade and problems associated with
protection of trademarks and other issues have led many U.S. executives to look back home. Some 22%
of U.S. product manufacturers surveyed by MFGWatch reported moving some production back to
America in the fourth quarter of 2011, and one in three said they were studying the proposition. Certainly how
long this expansion can last is an open question, particularly given weakness in Europe and the slowdown in
formerly fast-growing developing countries. But one thing is clear: the industrial resurgence is reshaping
the economic and employment map in often unexpected ways. Now rather than being pulled down by
manufacturing, our Best Cities For Jobs survey, conducted by Pepperdine Universitys Michael Shires, found
that many industrial regions are benefiting from their prowess. From 2010 through March,
manufacturers added 470,000 jobs and enjoyed a rate of job growth 10% faster than the rest of the
private economy. In the past many areas suffered from having too many industrial workers. Now it looks like
we will have too few skilled ones, even in hard-hit sectors like the auto industry. In 2011 there were 50,000
unfilled U.S. job openings in industrial engineering, welding, and computer-controlled machine tool operating,
according to the forecasting firm EMSI. If the revival continues, this shortage could worsen.

AT: Manufacturing No IL
__ We have to rebuild the manufacturing base before we can start
on wind
Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
Offshore wind turbines are currently not manufactured in the United States. Domestic manufacturing
needs to be in place in the United States in order for the industry to fully develop. The absence of a mature
industry results in a lack of experienced labor for manufacturing, construction, and operations. Workforce
training must therefore be part of the upfront costs for U.S. projects.

AT: Manufacturing Industry Exports Now

__US turbine exports growing now
David and Fravel '12
Andrew S., Dennis, and Monica Reed analysts with the Office of Industries of the U.S. International Trade
Commission, "U.S. Wind Turbine Export Opportunities in Canada and Latin America" July 2012
http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wind-Export-working-paper-ID-032-final080312.pdf AD 8/21/12
U.S. exports of windpowered generating sets17 rose substantially during 200711, with Canada and Latin America accounting for the largest
share of exports (figure 3 and table 2).18 The increase in U.S. exports is driven principally by three factors: the increase in the number of firms
producing in the United States and the related growth in U.S. production capacity; growing markets in Canada and Latin America; and the
competitiveness of U.S. firms in nearby markets. A majority of U.S. nacelle producers have exported in the past and those that have not exported
have indicated that they intend to supply foreign market from their U.S. plants (table 1). Despite the increase in U.S. exports, they accounted for
only 8 percent of global exports of windpowered generating sets in 2011.19

AT: Manufacturing Wind Not Key

Clean energy doesnt boost manufacturingdeveloped overseas
ASBC '11
American Sustainable Business Council, "American Sustainable Business Council White House Briefing:
Creating Jobs and Building a Sustainable Economy," 6/2/11 http://www.communitywealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/10-11/paper-asbc.pdf AD 8/19/11
Despite its hardships, American manufacturing still represents a considerable share of the U.S. economy. The sectors gross output in 2005 was $4.5
trillion, and it still supports nearly 13 million jobs, or nearly 10 percent of total non-farm employment. The clean energy sector is projected to reach
$226 billion annually by 2016. Demand for solar and wind power will continue to expand over the next twenty years, and upwards to 80% of these new
jobs will be in the manufacturing sector. Clean energy manufacturing offers an opportunity to strengthen and expand Americas middle class. But
theres one big problem: we dont make most of these systems here in the U.S. Fully half of Americas existing wind turbines were manufactured
overseas. We rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components, even though the solar cell was born in America. The fact that other
countries are prepared to deliver these products and we are not means that every new American bill creating demand for renewable
energy systems and energy efficiency services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we the US has a robust manufacturing infrastructure
and skilled workforce.

AT: Manufacturing Not Key to Economy

Manufacturing not key to US economy
Hemphill and Perry '12
Thomas A., Ph.D. in Business Administration associate professor of Strategy, Innovation, and Public Policy in the
School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint. Mark J., Ph.D. in Economics professor of Economics and
Finance in the School of Management University of Michigan, isiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute
"A U.S. Manufacturing Strategy for the 21st Century: What Policies Yield National Sector Competitiveness?,"
Business Economics (Journal," April 2012 www.palgrave-journals.com/be/journal/v47/n2/abs/be20124a.html
Academic OneFile AD 8/19/12
Manufacturing output as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) An important issue related to the dramatic increases in manufacturing-worker
productivity is the decrease in the manufacturing sector's value as a share of GDP. From a postwar high of 28.3 percent in 1953, manufacturing's share
of U.S. GDP has gradually decreased over time, falling to an historic low of 11.2 percent in 2009 before increasing to 11.7 percent in 2010. The 0.5
percent increase in manufacturing's share of GDP in 2010 was the largest annual increase since a 0.6 percent increase back in 1976. At the same time,
the share of private services-producing industries increased from 47.3 percent of GDP in 1953 to 68.5 percent in 2010. Over the same period.
manufacturing jobs as a percent of total U.S. payroll employment fell from 32 percent to less than 9 percent. whereas service sector jobs increased
from 61 percent to 86.3 percent of total payroll employment. Manufacturing's decreasing shares of total output and total employment have also
supported the public's perception that America's manufacturing sector is in a state of decline. However. there are two key points to be made here about
the declining share of manufacturing in the total U.S. economy.

AT: Solvency

General Solvency Answers

__The plan cannot overcome resource characterization, high startup costs, grid connection, and infrastructure barriers
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February
2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Significant challenges to offshore wind power deployment related to resource characterization, grid
interconnection and operation, and infrastructure will need to be overcome. The offshore wind resource is
not well characterized. This significantly increases uncertainty related to potential project power
production and turbine and array design considerations, which in turn increase financing costs. The
implications for adding large amounts of offshore wind generation to the power system need to be better
understood to ensure reliable integration and to evaluate the need for additional grid infrastructure such as an
offshore transmission backbone. Finally, with current technology, costeffective installation of offshore wind
turbines requires specialized vessels, purposebuilt portside infrastructure, robust undersea electricity
transmission lines, and grid interconnections. These vessels and this infrastructure do not currently exist in the
U.S. Although foreignflagged turbine installation and maintenance vessels exist, legislation such as the Jones Act
limits the ability of these vessels to operate in U.S. waters.

__Transmission planning issues will cause delays in development

Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
The offshore wind industry faces similar transmission planning issues as the land-based wind industry.
There has always been a chicken and egg dilemma when it comes to transmission expansion, often leading to
project delays. Wind developers often will not build wind farms without sufficient transmission.
Transmission operators often will not build new transmission lines without sufficient assurances that they
will be able to recover their costs. Cost allocation methodologies are complicated as well, and require adequate
advance planning time on the part of multiple stakeholders.

AT: Wind Solves Warming

__Emissions reductions insignificantcrowds out gas, not coal
Cullen '12
Joseph PhD Economics,Measuring the Environmental BenefitsofWind-Generated Electricityconducted with
financial support from the University of Arizona and the Harvard Univer -sity Center for the Environment. June
2012 www.josephcullen.com/resources/measuringwind.pdf AD 8/30/12
Renewable energy subsidies have been a politically popular program over the past decade. These subsidies have led to explosive growth in wind power
installations across the US, especially in the Midwest and Texas. Renewable subsidies are largely motivated by their environmental benefits as they do
not emit CO2, NOx, SO2, or other pollutants which are produced by fossil fuel generators. Given the lack of a national climate legislation, renewable
energy subsidies are likely to be continued to be used as one of the major policy instruments for mitigating carbon dioxide emissions in the near future.
As such, a better understanding of the impact of subsidization on emissions is imperative. This paper introduces an approach to directly measure the
impact of wind power on emissions using observed generating behavior. The quantity of pollutants offset by wind power depends crucially on which
generators reduce production when wind power comes online. By exploiting the quasi-experimental variation in wind power production driven by
weather fluctuations, it is possible to 40 The identify generator specific production offsets due to wind power. Importantly, dynamics play a critical role
in the estimation procedure. Failing to account for dynamics in generator operations leads to overly optimistic estimates of emission offsets.
Although a static model would indicate that wind has a significant impact on the operation of coal generators, the results from a dynamic model
show that wind power only crowds out electricity production fueled by natural gas. The model was used to estimate wind power offsets for
generators on the Texas electricity grid. The results showed that one MWh of wind power production offsets less than half a ton of CO2, almost one
lb of NOx , and no discernible amount of SO2 . As a benchmark for the economic benefits of renewable subsidies, I compared the value of offset
emissions to the cost of subsidizing wind farms for a range of possible emission values. I found that the value of subsidizing wind power is driven
primarily by CO2 offsets, but that the social costs of CO2, would have to be greater than $42/ton in order for the environmental benefits of wind
power to have outweighed the costs of subsidies.

__No solvency trades off with hydro and nuclear

Van Kooten '09
G. Cornelius PhD University of Victory Economics "Wind Power: The Economic Impact of Intermittency," Lett
Spat Resour Sci (2010) 3: 117 Nov 21 09
www.springerlink.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/content/n33m8m15230876h0/ AD 8/30/12
The presence of large-scale nuclear and hydro facilities militates against the use of wind to address climate change as wind power simply
displaces hydroelectric and nuclear power, both of which have very low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. As our model indicates, the costs of
reducing CO2 emissions are unacceptably large in such cases (and would theoretically be infinite if wind power displaces a carbon-free alternative
one-for-one). A generating mix that might best be suited to greater deployment of wind farms is one that relies principally on fossil fuels yet has enough
hydroelectric capacity to enable wind-generated power to be stored in hydro reservoirs. This is an issue that has not been explored here as it requires
more detailed information than currently available.

__Offshore wind doesnt reduce GHG---only a risk backup power

sources increase emissions
Tuerck et al 11
David Tuerck, PhD, Paul Bachman, MSIE, Ryan Murphy, B.S. (PhD candidate), The Cost and Economic Impact
of New Jerseys Offshore Wind Initiative, Beacon Hill institute, June
When wind power reduces fossil fuel use, it also indirectly contributes to cleaner air through lower
emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The reduced
emissions of CO2 are believed to reduce the greenhouse effect and thereby moderate the effects of global
warming, although the strength of these effects is a matter of considerable debate. The main benefit of
lower emissions of SOx, NOx and CO2 is a reduction in human mortality and morbidity. It is not easy to put a
dollar value on these effects, and so estimates vary widely. We use the numbers reported by Muller et al. and
value CO2 using the most recent futures auctions from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for
New Jersey, or $2.04 per tonne of CO2.16 However, coal is the largest marginal producer for the midAtlantic region, according to the market report for the PMJ. In this case, it is unclear that the use of
renewable energy resources, especially wind, significantly reduces GHG emissions. Due to their
intermittency, wind requires significant backup power sources that are cycled up and down to
accommodate the variability in their production. As a result, a recent study found that wind power could
actually increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions when coal represents a large portion of the
marginal electricity produced for New Jersey.17 Thus the case for the heavy use of wind to generate

cleaner electricity is undermined in terms of replacing coal. Therefore, we assume that the resources
used as the marginal producer will only reduce emissions for the portion of the marginal production from
natural gas and oil and not from coal. Table 4 displays the calculations.

__Offshore wind wont tradeoff with fossil fuels---theyre required as

backup source of energy
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 12
Cape Wind Threats: The Environment, http://www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/environment/
Myth: Cape Wind would markedly reduce local air pollution and presents a solution to global warming. Fact:
Cape Wind would not make a significant contribution to the effort to reduce pollution emissions, and, in
fact, could aggravate the problem by causing dirty power plants to run more often in order to be ready
to generate power instantly when the wind stops blowing. Despite the claims of some Cape Wind
supporters, the Cape Wind project would not shut down local fossil fuel burning power plants. Due to the
unreliable nature of wind power, back up sources of power - including fossil fuel burning plants - must
always be running to compensate for the possible lack of wind. Moreover, since much of the air pollution in
Southern New England originates in the Mid-West, Cape Wind would have little impact on local air quality. At
a minimum, Cape Wind used questionable data and assumptions in arriving at its claims for air quality
benefits of the project. Beyond ignoring the issue of dirty back up power, Cape Wind's approach generally
ignores the effect of a capped SO2 and NOx emissions system, in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new
generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run. While pushing the allegedly "green"
Cape Wind project, Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon is simultaneously proposing a diesel burning
power plant just yards from an elementary school in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Not surprisingly, this proposal
has been met with strong local opposition in Chelsea.

Barges/Vessels
__Terminal solvency deficit---no US barges exist to build turbines
and law prevents European vessels from doing it
Giordano 10
Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States' First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind
Energy Industry [comments] University of Richmond Law Review , Vol. 44, Issue 3 (March 2010), pp. 1149-1172
Giordano, Michael P. 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149 (2009-2010)
Present constraints on turbine capacity also limit the amount of wind energy that can be harnessed for
electricity. The power and productivity of wind turbines increases as turbine tower height and the area swept
by the turbine blades increase.9 For example, an increase in rotor diameter from ten meters to fifty meters
"yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity output" be- cause of the increase of the tower height and the
size of the swept area.60 Added costs due to the construction and operation of off- shore wind farms can be
absorbed more easily if the wind farm is able to generate more electricity. Most believe that offshore wind
projects will need 5 MW or larger turbines to capture wind power and reach the economies of scale
needed to make long-distance offshore sites financially viable.61 The installation process also brings
technological challenges to the offshore wind energy industry. In order to install offshore wind turbines,
developers will need to hire a fleet of vessels including "barges with compensated cranes, leg stabilized
feeder fleets, oil and gas dynamic positioning vessels, and floating heavy lift cranes."62 "This imposes a
limitation on American offshore wind development, since all vessels used for construction and
operations and maintenance (O&M)... have been European,"3 and United States law mandates that only
United States-based vessels may work in United States waters, with little exception. Thus, growth of
domestic offshore wind energy also depends on the construction of new, customized vessels in the United
States. Technology must also find ways to address uncertainties associated with connecting to the electrical
grid and finding ways to assemble turbines at nearby land locations just prior to installation in the seabed.

Rare Earth Mineral Shortage

__REMs critical to offshore wind production will be gone by 2015--no alternatives
Bourzac 11
Katherine, Technology Review's material science editor, MIT Science Writing program; The Rare-Earth Crisis,
May, http://www.technologyreview.com/contributor/katherine-bourzac/
With worldwide demand for the materials exploding, the site's owner, Molycorp Minerals, restarted mining at
Mountain Pass last December. It is now the Western Hemisphere's only producer of rare-earth metals and
one of just a handful outside of China, which currently produces 95 percent of the world's supply. Last
September, after China stopped exporting the materials to Japan for two months, countries around the world
began scrambling to secure their own sources. But even without Chinese restrictions and with the revival of
the California mine, worldwide supplies of some rare earths could soon fall short of demand. Of
particular concern are neodymium and dysprosium, which are used to make magnets that help generate
torque in the motors of electric and hybrid cars and convert torque into electricity in large wind turbines. In a
report released last December, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that widespread use of electricdrive vehicles and offshore wind farms could cause shortages of these metals by 2015. What would
happen then is anyone's guess. There are no practical alternatives to these metals in many critical applications
requiring strong permanent magnetsmaterials that retain a magnetic field without the need for a power source to induce magnetism by passing an
electric current through them. Most everyday magnets, including those that hold notes on the fridge, are permanent magnets. But they aren't very strong,
while those made from rare earths are tremendously so. Alloys of neodymium with iron and boron are four to five times as strong by weight as
permanent magnets made from any other material. That's one reason rare-earth magnets are found in nearly every hybrid and electric car on the road.
The motor of Toyota's Prius, for example, uses about a kilogram of rare earths. Offshore wind turbines can require hundreds of

kilograms each. New mining activity, not only at Mountain Pass but also in Australia and elsewhere, will
increase suppliesbut not enough to meet demand for certain critical metals, particularly dysprosium,
in the next few years. And the limited capacity of the new mining operations is not the only problem.
Because rare earths make such excellent magnets, researchers have put little effort since the early 1980s
into improving them or developing other materials that could do the job. Few scientists and engineers
outside China work on rare-earth metals and magnet alternatives. Inventing substitutes and getting them
into motors will take years, first to develop the scientific expertise and then to build a manufacturing
infrastructure. The United States "lost expertise" when its mines closed and magnet manufacturing relocated to
Asia to be near operating mines and less expensive labor, says George Hadjipanayis, chair of physics and
astronomy at the University of Delaware. As a result, there were few incentives for researchers or companies
to work on magnets. Now, he says, "there is not much funding and no industry around."

__Scarcity of rare earth materials makes offshore wind impossible

Pell 11
Elza Holmstedt, Environmental Finance, Rare Earth Shortages - A Ticking Timebomb for Renewables?, 12/12,
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Rare-Earth-Shortages-A-Ticking-Timebomb-ForRenewables.html
A global scarcity of rare earth metals over the next five years could be a ticking timebomb for
renewables and clean-tech, according to consultancy PwC. Hybrid cars, rechargeable batteries and wind
turbines are among the sectors which could be affected by a shortage of these metals, which include
cobalt, lithium and platinum, says PwCs report Minerals and metals scarcity in manufacturing: A ticking
timebomb. Rare earth metals are a key element for producing gearless wind turbines using permanent
magnet generators, said Daniel Guttmann, London-based director for renewables and clean-tech at
PwC. Manufacturers favour gearless turbines increasingly as they are more reliable than geared
turbines, which are heavier and have more moving parts. This is a real headache for the industry and may
negatively impact the cost-curve of offshore wind, he said. Guttman added that two ways that automotive

manufacturers expect to meet tightening emission regulations are electric vehicles and reducing vehicle
weight, and rare earth metals are required to construct batteries of the right cost, weight and size.

Timeframe
__Turbines dont generate power until 7 years after plan proposed
because of the bureaucratic permit process
Craig 11
Michael, Americans for Energy Leadership, 3/2, Offshore Wind in the United States: The Next Big Thing?,
http://leadenergy.org/2011/03/offshore-wind-in-the-united-states-the-next-big-thing/, online 12
Obtaining the necessary permits and licenses for an offshore wind farm is a process that spans multiple
agencies and potential stumbling blocks. The poster boy of this grueling process is Cape Wind, which has
been in the works for over a decade due to lawsuits, permitting inefficiencies, and other problems. While
its struggle can be partly blamed on its contentious location, it nonetheless serves as a stark warning to other
investors. The major permitting agency for most offshore wind farms is the newly-formed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (previously the Minerals Management Service), which presides over all development in the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically,

BOEMRE issues leases and permits to all wind farms located beyond state waters, i.e. greater than 3
nautical miles (nm) off shore. The Army Corps of Engineers must also issue a permit under the Clean
Water Act for construction operations, and FERC must approve all connections to the grid. As is the case
with other renewable sectors, projects must also comply with a host of other less significant federal and,
where applicable, state regulations. Obtaining the required permits is estimated to currently take about 7
years. Because of the long duration from inception to construction, a great deal of uncertainty surrounds
offshore wind farms. The electricity market, for one, can shift greatly over the course of 7 years, as aptly
demonstrated over the course of the recent recession. Lawsuits can also be brought against the farm which
could further delay completion or even stop the project. Finally, policies favorable to offshore wind that may currently exist
could very well be discontinued by the time a farm comes to fruition, a situation the onshore wind industry can painfully identify with due to volatility
in the Production Tax Credit. Although uncertainty is not prohibitive in and of itself onshore wind construction does occur when the PTC is defunct,
just at a slower rate its combination with large capital costs for offshore wind makes any endeavor a risky proposition. Cape Wind, for instance, is
projected to cost $2.5 billion excluding financing costs, while other projects range between hundreds of millions to billions depending on their capacity.
Unplanned delays, e.g. from lawsuits, drive costs up even further, not to mention the necessary transmission infrastructure.

__Takes 15 years to have a pilot project built

Zeller 13 Contributor @ RE World
Tom, Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation and the Struggle to Develop Offshore Wind Power in the U.S., RE
world, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/cape-wind-regulation-litigation-and-thestruggle-to-develop-offshore-wind-power-in-the-u-s
"Contemplate this depressing change in America's can-do spirit," the editorial suggested. "The 6.6 millionton Hoover Dam that tamed the mighty Colorado River was finished in 1936 after a mere five years. Yet 130
offshore wind turbines, a pioneering project of President Obama's 'new energy economy,' may take three
times as long to complete."

__Long time frame

S and P 12
Standard and Poors Credit Week, Offshore Wind Arrives. Will Renewables Prosper?,
http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/swf/cw/cw_0512/data/document.pdf
Offshore wind projects offer a potentially vast source of clean energy, especially near large northeastern
population centers. Many states along the Eastern Seaboard are very interested in exploiting this energy
potential and reaping the benefits from the port, marine, and supply industries that would follow. But,
offshore wind technology is much more expensive than onshore applications and has a long and costly
development cycle that is not well-suited to short-term federal support schemes. Offshore wind in the U.S.
also lacks a well-functioning and timely regulatory approval process (see Policy Framework Background For
Key Countries, in the article titled, Strong Growth Of Global Offshore Wind Power Provides Big
Opportunities For Project Finance, published May 16, 2012, on RatingsDirect, on the Global Credit Portal).

Cables Takeout
__Laying cables causes major delay, and cables can fail frequently
losing millions of dollars in investment
WPM 6/6
Wind Power Monthly 06 June 2012 Germany proposes shared liability for offshore cable failures
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/rss/1137126/Germany-proposes-shared-liability-offshore-cablefailures/
The German government is preparing a draft law that would allow electricity transmission system
operators (TSOs) to pass on some of the costs of offshore wind cable failures to households and to
commercial and small industrial consumers. A draft law is expected to be passed by cabinet before the
parliamentary summer break at the end of June, setting the stage for parliamentary debate. "We hope the law
can take effect at the end of 2012, or beginning of 2013," said Andreas Wagner, manager director of Stiftung
Offshore-Windenergie, an offshore wind operation and research foundation. The initiative follows admission
by TSO Tennet, responsible for cabling in the North Sea, that cable risks associated with the emerging
offshore wind sector are too significant for it to cope with alone. The issue of liability is a pressing one, as
any further delays in the construction of offshore wind stations will increase already-existing doubts
about whether Germany can achieve its 10GW targets for offshore capacity by 2020. A principal risk is
delay to cable construction, raising the spectre of newly-constructed offshore stations standing idle and
with owner/operators facing lost earnings and, potentially, being unable to make debt repayments.
Alternatively, wind station construction itself could be slowed down to await cable laying progress,
increasing capital costs. The second major risk is of cable failure after commissioning and throughout the
lifespan of an offshore wind station. That cable failure can occur has been proven recently by the NorNed
700MW direct-current cable connecting the Netherlands and Norwegian electricity systems. This failed
on 18 April, with NorNed's predicting at the time that repairs would take approximately ten weeks. The
largest of Tennet's nine offshore wind cable projects will connect 900MW of offshore wind capacity with
the mainland. If this went down for 10 weeks, and if the offshore stations in question were operating at
4,400 full load hours per year - as clocked up by Germany's first offshore station Alpha Ventus in 2011 - lost
earnings could reach around 145 million.

__Lack of necessary infrastructure prevents solvency---cables to

transfer electricity LITERALLY do not exist and arent being built
DOE 2011
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
Significant challenges to offshore wind power deployment related to resource characterization, grid
interconnection and operation, and infrastructure will need to be overcome. The offshore wind resource is
not well characterized. This significantly increases uncertainty related to potential project power
production and turbine and array design considerations, which in turn increases financing costs. The
implications for adding large amounts of offshore wind generation to the power system need to be better
understood to ensure reliable integration and to evaluate the need for additional grid infrastructure such as an
offshore transmission backbone. Finally, with current technology, costeffective installation of offshore wind
turbines requires specialized vessels, purposebuilt portside infrastructure, robust undersea electricity
transmission lines, and grid interconnections. These vessels and this infrastructure do not currently exist
in the U.S. Although foreignflagged turbine installation and maintenance vessels exist, legislation such as the
Jones Act limits the ability of these vessels to operate in U.S. waters.

No Investors
__High cost will stop investment in the status quo
Edwards 11
Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil
and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU
%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF
UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY &
HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE
DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND
BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)
Recent consultants reports indicate that offshore wind has one of the highest costs of any energy
generating technology which is currently available on a commercial scale, this still seems to be true even
when the estimated costs of carbon capture and storage are included in the cost of fossil fuel powered
thermally generated electricity. The high cost of energy generated by offshore wind farms is probably the
biggest single challenge facing offshore wind and it is imperative that the industry reduces these costs as
rapidly as possible. There is no magic bullet which will reduce the cost of offshore wind energy, it can
only be achieved by optimizing every stage of development, manufacture, installation and operation.
However, because wind energy does not require the purchase of a fuel, the anticipated increase in the cost of
fossil fuels, caused by market forces and carbon taxes, is likely to make offshore wind power more
competitive in the future.

__Poor reliability means investors see offshore wind as too risky

Edwards 11
Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil
and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU
%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF
UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY &
HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE
DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND
BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)
The ability to raise the capital to build offshore wind farms is also hindered by the legacy of poor
reliability for some early offshore wind farms, which makes offshore wind look too risky to investors,
and the constraints resulting from the recent global financial crisis. Although the offshore wind industry
cannot control the financial markets, it can and must improve the reliability of offshore wind farms and
reduce the cost of energy, making it less reliant on subsidies. This is likely to be difficult to achieve because
of the inherent conservatism of the financial community who like to see many years of successful track record,
the incremental approach to the development of offshore wind farm technology which is still rooted in
an onshore paradigm, and the absence of long term testing of new designs in the marine environment.

PTC Fails
__Higher costs for offshore wind make short-term federal support
like PTC fail
Pratt 12
Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax
Credit Fix, Standard & Poors Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23
The U.S. wind power industry is dealing with the same issue and trying to get Congress to continue the main source of federal support , the
production tax credit (PTC), beyond the end of 2012. This sup- port has enabled rapid industry growth in onshore
wind during the past decade. Without the PTC, investment drops quickly. A new element to the debate is how to pro- vide support for
investment in offshore wind projects, which can provide substan- tial amounts of clean energy but at a high cost. The difficult permitting
process and long development cycle of offshore wind do not match well with a short-term PTC
extension. Policymakers need to consider other options of funding if they want to see the role of offshore
wind expand. Offshore wind projects offer a poten- tially vast source of clean energy, espe- cially near large northeastern population centers.
Many states along the Eastern Seaboard are very interested in exploiting this energy potential and reaping the ben- efits from the port, marine, and
supply industries that would follow. But, offshore wind technology is much more expensive than onshore applications

and has a long and costly development cycle that is not well-suited to short-term federal support
schemes. Offshore wind in the U.S. also lacks a well-functioning and timely regulatory approval process
(see Policy Framework Background For Key Countries, in the article titled, Strong Growth Of Global Offshore Wind Power Provides Big
Opportunities For Project Finance, pub- lished May 16, 2012, on RatingsDirect, on the Global Credit Portal). In sharp contrast, several European
countries have adopted a number of policies that have led to large growth in offshore wind, and the U.K. and Germany have the most new construc- tion
and potential (see chart).

__Uncertainty of long term availability and susceptibility to boom

and bust cycles make PTC fail for offshore wind projects
Pratt 12
Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax
Credit Fix, Standard & Poors Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23
But the PTC as enacted is not as helpful to offshore wind projects. One major drawback of the PTC is the uncertainty of its
availability. The PTC is usu- ally enacted for a short period, usually about two years. Sometimes,
Congress extends it before it expires, but Congress has also let it lapse and then renewed it a few months
later. In effect, the PTC is more unpredictable than wind itself. Onshore wind projects can deal with this short tenor
because of quick approval and short construction times. But , this uncertainty leads to rapid project devel- opment and
construction before the PTCs expiration, which introduces some risk about how well construction was
performed and whether it went over budget in the rush to chase scarce resources. It also leads to boom-and- bust
investment cycles that discourage major foreign equipment suppliers from investing in domestic
manufacturing and spare parts, which then results in con- tinued reliance on import availability and foreign
exchange risk. This keeps costs high when they need to decline. The uncertainty aspect also leads to
massive spending on lobbying the gov- ernment every couple of years to con- tinue the program rather
than on R&D to improve technology and reduce unit costs, which would then reduce reliance on subsidies.
Finally, if the wind resource falls short of expectations, the PTC value does too, creating uncertain returns to investors . Another limitation of
the PTC is that it limits the developer pool and, more important, the investor pool. The boom- and-bust
nature of the industry results in large firms, which can withstand bust cycles, crowding out small developers that
often initially develop the deals that are then sold to larger players. The investor aspect is more complex . Projects usually do not have
enough tax exposure to gain the full value of the PTC. So, projects turn toand become dependent on
tax equity investors. This limits the investor pool to entities with tax exposure, which eliminates a muchneeded wider investor base. The early Danish model required local invest- ment, a key reason behind wind powers wide acceptance there
now. The financial crisis in the U.S. led to a great reduction in tax equity investment pools because wind projects
were not willing to pay the higher returns the tax equity pools wanted. When the PTC expires, the tax equity pool dries up,
and investment declines. When financial markets contract, most tax equity evaporates, and the same thing occurs. Tax equity monetization

also creates additional legal and structural complexity for wind projects, which costs time and money and adds to cost.

attractive to capital market investors, who want stable cash flow allocation.

It is also not so

ITC Fails
__Uncertainty of long term support and reliance on small investor
base
Pratt 12
Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax
Credit Fix, Standard & Poors Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23
The investment tax credit has similar strengths and weaknesses. A project gets an ITC up to a certain
amount based on the actual cost of the project. This sup- port scheme has been used recently as a
temporary stimulus tool for wind projects. An advantage of the ITC is that it provides a known tax value,
which can be beneficial for offshore wind, given its greater uncertainty of production (and therefore PTC
value) because of new tur- bine technology and uncertain wind farm performance. Ironically, the ITC is the
current federal support scheme for solar projects, which have more predictable revenue streams than
wind power. The downside of the ITC is the uncertainty of its availability over the long term and the
reliance on the tax equity base. The ITC also does not encourage use of the best wind resources.

Technology Fails
__New tech developments and planning are required before offshore
wind power
Jos Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014,
Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States, Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.seatechnology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014
To effectively develop the vast U.S. offshore wind resource, technology innovations are needed to lower
system costs and address site-specific requirements, such as hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic, icing in the Great Lakes, and deep waters in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast. In addition,
environmental impact assessments, multiuser planning and transmission grid interconnection strategies are
required.

__The technology is not ready and there are too many barriers
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
The opportunities for advancing offshore wind technologies are accompanied by significant challenges.
Turbine blades can be much larger without land-based transportation and construction constraints; however,
enabling technology is needed to allow the construction of a blade greater than 70-meters in length. The
blades may also be allowed to rotate faster offshore, as blade noise is less likely to disturb human habitations.
Faster rotors operate at lower torque, which means lighter, less costly drivetrain components. Challenges unique
to the offshore environment include resistance to corrosive salt waters, resilience to tropical and extratropical storms and waves, and coexistence with marine life and activities. Greater distances from shore
create challenges from increased water depth, exposure to more extreme open ocean conditions, long distance
electrical transmission on high-voltage submarine cables, turbine maintenance at sea, and accommodation
of maintenance personnel.

__Lack of demand means we cannot overcome technical and

infrastructure barriers. We have to increase demand first
Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
The absence of strong demand for offshore wind in the United States makes it difficult to overcome these
technical and infrastructure challenges. In order to develop the required infrastructure and technical
expertise, there must first be sufficient demand for offshore wind, and that is not expected in the near term
due to the high cost of offshore wind and the low cost of competing power generation resources, such as
natural gas.

__90% of offshore wind resources are out of reach for current

technology
Bureau of Ocean Management, 2014, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-EnergyProgram/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Offshore-Wind-Energy.aspx, Accessed 4/9/2014
Commercial-scale offshore wind facilities are similar to onshore wind facilities. The wind turbine generators
used in offshore environments include modifications to prevent corrosion, and their foundations must be
designed to withstand the harsh environment of the ocean, including storm waves, hurricane-force winds,
and even ice flows. Roughly 90% of the U.S. OCS wind energy resource occurs in waters that are too deep
for current turbine technology. Engineers are working on new technologies, such as innovative foundations and

floating wind turbines, that will transition wind power development into the harsher conditions associated with
deeper waters.

__Multiple reasons why offshore wind fails technology isnt

adapted, no access, problems increase further offshore
-offshore tech almost the exact same as onshore tech
Jackson 09
Matthew Jackson 01 January 2009 How can the offshore wind industry overcome O&M obstacles?
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/3152/how-can-the-offshore-wind-industry-overcome-o-m-obstacles/
The heart of the problem is that the technology being used offshore is generally onshore technology that
has not been modified sufficiently to meet the different demands of an offshore environment. The classic
example of this is the disaster at the Horns Rev wind farm in 2005, following which Vestas is reported to
have removed and repaired 80 of its V90 models, designed for offshore use, owing to the effect of salty
water and air on the generators and gearboxes, which became corrupt after only two years. A similar
procedure has been reported this year, with Vestas' 30 turbines requiring a change of rotor bearings, at an
estimated cost of 30m. Failures are also harder to repair because they tend to happen in stormy
conditions, and are often not dealt with when they happen, but on an aggregated basis at intervals. That
means it can be as long as three months before a turbine failure is repaired. The contrast with onshore
reliability is dramatic, and availability levels of 97% are regularly achieved. As sites move further
offshore, these problems are likely to get worse. That could mean offshore developments in deepwater
areas will be seen as unviable. For example, all the potential sites in the German North Sea have been
allocated, but it is uncertain as to whether investment will follow.

__High winds break blades and cause grid failures and collapse
towers
Hong et Al 12
An economic assessment of tropical cyclone risk on offshore wind farms Lixuan Hong*, Bernd Mller
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Fibigerstrde 13, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark 24
February 2012 0960-1481/$ e see front matter _ 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.010
For offshore wind turbines the most important external conditions are wind and waves [13]. In the case of
high wind speeds (above the cut-out speed of offshore wind turbines), the mechanical brake would stop the
turbine from rotating in order to reduce the loads. Otherwise, the blades will reach over-speed, creating
extreme loads that the structure cannot withstand, and eventually causing the blades to bend, get damaged
or collapse. Also signals from wind vane and other components of the turbine would be sent to control system,
which helps to reduce extreme and fatigue loads from over-speed and turbulence intensity. The yaw system
uses electrical motors to turn the nacelle and typically rotor away from the prominent wind direction as to
reduce the loads, whereas the pitch mechanism uses hydraulics to control the angle of the blades relative to the
wind. Failure of the yaw system can be caused by various reasons: grid failure (in that case it would be
dependent on back-up power supply), failure of wind vane which indicates the wind direction and failure in the
electric motors controlling the system. Although offshore wind turbines in general are equipped with back-up
power, these safety measures are not designed for use in a long time period, and it is impossible to replace
back-up power or restore grid system timely in tropical cyclones. Therefore, wind turbines may become
vulnerable due to their inability to react to external conditions. In general, once a tropical cyclone occurs,
there could be a high risk of grid failure, which imply that it is impossible to adjust and stop the turbine,
and then over-speed could cause damage of the mechanical and electrical components. In more severe
conditions, extreme high loads would cause the collapse of the turbine or breaking blade might hit and
induce its tower to collapse.

__Empirically proven-- blades break off and tank investors profits

WPM 10
Wind Power Monthly 09 September 2010 Vestas suffers V112 prototype blade failure
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1027502/Vestas-suffers-V112-prototype-blade-failure
Responding to questions at the time questions over whether the turbine had been tested enough for such a large
project, Vestas president Ditlev Engel insisted the turbine had been thoroughly tested that he was "very
confident" it was ready to be installed on a wind farm of this size. According to reports, a 6-metre to 7metre portion of a blade broke off the prototype yesterday. In response, Vestas said it was investigating the
reasons but denied it was a design failure. For a common location with an annual average wind speed at hub
height of 6.7m/s, a V112-3.0MW, which has a 112-metre rotor diameter, has a 38% greater energy production
than a V90-3.0MW with a 90-metre blade. The V112 is designed for both onshore and offshore. As a result
of the incident, Vestas shares declined by 5.4%. The decline follows a difficult period for the company,
following last months quarterly results announcement.

No Infrastructure
__We dont have the infrastructure for development or capability for
operation and maintenance
Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
The infrastructure required to install offshore wind farms, such as purpose-built ports and vessels, does not
currently exist in the United States. There is also insufficient capability for domestic operation and
maintenance. While turbine installation and maintenance vessels exist in other countries, legislation such as
the Jones Act may limit the ability of these foreign vessels to operate in U.S. waters. These issues also apply
to transmission infrastructure for offshore wind.

__We only have about 2,000 megawatts in development now

Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power,
L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities
and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf,
Accessed 5/10/2014
Although the United States has built no offshore wind projects so far, about 20 projects representing more than
2,000 MW of capacity are in the planning and permitting process. Most of these activities are in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, although projects are being considered along the Great Lakes, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Pacific Coast. The deep waters off the West Coast, however, pose a technology challenge for
the near term.

Too Costly
__Offshore wind is the second costliest energy source around
The Daily Caller News Foundation, Staff Writer, February 27, 2014, Study claims giant offshore wind turbines
will blow away hurricanes, Red Alert Politics, http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/02/27/study-claims-giantoffshore-wind-turbines-will-blow-away-hurricanes/, Accessed 5/14/2014
There is also the issue of cost. Wind power costs have been coming down in recent years, but are still
significantly higher than traditional energy sources like coal or natural gas. Offshore wind is one of the
costliest energy sources, according to the Energy Information Administration, costing about $222 per megawatt
hour onshore wind only costs $86 per megawatt hour. The only source of energy thats more costly to
generate than offshore wind is solar thermal energy at $261 per megawatt hour.

__Investors still perceive it too risky to sign on

Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and
Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
Offshore wind has higher financing costs, due to the heightened perceived risk. Since it is not yet a mature
industry, investors still perceive offshore wind as risky, due to regulatory and permitting issues,
construction and installation risk, and long-term reliability of energy production. As a result, insurance and
warranty premiums remain high. There are also extremely high risks to early-stage capital, given the
uncertainty around the price and availability of future off-take agreements for offshore wind.

Onshore Wind High Solves Better

__Onshore wind high now and solves
--comparatively better than offshore because of grid connections, environmental backlash and technical
concerns
Ailworth 12
Erin, Wind farms on land grow with few critics, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/07/08/while-capewind-debated-land-based-development-wind-power-takes-off/GOQ1U1WEvFocPkOARGNgkO/story.html
Despite controversy that has slowed the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound, land-based wind farms
are expanding rapidly in the region. One company alone, First Wind Holdings LLC of Boston, has installed
enough turbines in the Northeast over the past few years to generate nearly as much power as the longawaited offshore wind farm. Other companies, too, have developed wind projects in New England states.
Driving this growth are technological advances reducing the cost of wind turbines and increasing their
efficiency, making wind power more competitive with traditional power sources particularly in the
Northeast, where electricity costs can run as much as 60 percent above the national average. Turbine prices
have dropped about 30 percent over the past few years, and new turbines are able to generate electricity at
lower wind speeds. Related Graphic: The expansion of First Wind in the Northeast Meanwhile, average electricity prices in the
Northeast can top 15 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to a US average of 9.52 cents. New wind technology can generate power at an
average cost of about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, excluding subsidies, according to the US Energy Department. Some of the states
in the Northeast have been some of the fastest-growing markets, said Elizabeth Salerno, director of industry data
and analysis at the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group in Washington. Power prices are relatively high [there], so by
delivering wind projects, you can develop a pretty affordable source of generation . First Wind has built wind farms in

eight locations in Maine, Vermont, and upstate New York. With the 34 megawatts that will be added when the company completes its wind farm
near Eastbrook, Maine, First Winds projects will have the capacity to generate nearly 420 megawatts of electricity, compared to Cape Winds 468
megawatts. In addition, Quincy-based Patriot Renewable operates two wind farms in Maine and one in Buzzards Bay, with a total generating capacity of
about 25 megawatts. The Berkshire Wind Power Cooperative Corp., a consortium of 14 municipal utilities and the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale
Electric Co., owns a 15-megawatt wind farm in Hancock that went online last year. A megawatt of wind-generated electricity can power about 300
homes. Despite the growth of land-based projects, the discussion about developing the regions wind resources has often focused on offshore projects
such as Cape Wind and a proposed wind energy area that would encompass nearly 165,000 acres of federal waters off the coasts of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. Last week, US officials completed an environmental review of the wind energy area, an important step in opening the area to
development. Still, it could be years before any turbines are built offshore, meaning that more land-based projects will be

needed to achieve renewable energy goals set by several states seeking alternatives to fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas. In
Massachusetts, for example, the state has set a goal of installing 2,000 megawatts of wind-energy capacity in the state by 2020 and has
required utilities to get 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, and other renewable sources in that same time frame. Today, there
are 61 megawatts of installed wind power capacity in the state. This has created opportunities for companies like First Wind. Founded a
decade ago, the company had its first project up and running in Hawaii in 2006, and its second operating in Maine in 2007. Today, First
Wind has 16 projects totaling 980 megawatts of generating capacity operating or under construction in the United States. Four
went online in 2011, and another followed this year. The latest project in the region, Bull Hill wind farm near Eastbrook, Maine, will
produce power for NStar, one of the largest utilities in Massachusetts. The companys other New England customers include ISO New
England, the regions grid operator, and Harvard University. Massachusetts is way ahead of everybody [with its clean
energy goals] so, from a practical point of view, the demand is being created by Massachusetts, said First Wind chief executive
Paul Gaynor. Thats because wind power generated in other states is being bought by Massachusetts utilities and others to help meet the
states renewable energy goals. Although offshore wind is stronger and therefore an abundant and steady source of

power, it has proved much harder to site projects in the ocean for a variety of environmental and
technical reasons, including how to connect offshore turbines to the onshore power grid.

West Coast
__Plan doesnt effect the west coast
Galbraith 9 NYT Analyst
Kate, Prospects Distant for Offshore Wind in West, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/prospectsdistant-for-offshore-wind-in-west/
Eastern states from North Carolina to Maine are working on plans for offshore wind power. N.R.E.L.
Winds off the coast of California are strong, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, but
wind development is stalled because the water is too deep. Click map to enlarge. Why is nothing
happening off the West Coast, where the winds also blow strong? The main problem, experts say, is
topography. Whereas the continental shelf extends for miles off the East Coast, the bedrock drops off
sharply just beyond the West Coast - making it too deep to anchor the turbines with current technology.
A second difficulty is power prices. Electricity in California, while expensive relative to the middle of the
country, is still cheaper than in most of New England. This makes offshore wind projects less economical.
(Electricity in Washington and Oregon is cheaper still.) Western states also have an abundance of what
Easterners do not: land. We have a huge endowment of land-based wind resources (on gigantic open
spaces not available in the East) that are going to get developed before we need to go offshore, Elliot
Mainzer of the Bonneville Power Administration, said in an e-mail message. For projects off California,
there would also be an additional side concern of the earthquakes, said Peter Mandelstam, the president
of Bluewater Wind, a developer that plans to put offshore turbines off the Delaware coast.

Offense Increases Warming

__Doesnt scale and up and leads to warming newest evidence
Science Daily 13
Rethinking Wind Power, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225121926.htm
People have often thought there's no upper bound for wind power -- that it's one of the most scalable
power sources," says Harvard applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don't seem likely to
"run out" on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale
atmospheric modeling, published February 25 in the journal Environmental Research Letters, suggests that
the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates
behind it a "wind shadow" in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The
ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them
enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact,
and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith's research has shown that the generating capacity of
very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1
watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that
figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power
as scientists thought. An internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith
holds appointments as Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and
Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Coauthor Amanda S.
Adams was formerly a postdoctoral fellow with Keith and is now assistant professor of geography and Earth
sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is
that as soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource,
making it difficult to assess what's really available," says Adams. But having a truly accurate estimate
matters, of course, in the pursuit of carbon-neutral energy sources. Solar, wind, and hydro power, for example,
could all play roles in fulfilling energy needs that are currently met by coal or oil. "If wind power's going to
make a contribution to global energy requirements that's serious, 10 or 20 percent or more, then it
really has to contribute on the scale of terawatts in the next half-century or less," says Keith. If we were to
cover the entire Earth with wind farms, he notes, "the system could potentially generate enormous amounts of
power, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at that point my guess, based on our climate modeling, is that the
effect of that on global winds, and therefore on climate, would be severe -- perhaps bigger than the
impact of doubling CO2." "Our findings don't mean that we shouldn't pursue wind power -- wind is much
better for the environment than conventional coal -- but these geophysical limits may be meaningful if we
really want to scale wind power up to supply a third, let's say, of our primary energy," Keith adds. And the
climatic effect of turbine drag is not the only constraint; geography and economics matter too. "It's clear the
theoretical upper limit to wind power is huge, if you don't care about the impacts of covering the whole world
with wind turbines," says Keith. "What's not clear -- and this is a topic for future research -- is what the
practical limit to wind power would be if you consider all of the real-world constraints. You'd have to assume
that wind turbines need to be located relatively close to where people actually live and where there's a fairly
constant wind supply, and that they have to deal with environmental constraints. You can't just put them
everywhere." "The real punch line," he adds, "is that if you can't get much more than half a watt out, and
you accept that you can't put them everywhere, then you may start to reach a limit that matters." In order to
stabilize Earth's climate, Keith estimates, the world will need to identify sources for several tens of
terawatts of carbon-free power within a human lifetime. In the meantime, policymakers must also decide
how to allocate resources to develop new technologies to harness that energy. In doing so, Keith says, "It's
worth asking about the scalability of each potential energy source -- whether it can supply, say, 3 terawatts,
which would be 10 percent of our global energy need, or whether it's more like 0.3 terawatts and 1 percent."
"Wind power is in a middle ground," he says. "It is still one of the most scalable renewables, but our research

suggests that we will need to pay attention to its limits and climatic impacts if we try to scale it beyond a
few terawatts."

__Your studies dont include relevant field data observational

evidence is key
Zhang et al 13
Wei Zhang, Corey D Markfort and Fernando Port-Agel - Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Minnesota, and Wind Engineering and Renewable Energy Laboratory Switzerland,
Experimental study of the impact of large-scale wind farms on landatmosphere exchanges, Environmental
Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1
Modeling studies of the influence of utility-scale wind farms on regional and global climate have shown
that the impacts may be substantial (Ivanova and Nadyozhina 2000, Baidya Roy et al 2004, Keith et al
2004, Baidya Roy and Traiteur 2010, Barrie and Kirk-Davidoff 2010, Baidya Roy 2011, Wang and Prinn 2011,
Fitch et al 2012, Zhou et al 2012). For instance, Baidya Roy (2011) found that wind farms significantly
affected near-surface air temperature and humidity as well as surface sensible and latent heat fluxes.
The signs of the impacts (i.e., increase or decrease), are reported to depend on static stability and total water
mixing ratio lapse rates of the atmosphere. Recent high-resolution large-eddy simulation (LES) studies are able
to resolve detailed fluid dynamics and heat transport within and over wind farms as well as near the land
surface (Calaf et al 2010, 2011, Lu and Port-Agel 2011, Port-Agel et al 2011, Wu and Port-Agel 2011). Lu
and Port-Agel (2011) reported that the surface momentum and heat fluxes in a very large wind farm
underwent substantial reduction of more than 30% and 15% respectively, relative to that of the stable
boundary-layer flow without wind turbines. In contrast, Calaf et al (2011) found surface heat flux increased
by 10%15% and a reduction of the momentum flux, from their LES study of wind-farm flows subjected to a
neutral boundary layer with temperature as a passive scalar. It is not clear what key factors lead to the different
results of the surface heat flux change. So far most studies on near-surface temperature and fluxes altered
by large-scale wind farms have been carried out by numerical simulations. In fact, rarely are these
studies validated against observational evidence (Baidya Roy and Traiteur 2010). The computational results
are dependent on the accuracy of the models employed and the realism of the methods applied to parameterize
wind turbines (e.g., Barrie and Kirk-Davidoff 2010, Wang and Prinn 2010). In particular, the validity of
representing the impacts of wind-turbine arrays on momentum transport by the widely applied added
roughness length models needs further study, evidenced by Markfort et al (2012). Therefore, new observations
in the field and laboratory are in high demand to advance our understanding of turbulent wakes and scalar
transport in wind farms and for numerical model development.

Offense Increases Emissions

__Rapid deployment increases emissions
manufacturing/installation increases
Science Daily '12
"Low-Carbon Technologies 'No Quick Fix'" May Not Lessen Global Warming Until Late This Century," 2/15/12
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120216094801.htm AD 8/25/12
**Citing Nathan Myhrvold, PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics; Ken Caldeira, PhD in Atmospheric
Sciences, atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science; in a pee-reviewed article in Environmental
Research Letters**
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2012) A drastic switch to low carbon-emitting technologies, such as wind and hydroelectric power, may not yield a
reduction in global warming until the latter part of this century, new research suggests. Furthermore, it states that technologies that offer only
modest reductions in greenhouse gases, such as the use of natural gas and perhaps carbon capture and storage, cannot substantially reduce climate risk in
the next 100 years. The study, published February 16, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, claims that the rapid deployment
of low-greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies (LGEs) will initially increase emissions as they will require a large amount of energy to construct
and install. These cumulative emissions will remain in the atmosphere for extended periods due to the long lifetime of CO2, meaning that
global mean surface temperatures will increase to a level greater than if we continued to use conventional coal-fired plants.

__Production and installment offset emissions reductions

Chapman et al '12
Jamie, PhD in Earth & Planetary Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Dept of Civil and Envrnmntl Engineering at Texas
Tech Chad Augustine, Ph.D. in chemical engineering, member of the Technology Systems and Sustainability
Analysis Group in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center at NREL.; Lantz, E.; Denholm, P.; Felker, F.; Heath, G.;
Mai, T.; Tegen, S. (2012). "Wind Energy Technologies," Chapter 11. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Renewable Electricity Futures Study, Vol. 2, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; pp. 11-1 1163. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-2.pdf AD 8/16/12
Deployment of wind energy, averaging roughly 10 GW/yr153 to 30 GW/yr (depending on the scenario) over the next four decades (see Figure 11-17), is
expected to result in a number of notable environmental and social impacts. For example, wind energy emits no GHG emissions or other air
pollutants during power production. In addition, wind energy produces only small amounts of waste (e.g., consumed lubricants), requires very small
amounts of water for periodic blade cleaning, and requires no mining for fuel. However, the manufacture and production of wind turbine equipment
requires mining and does result in GHG and other emissions; the integration of wind into the grid can also modestly increase emissions from
conventional equipment. Together, these partially offset the benefit of wind power generation having no emissions.

Offcase

States Solve RPS

__State RPSs and incentives sufficient to solve the affirmative
Musail et Al 10
Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by DOE
Today, offshore wind in the United States might be able to compete in coastal markets , assuming the

availability of economic incentives. These could include a federal production energy tax credit, state renewable
portfolio standards (RPSs), state-sponsored system benefits funds, high local energy prices, pollutioncontrol incentives (e.g., a price on carbon emissions or stricter air quality controls), or certain state-sponsored incentives.
This competitiveness is evidenced by the more than 2,000 MW of offshore wind projects currently
proposed under varying economic schemes. It is not clear how many of these projects will actually be completed because they would
need significant long-term cost reductions. Costs might be lowered, however, through the initiation and success of a few early
projects to first develop experience and intuition with the technical and regulatory issues. The key question
examined in this section is whether offshore wind has the potential to make a significant, long-term impact in the energy mix. Part of the answer was
given in Section 4, which showed ample wind resource near large load centers for offshore wind to become a major contributor. The critical question
remaining is whether technology-driven cost reductions combined with reasonable state and federal government

incentives could create sufficiently favorable market conditions for offshore wind to be competitive with
conventional generation. The answer will require a significant amount of analysis, along with some assumptions about current costs,
engineering innovations, and future energy market trends.

States Solve Maryland

__Maryland proves
Bastasch 13
Michael, Maryland legislature passes bill to subsidize offshore wind development, TDC,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/maryland-legislature-passes-bill-to-subsidize-offshore-wind-development/
The Maryland House of Delegates passed a plan by Democrat Gov. Martin OMalley to subsidize the
development of offshore wind power by charging consumers and businesses more for electricity. Its a great
day for Maryland. [This] action makes Maryland one of the nations leaders in renewable energy and creates
hundreds of durable green jobs, said Democrat Delegate Tom Hucker. The state Senate passed OMalleys
plan earlier this month, and now it awaits the governors signature. Ads by Google In Maryland, our
emerging green sector is a critically important part of our Innovation Economy, and therefore our
ability to create jobs and compete globally, OMalley said. By choosing to move forward with this
legislation, were not only creating jobs, but we are also laying the groundwork for a better, more
sustainable future for our children.

__Spreads throughout east coast

Bastasch 13
Michael, Maryland legislature passes bill to subsidize offshore wind development, TDC,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/maryland-legislature-passes-bill-to-subsidize-offshore-wind-development/
After three years of pressure from environmental groups and debate in Maryland's state legislature, both
houses passed an offshore wind bill, which will be signed by Governor O'Malley. The Maryland Offshore
Wind Energy Act of 2013 is the first time a state has passed legislation that subsidizes offshore wind.
The bill, which failed to pass for two years, allows Maryland to contract with a private developer to build
an offshore wind farm. The move could finally bring offshore wind to the East Coast, which is being held
back by huge upfront costs to developers.

Politics Link - Generic

__Primary barrier is politics
Vagus 13
Stephen, Offshore wind energy wins victory in the US, http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/offshore-wind-energy-wins-victory-in-the-us/859688/

Offshore wind energy finds lackluster support in the US Offshore wind energy has become a very
attractive concept for several countries that have access to the strong wind streams found at sea. The United Kingdom, China, and Germany have
become strong advocates for offshore wind energy systems, claiming that such systems could be a more viable way of harnessing the power of the wind . The U.S.,
however, has been slow to warm to the concept, whether because of politics or because of uncertainty concerning the
economic prospects of such projects. The country has no offshore wind farms, but that may soon change.

__Massive political and public backlash

Zeller 13 Contributor @ RE World
Tom, Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation and the Struggle to Develop Offshore Wind Power in the U.S., RE world,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/cape-wind-regulation-litigation-and-the-struggle-to-develop-offshore-wind-power-in-the-u-s
Almost 12 years later, the now 59-year-old Gordon, who graduated from Boston University during the 1970s oil crises with a degree in communications and, he says, vague
designs on film school before he set his sights on the energy business, is still pressing his case. Not a single turbine is in the water. Acquiring the full
array of government permits and sign-offs a byzantine process involving dozens of sometimes overlapping, often contradictory agencies, hundreds of officials and

more than a dozen lawsuits, citing everything from potential

disruption of whale and bird migrations to interference with airplane and shipping traffic, the wrecking
of commercial fishing grounds and the desecration of sacred Native American sites, have thrown sand in
the project's gears at every turn. Virtually all of the opposition suits over the years have been rejected ultimately by the courts, but at least four more are
still pending, and opponents promise to keep fighting. To be sure, as the first proposed offshore wind project in the United States, Cape
Wind, as it is called, was bound to encounter unique scrutiny, and like any undertaking of its size, it is not without environmental impacts. But the
thousands of pages of impact statements took over a decade. And

long-thwarted wind farm also highlights what some critics say has become a bloated and overly complicated regulatory maze through which fewer and fewer project
developers of any kind have the wherewithal to navigate. Indeed, while it has earned the backing of virtually every major environmental group including the Sierra Club,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and others the government's unhurried review of the project cost tens of millions of dollars more than it would have in
countries with more streamlined permitting processes. And even now,

Cape Wind remains stuck in a briar patch of legal challenges to its siting,
mostly filed by a small but determined coalition of local residents and unusually wealthy property owners
in the area who have no incentive to relent.

__Entrenched interests mean inertia is strong

Zeller 13 Contributor @ RE World
Tom, Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation and the Struggle to Develop Offshore Wind Power in the U.S., RE world,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/cape-wind-regulation-litigation-and-the-struggle-to-develop-offshore-wind-power-in-the-u-s
But the

chief underwriter of the campaign to stop Cape Wind, which includes major funding for Parker's alliance, is William
Koch, scion of the founders of the oil refining giant Koch Industries, chairman of the gas and coal
supplier Oxbow Corp. and owner of a sizable estate in Osterville, Mass., just west of Craigville beach. From a recent compilation prepared by the
environmental group, The Sierra Club: While the Alliance is largely a local group, concerned about the possible environmental, aesthetic, and economic impacts of the wind
farm, their efforts have been sustained almost entirely by Mr. Koch and his gas and coal conglomerate, Oxbow
Corp. In a 2006 interview with Forbes, Mr. Koch admitted spending $1.5 million on the Alliance. The group's 2011 annual report form filed in Massachusetts includes Mr.
Koch as a co-chairman for the organization despite his Palm Beach, Florida, address, thousands of miles from Nantucket Sound. The Alliance's 2009 ... IRS form indicates
that Mr. Koch also paid most of president Audra Parker's $147,499 salary. Koch has made no mystery of his opposition to Cape Wind, and Parker is unfazed when asked
about his involvement in the alliance, describing it as a red herring that distracts from what she says are thousands of grassroots supporters.

__Only a risk of a turn low natural gas means no support for new
sources
S and P 12
Standard and Poors Credit Week, Offshore Wind Arrives. Will Renewables Prosper?, http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/swf/cw/cw_0512/data/document.pdf

The drop in the price of natural gas to about $2 per million Btu adds to the debate about the cost of the U.S.
renewable sector. Until recently, the high price of natural gas led to high power prices, which made renewable energy
look more competitive and was a powerful incentive for Congress to provide support. But the currently low power
prices now make cost parity a tougher argument to make. The continuing decline in solar panel prices might help the solar industry
deal with this problem, but the wind industry faces a tougher challenge.

Politics Link Financial Incentives

__Gets blamed for corporate welfare
Bastasch 13
Michael, Maryland legislature passes bill to subsidize offshore wind development, TDC,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/maryland-legislature-passes-bill-to-subsidize-offshore-wind-development/
A 200 MW offshore wind project would create almost 850 manufacturing and construction jobs for five
years and an additional 160 ongoing supply and operations and maintenance jobs thereafter, according to the
National Renewable Energy Lab. To give you an idea of what the Republican push-back has been: "This is
the dumbest idea ever. Never before have so many Marylanders paid for the benefit of so few," Senate
Minority Leader E. J. Pipkin told the Washington Post. The bill is "the worst kind of corporate welfare."

__Drawn into Solyndra debate public backlash alone turns the case
S and P 12
Standard and Poors Credit Week, Offshore Wind Arrives. Will Renewables Prosper?,
http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/swf/cw/cw_0512/data/document.pdf
Disadvantages are the grants reliance on the federal government. Risk is higher for projects with long
development and construction periods, such as offshore wind. Second, because offshore wind projects
will probably be large, grants would be, too. This could lead to socalled headline risk like what
occurred with solar panel maker Solyndra. The potential public backlash could hurt the nascent industry.

__Congress opposes offshore wind too expensive

Cockerham 13
Sean, Reporter, Star-News, Thursday 1ST Edition, Lexis
Five companies are interested in developing wind farms in the ocean off North Carolina, hoping to take
advantage of what could be the East Coast's most promising chance to create energy through giant turbines
anchored to the sea floor. The idea is embraced by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and the Sierra Club alike,
who see North Carolina as the next potential center for renewable energy in America. But big obstacles
remain before the whirling farms become a reality. Offshore wind is an expensive form of energy, and
Congress is losing interest in federal subsidies to encourage it. There are no offshore wind farms in the
United States, although they're common in Europe. The federal government asked companies in December if
they'd be interested in North Carolina offshore wind development. Five responded positively in filings released
Tuesday. They are Virginia Electric and Power Co., part of the Dominion utility that serves Virginia and
northeastern North Carolina; Fishermen's Energy LLC; EDF Renewable Energy, a subsidiary of a French
company; Green Sail Energy of New Jersey; and Apex Wind Energy of Charlottesville, Va. "We're serious,"
said Rob Propes, a development manager for Apex who is based in Raleigh. Two potential development areas
are south of Brunswick County, while another is beyond North Carolina's Outer Banks region, across from the
island towns of Kitty Hawk and Nags Head. All potential areas are at least six miles from shore. The federal
government has to finish an environmental study before auctioning the offshore leases. The agency also
needs to decide whether to change the areas considered for wind farms in light of newly released public
comments. Those include the assertion of the World Shipping Council, a trade association that represents
container vessels, that inviting wind farm proposals off Kitty Hawk is "dangerous and imprudent" for shipping.
The five companies interested in leasing did not make binding commitments or detailed proposals. But Brian
O'Hara, president of the N.C. Offshore Wind Coalition, said their responses are still a good sign wind farms
will be coming. "I'm excited to see this level of interest. This is great," he said.

__GOP wont support offshore wind

Jackson 3/2
Derrick, Columnist, The Boston Globe, Politics imperil offshore wind sweet spots,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/02/sour-politics-imperil-offshore-wind-sweetspots/wZHvvjxVMtZKx2Y42iRpII/story.html
WITH THE wind figuratively in his sails, outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the Offshore Wind
Power USA conference in Boston on Tuesday that not only had wind become the nations top source of
new electricity in 2012, but that there are enough sweet spots in Massachusetts ocean waters to power
1.7 million homes. We control the ocean floor, Salazar said. We get to decide what it is that happens.
But Salazar was also quite clear that control does not necessarily mean development for wind. His sweet
spots remain imperiled by the Republicans sour opposition to renewable energy production tax credits.
The credits were extended for one more year in the end-of-the-year fiscal cliff negotiations. But thousands
of jobs were lost with the uncertainty of an extension.

__Massive opposition to offshore wind

Burgess 2/28
James, Reporter, Oil Price, Four Reasons why the US has no Offshore Wind Turbines, Four Reasons why the
US has no Offshore Wind Turbines
Offshore wind farms in Europe are incredibly popular and the offshore wind sector is providing an
increasing amount of electricity to power grids. In comparison, in the US not a single wind turbine has been
deployed off shore. Here we look at the four main reasons why the offshore wind energy sector in the US
is struggling to grow, or even begin. 1. Environmental opposition Europeans are generally behind the
development of offshore wind farms, and little opposition is raised when new ones are proposed, or installed.
In the US however, environmentalists throw up strong opposition to potential offshore wind farms. In
2001 the Cape Cod wind farm was proposed, yet since then it has had to fight off dozens of lawsuits, and
as a result not one turbine has yet been erected. 2. Government support Congress did provide the wind
energy sector with a much needed life support by renewing the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which
gives the wind developers 2.2 cents for every kilowatt hour they produce, and the Incentive Tax Credit, which
reimburses 30% of the wind farms construction costs. Unfortunately this is still not enough to make
wind competitive with fossil fuels, which receive hugely lucrative subsidies.

__GOP wont support tax credits for offshore wind

Colman 1/31
Zack, Reporter, The Hill, Sen. Carper plans renewed push for offshore wind credit legislation,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/280347-carper-plans-to-push-for-offshore-wind-credit
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said Thursday that he plans to reintroduce a bill that offers tax credits for a
limited amount of offshore wind projects. Carper told reporters he did not have a timeline for resubmitting the
bill, but said its content would likely mirror the one he co-sponsored last Congress with former Sen. Olympia
Snowe (R-Maine). Weve been trying to get that done. As it turns out when [the Congressional Budget Office]
prices that they score that its not cheap. And so pretty high score, hard to get it done, Carper said
during an event hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C. That means the
bill could run into some Republican opposition; many in the House and the Senate want to close not
expand incentives to a suite of clean-energy technologies. Many fiscal conservatives contend the
federal government should not be in the business of jump-starting nascent industries through subsidies,
especially in light of the growing federal deficit. With Carper declaring, Were going to do tax reform this
year, he indicated he is not in a rush to throw his bill into the hopper. Carpers bill from last Congress would
have reimbursed developers for up to 30 percent of the project cost through an investment tax credit. The
credit would expire after offshore wind projects reached a combined generating capacity of 3,000 megawatts.
With the Obama administration recently offering some of the first-ever offshore leases on federal waters,
Carper said the credit could help foster a domestic offshore wind industry to compete with China and others.

__Both Democrats and Republicans hate the plan - costs

WT 11
Washington Times March 28, 2011OMalley fails to get vote on offshore wind proposal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/28/omalley-fails-to-get-vote-on-offshore-wind-proposa/
ANNAPOLIS | Gov. Martin OMalleys legislative agenda was dealt another blow Monday when his
signature offshore wind proposal failed to get either a full House or Senate vote before a major General
Assembly deadline. The O'Malley proposal to support offshore wind development by requiring utility
companies to purchase alternative energy remained in the House Economic Matters and Senate Finance
committees as dozens of other bills were passed on so-called Crossover Day, the date by which the House
and Senate traditionally pass bills that have a realistic chance of passing the other chamber. Mr. OMalleys
proposal, which would require utility companies in Maryland to enter into a minimum 20-year windenergy contract, failed to garner support from either Democrats or Republicans largely because it would
increase consumer energy costs.

Politics Link GOP Hates the Plan

__Amendments prove the plan is highly controversial along partisan
lines
Blake A. Treu, J.D. and John Treu, Esq., LL.M., C.P.A., May 17, 2014, Fuller Professional Tax Education,
http://fulleredu.com/taxblog/ expire-act-hits-snag-in-senate-over-amendments/, Accessed 5/19/2014
The Senate yesterday began legislative proceedings as expected by considering the EXPIRE Act. From
there, things quickly declined. Senator Wyden (D-OR) first gave his oft-repeated plug for passage of the bill.
Senator Hatch (R-UT) then called for an open process that would give the senators who were not part of the
discussion of the EXPIRE Act during its spell in the Finance Committee a chance to express their views
regarding the bill and propose amendments. The Senate then moved on to a vote on a motion for cloture on the
matter of the EXPIRE Act, led by Senator Reid (D-NV). However, the motion failed to secure the necessary twothirds majority vote, with a final vote count of 53-40. In response to this series of events, Reid attacked the
Republicans by stating they have voted against the second bipartisan bill in less than a week and insisted
that the Republicans merely want to take advantage of the EXPIRE Act by merely using the opportunity
for amendments as a chance to roll back part of ObamaCare. The Republicans, on the other hand, insist
that theyre merely looking for the opportunity to make improvements to the bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) stated, We have a tax bill here that members from both sides want to improve and
support. Yet, we dont get a chance to amend it.

__Republicans hate the plan because it trades off with fossil fuel
exploration
Zack Colman, Staff Writer, March 7, 2014, Offshore wind lobbies for credit to keep industry from blowing
away, Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/offshore-wind-lobbies-for-credit-to-keep-industryfrom-blowing-away/article/2545151, Accessed 5/14/2014
But the offshore credit has its detractors as well. Most of them are Republicans who say the White House is
putting subsidized clean energy ahead of fossil fuel production -- which is blocked in the Atlantic Ocean
through 2017 -- during what should be a time of fiscal belt-tightening. "Selling leases in the Atlantic shouldn't
be exclusive for the wind industry, especially when traditional energy is completely shut out of the same
area," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

__The GOP hates wind energy

Michael Bastasch, Staff Writer, May 9, 2014, Feds Fund 12 Offshore Wind Turbines At $12 Million Each,
Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/feds-fund-12-offshore-wind-turbines-at-12-million-each/,
Accessed 5/14/2014
The Energy Department is working with public and private partners to harness this untapped resource in a
sustainable and economic manner. The offshore wind projects announced today further this commitment
bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes and businesses, diversifying our energy portfolio, and
reducing costs through innovation. Environmentalists and many Republicans have hammered the Obama
administration for its support of wind power. Republicans argue that the wind industry has benefited from
subsidies and green energy mandates for decades and federal funding for such projects are wasteful.

Birds Link
__Offshore wind projects destroy marine ecosystems and kills
millions of migratory birds
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 12
Cape Wind Threats: The Environment, http://www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/environment/
Offshore energy projects have a range of potential impacts on the coastal resource areas, including the
shoreline, the sea itself, and the seabed, and on economically important species that depend on these
habitats. Nantucket Sound is home to many different species of wildlife, including federally protected
birds, turtles, and mammals. The Sound is also a component of a generalized region known as the Atlantic
Flyway, one of the largest migratory bird routes in the world. Because its biological diversity is unique,
protecting Nantucket Sound is of high importance. Numerous state and federal agencies have cautioned that
the Cape Wind project must not move ahead without proper analysis or regulatory oversight. Among them, the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries anticipates "direct negative impacts to fisheries resources
and habitat." Many respected environmental groups are concerned about the Cape Wind proposal as well.
Among these organizations are the Barnstable Land Trust, Humane Society of the United States , International
Marine Mammal Project, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), The
Oceans Public Trust Initiative of Earth Island Institute, Orenda Wildlife Trust, The Pegasus Foundation, Three
Bays Preservation, and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Federal Concerns The proposed Cape
Wind power plant has the potential of violating one or more federal laws, including: * Endangered Species Act:
The power plant may adversely affect several protected species listed as federally endangered or threatened. *
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): If the power plant construction or operation results in the killing,
harming, or harassment of seals, dolphins, or whales, the project will violate the MMPA. * Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA): If the power plant harms migratory birds, it would be in violation of the MBTA. *
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA): The area is a designated Essential Fish Habitat.
Nantucket Sound Concerns Noise and disturbance from the wind farm during construction, operation,
and maintenance may result in damage to or loss of habitat, changes in species behavior and usage,
increased avian mortality, and overall changes in the Sounds ecology, including water quality and
species distribution. Oil Spill Threat In addition to the 40,000 gallons of unspecified transformer oil on the
proposed 10 story electrical service platform (ESP), the Cape Wind project would contain an additional
24,700 gallons of oil in the 130 turbines (190 gallons in each turbine). What beaches and inlets would likely
be affected if the tanks on the ESP were to rupture, or if there were a vessel collision with a turbine causing oil
to spill into Nantucket Sound? Cape Winds own computer simulation of a spill reveals that oil would
reach Cape Cod and Island beaches within 5 hours. An analysis commissioned by the Alliance showed
significant adverse impacts to the Nantucket Sound ecosystem, including harmful impacts to wildlife
and shellfish/fish from a spill incident. As many as six million birds migrate through the area in the
spring and fall, usually at heights well above the turbine blades, except in foul weather when low cloud
ceiling cause the birds to fly at altitudes at the same as the height of the rotors, creating the potential for an
episodic catastrophic kill of migrating birds. The Sound also provides important habitat to sea and
shorebirds with as many as 250,000 to 500,000 sea ducks wintering the Sound for approximately six months
of the year. Biologically important numbers of endangered roseate terns and piping plovers use the
Sound as a breeding and feeding area in the summer months, and are known to migrate through Nantucket
Sound in spring and fall. Each August, thousands of roseates congregate on Monomoy Island prior to
migration and then leave in great flocks, flying southeast, south, and southwest. How many of these birds pass
through the proposed Wind site has not been verified.

__Offshore wind turbines significantly reduce seabird population

displaced routes, bad weather, loss of habitat
BLI 9
Birdlife International, Offshore wind farms are impacting seabirds and migrating passerines,
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/289
There is a growing political impetus to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions. Wind power has emerged as
a leading renewable technology and is currently the fastest growing source of energy in the world. By the end of 2008, wind turbines were
satisfying more than 1.5 % of the worlds electricity demand, generating 260 TWh annually (WWEA 2009). In Europe, there has been a rapid
proliferation of wind farms in the marine environment, which may portend a global trend. Within European waters, there are currently some 160
offshore farms either in operation, under construction or being planned. At the forefront of this expanding industry is the United Kingdom with ten
operational wind farms made up of 203 turbines, and plans for a further 7,000 turbines by 2020 (see figure). The United Kingdom, together with
Germany, currently accounts for around 60 percent of the global offshore wind market (WAB 2009). Although more costly than their terrestrial
counterparts, offshore wind farms have a number of advantages. Winds at sea tend to be stronger and more consistent, and weighty turbine components
are more easily transported at sea permitting larger turbines to be constructed (European Commission 2008). In addition, offshore wind farms typically
encounter less resistance from local communities (Dolman et al. 2003). However , there are growing concerns that offshore wind

farms can have detrimental impacts on wildlife. Birds are particularly vulnerable for three reasons.
Firstly, seabirds are negatively impacted through the loss and modification of resting and foraging
grounds. Secondly and most importantly, they are killed as a result of collisions with turbine blades: for
example, significant fatalities have been reported at marine wind farms situated close to breeding
colonies (Everaert and Stienen 2007). Also, during their seasonal migrations, huge numbers of passerines cross
Europes seas mostly at night and at a low altitude. It is inevitable that birds will collide with turbines,
particularly under adverse weather conditions with poor visibility (Huppop et al. 2006). Thirdly, several
studies have found that offshore wind farms act as barriers to travelling seabirds. Displacement from
their favoured routes is likely to increase travel distances, causing greater energy expenditure and
potentially impacting the survival of nestlings by lowering provisioning rates (Petersen et al. 2003, Fox et
al. 2006). For example, at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark, travelling birds (particularly seaduck)
displayed profound avoidance behaviour, with the number of birds entering the area declining
dramatically following the construction of the wind farm (Desholm and Kahlert 2005). It is vital that the
design, position and alignment of future offshore wind farms take into account the distribution and sensitivity
of seabird populations (Garthe and Huppop 2004, Fox et al. 2006), whilst avoiding zones of dense migration
(Huppop et al. 2006).
__Studies dont distinguish between onshore and offshoreall agree kills lots of birds
Sovacool 9
Benjamin K., Visiting Associate Professor at Vermont Law School and founding Director of the Energy Security
& Justice Program at their Institute for Energy and Environment, Avian mortality from wind power, fossil-fuel,
and nuclear electricity, 9/13, http://nukefree.org/news/avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossilfuel,andnuclearelectricity
A survey conducted by the author found more than 600 studies, articles, and reports investigating avian
deaths and wind farms published from 1998 to 2008. Studies have generally noted that onshore and
offshore wind turbines present direct and indirect hazards to birds and other avian species. Birds can
smash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor
plane; they can strike support structures; they can hit parts of towers; or they can collide with
associated transmission and distribution (T&D) lines. These risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed
on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such
as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air
pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as
barotrauma (Baerwald et al., 2008). Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter
natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites (Fielding et al., 2006;
National Wind Energy Coordinating Committee, 1999).