1AC
US Leadership
Current US Clean Energy Leadership is declining due a to lack of investment
Ogden et al 14 - Senior Fellow; Director, International Energy and Climate Policy at the Center for
American Progress (Peter, “Galvanizing Clean Energy Investment in the United States”, Center for
American Progress, 4-3-14,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/04/03/87092/galvanizing-clean-energyinvestment-in-the-united-states/)//KG
The United States has long been a top destination for clean energy investment, which has helped it to
capture many of the near-term economic, energy security, and environmental benefits that stem from
expanded domestic clean energy generation. Since 2004, in fact, clean energy investment in the United States increased nearly
250 percent and reached $36.7 billion in 2013. However, America will need to do more to continue to compete
successfully in the burgeoning clean energy economy. After leading the global clean energy investment
race until 2008, the United States has fallen behind China in four of the past five years. The countries
that lead in clean energy investment can increase clean energy manufacturing capacity; secure greater
global market share for their clean energy products; create jobs at home; and help build strong economies
fueled by energy and technologies that hedge against energy price volatility and future carbon pricing. To
maintain its competitiveness, the United States will need to take bold new steps that build on what has been
accomplished over the past five years and fill the voids left by the winding down of many of the
important clean energy and energy-efficiency programs and investments made through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA. Filling those voids, however, will be challenging. The ARRA enabled
investors to finance clean energy projects during a time of capital scarcity and to keep our clean energy
sector competitive during a global recession. It did this by providing more than $90 billion in clean energy investments through
loans and loan guarantees to capital-intensive projects, tax credits to lower project costs for companies, upfront grants to help businesses that
are unable to benefit from tax credits get started, and more. Thanks
to these and other federal- and state-level investments and
policies over the past five years, the U.S. clean energy sector has emerged as a powerful economic force
that can drive innovation, create jobs, and expand manufacturing.
Algae allows the US to become energy independent and even an energy exporter –
that’s key to soft power
USU 14 – Utah State University (“USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy demand”,
Biomass Magazine, 6-5-14, http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algae-biofuelcan-help-meet-energy-demand)//KG
Microalgae-based
biofuel not only has the potential to quench a sizable chunk of the world’s energy
demands, say Utah State University researchers, it’s a potential game-changer. “That’s because microalgae
produces much higher yields of fuel-producing biomass than other sources of alternative fuels and it
doesn’t compete with food crops,” says Jeff Moody, who completed a master’s degree in mechanical
engineering from USU in May. With USU faculty mentors Chris McGinty and Jason Quinn, Moody published findings from
an unprecedented worldwide microalgae productivity assessment in the May 26, online Early Edition of
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The team’s research was supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Despite its promise as a biofuel source, the USU investigators questioned whether “pond scum” could be a
silver bullet-solution to challenges posed by fossil fuel dependence. “Our aim wasn’t to debunk existing literature, but to
produce a more exhaustive, accurate and realistic assessment of the current global yield of microalgae
biomass,” Moody says. With advisor Quinn, assistant professor in USU’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Moody
began building simulations and generating data. As the project progressed, the engineers realized they needed expertise outside their
discipline. They recruited McGinty, associate director of USU’s Remote Sensing/Geographic Information Systems Laboratory in the Department
of Wildland Resources, for help in developing the sophisticated spatial interpolations and resource modeling needed to develop their largescale model. “Visual representations of physical and biophysical processes are very powerful tools,” McGinty says. “Adding the geospatial
interpolation component brought the data into focus.” Using
hourly meteorological data from 4,388 global locations,
the team determined the current global productivity potential of microalgae. “Our results were much
more conservative than those found in the current literature,” Quinn says. “Even so, the numbers are
impressive.” Algae, he says, yields about 2,500 gallons of biofuel per acre per year in promising locations. In contrast,
soybeans yield approximately 63 gallons; corn about 435 gallons. “In addition, soybeans and corn require
arable land that detracts from food production,” Quinn says. “Microalgae can be produced in non-arable areas unsuitable
for agriculture.” The USU researchers estimate untillable land in Brazil, Canada, China and the United States could be used to
produce enough algal biofuel to supplement more than 30 percent of those countries’ fuel
consumption. “That’s an impressive percentage from renewable energy,” says Moody, who soon begins a new
position as systems engineer for New Mexico’s Sandia National Labs. “Our findings will help to justify the investment in
technology development and infrastructure to make algal biofuel a viable fuel source.”
Algae biofuels are key to US soft power and a reliable military
Saleh 11 – Georgetown University (Sameh, “Algae Biodiesel: A Shift to Green Oil?”, TTHblog, 11-17-11,
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/11/algae-biodiesel-a-shift-to-green-oil/)//KG
Energy is one of the few commodities that can single-handedly cause economies to crumble, instigate
resource wars, and cripple the fragile balance of the world’s ecosystem all at once. The symbiotic relationship
between consumers and current energy resources can only be sustained as a function of mutual benefit. When the consumer depletes the
available resources without regards for sustainability, diminution of resources gradually intensifies to what is now known as the energy crisis.
For years, sustainability experts and energy engineers have been warning the general public of the
“energy crisis,” but only recently have heads started to turn. Now, the topic of energy is at the forefront
of the national agenda and a global point of contention and reform. For simplicity, it is helpful to put the crisis in a
more tangible checklist of causes and indicators. Fossil fuels lead to alarming economic, social, and environmental
problems. Whether one supports the science behind global warming or not, the implications of limited
fossil fuel resources for our environment are undeniable. In 2007 The Science Daily pointed out that the last 11 years were
11 of the 13 hottest years in recorded history worldwide1. NASA noted earlier this year that the first half of 2010 has
been the warmest in the 131 years that NASA has been taking such statistics2. Food production has markedly
declined in the southern hemisphere, the polar ice caps are melting, the sea levels are rising, high-intensity storms frequencies have increased,
and the coral reefs are being bleached. But beyond
the controversy of global warming, lies the visible problem of
pollution and physical erosion of the environment. For example, the burning of coal, which produces
environmentally toxic acid rain, and the transportation of oil risks spills threaten human health and the
environment. Failing to take collective action against the widespread use of fossil fuels has hurts
America’s soft power to influence global changes. Such lack of development of soft power can be
traced to the economic and geopolitical basis of the energy crisis. As of 2010, the United States still depend on foreign
countries for about 40% of its fossil fuels3. This oil dependence has made the U. S. vulnerable to supply cut-offs at
any time – similar to the oil embargo of 1973. Reliance on foreign oil also widens the growing U.S. trade
deficit, which accounts for the low financial value of exports versus imports that threatens the U.S.
economic infrastructure. These two deterrents in a world of competition are resulting in a dramatic shift of wealth from Western
countries to the developing world. Perhaps, Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated most accurately: “Oil
fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. It has been transformed into a
determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power for those who possess this
vital resource, and the converse for those who do not” 4. To put the extent of the issue in perspective, the United States
consumes nearly a million dollars of energy for every minute of the 525,600 minutes in a common year, $200,000 of which is spent on foreign
oil imports5. Exploring the possible engineering solutions for an alternative to fossil fuels is an exhaustive subject that requires thorough
analysis and research. Eventually, each
alternative energy source is labeled by its debilitating downfall:
inefficiency, cost, environmental danger, et cetera. But, algae biodiesel, formed from the oil of the algal
plant material is a very promising technology on the brink of eluding these pitfalls. The science behind
the process is fairly straightforward: the algae is grown through dark photosynthesis and oil is extracted from the algae through a
press, which will then be converted into a usable biofuel through a chemical process known as transesterification. However, the reality of
proliferating and fine-tuning such a process is understandably more complex. At face value, the
benefits of using algae are
astounding and definitely worth the trouble. Not only does algae biodiesel not further the alarming
exponential increase in global pollution, it actually reduces it by absorbing and cutting CO2 emissions
and nitrogen from waste water6. It efficiently produces ten times more fuel per gallon than any other biofuel and has been
estimated by an assortment of different engineering companies to output at least 4,000 gallons per acre of land grown7. The efficiency
can be valued even more when one appraises the fact that algae can be grown in any location or
climate, unlike other forms of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal, which depend on
specific regional resources. Clearly, both the U.S. economy as well as individual citizens can benefit from
the development of algae biofuel. So why is the U.S., the second-leading consumer of energy in the
world, not a leading manufacturer of algae biofuel? Due to its competitiveness as an alternative to oil,
federal algae research funding was stopped for an extended period of time. Mr. Curwin, writer for CNBC notes,
“The industry…needs to get Washington on its side. Currently, algael biofuels aren’t eligible for tax breaks and subsidies going to other biofuels”
8. Therefore, businesses
perceive that investing in algae biodiesel is risky because there are no incentives
to supplement research and development. Without incentives, algae biodiesel has not been proven
on a mass production scale and suffers from high production costs. However, as recently as February of this year,
there have been impressive strides to overcome the obstacles that face the implementation of algae biodiesel. The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency has already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon and is now on track to begin large-scale refining of the fuel
for a cost of less than $3 a gallon9. Currently, the top eight firms in the U.S. that are working with algae have attracted over $350 million in
capital over the past three years, and all of them have aggressive commercialization dates for their technologies within the next three years8.
The strides in finalizing algae biofuel so far have been promising, but relatively gradual. Thus,
maximization of algae fuel’s potential depends on incentives from the federal government and ultimately
on support from its constituents.
Algae biofuels sustain a green navy and air forces – it’s possible by 2016
Grant 13 - consults businesses on environmental issues (Tom, “Jet Engine Biofuel Passes Test With
Flying Colors”, Biofriendly Corporation, 6-11-13, http://biofriendly.com/blog/emissions/jet-enginebiofuel-passes-test-with-flying-colors/)//KG
On April 25th, 2013, NASA
researchers found that a commercial jet could safely fly with jet fuel that also
contained plant oil. In fact, it was reported that a biofuel mix created from camelina plant oil did not affect a DC-8
aircraft’s engine performance as high as 39,000 feet. Additionally, it was reported that the biofuel mix
produced 30% fewer emissions than traditional aviation fuel under certain circumstances, which is
excellent news for the environment. The Test Flights The test flights (that took place near Edwards Air Force Base in California)
were conducted between February and April when weather conditions were optimal in order to create contrails. To actually study the
effects on the environment, a specially outfitted HU-25C Guardian airplane was used to analyze the
contrails. In order to do so, the aircraft have to be as close as 300 feet to the DC-8 while in flight. While the emission reductions
were shown to be 30%, it is believed that the reduction would be even greater if jets could run entirely
on biofuel. However, in order to move away from the 50-50 blend, a jet would have to be altered. What Is Camelina Oil? Camelina is an
oilseed crop native to northeastern Europe. It can be cultivated in the United States and is considered to be well-suited for the Northern Plains
states because it can handle low temperatures and requires little water. While the research looks promising for using camelina oil to blend with
traditional aviation fuel, its cost is a major factor in deciding whether or not it is really feasible as an alternative fuel source. With a price tag of
about $18 per gallon, it is far more expensive than the $4 a gallon for traditional aviation fuel. Future Testing With
the promising
results from initial tests, more tests are planned for 2014. NASA also wants to do additional flight tests
on other biofuels, such as algae. NASA is interested in using algae to create aviation biofuels in
particular because of the fact that it does not need fresh water to grow. Unfortunately, researchers are limited
because of continuous development of commercial applications and technologies. With the uncertainty of oil prices,
renewable biofuels will decrease the dependency on foreign oils. At the same time, biofuels will reduce
carbon emissions and have a better impact on the environment. Not only do researchers hope to fuel
jets, but the Navy is hoping to have green aircraft and ships as early as 2016. It should also be noted that while
there were small differences in emissions during flight, other research has shown that biofuels can have an even greater
environment impact while jets are grounded. Since idling airplanes at busy airports greatly affect the air
quality, using biofuels can reduce the damage done to the environment. However, more information about the
research will likely be made available to the public, aviation industry, and Environmental Data Resources, in the weeks following the
experiments. Biofuels
are the way of the future. With advancements in technology, people will soon be able
to travel more while harming the environment less.
This continuous military power is key to hegemony
Conway, Roughead, and Allen, 07- *General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of the Marine Corps, **Admiral of U.S. Navy and
Chief of Naval Operations, ***Admiral of U.S. Coast Guard and Commandant of the Coast Guard (*James Conway, **Gary Roughead, ***Thad Allen, "A Cooperative
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower", Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard,
http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf)
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The expeditionary character and versatility of
maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas where access is denied or
limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended
economic, social or political repercussions.
The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the presence of maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions
dictate to enable flexible approaches to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The
speed, flexibility, agility and scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined force
commanders a range of options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime operations,
either within formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more informal arrangements (such as the Global
Maritime Partnership initiative), send
powerful messages to would-be aggressors that we will act with others to
ensure collective security and prosperity. United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our
homeland and citizens from direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security
and prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to
protect and sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance,
information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility
inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to
demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will
be characterized by regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to
limit regional conflict, deter major power war, and should deterrence fail, win our Nation’s wars as part
of a joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be globally
distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative
relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or mitigate disruptions and
crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western Pacific and the Arabian
Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing
commitment to regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors.
This combat power can be selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces will be sized and
postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit
regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime
power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading
across borders, pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises
erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be
everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our
national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national and multi-national power, to give political
leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide
the Nation’s primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even
as they provide the means for this Nation to
respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime
forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain
access, and protect our citizens while working to sustain the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance
of a powerful fleet—ships, aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities—capable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power
ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian populations from attack.Deter major power war. No
other disruption is as
potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this
Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war
with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands
that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of
maritime forces—our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access,
and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue
an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors
conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
US primacy prevents global conflict – diminishing power creates a vacuum that causes
transition wars in multiple places
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.G.
John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel
Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come Home,
America: The Case against Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 751,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107]
engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one
the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from
taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional
A core premise of deep
thing, as noted above,
hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security
dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal
of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security
competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How
do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not
necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set
of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?).
Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive
realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that
the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states
could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that
nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however,
that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each
region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the
Europe that is incapable of
securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional
political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a
conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising
What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military
presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins toswing toward pessimists concerned that
states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S.
retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimismregarding the
region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is
that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke
a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity
powers.
and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the
research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent
on itsparticular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of postAmerican tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external
attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative
research across the social and other sciences, however,undermines that core assumption: states
have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various
objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows
that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies
show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these
nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would
result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already
mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will
yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis
instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of
local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war).
to defense. Burgeoning
Energy
Despite increased domestic consumption the US is still heavily oil dependent – it’s
vulnerable to price shocks
Dlouhy 13 - covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston Chronicle and other Hearst
Newspapers from Washington, D.C. (Jennifer, “Report: US oil growth having limited effect on energy
security”, Fuel Fix, 10-14-13, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/10/14/report-americans-hunger-for-oilmakes-us-vulnerable/)//KG
WASHINGTON — The United
States may soon claim the throne as the world’s top crude and gas producer,
but America’s dependence on oil leaves the nation at risk, according to a global energy security
assessment issued Monday. According to the analysis by Roubini Global Economics and Securing
America’s Future Energy, the nation’s heavy reliance on petroleum fuels threatens to undo U.S. gains in
efficiency and oil and gas production. “Heavy oil dependence still renders the country highly vulnerable
to price fluctuations in the short-to-medium term, particularly as economic growth — and fuel demand
— recovers,” according to the report. While physical supplies of oil may be more dependable in the United
States — particularly with hydraulic fracturing allowing production of newly recoverable crude and gas resources — the nation’s
overall dependence on oil and inefficient use of it leaves the economy “exposed to high and volatile oil
prices.” Of 13 countries evaluated in the report, the United States ranks No. 5, behind Canada and the relatively oil efficient nations of
Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan. The United States effectively climbed in the rankings ahead of Australia, Brazil, China and other
countries because of its relatively high levels of domestic oil production, which helped make up for bottom-tier scores tied to consumption.
SAFE CEO Robbie Diamond said the oil
security index underscores that “the path to true oil security is not paved
by production alone.” Even despite the domestic oil boom, U.S. oil security is “only middle-of-the-road,”
he said. The disconnect between oil production and security also are illustrated by Saudia Arabia’s deadlast position, at No. 13. Like the United States, the oil-rich nation is a big consumer of crude. Saudia Arabia’s long status as a
leading global oil producer also means the country is heavily dependent on crude exports for revenue.
The report’s release kicks off a week of events tied to the 40th anniversary of the OPEC oil embargo. An interactive online version of the oil
security index allows users to dig into quarterly data and rankings dating back to 2000. Overall, countries
were assessed for their
structural dependency on oil, their economic exposure to oil price volatility and their vulnerability to
physical supply disruptions. For instance, analysts evaluated the structural importance of oil in individual countries by looking at perperson fuel consumption and the volume of oil consumed per unit of gross domestic product. The economic exposure was
assessed by looking at total spending on oil and net oil imports as a percentage of GDP, among other
factors. In analyzing supply security, Roubini Global Economics looked not only at how vulnerable countries were to physical supply
disruptions but also their capabilities to respond, such as by tapping emergency inventories. Low fuel demand wasn’t enough to secure a high
spot. While India has the lowest fuel consumption per person of all the nations assessed in the report, it is near the bottom of the rankings
because of the country’s oil consumption and spending. Nouriel Roubini, chairman of the group, said the security index is meant to capture a
range of diverse factors affecting how nations might be affected by changes in oil supply and demand. “Changes in the supply and cost of oil,
and the demand for it, impact individual nations in different ways due to unique national strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and
disadvantages,” Roubini said. Some of the report’s findings about the United States dovetail with warnings from lawmakers that the U.S. can
attain energy security but will never be truly energy independent. Oil prices are still set globally, so even
soaring domestic
production means that when prices climb, Americans get hit with the added cost too. A report issued last
month concluded that the United States’ rigid dependence on oil to fuel cars and trucks meant that Americans kept buying the stuff over the
past decade, even as prices rose, at a cost of $1.2 trillion in additional federal debt.
Algae biofuels can significantly displace current fossil fuel usage
Darzins et al 10 - principal group manager, leads the research of the Applied Sciences Group in the
National Bioenergy Center (NBC), a multidisciplinary research team responsible for developing and
integrating chemical and biological technologies for the conversion of biomass to transportation fuels
(Al, “Current Status and Potential for Algal Biofuels Production”, IEA Bioenergy, 8-6-10,
http://www.globalbioenergy.org/uploads/media/1008_IEA_Bioenergy__Current_status_and_potential_for_algal_biofuels_production.pdf)//KG
More than 50 years of research have demonstrated the potential of various microalgal species to
produce several chemical intermediates and hydrocarbons that can be converted into biofuels. Figure 1-3 is
a schematic overview of microalgal chemical intermediates and the fuels that can be produced from these important components. The
three major macromolecular components that can be extracted from microalgal biomass are lipids,
carbohydrates, and proteins. These chemical components can be converted into a variety of fuel
options such as alcohols, diesel, methane, and hydrogen. Of the three major microalgal fractions, lipids, by far, have
the highest energy content. Some species, like Botryococcus, are capable of secreting hydrocarbon molecules like, those found in
petroleum oil. Other microalgal species can accumulate significant amounts of triacylglycerides (TAGs). These lipids, which resemble the
triacylglycerides from oilseed crops, can
be converted into biodiesel and a synthetic ―green‖ diesel. Microalgal-derived
carbohydrates can also be converted into a variety of fuels such as ethanol or butanol by standard
fermentation processes. Alternatively, the algal biomass residue remaining after oil extraction can be
converted into methane gas using an anaerobic digestion process or into several different fuel
intermediates through various thermochemical processes. While it is beyond the scope of this report to consider all the
potential conversion processes to produce fuel from microalgal feedstocks, historically the emphasis has been on the high-energy lipids and
oils. Many microalgal species have the ability to accumulate large amounts of triglycerides, especially under stressinduced growth conditions
(Milner, 1976). The vast majority of lipids in most growing cells are typically found in the membrane that surrounds the cell. However, some
strains produce significant amounts of storage lipids and can, when grown, for example, under nutrient limiting conditions, accumulate storage
lipids up to 60 percent of their total weight. The notion of generating biofuels from these microalgal storage lipids was the main focus of the
DOE Aquatic Species Program (1978 - 1996; Sheehan et al., 1998). With the
real potential for rising petroleum prices in
the future and ever increasing concerns over energy independence, security, and global warming, the
notion of using microalgal feedstocks for biofuels production has steadily gained momentum over the
last few years. Lipids derived from microalgae have been the predominant focus of this interest because
these oils contain fatty acid and triglyceride compounds, which, like their terrestrial seed oil
counterparts, can be converted into alcohol esters (biodiesel) using conventional transesterification technology (Fukuda et
al., 2001). Alternatively, the oils can be used to produce a renewable or ―green‖ diesel product by a process known
as catalytic hydroprocessing (Kalnes et al., 2007). The use of vegetable oil and waste fats for biofuel production cannot realistically begin to
satisfy the increasing worldwide demand for transportation fuels nor are they likely in the near term to displace a significant portion of the U.S.
petroleum fuel usage (Tyson et al., 2004). Algalderived
oils do, however, have the potential to displace petroleumbased fuels because their productivities (i.e., oil yield/hectare) can be 10 to100 times higher than that of
terrestrial oilseed crops (see Table 1-1). These comparisons often do not include the land required to support the actual pond.
Activities such as water supply, water treatment, waste disposal and other activities can significantly increase the area required for cultivation
and reduce the effective production rates.
Oil dependency causes war – empirics prove it threatens international security and
escalates smaller conflicts
Colgan 13 - Assistant Professor in the School of International Service at American University in
Washington, D.C. (Jeff, “"Oil, Conflict, and U.S. National Interests"”, Policy Brief, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, October 2013,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23517/oil_conflict_and_us_national_interests.html)//K
G
Although the threat of "resource wars" over possession of oil reserves is often exaggerated, the
sum total of the political effects
generated by the oil industry makes oil a leading cause of war. Between one-quarter and one-half of
interstate wars since 1973 have been connected to one or more oil-related causal mechanisms. No other
commodity has had such an impact on international security. The influence of oil on conflict is often
poorly understood. In U.S. public debates about the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars, both sides focused excessively on the question of whether
the United States was fighting for possession of oil reserves; neither sought a broader understanding of how oil shaped the preconditions for
war. Oil
fuels international conflict through eight distinct mechanisms: (1) resource wars, in which states
try to acquire oil reserves by force; (2) petro-aggression, whereby oil insulates aggressive leaders such as
Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from domestic opposition, and therefore makes them more willing
to engage in risky foreign policy adventurism; (3) the externalization of civil wars in oil-producing states
("petrostates"); (4) financing for insurgencies—for instance, Iran funneling oil money to Hezbollah; (5) conflicts
triggered by the prospect of oil-market domination, such as the United States' war with Iraq over Kuwait
in 1991; (6) clashes over control of oil transit routes, such as shipping lanes and pipelines; (7) oil-related
grievances, whereby the presence of foreign workers in petrostates helps extremist groups such as alQaida recruit locals; and (8) oil-related obstacles to multilateral cooperation, such as when an importer's
attempt to curry favor with a petrostate prevents multilateral cooperation on security issues. These
mechanisms can contribute to conflict individually or in combination. The linkages between oil and
international conflict are growing increasingly important in light of three transitions under way in global
energy markets. The first is the shift in patterns of global oil production away from traditional suppliers
in the Middle East and toward (1) suppliers of unconventional oil reserves in North America and (2) new suppliers of conventional oil,
especially in Africa. As many as sixteen developing countries will become oil exporters in the near future,
creating a swath of new international security concerns. Second, the low oil prices of the 1990s have
given way to higher and more volatile prices, increasing the magnitude of the consequences one can
expect from oil-conflict linkages. Third, the relative decline of U.S. hegemony may reduce the provision of public goods such as
security of shipping lanes and pipelines. Although these transitions alter some of the ways in which the oil industry contributes to international
conflict, none eliminates linkages between the two or allows the United States to disengage from global markets. THE ROLE OF FRACKING
Understanding the eight mechanisms linking oil to international security can help policymakers think beyond the much-discussed goal of energy
security, defined as reliable access to affordable fuel supplies. Achieving such an understanding is important in light of recent changes in the
United States. As hydraulic fracturing—"fracking"—of
shale oil and gas accelerates, energy imports are projected
to decline, and North America could even achieve energy independence, in the sense of low or zero net overall
energy imports, in the next decade. Yet the United States will continue to import large volumes of oil, and the
world price of oil will continue to affect it. Moreover, so long as the rest of the world remains dependent
on global oil markets, the fracking revolution will do little to reduce many oil-related threats to
international security. The emergence of aggressive, revolutionary leaders in petrostates would likely
continue to pose threats to regional security. Petrostates will continue to be weakly institutionalized and
thus subject to civil wars, creating the kind of security problems that demand responses by the
international community, as occurred in Libya in 2011. Petro-financed insurgent groups such as Hezbollah will persist, as will threats to
the shipping lanes and oil transit routes that supply important U.S. allies, such as Japan. In sum, energy autarky is not the answer.
Self-sufficiency will bring economic benefits to the United States, but few gains for national security. So long as the oil market remains globally
integrated, national oil imports matter far less than total consumption. Rather than viewing energy self-sufficiency as a panacea, the
United
States should contribute to international security by making long-term investments in research and
development to reduce oil consumption and provide alternative fuel sources in the transportation sector. In
addition to the economic and environmental benefits of reducing oil consumption, substantial evidence
exists that military and security benefits will accrue from such investments.
Oil price shocks destroy the economy
Pope 13 - former executive director of the Sierra Club, now senior adviser to Securing America's Energy
Future (Carl, “Oil dependence: Fracking is no remedy; alternative fuels are”, San Jose Mercury News, 111-13, http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_24427996/oil-dependence-fracking-is-no-remedyalternative-fuels)//KG
Forty years ago, the Saudi Oil Ministry informed the Secretary of Defense that it would no longer supply fuel to the U.S. 6th Fleet. The OPEC oil
embargo had begun. For the next five years, the U.S. made serious efforts to escape monopoly dependence on oil. Then, with the decline in oil
prices, we fell asleep. Even
when prices began to rise to the stratosphere in 2004, America kept on snoozing.
Whenever voices from the military, who bear the heaviest burden, urge us to end oil's stranglehold on
our transportation system, the oil cartel and industry concoct a new theory to put us to back to sleep.
This time, the sedative is the promise that huge, exciting, Saudi-sized oil production in the U.S. will
achieve "energy independence." Increased U.S. oil production, combined with more efficient autos pouring into the
marketplace powered by the Obama fuel-efficiency regulations and a revived U.S. auto industry, are indeed lowering the volume
of oil that the U.S. imports. But world oil prices have risen so much that the dollars and jobs we export
to pay for imported oil are greater than ever. We'll add another $4 trillion to our national debt from importing oil over the
next 20 years. As long as the United States uses almost 20 million barrels of oil each day, increasing our
domestic production by fracking a million or two barrels a day -- which are the projections -- still leaves
us importing more oil than we did when the first embargo hit, at a much higher price. And new U.S. oil costs
more than $90 a barrel to find and produce, so it only comes to market if oil continues to be unaffordable. Every American recession
over the past several decades has been preceded by, or was concurrent with, an oil price spike. The U.S.
economy is tied to the highly unpredictable, cartel-influenced global oil market, which manipulates
supply and prices. As long as oil is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, wherever a specific barrel comes from, our
military will be forced to bear the burden of guarding against a supply disruption anywhere in the globe.
Oil dependence, at times, requires us to accommodate hostile governments or alter our pursuit of key
national security objectives. We don't tolerate such monopolies elsewhere. We source electricity from hydro, gas, coal, nuclear and
now wind, geothermal and solar. If wheat gets too pricey, we buy rice or corn; chicken can replace beef. It's folly that nothing is set up to
replace oil in our cars, planes or trucks when there are lots of perfectly good energy sources that could cost less than $100 per barrel.
Whenever oil prices spike, we crowd our underinvested transit systems; let's build them out. Natural gas could power trucks for a fraction of
the cost per mile of diesel; electric cars free drivers from the volatile oil market. We just need to make these alternatives the norm. It's
not
that oil is imported that is crippling us, or even that it is expensive. It is the fact that it has a monopoly -one our environment, our security and our economy can no longer afford. After 35 years, it's time for
the U.S. to wake up.
Economic decline causes war – studies prove
Royal ‘10
(Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and
the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213215)
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 stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow.
First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski 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. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 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 arc 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
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. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends 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 (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 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), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009)
suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc 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 lo an
increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni 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 al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed
conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Environment
Warming is real and anthropogenic – models prove it is caused by burning of fossil
fuels
Waltham 6/25, Dr. David Waltham is a teacher and researcher in Earth Sciences and Geophysics at the University of London. He has a
PhD in Signal Processing, the application of nonstationary statistical methods to the processing of seismic reflection data, at Kings College
London. (“Three reasons why climate change is real, and humans are causing it Paleoclimatology can answer the question of anthropogenic
climate change by using fossils to show links between global temperatures and CO2 levels”,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/25/three-reasons-climate-change-real-and-humans-cause-it, 6/25/2014) Kerwin
Dire warnings of imminent human-induced climate disaster are constantly in the news but predictions of
the end of the world have been made throughout history and have never yet come true. Even in the brief period of recorded
history, natural climate change has always been with us – whether it is the volcanically induced crop failures that helped
precipitate the French revolution or the medieval warm period that allowed Vikings to colonise Greenland. So how can we trust that
the computer models scientists use to make predictions are reliable? There is sometimes reluctance to take experts'
words for anything and so we would like to be shown the evidence. Unfortunately, that is difficult when the details are buried under hundreds
of thousands of lines of computer code which implement mathematical algorithms of mind-numbing complexity. There is, however, one branch
of science that can reliably give an answer that is easy to understand and hard not to believe. Evidence
written in stone
Paleoclimatology – the study of Earth's past climates – has used fossils to show links between global
temperatures and carbon-dioxide levels. This record is written in stone. There are fossil plant-leaves from 55m
years ago that have a microscopic structure which can be accurately reproduced in modern plants only
when grown in a carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. Is it a coincidence that, at the time, it was so warm that
crocodiles were living within the Arctic circle? And this is not an isolated case. A sedimentary record covering half a
billion years shows us exactly what we would expect to see if climate modellers have done their sums right. Fossil and chemical traces
in rocks indicate that warm periods in Earth's history are associated with higher concentrations of
carbon dioxide and quantitative studies show that this correlation is, if anything, even stronger than
predicted. Simple calculations Those 55m year-old leaves suggest that carbon dioxide concentrations were about four times the presentday levels and back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that global mean temperatures were around 7C higher. For comparison, the largely
computer-based predictions published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change imply that quadrupling carbon-dioxide
concentrations should increase temperatures by between 3C and 9C. The simple paleoclimate example may not nail the case for a worryingly
strong link between carbon dioxide and temperature, but it is good supporting data. What is most important, however, is that this
evidence is hard to refute. Counter arguments are unconvincing There is little doubt that the recent
rapid increase in carbon dioxide is linked to human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and
deforestation. But does the paleoclimate evidence really tell us that increased carbon dioxide must mean increased temperatures? One
objection might be that ancient climate change is really evidence for varying solar brightness.
Fluctuating carbon dioxide levels are then a response to climate variation rather than the cause.
However, solar physics tells us that the sun was fainter 55m years ago rather than brighter, as would be
needed for higher temperature. Another concern is that some important processes, such as ice-sheet
disintegration, only affect climate very slowly. Our warming ice sheets may take centuries to disappear
completely but, when they do, the replacement of reflective-ice by heat-absorbing rock will warm our
planet yet further. The existence of potential complications like these makes comparisons between paleoclimate change and modern
climate change difficult but it is also one of the reasons why multiple approaches are needed. If different researchers using different methods
nevertheless come up with more or less the same answer, perhaps they are onto something. Climate
change deniers also confuse
the argument by suggesting there is nothing we can do anyway. China and other rapidly developing
countries will dominate carbon dioxide output in the 21st century. But that is irrelevant if we are simply
asking: "Will increased carbon dioxide levels change our climate?" The ConversationThe fact that political and technical
problems are massively more complex than anything in climatology is not a reason to stick our heads in the sand. Widespread agreement that
man-made global warming is highly likely would be progress.
Warming is on a temporary slowdown but it’s still inevitable and catastrophic in the
status quo – sharp mitigation is key to solve
The Economist 4/8/2014, (“Who pressed the pause button?”, [
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperaturesover-past-15-years-goes-being ] , //hss-RJ)
BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower
than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be
expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the
public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’
understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of
the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over
the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained
twice over. This
is the opposite of what happened at first. As evidence piled up that temperatures were not
rising much, some scientists dismissed it as a blip. The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for
much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75 (see chart), even
though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth
getting excited about. An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been
a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s
Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster
than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan
of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the
overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate.
A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but
that is still not negligible. It is also worth remembering that average warming is not the only measure of
climate change. According to a study just published by Sonia Seneviratne of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate
Science, in Zurich, the number of hot days, the number of extremely hot days and the length of warm periods
all increased during the pause (1998-2012). A more stable average temperature hides wider extremes.
Still, attempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and
rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody
the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause. Chilling news In
September 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did so in terms of fluctuating solar
output, atmospheric pollution and volcanoes. All three, it thought, were unusually influential. The sun’s
power output fluctuates slightly over a cycle that lasts about 11 years. The current cycle seems to have
gone on longer than normal and may have started from a lower base, so for the past decade less heat
has been reaching Earth than usual. Pollution throws aerosols (particles such as soot, and suspended
droplets of things like sulphuric acid) into the air, where they reflect sunlight back into space. The more
there are, the greater their cooling effect—and pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants, in
particular, has been rising. Volcanoes do the same thing, so increased volcanic activity tends to reduce
temperatures. Gavin Schmidt and two colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute quantify the effects of
these trends in Nature Geoscience. They argue that climate models underplay the delayed and subdued solar cycle. They think
the models do not fully account for the effects of pollution (specifically, nitrate pollution and indirect
effects like interactions between aerosols and clouds). And they claim that the impact of volcanic
activity since 2000 has been greater than previously thought. Adjusting for all this, they find that the
difference between actual temperature readings and computer-generated ones largely disappears. The
implication is that the solar cycle and aerosols explain much of the pause. Blowing hot and cold There is, however, another type of
explanation. Much of the incoming heat is absorbed by oceans, especially the largest, the Pacific.
Several new studies link the pause with changes in the Pacific and in the trade winds that influence the
circulation of water within it. Trade winds blow east-west at tropical latitudes. In so doing they push
warm surface water towards Asia and draw cooler, deep water to the surface in the central and eastern
Pacific, which chills the atmosphere. Water movement at the surface also speeds up a giant churn in the ocean. This pulls some
warm water downwards, sequestering heat at greater depth. In a study published in Nature in 2013, Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, argued that much of the difference between climate models and actual temperatures could
be accounted for by cooling in the eastern Pacific. Every
few years, as Dr Kosaka and Dr Xie observe, the trade winds
slacken and the warm water in the western Pacific sloshes back to replace the cool surface layer of the
central and eastern parts of the ocean. This weather pattern is called El Niño and it warms the whole
atmosphere. There was an exceptionally strong Niño in 1997-98, an unusually hot year. The opposite
pattern, with cooler temperatures and stronger trade winds, is called La Niña. The 1997-98 Niño was
followed by a series of Niñas, explaining part of the pause. Switches between El Niño and La Niña are
frequent. But there is also a long-term cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which switches
from a warm (or positive) phase to a cool (negative) one every 20 or 30 years. The positive phase
encourages more frequent, powerful Niños. According to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of America’s National Centre for
Atmospheric Research, the PDO was positive in 1976-98—a period of rising temperatures—and negative in 1943-76 and since 2000, producing
a series of cooling Niñas. But that is not the end of it. Laid on top of these cyclical patterns is what looks like a one-off increase in the strength
of trade winds during the past 20 years. According to a study in Nature Climate Change, by Matthew England of the University of New South
Wales and others, record trade winds have produced a sort of super-Niña. On average, sea levels have risen by about 3mm a year in the past 30
years. But those in the eastern Pacific have barely budged, whereas those near the Philippines have risen by 20cm since the late 1990s. A wall
of warm water, in other words, is being held in place by powerful winds, with cool water rising behind it. According to Dr England, the effect of
the trade winds explains most of the temperature pause. If
so, the pause has gone from being not explained to
explained twice over—once by aerosols and the solar cycle, and again by ocean winds and currents.
These two accounts are not contradictory. The processes at work are understood, but their relative contributions are not. Nor is
the answer to what is, from the human point of view, the biggest question of all, namely what these explanations imply about how long the
pause might continue. On the face of it, if some heat is being sucked into the deep ocean, the process could simply carry on: the ocean has a
huge capacity to absorb heat as long as the pump sending it to the bottom remains in working order. But that is not all there is to it. Gravity
wants the western-Pacific water wall to slosh back; it is held in place only by exceptionally strong trade
winds. If those winds slacken, temperatures will start to rise again. The solar cycle is already turning.
And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances
that have put the planet’s temperature rise on “pause” look temporary. Like the Terminator, global
warming will be back.
Algae can significantly mitigate global warming by feeding on carbon dioxide
Owens 14 – degree in chemical engineering with an environmental focus from University of Southern
California (Melissa, “The Power of Pond Scum: Algae Biofuels”, Illumin, 7-11-14,
http://illumin.usc.edu/printer/24/the-power-of-pond-scum-algae-biofuels/)//KG
Why Goo is Great - Algae as an Attractive Alternative Obviously, algae
fuel competes with many other renewable biofuel
energy sources such as ethanol fuel and biomass. So what distinguishes algae fuel as a superior option?
Like other biofuel options, a reliance on algae fuel will reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil. An
inconsistent supply of oil could lead to wild price fluctuations, soaring especially in the summer months. Alternative fuels, such as
algae, produced domestically are more secure and subject to fewer transportation costs, allowing the
price to be more stable. Algae have a few other unique features that can give it an advantage over other biofuels. Most notable are
the alga’s size and its ability to proliferate. Marine algae are the most efficient organisms on earth for absorbing light energy,
yielding 5 to 10 times more bioenergy molecules per area per time than any other plant source [5]. Generally, up
to half of an alga’s
body weight is oil, meaning algae have very high yields. Theoretically, algae would produce 10,000 gallons of
oil per acre per year, while soy, canola, and palm oils produce 50, 150, and 650 gallons per acre per year,
respectively [1]. Also, algae’s reproductive capabilities are unparalleled; algae can double in weight several times per day, according to the
US Department of Energy [6]. Because of algae’s remarkable proliferation ability, oil from algae could be
harvested every day, unlike plant sources (such as soybeans or corn) whose harvesting is delayed by
seasonal cycles. The production of algae fuel also has beneficial environmental effects. Algae feed on
carbon dioxide, the hazardous greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. With our carbon
footprint becoming more pronounced, and the need to reduce carbon emissions becoming more
immediate, any process that reduces, rather than creates, carbon emissions is highly beneficial. Because the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not large enough to elicit exponential growth from algae, engineers have proposed
the idea of collecting carbon emissions from sources such as coal power plants and directly feeding
them into an algae fuel-producing facility. This economical and environmentally-friendly form of
recycling would both reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere and create the ideal conditions for
algae growth. The requirements for the growth of algae are also environmentally advantageous. A large portion of the tens of thousands
of species of algae can thrive in both fresh water and brackish water, thus reducing the limitations on proliferation sites. Further, unlike other
crops algae do not require large fields that demand fresh water irrigation; they could simply be farmed on flooded land (UPI). In addition to this,
the cultivation of algae for fuel will not infringe on the world’s food supply because algae are not a human food source like corn or soybeans.
Even byproducts from algae fuel production can be applied; after extracting the oil from algae, a nutrient-rich, paste-like substance remains
that could be marketed as fertilizer [2].
Warming causes extinction
IPCC 14, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (“Summary for Policymakers”, http://ipccwg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf, 2014) Kerwin
A: OBSERVED IMPACTS, VULNERABILITY, AND ADAPTATION IN A COMPLEX AND CHANGING WORLD A-1. Observed Impacts, Vulnerability, and
Exposure In recent decades, changes
in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all
continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most
comprehensive for natural systems. Some impacts on human systems have also been attributed5 to climate change, with a major
or minor contribution of climate change distinguishable from other influences. See Figure SPM.2. Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII
AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.6 In many regions, changing
precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in
terms of quantity and quality (medium confidence). Glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide due to
climate change (high confidence), affecting runoff and water resources downstream (medium confidence). Climate
change is causing permafrost warming and thawing in highlatitude regions and in high-elevation regions
(high confidence).7 Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges,
seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate
change (high confidence). See Figure SPM.2B. While only a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet
to climate change (high confidence), natural global climate change at rates slower than current
anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the
past millions of years (high confidence).8 Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of
climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller
number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear
whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has
negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium
confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with
a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. Observed impacts relate
mainly to production aspects of food
security rather than access or other components of food security. See Figure SPM.2C. Since AR4,
several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing
regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence).11 At
present the worldwide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with effects of other stressors and is not
well quantified. However,
there has been increased heat-related mortality and decreased cold-related mortality in some
regions as a result of warming (medium confidence). Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the
distribution of some waterborne illnesses and disease vectors (medium confidence).12 Differences in vulnerability and
exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high
People who are socially,
economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to
climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement). This heightened vulnerability
is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in
socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example,
discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability.13 Impacts from recent
climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and
exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of
such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and
water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for
mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are
consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors.14
Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods,
especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives
directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of homes and indirectly
through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity. Observed positive effects for poor and
marginalized people, which are limited and often indirect, include examples such as diversification of social
networks and of agricultural practices.15 Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium
evidence, high agreement). Large-scale violent conflict harms assets that facilitate adaptation, including
infrastructure, institutions, natural resources, social capital, and livelihood opportunities.16
confidence). These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1.
The plan also helps marine ecosystems
Harris et al 13 - Scholar at the University Space Research Association in California (Linden Harris,
“Potential impact of biofouling on the photobioreactors of the Offshore Membrane Enclosures for
Growing Algae (OMEGA) system,” 4 July 2013, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960852413010547/1-s2.0S0960852413010547-main.pdf?_tid=7ee55b44-fc97-11e3-b43500000aacb35e&acdnat=1403721515_c69db61f388a22045c99cebe144215c1//AL)
Although biofouling on the upper surface of the OMEGA PBRs is problematic, biofouling on
the bottom of the PBRs and the
OMEGA support structures may have environmental and economic bene- fits. Submerged OMEGA
surfaces provide substrate, refugia, and habitat for sessile and associated organisms and a large-scale OME- GA
deployment may help control eutrophication by acting as a floating ‘‘turf scrubber’’ (Mulbry et al., 2010).
Algae can effectively remove nutrients (Christenson and Sims, 2012), heavy metals and other pollutants (deBashan
‘;;and Bashan, 2010). By removing nutri- ents from coastal waters, OMEGA may help prevent unwanted al- gae blooms; by
removing other pollutants, the system may improve coastal water quality.¶ In addition to improving water quality, the
OMEGA flotilla will act as a ‘‘fish aggregating device’’ or an ‘‘artificial reef,’’ both of which increase local
species diversity and expand the marine food web (Kerckhoff et al., 2010). Observations at Moss Landing Harbor indicated
that even the small OMEGA PBRs deployed there pro- vided sites for marine birds and sea otters to forage, rest, and play.
Marine ecosystems key to survival – additional protection needed
Sielen ‘13
ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “The Devolution of the Seas,” Foreign Affairs, November/December,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140164/alan-b-sielen/the-devolution-of-the-seas
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable
descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so
altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to
the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago.¶ A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would
have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the
primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep.
In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and
other sea life one associates with the oceans today.¶ Yet that sea
life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink
in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological
abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling
the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the
transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals
into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating
the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats.¶ The prospect of vanishing whales, polar
bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems
threatens our very survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that sustains life
on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of
life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.
Biodiversity loss risks extinction.
Raj ‘12
(P. J. Sanjeeva Raj, former Head of Zoology Department, Madras Christian College, “Beware the Loss of Biodiversity,” The Hindu,
September 23, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/beware-the-loss-of-biodiversity/article3927062.ece)
He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is sure
to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to
lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the “Eremozoic Era, the Age of Loneliness.” Loss
of biodiversity is a much greater
threat to human survival than even climate change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has designated the decade 2011- 2020 as
the ‘Biodiversity Decade’ with the chief objective of enabling humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that
during October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from 193 party
countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the Earth Summit or the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for
CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries. Biodiversity
provides all basic needs for our healthy
survival — oxygen, food, medicines, fibre, fuel, energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees, dragonflies,
bats, frogs, house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great economic loss as well as posing an
imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity mission before us is to inventorise the existing biodiversity, conserve
it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.
Plan
The United States federal government should substantially increase its Offshore
Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae.
Solvency
OMEGA is completely feasible
Trent 12 - PhD in biological oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, leads the OMEGA
program at NASA (Jonathan, “OFFSHORE MEMBRANE ENCLOSURES FOR GROWING ALGAE (OMEGA) A
Feasibility Study for Wasterwater to Biofuels”, NASA Ames Research Center, December 2012,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-500-2013-143/CEC-500-2013-143.pdf)//KG
Techno-economic modeling indicates that converting algae to biofuels only will be difficult if not
impossible to support economically. By leveraging the potential of the OMEGA platform for other
services and activities, however, may change the economic picture. For example, combining algae
cultivation for biofuels with wastewater treatment, renewable electricity, and aquaculture significantly
changes the economics (Fig. 8). Collocating OMEGA with a municipal wastewater treatment plant provides nitrogen and phosphorus
from wastewater as well as carbon from combustion of biogas. In turn, the algae provide biological nutrient removal and
contaminant remediation for the wastewater. The floating docks supported aquaculture of mussel
production and also provided power for the OMEGA system by providing surfaces for solar panels and
access to vertical-axis wind turbines as well as power buoys. The locally generated power supported cultivation,
harvesting, and bio-oil production with surplus electricity exported to the grid. Bio-oil production used traditional solvent extraction methods,
but hydrothermal
liquefaction could reduce the uncertainty of cost estimates. Using this “industrial
symbiosis” system, and assuming a 10 percent return on investment, the cost of renewable diesel fell
from $6.67/L (without symbiosis) to $5.80/L (13 percent reduction) with wastewater treatment, to $4.20/L (24 percent reduction) with the
addition of renewable electricity sources, and to $1.43/L (41 percent reduction) with revenue from aquaculture. The
economic impact
of the integrated system represents a 78 percent reduction in costs (Fig. 8).
US federal investment is key – it’s the world leader and has the most experience
Trentacoste et al 14 – Scripps Institution of Oceanography at he University of California-San Diego
(Emily M., “The place of algae in agriculture: policies for algal biomass production,” 6 Mary 2014,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11120-014-9985-8/fulltext.html//AL)
Large-scale cultivation of algae, or algaculture, has existed for over half a century. More recently, algaculture for food and fuel purposes has
begun the transition from R&D and pilot-scale operations to commercial-scale systems. It is crucial during this period that institutional
frameworks (i.e., policies) support and promote development, and commercialization. While
the U.S. government has
supported the R&D stage of algaculture for biofuels over the last few decades, it is imperative that
policies anticipate and stimulate the evolution of the industry to the next level.¶ Large-scale cultivation of algae
merges the fundamental aspects of traditional agriculture and aquaculture. Despite this overlap, algaculture has not yet
been afforded an official position within agriculture or the benefits associated with it. Recognition of
algaculture as part of agriculture under the USDA at national, regional, and local levels will expand
agricultural support and assistance programs to algae cultivation, thus encouraging progression of the
industry. The U.S. is currently the world leader in algal biomass technology and hosts a disproportionate
number of companies devoted to the industry (Fig. 4). Continued federal support and initiatives will provide
the spark needed to drive algaculture into the next stage of commercialization.
The tech is ready for large-scale global deployment - no one has committed to OMEGA
yet
Trent 12 - studied at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC-San Diego, specializing in extremophiles,
lead scientist on the OMEGA project at NASA's Ames Research Center in California (Jonathan, “Even
greener alternative: Energy from algae”, New Scientist, 8-31-12,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.200-even-greener-alternative-energy-fromalgae.html)//KG
OK, if it's so good, where is it? For the past two years, backed by NASA and the California Energy Commission,
and about $11 million, we have crawled over every aspect of OMEGA. In Santa Cruz, Calif., we built and
tested small-scale PBRs in seawater tanks. We studied OMEGA processing wastewater in San Francisco,
and we investigated biofouling and the impact on marine life at the Moss Landing Marine
Laboratories in Monterey Bay. I'm now pretty confident we can deal with the biological, engineering, and environmental issues. So
will it fly economically? Of the options we tested, the OMEGA system combined with renewable energy
sources—wind, solar, and wave technologies—and aquaculture looks most promising. Now with funds
running out and NASA keen to spin off OMEGA, we need the right half-hectare site for a scaled-up
demonstration. While there is enthusiasm and great potential sites in places ranging from Saudi Arabia
to New Zealand, Australia to Norway, Guantanamo Bay to South Korea, as yet no one has committed to
the first ocean deployment. We could be on the threshold of a crucial transition in human history—
from hunting and gathering our energy to growing it sustainably. But that means getting serious about
every option, from alpha to OMEGA.